| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And I hope Paizo sticks to not allowing oversized two-handed weapons.I hope that age thing gets fixed.
Also, I hope the Titan Fighter, in the Giant Hunter's Handbook, does what the Titan Mauler was designed to do.
Why does it matter to you?
there is reasonable suspicion that the missing 'trait' word before bonus is an oversight. Combine that with the person who wrote the first traits backing up this suspicion in this very thread, and I'd say the RAI is clear on them.
And RAI in this case doesn't trump the RAW. Even if it could, it's not conclusive. James said what it was when he started it. A few seconds and I found 3 traits that ignored that RAI. If those exist, why assume that the untyped traits where oversights and not deliberate choices like those traits?
Keeper of the Veil was not written by James Jacobs
Why does it matter who made it? I don't care if somebodies pet cat made the trait if Paizo published it. The editors let them pass along with the untyped bonuses. That's all that matters. Original RAI matters little in face of what's actually in print. If even ONE trait is allowed to stack with another it proves the RAI that they never stack WRONG. That's plain and simple.
And I can state that my book lists Keeper of the Veil DOES list a competence bonus. All the proof I need . The others, I'm unsure on the luck bonuses. *shrug* No need to waste time getting to the bottom it as I already know that the RAI that traits never stack is untrue. Enough reason for me to infer that the authors actually meant what they printed with untyped bonuses.
Why does it matter to you?And I hope Paizo sticks to not allowing oversized two-handed weapons.I hope that age thing gets fixed.
Also, I hope the Titan Fighter, in the Giant Hunter's Handbook, does what the Titan Mauler was designed to do.
For me oversized two-handed weapon wielding guys are immersion breaking. In a similar way as many players think the gunslinger (or guns in general) have no room in their fantasy game.
Having it in a game I'm playing in makes the game less fun.Now I can at least say: the rules don't allow it for a reason, please don't do it.
No need to waste time getting to the bottom it as I already know that the RAI that traits never stack is untrue.
I'm not saying it trumps RAW, or that it was wrong, or anything else, but that statement right there...hmm...
Just curious: when the guy who wrote the rule says the intent of the rule was that they never stack....how much more clear does it need to be to define rules as intended?
|
Why does it matter to you?And I hope Paizo sticks to not allowing oversized two-handed weapons.I hope that age thing gets fixed.
Also, I hope the Titan Fighter, in the Giant Hunter's Handbook, does what the Titan Mauler was designed to do.
For me oversized two-handed weapon wielding guys are immersion breaking. In a similar way as many players think the gunslinger (or guns in general) have no room in their fantasy game.
Having it in a game I'm playing in makes the game less fun.Now I can at least say: the rules don't allow it for a reason, please don't do it.
Some people feel the idea of emulating Guts very fun
No need to waste time getting to the bottom it as I already know that the RAI that traits never stack is untrue.I'm not saying it trumps RAW, or that it was wrong, or anything else, but that statement right there...hmm...
Just curious: when the guy who wrote the rule says the intent of the rule was that they never stack....how much more clear does it need to be to define rules as intended?
You ever notice some of the FAQ have notes by them? Here's one: "Edit 9/26/13: This is a reversal of an earlier ruling." RAI isn't written on a stone tablet. We've had authors/writers come on the threads and say the content they submitted was altered/edited. RAI changes and is often in motion. As James himself said, "Each time a new author invents a new trait, there's a new chance for that initial design philosophy to erode". While the general idea may have started out as "bonuses granted by traits are not supposed to stack", it didn't stay universal.
Words have meaning in the rules. Competence bonus mean something. Untypes bonuses mean something. neither one means trait bonuses. Feel free to houserule otherwise but that's how things are. Untyped is as valid an option for a bonus as any other so 'it's just an that happened a lot' doesn't hold water for me. Trait means trait. Untyped means untyped. This whole 'well the original author meant for it to work this way so OBVIOUSLY we can ignore what's written in the books after all these years even in the face of proof otherwise' is a stance I can't understand.
EDIT: Archives of nethys listed those other traits as luck. I find no need to track down why that's different that the books as I have already found a trait that stacks with other traits by default. (Keeper of the Veil)
Some people feel the idea of emulating Guts very funWhy does it matter to you?And I hope Paizo sticks to not allowing oversized two-handed weapons.I hope that age thing gets fixed.
Also, I hope the Titan Fighter, in the Giant Hunter's Handbook, does what the Titan Mauler was designed to do.
For me oversized two-handed weapon wielding guys are immersion breaking. In a similar way as many players think the gunslinger (or guns in general) have no room in their fantasy game.
Having it in a game I'm playing in makes the game less fun.Now I can at least say: the rules don't allow it for a reason, please don't do it.
And some people like emulating rambo or captain future. Is Pathfinder the right game for them? No.
And as far as I can judge from pictures I just googled Guts uses a Sword with an oversized blade but a normal sized hilt. Why is it better to emulate him with a sword that has an oversized hilt instead of emulating him by using a normal sword and describe/fluff it as bigger than normal?
there is reasonable suspicion that the missing 'trait' word before bonus is an oversight. Combine that with the person who wrote the first traits backing up this suspicion in this very thread, and I'd say the RAI is clear on them.And RAI in this case doesn't trump the RAW. Even if it could, it's not conclusive. James said what it was when he started it. A few seconds and I found 3 traits that ignored that RAI. If those exist, why assume that the untyped traits where oversights and not deliberate choices like those traits?
Keeper of the Veil was not written by James JacobsWhy does it matter who made it? I don't care if somebodies pet cat made the trait if Paizo published it. The editors let them pass along with the untyped bonuses. That's all that matters. Original RAI matters little in face of what's actually in print. If even ONE trait is allowed to stack with another it proves the RAI that they never stack WRONG. That's plain and simple.
And I can state that my book lists Keeper of the Veil DOES list a competence bonus. All the proof I need . The others, I'm unsure on the luck bonuses. *shrug* No need to waste time getting to the bottom it as I already know that the RAI that traits never stack is untrue. Enough reason for me to infer that the authors actually meant what they printed with untyped bonuses.
This is in no way about the traits that DO call out a type. This is about the only 32 out of 1103 traits on d20pfsrd.com that do not call out a type. Those numbers are so small, and nearly all of them are from non-core materials (meaning they have less consistency, and far less proofreading), that I'm still convinced that in the case of traits, untyped bonuses are purely oversights/mistakes. Honestly, I feel that way about ALL untyped bonuses. The written rule on untyped bonuses is because it was easier for them to write that rule, than to go through the system and type everything that was written incompletely, or carried over from older editions unchanged.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
For me oversized two-handed weapon wielding guys are immersion breaking. In a similar way as many players think the gunslinger (or guns in general) have no room in their fantasy game.
Having it in a game I'm playing in makes the game less fun.Now I can at least say: the rules don't allow it for a reason, please don't do it.
I don't see why having them as an option in the game is bad for anyone. Much as people that don't like guns can not use them, the same for oversized weapons.
And some people like emulating rambo or captain future. Is Pathfinder the right game for them? No.
Pathfinder has laser guns, chainsaws , spaceships, grenades, machine guns and flamethrowers. Big weapons seems an odd place to draw the line... :P
|
I don't see why having them as an option in the game is bad for anyone. Much as people that don't like guns can not use them, the same for oversized weapons.
Because players then mindlessly try to swing the biggest hunk of weapon-shaped metal for the biggest amount of damage dice. And it distorts gameplay in a way we find deplorable.
I would be a lot happier if damage dice did NOT increase based on size, but minimum damage did. Something like a d12 weapon going to 2d6, and then to 3d4. The only problem is, we don't have enough dice combinations for that to work smoothly. And it also makes larger creatures even more dangerous as it increases their damage across the board.
This is in no way about the traits that DO call out a type. This is about the only 32 out of 1103 traits on d20pfsrd.com that do not call out a type. Those numbers are so small, and nearly all of them are from non-core materials (meaning they have less consistency, and far less proofreading), that I'm still convinced that in the case of traits, untyped bonuses are purely oversights/mistakes. Honestly, I feel that way about ALL untyped bonuses. The written rule on untyped bonuses is because it was easier for them to write that rule, than to go through the system and type everything that was written incompletely, or carried over from older editions unchanged.
#1 The only reason to bring up type is that not every one is the trait type of bonus. This proves we've strayed from the path of 'never stack'.
#2 The number could be that small because they where meant to stack, not that they where oversights. All there is speculation, so I see nothing to alter my view of the RAW. This is especially true since we are talking about 32 traits.
#3 is all "untyped bonuses are purely oversights/mistakes", then there would be no need for the rule that "Bonuses without a type always stack, unless they are from the same source." Some bonuses are clearly intended to stack and that's why they are untyped. This seems more a case that you don't like them and less a case of "oversights/mistakes".
#4 Core/non-core: All the books, as far as I know, go through the same editors and are overseen by the same people. RAW doesn't care if it's from a 'core' book, a supplement or a module.
I also note that you said 'nearly all'. That in itself proves core vs non-core is meaningless as they exist in both.
TriOmegaZero: If you don't like the option, don't use it. No one's coming to your house and making you use firearms or flamethrowers after all.
For me oversized two-handed weapon wielding guys are immersion breaking. In a similar way as many players think the gunslinger (or guns in general) have no room in their fantasy game.
Having it in a game I'm playing in makes the game less fun.Now I can at least say: the rules don't allow it for a reason, please don't do it.
I don't see why having them as an option in the game is bad for anyone. Much as people that don't like guns can not use them, the same for oversized weapons.
And some people like emulating rambo or captain future. Is Pathfinder the right game for them? No.Pathfinder has laser guns, chainsaws , spaceships, grenades, machine guns and flamethrowers. Big weapons seems an odd place to draw the line... :P
laser guns, chainsaws , spaceships, machine guns and flamethrowers are beyond the line where I quit the game if they are used.
|
|
TriOmegaZero: If you don't like the option, don't use it. No one's coming to your house and making you use firearms or flamethrowers after all.
You can say that about anything. Doesn't change our minds any more than it would change yours.
And it's not our opinion that matters. It's Paizo's. Good luck.
laser guns, chainsaws , spaceships, machine guns and flamethrowers are beyond the line where I quit the game if they are used.
You've proven my point that this option wouldn't effect you. All those options already exist and you still play. If THEY didn't alter your gaming this wouldn't...
TriOmegaZero: I'm not understanding how options you don't have to use hurt/harm the game. I just don't. As Umbranus pointed out, there are options that already exist that would break the game for him and the world still manages to turn. How is adding oversized weapons going to ruin your game when flamethrowers aren't already doing it?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Because a lot of players immediately won't join a game if the GM pulls out the ban stick, because in our minds it indicates a certain overall hyper-controlling GM mindset. It isn't always the case, but often with those GMs, your creativity is stifled, and they expect you to run with typical tropes, or suboptimal choices, and if you don't, you're some kind of munchkin.
If Paizo bans it, you don't have to risk alienating people before the game even starts by banning it yourself.
I'm an organized play venture officer.
Ok, how does that change anything? PFS disallows many things. Being allowed in pathfinder isn't the same as being allowed in the society. I totally understand you saying you don't want it in the game you play but that's a different issue than allowing it in the game system itself.
EDIT: True, this is off topic. Lets drop it then.
Creative Director
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Keeper of the Veil was not written by James Jacobs, which might explain its deviation from the 'trait bonus'. The others listed as having luck bonuses - Stargazer and Reckless Luck - WERE both in books that James Jacobs' name is on, and both of those, I believe were errata'd (at least they are listed as trait bonuses on d20pfsrd - I don't own either of them so can't verify what the current pdf's show).
My name is on all our books, so that's not an easy way to tell if I personally wrote something IN that book... ;-)
In this case though, no, I didn't write or develop any of those particular traits you mentioned. Had I done so, I would have absolutely changed them to trait bonuses. And I would have also probably renamed "Reckless Luck" to something else to avoid confusing folks by having the word "Luck" in a thing that doesn't grant a luck bonus.
And for what it's worth, when I initially came up with the idea for traits, it was entirely a way to get players to add elements of background history to their characters to help the GM integrate those characters into the campaign's story. Giving traits a tiny little mechanical bonus was my way of, basically, bribing and paying a player into playing nice with the setting and building characters that have at least a small bit of fitting into the expected storyline.
But I knew from the start that doing so DID slightly increase the overall power level of the characters, since these were, essentially, what amounted to a bonus feat over the expectations of the core rules. I pushed to have traits included in the core rules, in fact, so that it would be baseline power rather than a tiny bit of power creep, but for various reasons the trait rules were pushed out of the core and into Advanced Player's Guide (despite the fact that we'd already been using traits for a year in the Adventure Paths).
To combat the perception that they represent power creep, my intent WAS to have them all provide trait bonuses that don't stack, as an attempt to curb what I anticipated would be a new design space. It would be easier, I reasoned, to say that all traits provide trait bonuses rather than have a situation where numerous types of bonuses started stacking up on top of each other.
But as I mentioned earlier in the thread, traits have evolved beyond one person's design philosophy, for better or worse.
If you think traits represent power creep, then a GREAT way to help address that is to assume no trait stacks with a similar trait—essentially just treat all bonuses they grant as being trait bonuses (as was the original intent), regardless of what's actually written in print.
If you don't think traits are overpowered, then stacking bonus types isn't really an issue.
If you're playing in PFS, then that campaign already has its rules and clarifications in place, and I don't really have much more to add on that front.
In closing... please play nice with each other! Remember, it's supposed to be fun, this game! :-)
But as I mentioned earlier in the thread, traits have evolved beyond one person's design philosophy, for better or worse.
If you think traits represent power creep, then a GREAT way to help address that is to assume no trait stacks with a similar trait—essentially just treat all bonuses they grant as being trait bonuses (as was the original intent), regardless of what's actually written in print.
If you don't think traits are overpowered, then stacking bonus types isn't really an issue.
If you're playing in PFS, then that campaign already has its rules and clarifications in place, and I don't really have much more to add on that front.
In closing... please play nice with each other! Remember, it's supposed to be fun, this game! :-)
I can totally get behind this James. I think it's the best way to deal with it and everyone can be happy. Win/win!
Keeper of the Veil was not written by James Jacobs, which might explain its deviation from the 'trait bonus'. The others listed as having luck bonuses - Stargazer and Reckless Luck - WERE both in books that James Jacobs' name is on, and both of those, I believe were errata'd (at least they are listed as trait bonuses on d20pfsrd - I don't own either of them so can't verify what the current pdf's show)....
But, is the untyped bonus supposed to BE a design option that an author should be able to use, or is it the result of differences between authors, and some simply choosing, or refusing, to type the bonuses? I think that is my main point on them, that, well written, every bonus entry should include the type of bonus it provides. There are plenty of options for 'typing' the bonuses, stackable or non-stackable, so there is no mechanical reason for the untyped bonus as it's own pseudo-type, is there?
I think that is my main point on them, that, well written, every bonus entry should include the type of bonus it provides.
I think you're missing that that untyped has been a viable bonus type since 3.5 and I don't see this changing. Take a basic feat like weapon focus. It grants a +1 untyped bonus BECAUSE it's meant to stack with everything and why go out of your way to force a type when that's your goal? Just to add word count?
As to the mechanical reason, untyped has the exact same mechanical reason as any of the names bonuses AND takes up less words. plus forcing a type into every untyped bonus seriously messes up backward compatability to 3.5 since it worked with them.
I think that is my main point on them, that, well written, every bonus entry should include the type of bonus it provides.I think you're missing that that untyped has been a viable bonus type since 3.5 and I don't see this changing. Take a basic feat like weapon focus. It grants a +1 untyped bonus BECAUSE it's meant to stack with everything and why go out of your way to force a type when that's your goal? Just to add word count?
As to the mechanical reason, untyped has the exact same mechanical reason as any of the names bonuses AND takes up less words. plus forcing a type into every untyped bonus seriously messes up backward compatibility to 3.5 since it worked with them.
My gripe against untyped is that it is prone to unintended use due to typos and unintentional omissions. Can you believe there are typos in an edited published work? I know, it shocked me too. If you want a bonus that is universally stackable, create an actual type that is stackable, like a 'universal' bonus, and explicitly state it in the text. The fact that the untyped was there in 3.5 is no excuse. The 'its been that way since 3.5' excuse is the source of most rules problems in pathfinder, and all are unnecessary.
Then throw in this very trait discussion. Normally, in a rule-text style writing, if a 'default' is given in a chapter heading (as in the description of traits usually not stacking in the beginning of the traits section of the APG), and then blanks are left in the details within that chapter, the default is assumed to fill in those blanks. When you then, in another book, state that 'all blanks are assumed to be 'this', and that this is different from your chapter default, it DOES throw into question which is the correct substitution. Technically, as it stands now, based on the pathfinder precedent of specific trumping general, the in-trait description of traits not stacking should override the overall rule about untyped bonuses stacking.
#1 unintended use: I'll take that unintended use over content being cut because that have to add a few hundred 'universal' in front of bonus for untyped bonuses. IMO it's NOT worth the effort and loss of space.
#2 You missed ONE thing though. "traits usually not stacking" is NOT a rule. It's got the word "usually", telling you there are exceptions. Usually doesn't beat "Bonuses without a type always stack". The 'default' is that "Trait bonuses do not stack" and that has nothing to do with other bonuses or untyped ones.
So if you want to 'fill in the blanks' you have 'traits may not stack, check bonus type' not 'ignore what's written and ADD words to make it read like you want it to'.
'Fill in the blanks' is exactly what the rule on untyped bonuses IS.
'Fill in the blanks' is exactly what the rule on untyped bonuses IS.
No, it really isn't. It's NOT a bonus waiting to be named, it stands on it's own as a bonus type. It even has it's own rules on stacking. If it was a 'fill in the blank' bonus, the default would be no stacking wouldn't it?
'Fill in the blanks' is exactly what the rule on untyped bonuses IS.No, it really isn't. It's NOT a bonus waiting to be named, it stands on it's own as a bonus type. It even has it's own rules on stacking. If it was a 'fill in the blank' bonus, the default would be no stacking wouldn't it?
The untyped bonus rule was a way to deal with bonuses from systems and concepts from before there were types of bonuses and limits on stacking. Remember, in 2nd edition, a bonus was a bonus. There were no types or limits on stacking. In 3, and more so in 3.5, as a result of feats and other abilities being added to the game, they wanted to limit the bonus explosions, so they made different types and set rules for stacking. However, there was a LOT of content that simply stated 'bonus', and as such, to keep them working as they were, they ruled them as stacking. So yes, it very much IS a fill in the blanks rule, and it stacks for legacy compatibility. It should not be considered an option for any modern rule design. The circumstance bonuses are an example of a typed bonus that does stacking well.
We are going in circles, so I see no point in continuing. I think it's pretty obvious that I couldn't disagree with your point of view more. I fail to see how adding 12 letters (circumstance) in front of EVERY untyped bonus makes the game better and in fact just makes the game longer to read and take more pages. So a lot of effort for no real gain.
Feel free to continue arguing but I'm wandering off now.
Why does it matter to you?And I hope Paizo sticks to not allowing oversized two-handed weapons.I hope that age thing gets fixed.
Also, I hope the Titan Fighter, in the Giant Hunter's Handbook, does what the Titan Mauler was designed to do.
For me oversized two-handed weapon wielding guys are immersion breaking. In a similar way as many players think the gunslinger (or guns in general) have no room in their fantasy game.
Having it in a game I'm playing in makes the game less fun.Now I can at least say: the rules don't allow it for a reason, please don't do it.
So just because you don't like an option, it should never be made?
That's quite a selfish attitude.
Why does it matter to you?And I hope Paizo sticks to not allowing oversized two-handed weapons.I hope that age thing gets fixed.
Also, I hope the Titan Fighter, in the Giant Hunter's Handbook, does what the Titan Mauler was designed to do.
For me oversized two-handed weapon wielding guys are immersion breaking. In a similar way as many players think the gunslinger (or guns in general) have no room in their fantasy game.
Having it in a game I'm playing in makes the game less fun.Now I can at least say: the rules don't allow it for a reason, please don't do it.
So just because you don't like an option, it should never be made?
That's quite a selfish attitude.
Sometimes being selfish is the best thing you can do.
Rarely. And this is not one of those times.