There doesn't need to be any special ruling because the RAW of the spell (aside from RAI like you asked) is abundantly clear.
When cast on a container such as a quiver or a pouch that contains nonmagical ammunition or shuriken (including masterwork ammunition or shuriken), at the start of each round this spell replaces any ammunition taken from the container the round before.
The spell has one effect [A]: at the start of each round this spell replaces ANY ammunition taken from the container the round before
The spell has one condition <B>: When cast on a container which contains nonmagical ammunition.
So in regards to your questions we get the following.
1,2,3 - the container contains nonmagical ammunition therefore <B> is satisfied. Therefore [A] (you gain the effect)
4 - as this is ambiguous I cannot answer
house rulings/readings of RAW on the questions:
1) the non-magical ammo requirement is exclusive, one magic ammo piece in the container keeps the spell from working.
Can you please post RAW support of this? Or is this one of your home rules?
The spell does not say "When cast on a container that only contains non-magical ammunition" it says "When cast on a container that contains non-magical ammunition."
Do I agree that this is a wording mistake and not RAI? absolutely. But OP specifically asked for no RAI or oppinions. If you only use the spell text there is nothing to suggest that the requirement is exclusive other than house rule, oppinion, or what someone thinks the RAI is.
I don't see how a RAW answer is available given the spell description. Abundant Ammunition was released in Ultimate Combat, and Weapon Blanches were released in the APG. Either the interaction was overlooked, or it was assumed that the RAW gave a clear answer.
The problem is that AA doesn't say how it interacts with non-magical enhancements, such as those from blanches or the Alchemical Weapon grenadier ability (yes, it is an SU ability, but it doesn't say it makes the arrow magical so it's in the same boat as the blanches). Though one could argue that it copies non-magical enhancements since it isn't explicitly forbidden, one could also argue that it isn't explicitly allowed. This is something that really needs an FAQ.
|
| 12 people marked this as a favorite. |
Can we please stop with the "only rules as written" requests?
It makes these forums increasingly hostile, and creates an atmosphere where nobody wants to answer questions.
There is no such thing as "rules as written". What you mean is "words as written". Rules are read and interpreted.
When you go solely by "words as written" the game comes apart, and ceases to function.
We're human beings, not robots.
In regards to "a quiver or a pouch that contains nonmagical ammunition" I would say that as long as you're not getting duplicate magical ammo it's probably okay. Even if you're not intended to let it work if magical and non-magical ammo share a quiver, there is really no harm so long as the magical ammo isn't duplicated. For all it's worth there is no restriciton on the number of quivers you can have. So you could have a special one for any magical arrows, and one for everything else. Or one for each specific type of ammunition you have (admantine, silver, blunt, etc).
So to question 1, see above. It really doesn't matter so long as magical ammo is not duplicated.
2) Same. As along as the improvement isn't magical it should work fine on the ammo. Specifically blanches should work fine. Of course, this is no more cost effective than actually buying silver/cold-iron/admantine arrows anyways. And even less effective if you buy durable special material arrows and recover them after the fight. Well, maybe it's more effective in the short term. It still just easier to buy the durabel special material arrows IMO since you don't need to cast Abundant Ammunition.
3) Not sure what items you're talking about. The hybridization funnel only works on alchemical splash weapon as far as I can see. And splash weapons aren't counted as ammunition. I'm probably misunderstanding something.
Apologies, I somehow read the OP as "No RAI interpretations" and missed the RAW bit. I've looked for it before and had no luck finding any relevant FAQs or Dev comments. It's also such a corner case that it probably won't get clarified.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Can we please stop with the "only rules as written" requests?
It makes these forums increasingly hostile, and creates an atmosphere where nobody wants to answer questions.
There is no such thing as "rules as written". What you mean is "words as written". Rules are read and interpreted.
When you go solely by "words as written" the game comes apart, and ceases to function.
We're human beings, not robots.
^ A thousand times, This ^
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Can we please stop with the "only rules as written" requests?
It makes these forums increasingly hostile, and creates an atmosphere where nobody wants to answer questions.
There is no such thing as "rules as written". What you mean is "words as written". Rules are read and interpreted.
When you go solely by "words as written" the game comes apart, and ceases to function.
We're human beings, not robots.
Well I guess I failed the Turing test again.
Joke aside, I agree, and I apologize if I appeared hostile. I misread OP and thought he/she wanted a RAW answer.
That being said, the purpose of this forum is to answer rules questions. The purpose of a rule is to clearly and unambiguously define part of the game. In the end, yes, everything about rules is interpretation. Taking in any information or any sensory input and coming to a conclusion is interpretation. What is important is the set of guidelines you use to take that information and transform it into a concrete idea or concept.
RAW however, or the concept of it, attempts to use the published text to nail down exactly how a rule defines the game. RAW then exists when, by following what is written, one can come to a single conclusion about the meaning of the rules in the game. RAW does not always exist, I agree, as the rules can often fall short of their purpose (and it is not fair to expect the writers to be perfect in this). That does not mean however that defining what it is should not be the goal (at least in this forum).
RAW is important in home games, but even more so in PFS. Without being able to clearly and unambiguously define the rules, a player is unable to create a character he can confidently play with any GM.
If we can't find the above, then the only two options a player has is dealing with table variance (which while part of the game, usually isn't fun), or getting the ruling of a developer (which is rare and shouldn't be necessary).
On the other hand, in cases where the rules create a scenario that negatively affects the core of the game, or when there is more than one valid interpretation of the rules, or even when a GM wants to change the flavor of the game in a home setting (and gives fair notice to players), one obviously uses whatever interpretation meets their goals, regardless of writing.
Even in the case of interpretation or house ruling it is important to at least have a solid base to start from so that everyone is on the same page and can come to similar conclusions. Otherwise you might as well just write your own system and use pathfinder for creative direction.
I also agree that it isn't good that people are afraid to post, as that makes pretty much everything suck. At the same time it is important to not forget that this forum is about taking the rule book and figuring out what is correct. If someone wants to start a thread asking people for their opinion on how they would handle a rule then they are asking for advice, not rules clarification, and there is fortunately a really great forum for that!
I know I will probably catch flack for saying all that, but its really frustrating ( to me at least, because I have been in the same position) when I see people asking for clarification on the rules and getting answers that are either all opinion or so left field you wonder if anyone even bothered to check the book or take a minute to google the topic.
English usage covers both possible readings of RAW, the phrase "[w]hen cast on a container that contains non-magical ammunition" can be used to refer to a container which only contains non-magical ammunition and also used to refer to a container which contains some non-magical ammunition.
I know we decided that this isn't really the purpose of the post, but I do not believe that the English language does not cover both. Consider the definition of contains:
: to have (something) inside
: to have or include (something)
: to keep (something) within limits
Next consider the following cases.
- I have a food composed only of peanuts and someone asks if the food contains peanuts. The answer is always yes.
- I have a food composed of both peanuts and almonds and someone asks if the food contains peanuts. The answer is always yes.
- I have a food composed of both peanuts and almonds and someone asks if the food only contains peanuts. The answer is always no.
The above is true because the adverb (only) modifies the meaning of the verb (contains) and how it applies to the predicate (peanuts). By adding the adverb, we have changed the structure of the sentence to one that is exclusionary.
With out an adverb like "only" contains is always satisfied if the subject of the sentence has the predicate within, includes the predicate, or keeps the predicate within some limit.
Leaving out "only" is obviously RAW.
Leaving out "only" may not have been RAI.
That is why people ask. Again, following RAW only destroys the game.
I think it's relatively obvious that the intention was for magical ammo not to be duplicated based on the wording of the spell. Even if it is unclear if the spell can be cast on a quiver that contains a mix of magical and non-magical ammo.
As I suggested, as long as your run the spell without allow the duplication of magical ammo I think you're fine.
If you do allow magical ammo to be duplicated...well it's a terrible idea. Archer Rangers just got insanely broken as I buy the (relatively cheap) magical arrows and never use them up with Abundant Ammo. Prepare for me to have +5 holy bane arrows and the magical death arrows that require a fort save or die. Those will really make the game fun for everybody else as I never use them up.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Again, following RAW only destroys the game.
You do know that this is the Rules Questions section right? Here, RAW is about all you SHOULD be talking about.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Again, following RAW only destroys the game.You do know that this is the Rules Questions section right? Here, RAW is about all you SHOULD be talking about.
I disagree. RAI has a place here as well, at least as a fallback when RAW is ambiguous.
I disagree. RAI has a place here as well, at least as a fallback when RAW is ambiguous.Again, following RAW only destroys the game.You do know that this is the Rules Questions section right? Here, RAW is about all you SHOULD be talking about.
If it WAS ambiguous, I'd agree. However, He himself said "Leaving out "only" is obviously RAW." So he's saying the RAW is obvious but it "destroys the game". In this section of the boards, that shouldn't matter. Here, we're looking for the RAW answer if possible.
Indeed. The only times RAI should enter into the equation would be when the RAW is ambiguous, or when strictly applying RAW leads to utter absurdities like "nothing in the rules says dead people can't take actions." Especially since absent any developr statements to clarify the matter, everyone has their own ideas of what developers' obvious intent for the rules is. It's far too easy for "RAI" to become "Rules The Way I Think They Ought To Be."
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
"RAW" is meaningless. As someone else pointed out in another thread, rules as written means only posting the rules exactly as they appear in the rulebook.
You couldn't even offer anything else on the topic, or you are interpreting them. Which clearly means "RAW" is nonsense in and of itself. When people are saying RAW, they are asking for the strictest reading possible (usually with absurd consequences intended) to benefit them in some way. This is not always the case, but 90% of them that I have seen on this board are such.
However, this discussion of RAW vs RAI really isn't the point of this thread.
The spell as written in posted in the PRD. You can choose to interpret it as you like. The developers have given no specific commentary on this spell, which is ambiguously written. You have received several interpretations from various posters. Make of it what you will based on your best judgement.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
"RAW" is meaningless. As someone else pointed out in another thread, rules as written means only posting the rules exactly as they appear in the rulebook.
You couldn't even offer anything else on the topic, or you are interpreting them. Which clearly means "RAW" is nonsense in and of itself. When people are saying RAW, they are asking for the strictest reading possible (usually with absurd consequences intended) to benefit them in some way. This is not always the case, but 90% of them that I have seen on this board are such.
However, this discussion of RAW vs RAI really isn't the point of this thread.
The spell as written in posted in the PRD. You can choose to interpret it as you like. The developers have given no specific commentary on this spell, which is ambiguously written. You have received several interpretations from various posters. Make of it what you will based on your best judgement.
For me, RAW is the words actually written in the rules and the interpretations of said written rules. That's what I'm suggesting be discussed in the Rules Questions Section. Rules as I(Generic I) think they should be is more for another section, which is what most RAI arguments seem to me.
RAI, IMO, is trying to read something other than what is actually written into the rules. That's fine when the question isn't clear but it shouldn't be use to subvert the actual written words. You shouldn't have to read between the lines to come to a conclusion different than the actual words.
I think we have a disagreement about the meaning of RAW and RAI, but I think we actually agree on how we should attempt to interpret the rules.
The problem is that saying "interpretation of said written rules" is that everyone is interpreting the same written portion (assuming there is not an error in source or locating the text) but can arrive at very different conclusions.
So, I ask myself what do I think the developers or writers of this ability most likely intend when the tried to write this ability. Can I know every time? No. But I can at least try to do what I believe was the spirit of the rules the author was trying to write. People too often tried to read the rules such as it was a legal document, putting huge meaning on very small words. Trying to weasel through things, instead of reading it and using common sense to arrive at a reasonable solution.
When I think of Rules as Intended, it's very much me trying to figure out the rules as the developers intended.
When I think of Rules as Intended, it's very much me trying to figure out the rules as the developers intended.
For me, I try to avoid RAI if possible. Several times I've either been surprised by their intent when a ruling comes out and/or the author's have come on the boards and said that what they intended didn't make it unto the actual page. As such, I try to look at the actual words without attempting to divine what's not written on the page.
That was me in the other thread.
"Rules as written" is meaningless.
What ppl often mean is "Words as written".
Rules are read, and interpreted.
It is rare that a string of words can be interpreted the same way by everyone who reads them.
For me RAW is "Words as written" AND their interpretation. I'd prefer to not use 'Words as not written' (RAI) to try to figure out the rules.
I guess this would have been more accurate, "Again, following RAW only, destroys the game."
One person's interpretation may be different than another person's. That is the problem with the "RAW ONLY" mantra around here. The meaning quickly gets transferred to "MY Rules As Interpreted ONLY"
I was not advocating making up house rules or anything of that nature.
Actually I wish it was the opposite. Many people when they say "Rules as intended" they mean "Rules I changed because I don't like this", which muddies up threads with nonsense\
There is no such thing as "rules as written". What you mean is "words as written". Rules are read and interpreted.When you go solely by "words as written" the game comes apart, and ceases to function.
Yeah, part of the problem with the whole RAW vs RAI debate is that there seem to be a couple different definitions of RAW and RAI.
RAW can either mean "Blindly following the exact written text with no regard for context or common sense" or "Play with the rules as written and interpreted by a reasonable person."
RAI can mean either "Utterly ignoring the written rules and just making up whatever changes I want purely on the basis on my own whims and desires" or "Applying common sense to deal with any problematic areas of the written rules."
Which does make me think that the RAW vs RAI debate is largely a false one: I think 90% of the people involved actually believe in something along the lines of "Read the rules, then apply common sense."
thank you everyone, despite being derailed a little. ;)
so there are no erratas/FAQ/etc, yet not really an overall agreement on which works and which does not.
I think so long as you don't allow it to duplicate any magical ammunition you're fine. Blanches aren't magical so those are fine. I don't know what this hybridized ammunition you're referring to is so I can't comment.
As far as whether or not you can use it on a quiver containing magical and non-magical ammo. At worst you separate into two quivers. There is nothing which discusses how many quivers you can wear or where you can where them. It actually makes sense that at high levels, an archer (who will probably be shooting 6 arrows a round) will have more than one quiver of arrows on them.
RAW can either mean "Blindly following the exact written text with no regard for context or common sense" or "Play with the rules as written and interpreted by a reasonable person."RAI can mean either "Utterly ignoring the written rules and just making up whatever changes I want purely on the basis on my own whims and desires" or "Applying common sense to deal with any problematic areas of the written rules."
I've always felt that figuring out the rules should be separate from actually playing.
RAW is when you figure out exactly what the text means from an almost overly legalistic standpoint.
RAI is when you take RAW and try to think rationally about what a developer intended and what works well in the game.
What you do with the RAW and RAI is up to the GM. In a home game a gm could and should should simply look at RAI and choose what makes the most sense for the type of game they are wanting to play. For example, letting the above spell duplicate magical ammunition wouldn't really negatively impact a high power level highly optimized game, but it could kill other games.
In PFS RAW is very important, again, because PFS GM's have to use RAW. By determining what is RAW, and thus exposing broken parts of the game, we help the developers fix and improve pathfinder for everyone!
Those don't count as ammo just because they're used by the launching crossbow. They are splash weapons, that are used by the launching crossbow as ammo. But that doesn't change how they normally interact with the rest of the game rules.
Those don't count as ammo just because they're used by the launching crossbow. They are splash weapons, that are used by the launching crossbow as ammo. But that doesn't change how they normally interact with the rest of the game rules.
I don't see why it wouldn't work on splash ammo. Just because something falls into another category doesn't mean it stops being the other. Throwing a spear doesn't mean it at any time stops being a melee weapon. IMO anything that I use in the load action for a projectile weapon is ammo. I'd require that it actually be used as ammo to get replaced by the spell though.
The rules don't work that way.
The rules tells you what happens, not what doesn't happen.
Those items are listed as alchemical weapons, unless there is something that says to treat them as ammunition for purposes other than the launching crossbow I can see no reason for abundant ammunition to work on them.
The rules don't work that way.
The rules tells you what happens, not what doesn't happen.
Those items are listed as alchemical weapons, unless there is something that says to treat them as ammunition for purposes other than the launching crossbow I can see no reason for abundant ammunition to work on them.
Projectile weapons use ammo.
Launching crossbows use slash weapons.If slash weapons weren't ammo, I couldn't use the load action on the launching crossbow.
Projectile Weapons: "weapons that launch ammunition at a target." "Projectile weapons use ammunition"
Launching Crossbow: "It is designed to launch splash weapons. Loading a launching crossbow is a full-round action."
Doesn't take rocket surgeon to add 1 + 1 and get 2.
Or lets look at it your way. An arrow is ammo. SO spells that affect melee weapons wouldn't work on it if you're using it as a melee weapon? An Atlatl Dart is ammo but also a ranged weapon. No effects that work on weapons work on it.
Plenty of items fall into multiple categories and I see no reason they it shouldn't count as every one it falls into. They only appear on one chart but who cares. Daggers can be ranged weapon even though they show up in the melee section. Chakram can be used as melee weapons despite being ranged weapons. And splash weapons can be ammo even though they show up on the Alchemical Weapons chart. Or don't you think a Morningstar is a piercing weapon because it's listed as P and B?
Question: Do you thing a launching crossbow have any effect on the item it launches? Does an acid flask get the crossbows effects it grants ammo since you somehow don't think it counts as such? For instance, would a Conserving launching crossbow conserve a flask on a missed attack? And if it's different that your answer for the spell, why?
Principle of Charity, the.
Always interpret any text in such a way as make it as rational, strong and consistent as possible.
All those others items you named function because their text in their description clarifies how they work. If they lacked that text, none of them would work as they do.
Alchemical splash weapons are used with the launching crossbow, and are for the purposes of the crossbow are treated as ammo. That does not mean the spell treats them as ammo and functions.
There is nothing in the rules to indicate that they should be treated for ammo for all purposes. Because here is the real problem:
Lets say you have a launching crossbow and a bag full of alchemist's fire. You cast abundant ammunition on the bag. If it works what happens if you drop the bow? What if someone else takes the bag? What if you cast it on someones bag that doesn't have a launching crossbow nor has ever used one?
It simply makes no sense to treat it as ammo for how it interacts with Abundant Ammunition.
Alchemical weapons aren't "thrown weapons", they are splash weapons, which use different rules to determine what happens with them. And arrows as specifically listed as ammo.
You're logic does not provide a "conclusive" reason that alchemical weapons are ammo.
|
As the saying goes, ask ten different people, get ten different answers. I argued endlessly with people about rules that seem clear as day to me, and if I've learned anything it's that people WILL have different interpretations.
Not all hope is lost though. We do have a way to clarify meaning in the English language. Lawyers do it all the time. It just takes lots and lots of words. More words than would be appropriate for a user-friendly printed publication.
I would love to see a sanctioned sub-forum where all us rules lawyers could rake new item and feat descriptions over the coals until we have a much less ambiguous working description. It would take the involvement of developers to lay out exactly what they intended the limits of their concept to be, but in the end, I think it would be very beneficial to the community. One of the main problems is that we don't have a final authority on the matter. Once in a while the developers chime in, but more often all of us just argue in circles and never come to any common ground.
Nothing will change until we get a dedicated Paizo rep to make judgement on the Pathfinder Rules Ecosystem.
|
Based on careful reading of abundant ammunition spell, it appears that any non-magical ammo is replaced (the word including usually implies "but not limited to" in the English language), and that would include alchemical ammo (i.e. anything that does not radiate magic is non-magical)
Please note that flame arrow lasts 10min/level (i.e. longer than abundant ammunition 1min/level) and normally limited to 50 projectiles... someone with a high firing rate (5 attacks per round say) would go through these after 10 rounds, but with with abundant ammunition, you're basically shooting at +1d6 unlimited, and when the abundant ammunition spell ends, you have 50 projectiles STILL at +1d6... :)
You're logic does not provide a "conclusive" reason that alchemical weapons are ammo.
For me the "conclusive" reason for me is that they are fired from a projectile weapon and that's defined as ammo. For me it makes perfect sense so I'll have to disagree with you. For me a bag of ordinary stones should be affected by abundant ammunition but by your logic it shouldn't because they aren't listed under ammo...