Crossing my fingers since its FAQ Friday. Maybe this topped the list.
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...
This is incorrect for several reasons, but the simplest proof of why is this:
Add your strength bonus instead of adding your strength bonus.
When you do a thing instead of itself, logically the outcome must be the same. By your math, you would get a different answer. Your math must logically be incorrect.
|
Changing the label of a number, its "tags" if you will, changes how it interacts with the system. For a couple of examples, see how the fact that initiative is a Dexterity check changed the way many people saw moment of prescience, or why bardic inspire courage is a competence bonus in PF instead of the morale bonus it was in 3.5. Likewise, changing a number tagged "Strength" to a number tagged "Dexterity" also changes how it interacts with the system, so that processes associated with the former do not necessarily apply to the latter.
That's the counterargument in a nutshell.
You can't choose two-handed weapons with Slashing Grace, Hayato Ken. ^_^
Yeah of course not^^
Was more focused on the dual-wielding there.
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
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!
Since you said those words, not me. I'd probably agree with you.
I'm saying if you have another human reading the same words you read and coming up with a different meaning, then your interpretation of the words is not the only valid interpretation.
Which is why there isn't a "one true RAW" concept. RAW is always interpreted.
Changing the label of a number, its "tags" if you will, changes how it interacts with the system. For a couple of examples, see how the fact that initiative is a Dexterity check changed the way many people saw moment of prescience, or why bardic inspire courage is a competence bonus in PF instead of the morale bonus it was in 3.5. Likewise, changing a number tagged "Strength" to a number tagged "Dexterity" also changes how it interacts with the system, so that processes associated with the former do not necessarily apply to the latter.
That's the counterargument in a nutshell.
Exactly! The rule about bonus types is specifically about variables, it doesn't just reference them. It is in place because in it's absence, you default to the basic mathematical rules about variables (they stack with themselves). As Pathfinder is a game that uses math, it must follow all of the rules of math unless otherwise specified.
The rule in question does not replace the entire rule on damage, it only references it. The damage rule then references strength, which you are told to replace in this rule.
If your interpretation is correct, and you replace the entire rule, then the only replacement that would occur would be when you add your strength bonus to the damage, which occurs only when you hit with a weapon wielded only in your main hand. This would be the only valid replacement event, as in the other two circumstances you would be adding multiples of your strength bonus, not your strength bonus. 1.5x is not x, once again a rule of math that is not superceded unless otherwise specified. This would mean that logically, by your argument, when two handing you do not add 1x your dex modifier, you add 1.5x your strength modifier as normal.
|
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
the rules don't clarify what exactly "add your blank instead of other blank" means however. so people read it how they want.
diceRoll + ((str-str)*1.5) + dex
... or ...
diceRoll + ((str-str+dex)*1.5)
I think this is as base as anyone can get to explaining why this needs a FAQ and is RAW unclear.
+1 well said.
|
|
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!Since you said those words, not me.
I didn't, actually, nor was my response to them directed at you.
I'd probably agree with you.
I'm saying if you have another human reading the same words you read and coming up with a different meaning, then your interpretation of the words is not the only valid interpretation.
Which is why there isn't a "one true RAW" concept. RAW is always interpreted.
I happen to completely agree with you.
|
|
The rule in question does not replace the entire rule on damage, it only references it.
Unless it doesn't. The rule can be read either way, which is where the dispute comes from.
The damage rule then references strength, which you are told to replace in this rule.
Unless it doesn't, and the rule actually tells you to replace the calculation entirely.
|
If your interpretation is correct, and you replace the entire rule, then the only replacement that would occur would be when you add your strength bonus to the damage, which occurs only when you hit with a weapon wielded only in your main hand.
I disagree... Look at CRB, Getting Started, Strength. It states you add your Strength modifier to damage then lists exceptions being TWF and THF.
Under CRB, Combat, Damage both TWF and THF are listed under the same bolded damage section. You are replacing how you start the equation, not the equation itself.
It's like saying because you are using Agile Manuevers to replace Str with Dex on CMB, you ignore anything that applies to CMB because it was originally written with Strength.
|
|
It's like saying because you are using Agile Manuevers to replace Str with Dex on CMB, you ignore anything that applies to CMB because it was originally written with Strength.
Not, it's not. CMB is a separate number, just like "damage" is a different number. You're confusing the derived value with the calculation used to get that number. I don't think there is a parallel for Agile Maneuvers, because I can't think of anything that tells you your Strength modifier should be altered when calculating CMB under specific circumstances. (The Strength Domain power says "combat maneuver checks that rely on Strength," which is not a Strength modification by itself, and the barbarian strength surge ability actually looks like it would apply even to a CMB check made using Agile Maneuvers... those are the only ones that popped into my head immediately.)
|
|
Attributes are all interchangeable because they come from the same exact set of variables (point buy, chance of race choice, ect.) and follow the same equation for what modifier they put out.
To use analogies that everyone seems to like lol. It's not apples to oranges it's apples to apples. The apples grow from the same tree but some are bigger than others. Once grown, they are shipped to different places that do different things. Finesse Training just ships some of your apples that go to all the rules plants related to "Dexterity" tasks to the plant that covers damage which used to be a "Strength" task. But they still follow the same processing rules as when it was a "Strength" task, churning out tasty 1.5 damage apple juice.
|
|
I don't think there is a parallel for Agile Maneuvers, because I can't think of anything that tells you your Strength modifier should be altered when calculating CMB under specific circumstances.
So you're saying if it instead dealing damage read "add your Strength Bonus twice when dealing damage while wielding a weapon in two-hands", you would be ok with this but not if it said "add half your Strength Bonus"? Everything must be whole numbers?
And it is essentially the same thing. It's like the iconic rogue is female, so everything in the following rules text refers to "she". The iconic way to deal melee damage is with Strength, so everything in the following rules text is related so Strength. If you play a male rogue now suddenly do all the following rules not exist because they only reference a she?
*munches on popcorn*
Guys, it's obviously not clear.
I propose an alternative question:
What do you predict the FAQ will say?
Nothing that will definitively stop this back and forth. It will just go to how wrong or right the FAQ is.
The real question is does 1x dex with 2hw and .5x with off-hand mean we can TWF with 2hw and armor spikes since we are keeping to the unwritten rule of only getting 1.5x modifier total.
If your interpretation is correct, and you replace the entire rule, then the only replacement that would occur would be when you add your strength bonus to the damage, which occurs only when you hit with a weapon wielded only in your main hand.I disagree... Look at CRB, Getting Started, Strength. It states you add your Strength modifier to damage then lists exceptions being TWF and THF.
Under CRB, Combat, Damage both TWF and THF are listed under the same bolded damage section. You are replacing how you start the equation, not the equation itself.
It's like saying because you are using Agile Manuevers to replace Str with Dex on CMB, you ignore anything that applies to CMB because it was originally written with Strength.
Same section does not mean same rule. There is no indication that the subsequent rules are replaced. It is one general rule, followed by two more specific rules.
|
|
Same section does not mean same rule. There is no indication that the subsequent rules are replaced. It is one general rule, followed by two more specific rules.
No, it is a general rule followed by two exceptions to the general rule. .5 and 1.5 are exceptions to the general rule involving how Damage is calculated and independent of what ability is used to calculate damage.
They refer to Strength bonus because the general rule is you use your Strength modifier to damage. That does not mean it's specific to strength. Please see the above example of how by your logic a male rogue couldn't exist.
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.
They do, they just do not want to allow any bonuses to work. If you check back you will see that those who do not want to apply the 1.5 Dex for 2-handed most certainly want to apply the .5 Dex for off hand.
And that, my friends, is as close to a white flag as you'll ever see on the Internet.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.
Pointing out the absurdities of an argument is not raising a white flag.
Same section does not mean same rule. There is no indication that the subsequent rules are replaced. It is one general rule, followed by two more specific rules.No, it is a general rule followed by two exceptions to the general rule. .5 and 1.5 are exceptions to the general rule involving how Damage is calculated and independent of what ability is used to calculate damage.
They refer to Strength bonus because the general rule is you use your Strength modifier to damage. That does not mean it's specific to strength. Please see the above example of how by your logic a male rogue couldn't exist.
Actually, it functions as a conditional replacement effect. Regardless, it's still a rule. It doesn't disappear because the rule it normally replaces does, as long as the condition that calls it still remains (and it does). Nowhere in the rulebook does it state "If the rule this rule normally replaces disappears, also ignore this rule." You're attributing intent when there is no reason to.
Also I happen to agree, it's ridiculous. That's part of why I take the opposing stance.
|
|
Nowhere in the rulebook does it state "If the rule this rule normally replaces disappears, also ignore this rule."
I guess I'm confused on your stance now because this is exactly why 1.5 Dex to damage works.
And the rule is not disappearing, the rule remains. Finesse Training is not changing how Damage is calculated just replacing what you input into the calculation with your Dexterity modifier instead of Strength modifier and subsequently its relative bonus / penalty.
Pointing out the absurdities of an argument is not raising a white flag.And that, my friends, is as close to a white flag as you'll ever see on the Internet.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.
Nope. But gross misrepresentation of an argument -- which is clearly what you engaged in -- is. Words can be ambiguous != words have no meaning whatsoever. Clearly fallacious.
It's OK; people on the Internet willing to admit when they're wrong are as rare as hen's teeth. I won't hold it against you.
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.They do, they just do not want to allow any bonuses to work.
Ah yes, the "other guy must be disingenuous" gambit.
Again, I don't care what the ruling is -- I just want it to be clear. While you may think it is clear, I do not find your arguments convincing. This does not mean I'm (a) lying, (b) illiterate, or (c) stupid.
Do you guys really not get why your behavior is a problem?
|
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
Again, I don't care what the ruling is -- I just want it to be clear. While you may think it is clear, I do not find your arguments convincing. This does not mean I'm (a) lying, (b) illiterate, or (c) stupid.
Do you guys really not get why your behavior is a problem?
I agree. My guess is they consider our behavior a problem.
Nowhere in the rulebook does it state "If the rule this rule normally replaces disappears, also ignore this rule."I guess I'm confused on your stance now because this is exactly why 1.5 Dex to damage works.
And the rule is not disappearing, the rule remains. Finesse Training is not changing how Damage is calculated just replacing what you input into the calculation with your Dexterity modifier instead of Strength modifier and subsequently its relative bonus / penalty.
I'd prefer not to restate my position in it's entirety. Suffice it to say I am of the opinion that the rules are modified by finesse training, not replaced, as a direct result it's 1.5 times dex, and the alternative has some silly implications. Feel free to go over my previous posts for explanations as to why.
It seems everything has been said on this topic.
No conclusion was reached, so until this gets clarified it is in the land of table variation.
If someone plays this for PFS, expect it to be run differently than expected with different GM´s and please don´t argue. Thanks.
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...
This is incorrect for several reasons, but the simplest proof of why is this:
Add your strength bonus instead of adding your strength bonus.
When you do a thing instead of itself, logically the outcome must be the same. By your math, you would get a different answer. Your math must logically be incorrect.
but in my equation I DO, add strength instead of dex, I just don't put it in the same spot. I'm not required by the RAW to do so.
What do you predict the FAQ will say?
acts like strength in all regards dealing with damage.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The fact that agile has a specific exemption denying 1.5 DEX on a two handed weapon is compelling evidence that when you exchange DEX for STR on a two handed weapon then by default, the DEX modifier is multiplied by 1.5 the same as the STR modifier.
Instead of using that precedent and the lack of a similar limiting clause on Finesse Training to mean that the damage is [weapon dice] + (1.5*[ability modifier]), you invent an entirely new equation that is [weapon dice] + (1.5*[ability modifier a]*0) + [ability modifier b].
Which option seems like more of a stretch?
The fact that agile has a specific exemption denying 1.5 DEX on a two handed weapon is compelling evidence that when you exchange DEX for STR on a two handed weapon then by default, the DEX modifier is multiplied by 1.5 the same as the STR modifier.
Instead of using that precedent and the lack of a similar limiting clause on Finesse Training to mean that the damage is [weapon dice] + (1.5*[ability modifier]), you invent an entirely new equation that is [weapon dice] + (1.5*[ability modifier a]*0) + [ability modifier b].
Which option seems like more of a stretch?
neither as neither options are mutually exclusive nor are they the only ones.
this is like the unchained rogue's sneak attack not mentioning concealment in sneak attack, they purposefully left it out because unchained rogues can now stab people in dark rooms. are you saying that we should follow precedent for no apparent reason and still limit sneak attacks from concealment for unchained rogues?
edit: now that I look over your comment again, I think this is kinda what you're saying, in which case, who are you even talking to?
|
|
No, I am saying we should follow precedent and allow 1.5 dex on two handed attacks, because finesse rogue does not have any language that denies it.
The only reason Agile disallows 1.5 dex on a two handed weapon is because there is a clause excluding it.
Without that clause, the Finesse Training ability allows 1.5 dex.
Official Rules Response
|
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. 15 people marked this as a favorite. |
Unchained Rogue Finesse Training: When I'm replacing Strength for Dexterity, what happens with a one-handed weapon? What about an off-hand weapon?
With a two-handed weapon, you add 1-1/2 times your Dexterity bonus on damage rolls, and with an off-hand weapon, you add half your Dexterity bonus on damage rolls. As per the ability's text, if an effect would prevent you from adding your Strength modifier on damage rolls, you don't add your Dexterity modifier. However, any other effects that would increase the multiplier to your Strength bonus on damage rolls (such as the two-handed fighter archetype's overhand chop) do not affect your Dexterity bonus on damage rolls.
Yay!
Unchained Rogue Finesse Training: When I'm replacing Strength for Dexterity, what happens with a one-handed weapon? What about an off-hand weapon?
With a two-handed weapon, you add 1-1/2 times your Dexterity bonus on damage rolls, and with an off-hand weapon, you add half your Dexterity bonus on damage rolls. As per the ability's text, if an effect would prevent you from adding your Strength modifier on damage rolls, you don't add your Dexterity modifier. However, any other effects that would increase the multiplier to your Strength bonus on damage rolls (such as the two-handed fighter archetype's overhand chop) do not affect your Dexterity bonus on damage rolls.
So the Unchained Rogue is OFFICIALLY the ONLY (non-Mythic) thing so far that allows 1.5x Dex Damage for two-handed fighting.
Ladies and Gentlemen, we just found the Rogue's new signature trick.
Also, does anyone else hear a phone ringing?
Because WE CALLED IT!!!
|
|
Yay!
Also boo. Kinda wanted to spare my rogues Double Slice.
...unless "However, any other effects that would increase the multiplier to your Strength bonus on damage rolls (such as the two-handed fighter archetype's overhand chop) do not affect your Dexterity bonus on damage rolls" means that Double Slice won't work? That seems like it would be bad...
but in my equation I DO, add strength instead of dex, I just don't put it in the same spot. I'm not required by the RAW to do so.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...
This is incorrect for several reasons, but the simplest proof of why is this:
Add your strength bonus instead of adding your strength bonus.
When you do a thing instead of itself, logically the outcome must be the same. By your math, you would get a different answer. Your math must logically be incorrect.
This does not address my point at all. Your equation is unsound on a fundamental logical level. It violates identity, as adding a thing instead of adding itself does not yield the same result.
If your example were correct, then the line "add your strength bonus instead of your strength bonus" would change the equation like this.
D=x+1.5s
D=x+1.5(s-s) + s
D=x+s
This cannot be. There are more proofs as to why your example is flawed, but that one is sufficient.
Yay!
Also boo. Kinda wanted to spare my rogues Double Slice.
...unless "However, any other effects that would increase the multiplier to your Strength bonus on damage rolls (such as the two-handed fighter archetype's overhand chop) do not affect your Dexterity bonus on damage rolls" means that Double Slice won't work? That seems like it would be bad...
I'm sure Double Slice still works - it's pretty obvious that the intent is to make the Rogue use Dex instead of Str like normal.
Things like Dragon Style, Overhand Chop, etc., are meant to be tricks with Str to get damage HIGHER than they usually would (in this case 1.5x Str on single-handed attacks or 2x Str on Charges with a two-handed weapon).
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
No.
Yes.
Praaaaaise it
Yay!
Also boo. Kinda wanted to spare my rogues Double Slice.
...unless "However, any other effects that would increase the multiplier to your Strength bonus on damage rolls (such as the two-handed fighter archetype's overhand chop) do not affect your Dexterity bonus on damage rolls" means that Double Slice won't work? That seems like it would be bad...
I'm also conflicted, as while they went with my what I thought to be correct, they also seemed to kick rogues in the nuts as an afterthought. I'm pretty sure you're right about double slice not working. That's a real shame, as for an ambidextrous rogue it makes perfect sense.
No.Yes.
Heh.
PDT just to clear things up, will double slicd work? I am reading it as a "no", but I'm sure it will spawn another FAQ so things it should be taken care of now if possible.
Did Rogues just get, cool?
I mean, now, I am curious how Finesse Training works with Swashbuckler's Finesse, because I am just a little, um, inspired?
Sunshine Annoys a Lich, I shall revive you!
At 1st level, a swashbuckler gains the benefits of the Weapon Finesse feat with light or one-handed piercing melee weapons(...)
(...)starting at 3rd level, she can select any one type of weapon that can be used with Weapon Finesse (such as rapiers or daggers).
Near as I can tell they're compatible, Swashbuckler Finesse allows you to use Weapon Finesse with weapons that normally would not qualify.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Though this is not an official ruling, I'm abusing the fact that Mark is sitting right next to me, and he says that the linked FAQ doesn't allow Double Slice to work for the rogue.