|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I have had more arguments over this darn item than anything else in the game. Everything from, "It removes Archaic even though it doesn't say it does" to "It adds Archaic to Vesk unarmed strikes that take the 2x level specialization because the RoF biting isn't the same as the Vesk Natural Attack."
Every GM seems to have a different interpretation and every single time it comes up it devolves into a looped rules argument about what rule overrides what other rule. I think the RAW is very clear on how it works, but every other week I have a conversation with someone else that also thinks the RAW is very clear but entirely different. I'd really like to not have to spend the next 10 years re-hashing this.
EDIT: Just to be clear, here, I'm not going to argue for any particular interpretation, here. I just want an official one I can point to and say, "this is what it is." I honestly no longer care what that official rule looks like.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It would help if you could state a clear, simple question to be answered, and link to previous discussions that show it is, indeed, a frequently asked question.
My guess is it's probably just bad luck that your region argues over it. I have a character with a Ring of Fangs and I've never had problems with it.
It grants you a "bite attack". This bite functions as an unarmed strike, which has the nonlethal and archaic special properties. Furthermore, "these unarmed strikes" deal piercing damage and add 2x your level for Weapon Specialization.
This item does not combine in any way with a Vesk's natural weapons, which deal bludgeoning damage, can deal lethal damage, don't count as archaic, and add only 1.5x your level for Weapon Specialization.
I don't use the term "Rules as Written", because reading is an interpretive activity, and two people can read the exact same passage and come to different conclusions. Your interpretation may differ from mine, and that's fine.
My suggestion, until you have either an FAQ or something else "official", would be to do something akin to THIS, which IME works rather well in Society.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I also suggest this for the Rules forum, though the same question has been asked many times there, and has never been answered by Paizo.
I'm in the camp that a 315 credit magic item should not make a vesk's natural weapons obsolete. The Ring of Fang's attack is an Unarmed Strike, except where noted: Lethal Piercing damage, and x2 level specialization. It's still archaic, and you don't get to make Attacks of Opportunity without Improved Unarmed Strike.
I do believe that a Vesk with a Ring of Fangs can remove Archaic from the bite attack, as their Natural Weapons reads, "They can deal 1d3 lethal damage with unarmed strikes, and the attack doesn't count as Archaic." Note that it doesn't say only their natural weapons unarmed strikes, though their special specialization only applies to their natural weapons (which doesn't matter for the RoF, but other sources of Unarmed Strikes, such as the upcoming Tactical Shield rules, would not benefit unless they have a clause stating that they can benefit from Natural Weapons specialization (as noted in the Pistol Whip Operative exploit).
Without being a Natural Weapons race, the way to remove Archaic from the RoF is to take the Raw Lethality soldier Gear Boost. That's how my SRO, Dragonbot, gained a reliable bite attack.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
While there's a reasonable argument to be made that they're unarmed strikes and thus archaic, i think the better argument is that they're a bite attack unarmed strike so they're not.
The item tells you it's a bite attack which tells you a few things about it
-you're armed (you can make aoos with it)
-Unlike a normal unarmed strike you don't need to have your hands free (because they're big sharp pointy teeth)
-They deal lethal damage (because its a bite attack)
-you can bite someone that's pinning you (because it's one of the few/only? attack that doesn't take a limb)
-and its not archaic, because natural attacks aren't archaic . Even if you try to argue that doesn't apply to PCs, look at all of the natural attacks PCs get. They're all not archaic. Its a general rule of the game that big sharp pointy teeth/claws/whatever aren't archaic. The vesk and the nuar and the formian aren't some weird exception to an unwritten rule.
definite no on 3.5 X level on damage with a vesk wearing one of these. 2X is instead of 1.5 x.
The correct answer is to ban it, not explain it.
|
|
There have already been like 4 or 5 threads in the Rules forum about this. None of them have an official answer. None of them have resulted in an update to the FAQ.
I seriously didn't come here looking for an argument or any given GM's interpretation about how it works, because at this point, I don't actually care. I just want an official answer, or something remotely close to official, that I can point to for SFS, because this argument comes up at least once a month for me. I mostly play and GM online, so I tend to interact with a lot more GM's than most players, and the table variation in the online region is really high.
There is contention on how this stacks with Vesk (or other Races) unarmed attacks. How it stacks with Improved Unarmed Strike. Whether or not it lets you count as 'always armed'. Whether or not it has the archaic property. How it interacts with solarian or soldier abilities (Arcane Assailant, and the Solarian abilities that boost weapons you're weilding). That's a lot of trouble for a 315cr level 3 item to cause, but it drastically affects how powerful it is and how a character gets used from table to table.
There are already 3 different interpretations from three different very experienced GMs in this thread in the first 3 posts. That's unhealthy. FAQ entries for AP volumes are obviously too slow, so I think we need a (even remotely) official ruling on how it works in SFS.
Venture-Lieutenant, Netherlands—Leiden
|
And yeah, I too would like a clarification of the following points:
1) Is the attack you make with the fangs archaic?
2) If you have a natural weapon like a nuar's gore that says that your unarmed strikes are never archaic, does it apply to the fangs too?
3) Can you make attacks of opportunity with the fangs, if you don't have Improved Unarmed Strike?
|
|
THIS is the ruling that Organized Play can provide you with.
For an actual FAQ, you need to post a coherent and succinct question over in the Rules Questions Forum, link to past debates, be honest about different interpretations, and be comfortable with an answer you may not like.
Trust me when I say that this works. I've had roughly a dozen FAQs answered over the years, including the "Most FAQ'd question ever", and if you're willing to put the work into it, you will get a response.
|
|
Trust me when I say that this works. I've had roughly a dozen FAQs answered over the years, including the "Most FAQ'd question ever", and if you're willing to put the work into it, you will get a response.
Meh. It's kinda like waiting for lightning to strike. I mean putting up a metal pole improves your chances but you still gotta depend on some luck.
|
|
It does certainly feel like you're holding that metal pole for a while sometimes, but some questions just aren't a high priority.
This is one of those questions. Nobody's character is invalidated by not getting an answer. There isn't some bigger question that this is symptomatic of. It's something that individual GMs can handle and no interpretation breaks the game.
It's also Con season, there are genuinely ambiguous and frustrating system questions out there that should be answered first, new products that need to be released on a timely schedule, and vacations to be taken.
Thurston has been incredibly generous with his answers these last couple years, which I greatly appreciate and didn't expect, but it's not something we should rely on.
The best process is what I've already laid out.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
You can pretty easily get a character relying on this as their main weapon get invalidated if you need to take 5 points off of everything wearing armor, can't make AOOs, or even being a vesk won't let you use your teeth plus the ring to avoid archaic.
It also changes whether an unarmed character using this has to (or even can) pick up the raw lethality gearboost to make the attack non archaic and then wounding. I'm perfectly fine with the schrodingers rules of having characters at the table work both ways but some DMs are lawful and need consistent rules.
So this really is the central connecting cog between a lot of character abilities to make the watch and if it doesn't work, brings the character down with it.
I have a character with this and it's mostly there so she's literally armed to the teeth, and she only uses it sometimes on AOOs. (Probably ChipCHips evil(er) twin) but I do see this item used a fair bit as a DM.
THIS is the ruling that Organized Play can provide you with.
For an actual FAQ, you need to post a coherent and succinct question over in the Rules Questions Forum, link to past debates, be honest about different interpretations, and be comfortable with an answer you may not like.
Trust me when I say that this works. I've had roughly a dozen FAQs answered over the years, including the "Most FAQ'd question ever", and if you're willing to put the work into it, you will get a response.
Cool Pathfinder story, now do Starfinder.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I appreciate that you're trying to help, but after almost 2 years and multiple threads in the rules forum, I'm at the point where I refuse to believe a real honest to god FAQ for the general rules is going to happen. That explanation from John doesn't really help, here, because I've already done the research of looking at it on the forums, and every single thread is an argument of 3-7 people all saying different things with nothing resembling an official answer.
What I need is for something specific to how we're supposed to interpret it for SFS. I'm in a lodge with about a dozen other 'senior GM's' and probably 3 dozen other GM's. Questions about how this works pop up pretty regularly, and no one can agree on how to interpret it. It just turns into an argument about the definition of the word 'is' every time it comes up.
That's not just frustrating, it's unhealthy. It turns players off. It makes me dread the subject. Peoples characters are getting invalidated by the answer, depending on how strict an individual DM interpets it. A character can go from doing 2d6+24 (counts as magical) at 8th level to 1d3+16-5 (does not count as magical) depending on how it gets interpreted. That's a pretty major swing for someone relying on this as their primary weapon.
|
|
I would suggest patience, for the reasons I listed earlier. If a ruling arrives sooner, cool; I've been wrong before. If playing your character is more stressful than fun, shelve them until there's an answer. That FAQ I linked earlier took years to get finished. There were a lot of people in your shoes.
In the meantime, if the GMs in your Lodge disagree, go to your Venture Captain. If you have multiple Venture Captains, go to your regional Venture Coordinator. Arrive at your games early to discuss your character with the GM. Bring a conservative interpretation of your character's abilities, a liberal interpretation, and a compromise.
Give yourself a backup plan for the times when a GM rules conservatively. You spent 315 credits on this item; what did you buy during the other eight levels of play? Regular characters need alternative tactics when their laser specialist confronts a fire elemental; this is no different.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And, most importantly, post a clear and concise question over in the Rules Questions Forum.
Take a day, or multiple days if needed, to draft up something. You need to do the legwork. Otherwise the Designers won't know what the problem is.
I think if this was the case some FAQ somewhere would be getting answered, but they aren't. There's gencon season, and genoconcrud season, and getting stuff ready for genon season, and then the big new book season, and then holiday season, and then getting ready for con season...
There doesn't seem to be a lot of interest in patching the old rules and explaining how they work. It doesn't come with a bottom line but it DOES cause problems, and not just within organized play. You can bet if organized play is having these arguments it's happening in home games too, and "the dms word is law" may technically WORK but it does grind at groups.
There's also not one yes/no question here. The interaction/blurry line/lanister speed dating between unarmed strikes and natural attacks is going to drop out some wonky results depending on the answer.
|
|
There's gencon season, and genoconcrud season, and getting stuff ready for genon season, and then the big new book season, and then holiday season, and then getting ready for con season....
Already stated that up thread.
It's why I said "be patient".
Paizo's FAQ process goes through spurts. Sometimes it rains banhammers and sometimes it's drier than a Tier 1 GM's throat after GenCon.
|
|
There's gencon season, and genoconcrud season, and getting stuff ready for genon season, and then the big new book season, and then holiday season, and then getting ready for con season....Already stated that up thread.
It's why I said "be patient".
I think you missed the point.
For the crunch people it's always SOMETHING season. That something is something other than answering rules questions. If there's no season where it isn't something season what are people supposed to be patient FOR?
Pathfinder went how long without an FAQ ?
|
|
Years, at points.
And that's why I also suggested that if your PC is causing more stress than enjoyment, you simply set them aside until the answer you're seeking is provided.
If doing that is unappealing, then proceed to my other suggestion: approach the people in charge of your region who do have the time and ability to make a decision and petition them for a ruling.
If that is similarly not realistic, then do what I had to do with several of my characters: write down honest interpretations of your character's abilities, approach your table GM and explain the issue, and be happy to oblige by their ruling.
1) Nobody "officially" knew the snake's reach. Most snakes had reach equal to their space, but a couple didn't, so some GMs ruled my companion's reach was 5 feet, and some ruled it was 10. Annoying, but not build-altering.
2) Int 3 companions were able to select "any feat they are physically capable of using". Selecting Improved Unarmed Strike seemed perfectly fine to me. I never once had my snake perform an unarmed strike, I simply needed it as a prerequisite. Since most of my snake's feats built off that, I'd have some GMs invalidate my entire build if they couldn't conceive how a snake could perform said unarmed strike.
3) I had an ability that gave my companion +2 Int, and the "fluff" was described as being the "pick of the litter". Made perfect sense to me that my snake's first feat qualified as having an Int of 3, but some GMs thought it should be after my first feat. Since that feat was, again, Improved Unarmed Strike, my build once again crumbled apart.
4) Some GMs, concrete in their disagreement, required me to change my character in front of them and mark the changes on my Chronicle. Another GM said it was fine to bring different "versions" of my companion if a GM thought my primary build was illegal anyways. At one point when I brought out said three versions, I was labeled as a cheater and asked to play a Pregen.
5) Handling your companion required using Tricks. Since my Int 3 snake spoke a language, *and* my character had the supernatural ability to speak with snakes, I figured I didn't need a high skill with Handle Animal. Even if I'd gotten past all the other obstacles, sometimes a GM would rule that I simply couldn't tell my snake to do what it was trained to do. This caused me to spend a significant portion of my gold purchasing an Int-increasing item just so I could add ranks in Handle Animal.
... and this is just *one* example of perhaps a dozen characters (I had nearly 40) who encountered some level of stressful table variation.
TL;DR I sympathize with people who want and/or need answers, but sometimes you just have to wait, and sometimes you just have to tough through it. It sucks, I've been there, I'd happily make a ruling for you if I could, and for the vast majority of players and characters there's rarely an issue, but sometimes there's a long line at the DMV and you just need to get through it.
|
|
Years, at points.
And that's why I also suggested that if your PC is causing more stress than enjoyment, you simply set them aside until the answer you're seeking is provided.
Not really workable if you want to play a 7-10 scenario
Not really avoidable if you're the DM and you keep trying to tell people their character doesn't work.
If doing that is unappealing, then proceed to my other suggestion: approach the people in charge of your region who do have the time and ability to make a decision and petition them for a ruling.
DO venture critters even have the power to level out table variation?
Even then this is for online. It's kind of every DM is an island and the best rule authority they know.
If that is similarly not realistic, then do what I had to do with several of my characters: write down honest interpretations of your character's abilities, approach your table GM and explain the issue, and be happy to oblige by their ruling.
As a virtual DM I can't even charge the players a beer for rules headaches right as I"m setting up the session.
Shelve your characters for 2 years isn't really a viable option in a game that so far doesn't have a whole lot of builds.
Even beyond this issue there's a need for a rules person to get everyone on the same page. Wait till after gencon is a reasonable request. Wait 2 years for an FAQ... not so much.
|
|
As to this particular issue, I think the idea that the raw can be clear follows from the idea that you can argue from A to B to C with confidence. That requires a system that's either reality or a computer program level of consistent. I love starfinder, but it's not that tightly written.(i don't know if anything in english is) Just because you can argue A B C D doesn't mean there isn't a better argument Z Y X ---> Not D. You absolutely have to compare and contrast the two different arguments for evidence, sense, reason, balance, and precedent. Nothing is QED no matter how much it seems to make sense.
When you wear this ring, your teeth become long and sharp, giving you a powerful bite attack. You can choose to have your unarmed attacks deal lethal piercing damage, and if you are 3rd level or higher, you automatically gain a special version of the Weapon Specialization feat that adds double your level to the damage of these unarmed attacks (rather than adding your level).
The more restrictive way of reading it is to say that it only alters your unarmed strike where it explicitly mentions it altering your unarmed strike. 1) Lethal damage 2) Piercing damage instead of bludgeoning 3) 2 X specilization instead of 1X specialization.
The more (usually) expansive way of reading it is you have a bite attack. A bite attack nests a lot of properties into the attack that I think make a lot of sense for it.
-Always armed. Without being a bite attack your unarmed attacks don't count as armed. You're just as unable to make AOOs as John Q public.
-Not archaic. Bite attacks aren't archaic, both as a specific clarification and a general trend for natural weapons.
-Doesn't require a free limb. If the ring doesn't alter anything beyond what it explicitly says you need to drop your laser rifle to bite someone. That... seems really weird.
While these do make the ring absurdly powerful for 350 credits, they all drop out of a pretty straightforward reading of you gain a bite attack.
