Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
Which means it is either your perception, or the "grasp on the english language" of everyone who disagrees with you that is flawed.
I like my odds. :P
(Apologies, but your post seems to be a thinly-veiled way to say "if you disagree with me, you obviously don't have a firm grasp of English.")
+1
|
I can probably find several good introductory websites on semantics if you'd like some links.So now you can't convince people with logic, you resort to personal attacks?
I think anyone who says "Words have no meaning" could probably use a basic review of semantics. Plus it's one of my favorite aspects of linguistics and literary theory!
Honestly don't see how anyone with a clear grasp on the english language doesn't see 1.5*dex on 2HF and 1* and .5* on 2WF.
Whoa, whoa, whoa, just because the wording isn't ambiguous, doesn't mean it's intuitive, and that's pretty insulting to anyone who disagrees with you.
Things I have learned in this thread:
* I don't know the difference between RAI and RAW.
* I don't have a good grasp of the English language.
* I'm being willfully obtuse to support my preferred interpretation (which is especially odd, as I don't have a preferred interpretation; I just want clarity).
Oh well. :P
I think anyone who says "Words have no meaning" could probably use a basic review of semantics. Plus it's one of my favorite aspects of linguistics and literary theory!I can probably find several good introductory websites on semantics if you'd like some links.So now you can't convince people with logic, you resort to personal attacks?
Words don't have intrinsic meaning, they only have ascribed meaning, so to give the blanket statement "words have meaning" is lacking in nuance. What is it you mean by meaning? What kind of meaning do you mean? How did you know which meaning of meaning he meant? I mean, come on.
Ok, lets break it down a bit. From where I am the main arguments that 1.5 strength cannot be valid are either:
a) it doesn't match what had gone before so the writers must have missed something or made a mistake.
b) rely on a less than intuitive reading of transposing values where 1.5 no longer = 1.5. or more charitably don't assume that the devs intended a straight transposing of values.
c) I don't like it so it must be wrong.
The arguments for 1.5 strength are essentially
a) rules do what they say they do, don't add rules that don't exist.
b) the simplest and most straightforward construction of that sentence is a straight replacement of strength with dexterity.
c) Rogues need all the help they can get, read it as favourably as you can.
Is that an accurate (if slightly biased) summary of about where we are? have I missed any major elements of the arguments.
|
Ok, lets break it down a bit. From where I am the main arguments that 1.5 strength cannot be valid are either:
a) it doesn't match what had gone before so the writers must have missed something or made a mistake.
b) rely on a less than intuitive reading of transposing values where 1.5 no longer = 1.5. or more charitably don't assume that the devs intended a straight transposing of values.
c) I don't like it so it must be wrong.The arguments for 1.5 strength are essentially
a) rules do what they say they do, don't add rules that don't exist.
b) the simplest and most straightforward construction of that sentence is a straight replacement of strength with dexterity.
c) Rogues need all the help they can get, read it as favourably as you can.Is that an accurate (if slightly biased) summary of about where we are? have I missed any major elements of the arguments.
Nailed it.
Almost correct, but the "dex isn't affected by str's special rules" is actually the more charitable reading for rogues since they then get full dex-to-damage on offhand attacks. The rogue wants as at least two hits each round because of the way Debilitating Injuries work, so for rogues specifically THF is an underwhelming combat option compared to TWF.
When mark seifer /rogue eidolon joined the team ...
mark seifer is rogue eidolon? Interesting.
Ok, lets break it down a bit. From where I am the main arguments that 1.5 strength cannot be valid are either:
a) it doesn't match what had gone before so the writers must have missed something or made a mistake.
b) rely on a less than intuitive reading of transposing values where 1.5 no longer = 1.5. or more charitably don't assume that the devs intended a straight transposing of values.
c) I don't like it so it must be wrong.The arguments for 1.5 strength are essentially
a) rules do what they say they do, don't add rules that don't exist.
b) the simplest and most straightforward construction of that sentence is a straight replacement of strength with dexterity.
c) Rogues need all the help they can get, read it as favourably as you can.Is that an accurate (if slightly biased) summary of about where we are? have I missed any major elements of the arguments.
I'd say it's biased, but I have yet to see an argument with a stronger core than what you said.
This is honestly either a case of
1. Jason or an editor accidentally deleting a sentence for reasons (getting snipped from page, accidental deletion when moving from docs, ect)
A wielder with the Weapon Finesse feat can choose to apply her Dexterity modifier to damage rolls with the weapon in place of her Strength modifier. This modifier to damage is not increased for two-handed weapons, but is still reduced for off-hand weapons.
2. Them getting so comfortable while writing they don't see their simple mistakes. Something I'm sure we've all experienced with one essay or another.
3. Jason deliberately chose not to include something like the bolded sentence because he wanted Rogues who buy into Elven Curved Blades to get some sort of reward.
Either way just hit FAQ and lets see what happens.
|
|
Almost correct, but the "dex isn't affected by str's special rules" is actually the more charitable reading for rogues since they then get full dex-to-damage on offhand attacks. The rogue wants as at least two hits each round because of the way Debilitating Injuries work, so for rogues specifically THF is an underwhelming combat option compared to TWF.
Unless they take a level of unchained monk, and a level of crusader cleric of Zon-Kuthon for flurry of spiked chains. This is a niche build though.
Honestly don't see how anyone with a clear grasp on the english language doesn't see 1.5*dex on 2HF and 1* and .5* on 2WF.
Because the wording in the ability is funny. It says when you hit you add your dex mod as damage instead of your strength, so it could be either.
[Dex mod in place of strength mod]* Weapon properties (ie, 1.5, 1, or .5)
or
Weapon properties + [hard coded dex mod]
Almost correct, but the "dex isn't affected by str's special rules" is actually the more charitable reading for rogues since they then get full dex-to-damage on offhand attacks. The rogue wants as at least two hits each round because of the way Debilitating Injuries work, so for rogues specifically THF is an underwhelming combat option compared to TWF.Unless they take a level of unchained monk, and a level of crusader cleric of Zon-Kuthon for flurry of spiked chains. This is a niche build though.
Good catch! I'd speculate that dex-based THF rogues are probably going to be niche as well. Dipping is of course a possibility, but three levels in a medium BAB class isn't that attractive for the typical reach build.
These are not arguments exclusive to either side.c) I don't like it so it must be wrong.
a) rules do what they say they do, don't add rules that don't exist.
If pushed I can see a very begrudgingly given concession on a) on a technical point, namely your mastery of English is greater than mine. Which is kind of my point. I assume a basic level of English. The kind of level mastered by just about everyone. When you start arguing semantics and obscure rules of English you lose some of your audience, the more complex and obscure the more you lose and the rules just aren't going to be written assuming that level of knowledge.
but with c) I haven't seen anyone arguing for the 1.5 dexterity side expressing a view about how they dislike the alternative, the same cannot be said contrariwise. There have been a number of comments about +1.5 dex being distasteful, invalidating strength etc. Not by you specifically, but they have been used more than just in passing.
Honestly don't see how anyone with a clear grasp on the english language doesn't see 1.5*dex on 2HF and 1* and .5* on 2WF.Because the wording in the ability is funny. It says when you hit you add your dex mod as damage instead of your strength, so it could be either.
[Dex mod in place of strength mod]* Weapon properties (ie, 1.5, 1, or .5)
or
Weapon properties + [hard coded dex mod]
Considering every effect for dex to damage except this one and Mythic Weapon Finesse have text either keeping you from2 handing or restricting dex*1.5 specifically I am pretty sure it's read as
[Dex mod in place of strength mod]* Weapon properties (ie, 1.5, 1, or .5)
|
|
If pushed I can see a very begrudgingly given concession on a) on a technical point, namely your mastery of English is greater than mine. Which is kind of my point. I assume a basic level of English. The kind of level mastered by just about everyone. When you start arguing semantics and obscure rules of English you lose some of your audience, the more complex and obscure the more you lose and the rules just aren't going to be written assuming that level of knowledge.These are not arguments exclusive to either side.c) I don't like it so it must be wrong.
a) rules do what they say they do, don't add rules that don't exist.
Semantics is pretty complicated, sure. "This rule can be read more than one way and there's nothing in the RAW to say it should be read the way you're reading it" is pretty straightforward, though.
but with c) I haven't seen anyone arguing for the 1.5 dexterity side expressing a view about how they dislike the alternative, the same cannot be said contrariwise. There have been a number of comments about +1.5 dex being distasteful, invalidating strength etc. Not by you specifically, but they have been used more than just in passing.
Really? But isn't that basically what
c) Rogues need all the help they can get, read it as favourably as you can.
translates to? Not that there's anything wrong with either version, but "this version leads to an outcome I don't want so I'm going the other way" is pretty much inherent in the discussion, no matter who you are.
|
|
Honestly don't see how anyone with a clear grasp on the english language doesn't see 1.5*dex on 2HF and 1* and .5* on 2WF.Because the wording in the ability is funny. It says when you hit you add your dex mod as damage instead of your strength, so it could be either.
[Dex mod in place of strength mod]* Weapon properties (ie, 1.5, 1, or .5)
or
Weapon properties + [hard coded dex mod]
Considering every effect for dex to damage except this one and Mythic Weapon Finesse have text either keeping you from2 handing or restricting dex*1.5 specifically I am pretty sure it's read as
[Dex mod in place of strength mod]* Weapon properties (ie, 1.5, 1, or .5)
Except that only Dervish Dance and agile explicitly prevent you from getting your full off-hand damage if you dual-wield (Slashing Grace, Fencing Grace, Mythic WF and finesse training are all silent on the matter, and they all allow you to dual-wield), and we've already seen that logically, full off-hand damage and no 1.5x Dex for two-handed are inextricably linked. I don't think there's strong precedent there.
Slashing Grace you can't two hand, so it doesn't need to mention 1.5x, same with fencing grace.
Mythic doesn't need it because it works just like Finesse training.
All options for dex*1.5 are highly gated behind either multiclassing, which weakens your character, or muthic, which is cuhrazy.
No way
RAW is Rules as Written (no interpretation), RAI is Rules as Intended, which is about interpreting rules.
That simply doesn't exist.
There is no concept of a rule that isn't interpreted.
personal rules
but that hardly applies to the situation at hand.
So what is the underlying assumption of the Pathfinder rules?
You may do anything unless expressly forbidden?
Or
You may only do that which is expressly permitted?
By failing to include specific language in the class ability, you'd have to follow one of these assumptions.
Slashing Grace you can't two hand, so it doesn't need to mention 1.5x, same with fencing grace.
Mythic doesn't need it because it works just like Finesse training.
All options for dex*1.5 are highly gated behind either multiclassing, which weakens your character, or muthic, which is cuhrazy.
swashbuckler makes several weapons finesseable, then you add slashing grace to make it most one-handed weapons. then you have 3 levels of rogue to make it work with two-handing.
still not seeing any actual two-handers however.
So what is the underlying assumption of the Pathfinder rules?
ask your GM
it's not so black and white as you try to make it.
That was my point, and I am the GM. I just haven't had years or prior versions to go on.
It isn't black and white, and maybe that's ok. Maybe it's ok for GM's to have the flexibility to rule either way.
I don't know. My own GMing is mostly for PFS. For that I clicked the FAQ in case it comes up in that venue.
|
Almost correct, but the "dex isn't affected by str's special rules" is actually the more charitable reading for rogues since they then get full dex-to-damage on offhand attacks. The rogue wants as at least two hits each round because of the way Debilitating Injuries work, so for rogues specifically THF is an underwhelming combat option compared to TWF.
I think you are missing part of the text for Debilitating Injuries:
These penalties do not stack with themselves, but additional attacks that deal sneak attack damage extend the duration by 1 round. A creature cannot suffer from more than one penalty from this ability at a time. If a new penalty is applied, the old penalty immediately ends. Any form of healing applied to a target suffering from one of these penalties also removes the penalty.
I don't see any benefit for DI from TWF, unless I am missing something?
Contributor
|
Almost correct, but the "dex isn't affected by str's special rules" is actually the more charitable reading for rogues since they then get full dex-to-damage on offhand attacks. The rogue wants as at least two hits each round because of the way Debilitating Injuries work, so for rogues specifically THF is an underwhelming combat option compared to TWF.I think you are missing part of the text for Debilitating Injuries:
These penalties do not stack with themselves, but additional attacks that deal sneak attack damage extend the duration by 1 round. A creature cannot suffer from more than one penalty from this ability at a time. If a new penalty is applied, the old penalty immediately ends. Any form of healing applied to a target suffering from one of these penalties also removes the penalty.I don't see any benefit for DI from TWF, unless I am missing something?
I believe it's so that the penalty (to AC, in particular) will last long enough to benefit the rogue herself. After only one attack, it'll end at the start of the rogue's turn.
Does this make sense? ^_^
To be more clear, I guess I was just trying to suggest that each group should try to decide if their game will be permissive or restrictive.
Working with this could simplify some debates.
Except that only Dervish Dance and agile explicitly prevent you from getting your full off-hand damage if you dual-wield (Slashing Grace, Fencing Grace, Mythic WF and finesse training are all silent on the matter, and they all allow you to dual-wield), and we've already seen that logically, full off-hand damage and no 1.5x Dex for two-handed are inextricably linked. I don't think there's strong precedent there.Honestly don't see how anyone with a clear grasp on the english language doesn't see 1.5*dex on 2HF and 1* and .5* on 2WF.Because the wording in the ability is funny. It says when you hit you add your dex mod as damage instead of your strength, so it could be either.
[Dex mod in place of strength mod]* Weapon properties (ie, 1.5, 1, or .5)
or
Weapon properties + [hard coded dex mod]
Considering every effect for dex to damage except this one and Mythic Weapon Finesse have text either keeping you from2 handing or restricting dex*1.5 specifically I am pretty sure it's read as
[Dex mod in place of strength mod]* Weapon properties (ie, 1.5, 1, or .5)
That´s actually not entirely true.
You could dual wield two rapiers with fencing grace yes, but that´s difficult since you get more penalty.Slashing grace is intended to work with Swashbucklers finesse.
There are only some weapons where it works with weapon finesse, among them the elven curve blade (a twohanded weapon), whips, bladed scarfs (again twohanded) and the aldori dueling sword.
Any other weapon requires swashbucklers finesse.
So you are down to dual-wielding whips or rapiers untill a FAQ comes out for those feats, if there will ever be one.
Almost correct, but the "dex isn't affected by str's special rules" is actually the more charitable reading for rogues since they then get full dex-to-damage on offhand attacks. The rogue wants as at least two hits each round because of the way Debilitating Injuries work, so for rogues specifically THF is an underwhelming combat option compared to TWF.I think you are missing part of the text for Debilitating Injuries:
These penalties do not stack with themselves, but additional attacks that deal sneak attack damage extend the duration by 1 round. A creature cannot suffer from more than one penalty from this ability at a time. If a new penalty is applied, the old penalty immediately ends. Any form of healing applied to a target suffering from one of these penalties also removes the penalty.I don't see any benefit for DI from TWF, unless I am missing something?I believe it's so that the penalty (to AC, in particular) will last long enough to benefit the rogue herself. After only one attack, it'll end at the start of the rogue's turn.
Does this make sense? ^_^
Kalindlara is exactly right. If the rogue wants to take advantage of a debilitating injury AC bonus she needs multiple attacks in one round. TWF is arguably the best way to achieve that.
Also isn't there an advanced Rogue Talent to apply more penalties?
I skimmed the thread again, and the only arguments for 1x dex on two handing seem to some down to this:
1. It's unbalanced.
Irrelevant. Next.
2. There's no rule that says what you do to strength you do to dex.
Except, you know, the rule we're arguing about, which says instead of, language which has meaning that is perfectly clear as a replacement effect in all other analogous contexts. I have yet to see any successful refutations of this. The rules of math (which are certainly in place in Pathfinder, otherwise the system breaks down on a fundamental level) say when you replace one variable with another in a formula, the rest of the formula doesn't change. Next.
3. Precedent.
Rules that came before don't mean the wording of this rule is different. Next.
4. Reading the rule as adding 1x dexterity instead of 1.5x strength is valid.
Not really, the rule says add dexterity modifier instead of strength modifier, not any multiple of your strength modifier. These are numbers with values, and 1.5 times a value isn't that value. "Strength modifier" isn't a catch all term for any value that includes your strength modifier in its calculation. It refers to a specific, well defined within system number, and so instead of cannot reference the entire term. It only references the strength modifier portion.
The system is just math, and modifiers are just variables. The entire system remains consistent and works just fine when you look at it that way. It's when you try to attach meaning (as in, this rule doesn't reference your strength modifier, it is for your strength modifier) that ambiguity occurs.
|
|
That´s actually not entirely true.
You could dual wield two rapiers with fencing grace yes, but that´s difficult since you get more penalty.
Slashing grace is intended to work with Swashbucklers finesse.
There are only some weapons where it works with weapon finesse, among them the elven curve blade (a twohanded weapon), whips, bladed scarfs (again twohanded) and the aldori dueling sword.
Any other weapon requires swashbucklers finesse.
So you are down to dual-wielding whips or rapiers untill a FAQ comes out for those feats, if there will ever be one.
Nothing in the rules prevents someone from dual-wielding Aldori dueling swords, or rapiers. (There's also the sawtoothed saber issue, if you are playing a swashbuckler.) Penalties or not, it's possible and the damage implications remain an issue for this conversation.
Any reading of the rules that allows 1.5Dex on two-handed weapons would also mean you'd only use .5Dex on an off-hand weapon. But Slashing Grace and Fencing Grace don't stipulate any off-hand reduction, so the claim that "every effect" other than finesse training and Mythic Weapon Finesse explicitly exclude 1.5Dex isn't exactly true, even if it's only by logical induction.
Also isn't there an advanced Rogue Talent to apply more penalties?
There is an advanced rogue talent that lets you apply two penalties at once (Double Debilitation) but I haven't found anything that lets you increase the duration of a debilitating injury apart from piling on more sneak attacks.
They don't have to. If dex replaces strength then it's already there in the two weapon fighting rules for off hand attacks.
@Kudaku
Ahh, thanks :) yeah in that case I can definitely see why you'd want 2wf or a 2 handed Scout build.
|
Dual-Wielding using Slashing Grace or Fencing Grace does not allow full dex to off-hand attacks... They limit you by not working when in two-hands, but where does it state you ignore the normal off-hand penalty associated when applying your Strength modifier in the context of damage??? Just because you are replacing Strength with Dexterity modifier does not mean you ignore the pre-existing rules for how Strength bonus works in context of damage.
Because it applies to damage, all the same rules that govern damage (including how to calculate off-hand and two-handed damage) still apply. Which is of course the same point made before regarding Finesse Training.
And I'm sorry but I fail to see how using rules text to support your stance and asking the other side to do the same is seen as "distasteful" in a RAW debate.
I am good. I am not the one claiming that things can be interpreted to mean something other than what clear language states.I can probably find several good introductory websites on semantics if you'd like some links.No way
RAW is Rules as Written (no interpretation), RAI is Rules as Intended, which is about interpreting rules.
That simply doesn't exist.
There is no concept of a rule that isn't interpreted.
Then it is your contention that this rule
Your attack bonus with a melee weapon is:Base attack bonus + Strength modifier + size modifier
can be interpreted to mean that your attack bonus with a melee weapon is actually 'level + Wisdom modifier + size modifier. Since the words have no meaning.
@Thorin001 you are completely correct.
18 Strength provides a +4 bonus this is RAW
The Unchained Monk's Flying Kick is open to interpretation ('Flying' is the 'signifier' yet there isn't any 'signified' mechanic explaining how it is a flying kick), so is a candidate for RAI.
And yes you can have RAW and RAI both intersect in the same framework. What is concrete and what is open to interpretation.
Deeply troubling that posters don't know the difference.
I am good. I am not the one claiming that things can be interpreted to mean something other than what clear language states.I can probably find several good introductory websites on semantics if you'd like some links.No way
RAW is Rules as Written (no interpretation), RAI is Rules as Intended, which is about interpreting rules.
That simply doesn't exist.
There is no concept of a rule that isn't interpreted.
Then it is your contention that this rule
Your attack bonus with a melee weapon is:Base attack bonus + Strength modifier + size modifier
can be interpreted to mean that your attack bonus with a melee weapon is actually 'level + Wisdom modifier + size modifier. Since the words have no meaning.
@Thorin001 you are completely correct.
18 Strength provides a +4 bonus this is RAW
The Unchained Monk's Flying Kick is open to interpretation ('Flying' is the 'signifier' yet there isn't any 'signified' mechanic explaining how it is a flying kick), so is a candidate for RAI.
And yes you can have RAW and RAI both intersect in the same framework. What is concrete and what is open to interpretation.
Deeply troubling that posters don't know the difference.
18 giving you +4 bonus to strength mod is only interpreted that way because you're using information in the rule book. likewise if it said you only gained +3 you'd interpret it that way.
the rules don't clarify what exactly "add your blank instead of other blank" means however. so people read it how they want.
for instance the "you can't remove the 1.5 str and just add dex"
you can if you imagine the equation becomes this
diceRoll + ((str-str)*1.5) + dex
the 1.5 doesn't permeate the entire equation so it's entire limited to strength, else two-handing would multiple the entire damage by 1.5, which it doesn't.
there's no clarity if the dex is added here: diceRoll + ((str-str+dex)*1.5)
or as I stated above.
I think this is as base as anyone can get to explaining why this needs a FAQ and is RAW unclear.
I am good. I am not the one claiming that things can be interpreted to mean something other than what clear language states.I can probably find several good introductory websites on semantics if you'd like some links.No way
RAW is Rules as Written (no interpretation), RAI is Rules as Intended, which is about interpreting rules.
That simply doesn't exist.
There is no concept of a rule that isn't interpreted.
Then it is your contention that this rule
Your attack bonus with a melee weapon is:Base attack bonus + Strength modifier + size modifier
can be interpreted to mean that your attack bonus with a melee weapon is actually 'level + Wisdom modifier + size modifier. Since the words have no meaning.
@Thorin001 you are completely correct.
18 Strength provides a +4 bonus this is RAW
The Unchained Monk's Flying Kick is open to interpretation ('Flying' is the 'signifier' yet there isn't any 'signified' mechanic explaining how it is a flying kick), so is a candidate for RAI.
And yes you can have RAW and RAI both intersect in the same framework. What is concrete and what is open to interpretation.
Deeply troubling that posters don't know the difference.
18 giving you +4 bonus to strength mod is only interpreted that way because you're using information in the rule book. likewise if it said you only gained +3 you'd interpret it that way.
the rules don't clarify what exactly "add your blank instead of other blank" means however. so people read it how they want.
for instance the "you can't remove the 1.5 str and just add dex"
you can if you imagine the equation becomes this
diceRoll + ((str-str)*1.5) + dex
the 1.5 doesn't permeate the entire equation so it's entire limited to strength, else two-handing would multiple the entire damage by 1.5, which it doesn't.
there's no...
oh yes RAW is definitely unclear and/or needs clarifications in relation to Dex replacing Str to damage. As there are all these other rules that don't correlate efficiently like 1.5x damage and two-weapon fighting.
I can definitely agree to that.