|
Ascalaphus we have to be careful using that argument or it leads to the buffet problem (just pick and choose which rules you want to believe and which you don't) Regardless, it is a Paizo product, written by their team and has not been updated in Pathfinder or PFS since written.
And if you go by RAW you can't choose to ignore a Rule that is written, even if you agree or disagree with it. The fact is we have a precedent, that supports one interpretation of RAW. I expect that we will see an Errata to bring it in line but until then, I don't see how we can interpret it any way else.
You're doing the thing you're warning me not to: choosing to believe in some rule or another.
In your case, you're choosing to believe that a rule exists ("this works just like Agile") that's not written anywhere.
RAW means two things here; 1) not ignoring anything that's written, 2) not adding anything that's not written. RAW is the rules as they're actually written, no more, no less.
"Use Dex instead of Str" means that, just that. It doesn't mean "use Dex instead of Str in the same way as we previously did in Agile". That's the buffet thing that you warned about.
---
As for the updates: absence of updates to a softcover doesn't really prove anything, since Paizo only updates stuff when they do a new printing, and softcovers almost never get a new printing.
You could also argue that the lack of a reprint for that book means that Paizo's distanced themselves from it. Who knows?
---
Imagine that every time Paizo writes something that works differently than a similar ability that came before, they actually had to include a disclaimer with "yes, we realize it's different, but we really mean it, it really works just like we wrote it here". Wouldn't that be absurd?
I'd be complaining that I'm paying for wasted space.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You can't link text that's not there, and the absence of such text actually comprises the counterargument.
Which is why 1.5 Dex works per RAW. RAW is Rules as Written, i.e. what is within the text. Although I personally agree with 1.5 Dex, you are not wrong in arguing against it so long as you understand your argument is RAI, Rules as Intended, i.e. what is not within the text but you believe should be there.
Since they did call out this one case to say we should treat Dex like it were Strength when it happens, it follows logically that otherwise we do not treat them the same way.
Actually it's the reverse. Since in Agile they specifically state it works differently when using a two-handed weapon, they are reinforcing the argument FOR 1.5 Dex. Why? Because they felt the need to add on a limiting factor. Had that sentence not been included, Agile would apply 1.5 Dex with two-handed weapons!
The debate / question here should not be do I get 1.5 Dex to damage? Per RAW you do. The debate should be is this what the developers intended or an oversight.
|
Actually I am not choosing to believe it works like Agile, I am saying that Agile does exist and includes a specific proviso for it not applying 1.5 str therefore it was included before that proviso.
So do we look at Agile as an example of a similar mechanic because it is RAW or ignore because it is written in a book that is RAW but since it is older we can choose to ignore it?
You say "Use Dex instead of Str" means exactly that, I agree.
Since you use 1.5 x Str mod for two handed weapons, we use 1.5 x Dex for Finesse Training.
Agile also replaces Str with Dex, but adds an additional caveat. Finesse Training doesn't.
So we agree than its 1.5 x Dex.
|
You can't link text that's not there, and the absence of such text actually comprises the counterargument.Which is why 1.5 Dex works per RAW. RAW is Rules as Written, i.e. what is within the text. Although I personally agree with 1.5 Dex, you are not wrong in arguing against it so long as you understand your argument is RAI, Rules as Intended, i.e. what is not within the text but you believe should be there.
Since they did call out this one case to say we should treat Dex like it were Strength when it happens, it follows logically that otherwise we do not treat them the same way.Actually it's the reverse. Since in Agile they specifically state it works differently when using a two-handed weapon, they are reinforcing the argument FOR 1.5 Dex. Why? Because they felt the need to add on a limiting factor. Had that sentence not been included, Agile would apply 1.5 Dex with two-handed weapons!
The debate / question here should not be do I get 1.5 Dex to damage? Per RAW you do. The debate should be is this what the developers intended or an oversight.
Except that we're not talking about agile. It's written differently and has a different set of rules - not least of which is that it doesn't include any restriction against applying Dex when Strength would be denied (so, question - can I use an agile scimitar and get Dex to damage before 8th level as a monk of the seven forms when I use lightning finish?). It also breaks what we would assume would be the "baseline" RAW regardless, as the only logical options on the table are 1xDex for TWF and 2HF or 1.5xDex for 2HF and 1/0.5xDex for TWF - so it's entirely possible that the clause you refer to was to explain that off-hand damage was being denied, but that didn't mean that two-handed damage was being added.
People keep talking about agile like it's the only precedent. Has no one here looked at Mythic Weapon Finesse? Anyone notice how it has none of agile's restrictions, nor even those of finesse training? I think, frankly, that the only reasonable interpretation of agile is that it's useless as a precedent, since no matter who is "right" here, it's breaking the rules, and Mythic Weapon Finesse doesn't support it as a baseline.
You can't link text that's not there, and the absence of such text actually comprises the counterargument. The finesse training RAW does not include specific, explicit rules for how to treat the replacing stat outside of one particular context, a scenario in which Str bonuses would be prevented from applying. Since it tells you there and only there to treat Dex the same way you'd treat Strength, the scalar implicature is that you do not otherwise modify Dex the same way you'd modify Strength.
In essence, the argument goes like this: if we're supposed to just replace Str with Dex in every context and treat them exactly the same way, why only call out this one special and fairly rare corner case? That would have been covered already. Since they did call out this one case to say we should treat Dex like it were Strength when it happens, it follows logically that otherwise we do not treat them the same way.
so... i don't need double slice for two-weapon fighting?
Actually I am not choosing to believe it works like Agile, I am saying that Agile does exist and includes a specific proviso for it not applying 1.5 str therefore it was included before that proviso.
So do we look at Agile as an example of a similar mechanic because it is RAW or ignore because it is written in a book that is RAW but since it is older we can choose to ignore it?
You say "Use Dex instead of Str" means exactly that, I agree.
Since you use 1.5 x Str mod for two handed weapons, we use 1.5 x Dex for Finesse Training.
Agile also replaces Str with Dex, but adds an additional caveat. Finesse Training doesn't.
So we agree than its 1.5 x Dex.
btw, agile wasn't even written by the same people. so i don't really think we can use it for much precedent.
|
|
so... i don't need double slice for two-weapon fighting?You can't link text that's not there, and the absence of such text actually comprises the counterargument. The finesse training RAW does not include specific, explicit rules for how to treat the replacing stat outside of one particular context, a scenario in which Str bonuses would be prevented from applying. Since it tells you there and only there to treat Dex the same way you'd treat Strength, the scalar implicature is that you do not otherwise modify Dex the same way you'd modify Strength.
In essence, the argument goes like this: if we're supposed to just replace Str with Dex in every context and treat them exactly the same way, why only call out this one special and fairly rare corner case? That would have been covered already. Since they did call out this one case to say we should treat Dex like it were Strength when it happens, it follows logically that otherwise we do not treat them the same way.
If that interpretation is the correct one, yes.
I personally think that's the strictest reading of RAW. I also think that it's probably not what the developers intended. Even more than that, however, I am absolutely certain that we need a clarification FAQ as quickly as we can get one, because reasonable people are self-evidently able to read the same passages and come up with pretty divergent interpretations of the rules. So FAQ the first post!
I would agree with you that it was clear if they said "she uses her dexterity modifier bonus instead of her strength modifier to determine damage" or something like that. Instead it directly says we ADD the dexterity modifier instead of the strength modifier.
From the CRB, Combat Chapter, Damage: When you hit with a melee or thrown weapon, including a sling, add your Strength modifier to the damage result...When you deal damage with a weapon that you are wielding two-handed, you add 1-1/2 times your Strength bonus.
Getting Started, Strength: You apply your character's Strength modifier to:... Damage rolls with a melee weapon or thrown weapon, including a sling. (Exceptions:.. two-handed attacks receive 1-1/2 times the Strength bonus).
The above text shows Strength modifier and bonus are the same in the context of two-handed fighting.
Finesse Training: Whenever she makes
a successful melee attack with the selected weapon, she adds
her Dexterity modifier instead of her Strength modifier
to the damage roll.There is no ambiguity here. You can make an argument that you don't like how the rule works but per RAW it is clearly 1.5 Dex.
Because there is no existing rule stating you cannot get 1.5 Dex, Paizo does not need to write an exception sentence. Heck, an argument could be made that Agile proves you DO get 1.5 Dex because they needed to apply a limiting factor.
Agile isn't a good precedent for a number of reasons. To my mind I'm not sure whether that's more strongly because it's from a 3.5 book (I don't think it's reprinted for PF) or because it's not from the rules line. In any case, it's written by a different team for a different game and that rules out any reference it might represent. Mostly it's because it's not part of the rules line, so it's not written by the same group of people. That means subtle differences in wording don't carry the same weight as they would in the same book, for example. (Edit: Thanks Kalindlara for the correction. :-))
The problem here is that you aren't actually adding your dexterity modifier to damage. You're adding <simple math on dexterity modifier> to damage. I won't speak to other RAW based arguments here, but that's the crux of mine.
Now, do I think you're wrong? No - I agree that your end result is what I want it to be. Do I think there are other ways to read it that are more faithful to the words on the page but less faithful to the likely intent? Absolutely. I'm trying to say that by saying the RAW is clear you're being dismissive, not that it's clear in the opposite direction.
Now, what you might be convincing me of is that in that reading of RAW, Finesse Training doesn't work at all (RAW) for two-handed weapons or for off-hand weapons (barring Double Slice) since I add 1.5Str or .5Str, which isn't the same as my Str modifier.
Also, bonus isn't entirely the same as modifier in the context of 2HF. If somebody with 6 strength uses a greatsword, it'll deal 2d6-2, not 2d6-3.
By the way, I assume you're of the opinion that it's 1/2 Dex mod on offhand for 2WF. Is that true?
|
|
btw, agile wasn't even written by the same people. so i don't really think we can use it for much precedent.
When arguing RAW you certainly can since it's part of the rules. However, in arguing RAI it does lose some kick since it's a different dev team.
Has no one here looked at Mythic Weapon Finesse?
Admittedly I had not but just did and it does allow 1.5 Dex using the same supporting text in my previous post. I don't think it's been brought up for discussion because not many people use mythic rules.
Mythic does say "use your Dexterity modifier" instead of Finesse Training's "add your Dexterity modifier". Very nit-picky to try and say they are different things but at least Finesse Training's is written correctly in that add links it with other text detailing how you add .5, 1, & 1.5 Strength modifier to damage.
Contributor
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I would agree with you that it was clear if they said "she uses her dexterity modifier bonus instead of her strength modifier to determine damage" or something like that. Instead it directly says we ADD the dexterity modifier instead of the strength modifier.
From the CRB, Combat Chapter, Damage: When you hit with a melee or thrown weapon, including a sling, add your Strength modifier to the damage result...When you deal damage with a weapon that you are wielding two-handed, you add 1-1/2 times your Strength bonus.
Getting Started, Strength: You apply your character's Strength modifier to:... Damage rolls with a melee weapon or thrown weapon, including a sling. (Exceptions:.. two-handed attacks receive 1-1/2 times the Strength bonus).
The above text shows Strength modifier and bonus are the same in the context of two-handed fighting.
Finesse Training: Whenever she makes
a successful melee attack with the selected weapon, she adds
her Dexterity modifier instead of her Strength modifier
to the damage roll.There is no ambiguity here. You can make an argument that you don't like how the rule works but per RAW it is clearly 1.5 Dex.
Because there is no existing rule stating you cannot get 1.5 Dex, Paizo does not need to write an exception sentence. Heck, an argument could be made that Agile proves you DO get 1.5 Dex because they needed to apply a limiting factor.
Agile isn't a good precedent for a number of reasons. To my mind I'm not sure whether that's more strongly because it's from a 3.5 book (I don't think it's reprinted for PF) or because it's not from the rules line. In any case, it's written by a different team for a different game and that rules out any reference it might represent.
The problem here is that you aren't actually adding your dexterity modifier to damage. You're adding <simple math on dexterity modifier> to damage. I won't speak to other...
The Pathfinder Society Field Guide is a Pathfinder-era book. ^_^
|
|
Mythic does say "use your Dexterity modifier" instead of Finesse Training's "add your Dexterity modifier". Very nit-picky to try and say they are different things but at least Finesse Training's is written correctly in that add links it with other text detailing how you add .5, 1, & 1.5 Strength modifier to damage.
Or maybe it shows that trying to read too much into specific words is a fool's errand because the rules aren't written with that level of intended scrutiny.
In general, though, the issue with saying "RAW says 1.5xDex is all there is to it" is that finesse training says to "add [your] Dexterity modifier instead of [your] Strength modifier to the damage," but it does not say to do all that "and treat that modifier all the same ways you would treat your Strength modifier."
So when I am reading the damage rules, I can do so in a way that says things like "only add 1/2 your Strength bonus" and "you add 1-1/2 your Strength bonus" don't apply, because they're modifying a stat I'm not using. It's like being on a diet that says, "take your orange and cut it in half for later," but I'm holding a banana. Am I supposed to cut the banana in half too? It might seem reasonable and logical, but the diet didn't actually give me any instructions in this situation.
You can't link text that's not there, and the absence of such text actually comprises the counterargument. The finesse training RAW does not include specific, explicit rules for how to treat the replacing stat outside of one particular context, a scenario in which Str bonuses would be prevented from applying. Since it tells you there and only there to treat Dex the same way you'd treat Strength, the scalar implicature is that you do not otherwise modify Dex the same way you'd modify Strength.
In essence, the argument goes like this: if we're supposed to just replace Str with Dex in every context and treat them exactly the same way, why only call out this one special and fairly rare corner case? That would have been covered already. Since they did call out this one case to say we should treat Dex like it were Strength when it happens, it follows logically that otherwise we do not treat them the same way.
Except that, as has been pointed out before, the rules text is obviously only a clarification. Since you can't have an instead of to a an instance that doesn't exist, it is redundant, and thus only a reminder. Regardless, assuming motivation is just about the worst way to argue for or against a rule possible.
You don't replace strength with dexterity in every instance, just when adding to damage. As it tells you to do. That's how we know you can do it, permission is implicit in instruction. The confusion here seems to come from the mindset that "dexterity is a special thing that comes with special rules, and strength is another special thing that comes with its own set of rules, and we don't know how those rules interact." This is false. Strength and dexterity modifiers are numbers, that is all. They are integer variables, and that is as complex as they get. The rules governing damage are what is important, and they only tell you what variable to use in your calculation. When you are told to use one variable instead of another, the rule doesn't change.
|
|
Agile isn't a good precedent for a number of reasons. To my mind I'm not sure whether that's more strongly because it's from a 3.5 book (I don't think it's reprinted for PF) or because it's not from the rules line.
Agile is Pathfinder rules, it was introduced in the Pathfinder Society Field Guide and regularly sees use within the RAW driven Pathfinder Society play. You can use anything RAW in PFS play, however PFS does incorporate house rules which outlaw things that ARE RAW but are overpowered / cheesy combinations.
The problem here is that you aren't actually adding your dexterity modifier to damage. You're adding <simple math on dexterity modifier> to damage.
No, paizo does not need to reiterate the entire rules for how strength to damage works when saying you apply dexterity to damage instead.
RAW Logic
Step 1: Finesse Training : Whenever she makes a successful melee attack with the selected weapon, she adds her Dexterity modifier instead of her Strength modifier to the damage roll.
Step 2: How do I apply my Strength modifier to the damage roll? We look at CRB Combat Chapter, Damage which has the bolded section Strength bonus "When you hit with a melee or thrown weapon, including a sling, add your Strength modifier to the damage result." Under the same section is has specific rules outlining EXCEPTIONS for TWF and THF such as, "When you deal damage with a weapon that you are wielding two-handed, you add 1-1/2 times your Strength bonus."
Step 3: But it says Strength bonus not Strength modifier? Look up CRB Getting Started Chapter under strength which says "You apply your character's Strength modifier to:... Damage rolls with a melee weapon or thrown weapon, including a sling. (Exceptions:.. two-handed attacks receive 1-1/2 times the Strength bonus)." Thus proving in the context of dealing damage your Strength modifier and bonus are the same thing.
Step 4: Back to the beginning:Replace "Strength modifier" with "Dexterity modifier" to "the damage roll". Since it's "to the damage roll" you apply the rules from Steps 2 & 3 on how Strength is applied to the damage roll. Which means TWF = .5, One-Handed = 1, and THF 1.5.
btw, agile wasn't even written by the same people. so i don't really think we can use it for much precedent.When arguing RAW you certainly can since it's part of the rules. However, in arguing RAI it does lose some kick since it's a different dev team.
Has no one here looked at Mythic Weapon Finesse?Admittedly I had not but just did and it does allow 1.5 Dex using the same supporting text in my previous post. I don't think it's been brought up for discussion because not many people use mythic rules.
Mythic does say "use your Dexterity modifier" instead of Finesse Training's "add your Dexterity modifier". Very nit-picky to try and say they are different things but at least Finesse Training's is written correctly in that add links it with other text detailing how you add .5, 1, & 1.5 Strength modifier to damage.
With luck, you'll allow me an aside here. My purpose here is to illustrate that small, nearly innocuous, changes in wording can lead to different results here and therefore assertions that RAW is clear are murky, at best. Suppose we had two abilities:
Finesse Training A: Your strength does not modify your melee damage (with weapon X, if you like). Instead, add your dexterity modifier to damage. Do not apply your dexterity modifier when you would otherwise be denied damage from your strength modifier.
Finesse Training B: Use your dexterity modifier in place of your strength modifier when calculating melee damage (with weapon X).
Now, I claim B is in line with your interpretation of RAW and A is in line with the other stance. I think because "add" ties it directly to the mathematical operations, RAW currently means you don't multiply by 1.5 before adding.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
RAW Logic
Step 1: Finesse Training : Whenever she makes a successful melee attack with the selected weapon, she adds her Dexterity modifier instead of her Strength modifier to the damage roll.Step 2: How do I apply my Strength modifier to the damage roll? We look at CRB Combat Chapter, Damage which has the bolded section Strength bonus "When you hit with a melee or thrown weapon, including a sling, add your Strength modifier to the damage result." Under the same section is has specific rules for TWF and THF such as, "When you deal damage with a weapon that you are wielding two-handed, you add 1-1/2 times your Strength bonus."
Step 3: But it says Strength bonus not Strength modifier? Look up CRB Getting Started Chapter under strength which says "You apply your character's Strength modifier to:... Damage rolls with a melee weapon or thrown weapon, including a sling. (Exceptions:.. two-handed attacks receive 1-1/2 times the Strength bonus)." Thus proving in the context of dealing damage your Strength modifier and bonus are the same thing.
Step 4: Back to the beginning:Replace "Strength...
I would agree with you if it said "apply" your Dex mod instead of your Str mod. "Adding" a modifier is a simpler operation.
And my point on agile wasn't that it's not allowed, just that choices of what to make explicit vs what to leave unsaid aren't meaningful when it's written by a different team without direct oversight from one team to another. I was wrong about its publication timing (thanks Kalindlara!) and have revised my statement there.
Mythic does say "use your Dexterity modifier" instead of Finesse Training's "add your Dexterity modifier". Very nit-picky to try and say they are different things but at least Finesse Training's is written correctly in that add links it with other text detailing how you add .5, 1, & 1.5 Strength modifier to damage.Or maybe it shows that trying to read too much into specific words is a fool's errand because the rules aren't written with that level of intended scrutiny.
In general, though, the issue with saying "RAW says 1.5xDex is all there is to it" is that finesse training says to "add [your] Dexterity modifier instead of [your] Strength modifier to the damage," but it does not say to do all that "and treat that modifier all the same ways you would treat your Strength modifier."
So when I am reading the damage rules, I can do so in a way that says things like "only add 1/2 your Strength bonus" and "you add 1-1/2 your Strength bonus" don't apply, because they're modifying a stat I'm not using. It's like being on a diet that says, "take your orange and cut it in half for later," but I'm holding a banana. Am I supposed to cut the banana in half too? It might seem reasonable and logical, but the diet didn't actually give me any instructions in this situation.
The analogy is pretty weak here. It would be much stronger if the diet had instructions to use a banana instead of the orange, in which case yes, cut that banana in half. The rules are modifying a stat you're using, because the rule in question says to use dexterity instead of strength. So now you're using dexterity.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Does anyone actually somehow believe that restating their perspective for the 15th time is suddenly going to convince everyone?
Clarification is plainly required. Or do you guys enjoy arguing? :P
|
|
Does anyone actually somehow believe that restating their perspective for the 15th time is suddenly going to convince everyone?
** spoiler omitted **
It's the internet. Pretty sure that's what it was invented for.
Beyond that, though, continuing the discussion can draw more eyes to the thread, and hopefully those eyes be attached to hands that will take a moment to hit the FAQ button on the way by...
Does anyone actually somehow believe that restating their perspective for the 15th time is suddenly going to convince everyone?
** spoiler omitted **
I think I understand kaisc006's position better than I did before. I think we have also gotten more to the heart of our disagreement. My goal is also to say that it's unclear, so I'm advancing my purposes. Also, my porpoises. My mighty dolphin army will soon conquer you all! Muahaha!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's the internet. Pretty sure that's what it was invented for.
Perhaps. But I keep coming back to this thread to see if any developers have chimed in, but instead all I see are the same arguments being rehashed. Doesn't make for a helpful signal-to-noise ratio.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Clarification is plainly required. Or do you guys enjoy arguing? :P
Why does it have to be an or question?
My goal is also to say that it's unclear.
One would think that at this point that would be self-evident. :-/
I would agree with you if it said "apply" your Dex mod instead of yourAdd is better than apply because add is used in the rules text referencing Strength modifier to damage... It says add not apply...
Hmm... my difficulty there is that "add" has a baked-in meaning from arithmetic that's more fundamental than "after applying a multiplier based on the number of hands you're using". In the context of the Combat chapter, adding your strength modifier has a bunch of exceptions put in that I don't naturally carry along when I just see "Add".
I'm curious if you would feel the same way (i.e. that it's clearly this way) if the variable in question were less analogous to the strength modifier. For example, if it were a class level or a side-effect of a weapon enhancement like a variant brilliant energy.
RAW Logic
Step 1: Finesse Training : Whenever she makes a successful melee attack with the selected weapon, she adds her Dexterity modifier instead of her Strength modifier to the damage roll.Step 2: How do I apply my Strength modifier to the damage roll? We look at CRB Combat Chapter, Damage which has the bolded section Strength bonus "When you hit with a melee or thrown weapon, including a sling, add your Strength modifier to the damage result." Under the same section is has specific rules for TWF and THF such as, "When you deal damage with a weapon that you are wielding two-handed, you add 1-1/2 times your Strength bonus."
Step 3: But it says Strength bonus not Strength modifier? Look up CRB Getting Started Chapter under strength which says "You apply your character's Strength modifier to:... Damage rolls with a melee weapon or thrown weapon, including a sling. (Exceptions:.. two-handed attacks receive 1-1/2 times the Strength bonus)." Thus proving in the context of dealing damage your Strength modifier and bonus are the same thing.
Step 4: Back to the beginning:Replace "Strength...
I would agree with you if it said "apply" your Dex mod instead of your Str mod. "Adding" a modifier is a simpler operation.
And my point on agile wasn't that it's not allowed, just that choices of what to make explicit vs what to leave unsaid aren't meaningful when it's written by a different team without direct oversight from one team to another. I was wrong about its publication timing (thanks Kalindlara!) and have revised my statement there.
See my above posts for an example of this standard not being applied in other cases. Another quick example.
I instruct you to add 1.5 meters to the length of a line. I then ask you do it again, but add inches instead of meters. Do you understand how many inches you are to add?
So it's unclear whether or not it's unclear about how unclear it is?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So to me it seems clear that its either add dex 1 for 1 on THW and TWF or dex 1.5xTH and 1/.5 for TWF.
Exciting either way. Unchained is really moving forward in Pathfinder game design.
While I don't personally believe it's unclear, I think previous rules are causing people to skew their interpretation. As such I encourage everyone to hit that FAQ button, as the question is in fact frequently asked.
Given that it's been nearly a week and over two hundred posts without any clarification from the design team I'm inclined to believe the text was made purposely vague because they didn't want to make a decision one way or the other on this matter and there's nothing wrong with that.
It looks to me like Paizo staff has been pretty quick to clarify a lot of different matters related to Unchained so I'm not sure why some here are so focused on insisting that this is a cut and dry situation and resistant to the idea that in PFS table variation will apply until an official statement is issued.
Given that it's been nearly a week and over two hundred posts without any clarification from the design team I'm inclined to believe the text was made purposely vague because they didn't want to make a decision one way or the other on this matter and there's nothing wrong with that.
It looks to me like Paizo staff has been pretty quick to clarify a lot of different matters related to Unchained so I'm not sure why some here are so focused on insisting that this is a cut and dry situation and resistant to the idea that in PFS table variation will apply until an official statement is issued.
The Dev team is constantly working on FAQs and focus on the ones with the highest number of FAQ hits first unless a glaring error is noticed. I have seen questions go years before an FAQ was made simply because the issue wasn't high on the list.
Given that it's been nearly a week and over two hundred posts without any clarification from the design team I'm inclined to believe the text was made purposely vague because they didn't want to make a decision one way or the other on this matter and there's nothing wrong with that.
I disagree. Part of what I pay Paizo for is clear rules, because I don't want to think through the balance implications myself.
In essence, making these decisions is what being a game-designer is about.
|
|
I have to say, I hope that, when the eventual FAQ comes about, it's a broad-based ruling covering "what do I do when a special ability says I should replace a use of stat A with stat B?" rather than one more narrowly addressing Dex to damage (or worse, just two-handed Dex to damage), in case we run into other, similar abilities in the future.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I have to say, I hope that, when the eventual FAQ comes about, it's a broad-based ruling covering "what do I do when a special ability says I should replace a use of stat A with stat B?" rather than one more narrowly addressing Dex to damage (or worse, just two-handed Dex to damage), in case we run into other, similar abilities in the future.
Those tend to create more corner cases than they solve
Given that it's been nearly a week and over two hundred posts without any clarification from the design team I'm inclined to believe the text was made purposely vague because they didn't want to make a decision one way or the other on this matter and there's nothing wrong with that.I disagree. Part of what I pay Paizo for is clear rules, because I don't want to think through the balance implications myself.
In essence, making these decisions is what being a game-designer is about.
Sure but I'm not the only one who has stated in this thread that they don't care about Paizo's intention in this because they already know how they want to run this in their home game. Personally I feel that GM discretion is the essence of the game.
The Dev team is constantly working on FAQs and focus on the ones with the highest number of FAQ hits first unless a glaring error is noticed. I have seen questions go years before an FAQ was made simply because the issue wasn't high on the list.
Yet at the same time following the Unchained monk thread I've seen a number of clarifications being tossed off ad hoc on the mechanics of the new class, which leads me to believe that when questions are left to hang it's done intentionally and deliberations are required for the dev team to come up with a satisfactory answer.
When mark seifer /rogue eidolon joined the team he upped the priorities of the faqs so that they actually started getting answered. That stopped the faqs from languishing for years and the faq button from being more than push button to cross x walk button.
Given that it's been nearly a week and over two hundred posts without any clarification from the design team I'm inclined to believe the text was made purposely vague because they didn't want to make a decision one way or the other on this matter and there's nothing wrong with that.
It could also be that whoever wrote the part in question is on vacation or something.
Jason Bulhman actually avoids discussion like these, only answering them when they get to top of FAQ list.
Currently they are answering FAQ requests in order from most to least reqiests, so hit dat FAQ button.
|
|
Over 200 posts and still none citing rules text that links with Finesse Training to support no 1.5 Dex...
See my above posts for an example of this standard not being applied in other cases. Another quick example.
Look at CRB, Combat Champter, Damage. Since Finesse Training applies to the damage roll, it follows rules listed within this section.
Wielding a Weapon in Two-Hands: When you deal damage with a weapon the you are wielding two-handed, you add 1 1/2 times your Strength bonus (penalties are not multiplied).
So, Str bonus = A positive Str modifier & Str penalty = A negative Str modifier
Two-Handed Damage = 1.5(Str bonus)
Two-Handed Damage = 1.5(A positive Str modifier)
Finesse Training means Replace Str Modifier with Dex Modifier
So, Str bonus = A positive Dex modifier
Two-Handed Damage = 1.5(Str bonus)
Two-Handed Damage = 1.5(A positive Dex modifier)
You are changing what Str bonus initially means, but not the rest of the equation.
One of the limitations of logic is that when two people apply logic to a set of facts they have to agree on the meaning of all facts or they will likely come to different conclusions. Granted that I haven't read all the posts in this thread but something that I haven't seen yet is someone actually change their position on this issue.
I can't see any amount of quoting other rules helping if people are disagreeing on the basic meaning of what Finesse Training actually says.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
One of the limitations of logic is that when two people apply logic to a set of facts they have to agree on the meaning of all facts or they will likely come to different conclusions. Granted that I haven't read all the posts in this thread but something that I haven't seen yet is someone actually change their position on this issue.
I can't see any amount of quoting other rules helping if people are disagreeing on the basic meaning of what Finesse Training actually says.
when people realize they're arguing semantics, then, and only then true progress can be made.
Can we at least agree that previous feats that allowed Dexterity bonus to damage had specific language that limited it to being a one handed weapon OR limited the modifier to damage (a la Agile) and that this Class Ability does not have any such language?
Sure, which is why I`m willing to accept 1.5 dex to damage as a valid interpretation but it`s not my interpretation and I can`t see someone inching me over to change my mind which is why a FAQ is necessary.
|
|
Can we at least agree that previous feats that allowed Dexterity bonus to damage had specific language that limited it to being a one handed weapon OR limited the modifier to damage (a la Agile) and that this Class Ability does not have any such language?
Mythic Weapon Finesse didn't.
Moreover, while Fencing Grace and Slashing Grace do prevent two-handing a weapon, neither says anything about off-hand weapon damage (should you, for instance, choose to dual-wield rapiers).
Can we at least agree that previous feats that allowed Dexterity bonus to damage had specific language that limited it to being a one handed weapon OR limited the modifier to damage (a la Agile) and that this Class Ability does not have any such language?Sure, which is why I`m willing to accept 1.5 dex to damage as a valid interpretation but it`s not my interpretation and I can`t see someone inching me over to change my mind which is why a FAQ is necessary.
it follows design consideration and makes sure you can't get 2 times your dex to attack via TWF?
Can we at least agree that previous feats that allowed Dexterity bonus to damage had specific language that limited it to being a one handed weapon OR limited the modifier to damage (a la Agile) and that this Class Ability does not have any such language?Mythic Weapon Finesse didn't.
Moreover, while Fencing Grace and Slashing Grace do prevent two-handing a weapon, neither says anything about off-hand weapon damage (should you, for instance, choose to dual-wield rapiers).
Incidentally I would argue that Mythic WF does allow 1.5*dex
Honestly 1.5*dex isn't a big deal at all on the Rogue Class. If anything it allows builds that AREN'T two weapon fighting to be viable means of dealing damage.