There seems to be a conflict between the rules understanding presented in the Armor Spike with Two Hand Weapon FAQ and these two weapons published before July 2013:
Barbazu Beard - published in Cheliax: Empire of Devils in 2009
Sea-Knife - published in Advanced Race Guide in June 2012Neither of these weapons are allowed in PFS, which is a good sign something is wrong with the items.
Is the FAQ altering the text of these items or is the FAQ in error and should allow THW with Off-hand attacks such as the Barbazu Beard and Sea-Knife?
For Sea-Knifes, it's in the gillman section of the ARG, so it's off limits because the race isn't allowed in PFS. Can't really draw a conclusion from that.
As to the Barbazu Beard, that may be true or it may be true that the weapon was missed as it's in a sidebar in the feat section of the book and NOT in an equipment section. As it draws an AoO for using it, I can't imagine there was a lot of clammoring for it's inclusion so it may have gone unnoticed.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Other than the fighter - who focuses so much upon a single weapon - that's simply untrue.It has been mathematically proven multiple times in multiple places ont hese boards that a two-handed weapon combined with armor spikes or some similar weapon is inferior to traditional TWF or THF.I'm actually fine with it working this way.
(although I agree it needs to be spelled out much more clearly)If 2-H + armor spikes were legit, you'd be forced to use them (if you wanted to stay competitive). Making everyone use boot blades, armor spikes, etc to keep up in damage just feels a bit gimmicky and non-iconic to me. It's as much about flavor preservation as power creep, imho.
No, actually, it's not. The penalties to hit, the wealth requirements, the splitting stats, etc. all work out to it being a thematic but not particularly powerful fighting style. It just looks big when you don't take the time to actually do the math and see the results.
|
No, actually, it's not. The penalties to hit, the wealth requirements, the splitting stats, etc. all work out to it being a thematic but not particularly powerful fighting style. It just looks big when you don't take the time to actually do the math and see the results.Other than the fighter - who focuses so much upon a single weapon - that's simply untrue.It has been mathematically proven multiple times in multiple places ont hese boards that a two-handed weapon combined with armor spikes or some similar weapon is inferior to traditional TWF or THF.I'm actually fine with it working this way.
(although I agree it needs to be spelled out much more clearly)If 2-H + armor spikes were legit, you'd be forced to use them (if you wanted to stay competitive). Making everyone use boot blades, armor spikes, etc to keep up in damage just feels a bit gimmicky and non-iconic to me. It's as much about flavor preservation as power creep, imho.
Step 1: Look up any of the dozen+ proofs that TWF is superior to THF in terms of DPR.
Step 2: Realize that this combo would have an extra couple of points of damage from dice, bigger benefit from PA, and an extra .5x Str damage.
Step 3: Realize that you were wrong.
No, actually, it's not. The penalties to hit, the wealth requirements, the splitting stats, etc. all work out to it being a thematic but not particularly powerful fighting style. It just looks big when you don't take the time to actually do the math and see the results.Other than the fighter - who focuses so much upon a single weapon - that's simply untrue.It has been mathematically proven multiple times in multiple places ont hese boards that a two-handed weapon combined with armor spikes or some similar weapon is inferior to traditional TWF or THF.I'm actually fine with it working this way.
(although I agree it needs to be spelled out much more clearly)If 2-H + armor spikes were legit, you'd be forced to use them (if you wanted to stay competitive). Making everyone use boot blades, armor spikes, etc to keep up in damage just feels a bit gimmicky and non-iconic to me. It's as much about flavor preservation as power creep, imho.
Step 1: Look up any of the dozen+ proofs that TWF is superior to THF in terms of DPR.
Step 2: Realize that this combo would have an extra couple of points of damage from dice, bigger benefit from PA, and an extra .5x Str damage.
Step 3: Realize that you were wrong.
unusually harsh PB requirements, mixed with feats to even do TWFing and you end up with something that costs a lot and when that stuff is spent elsewhere on your THF it will just clock out higher.
I mean i just did a quick run through of 2 level 5 barbarians(just to make it easy) and ignored wealth and enhancements
barbarian with 20(24 while raging, +7 mod) strength, and I'm ignoring dex here too
against a CR 5 average opponent clocks in with 18.98 DPR with a greatsword 2d6+16(str-10 6 from power attack) 1 feat investment
TWF is using a longsword and shortsword(so no exotic on sawtooth required) and clocks in at 17.88 DPR this is with (TWF, double slice and power attack) 3 feats invested
1d8+9(7-str, 2-PA) & 1d6+8(7-str, 1-PA) (higher max damage potential but misses more often, and he's going to be spending double on his weapons)
and i believe it only get's worse from there. more than likely the TWF isn't going to be clocking in with 20 starting strength either if he wants ITWF next level either since he needs high dex.
if the TWFer & THFer were unchained barbarians maybe then you'd have something.
mean while if your opponent moves, you're stuck with half your DPR shaved off almost instantly.
Step 1: Look up any of the dozen+ proofs that TWF is superior to THF in terms of DPR.
Step 2: Realize that this combo would have an extra couple of points of damage from dice, bigger benefit from PA, and an extra .5x Str damage.
Step 3: Realize that you were wrong.
This is as silly as taking Weapon Focus and Specialization for two different weapons each
|
|
Step 1: Look up any of the dozen+ proofs that TWF is superior to THF in terms of DPR.
Step 2: Realize that this combo would have an extra couple of points of damage from dice, bigger benefit from PA, and an extra .5x Str damage.
Step 3: Realize that you were wrong.
It's cute how willing to be smugly superior you are when you haven't shown any indication that you understand the math you're touting. As others have noted, it takes about 30 seconds to do a quick search and find a number of well thought out proofs showing that TWF with a TH weapon and armor spikes doesn't actually stack up to either straight TWF or straight THF when even a minor degree of system mastery is applied.
Your step 2 "proof" is either an active exercise in willful ignorance, an attempt to appeal to people who don't understand the system either, or simple lack of consideration for the nuance of the game. To THF with armor spikes, you have to split your stats. Right out the gate you're less accurate than a DEX-based TWF or a STR-based THF. Sure, when you hit with both attacks on a full attack it will be for more, but you'll hit far less often than either of the other dedicated fighting styles, and the extra damage doesn't compensate for that.
Also, effective TWF only outstrips THF in damage dealing under specific circumstances (when you're making more full attacks than standard action attacks), and only due to your ability to generate more critical hits with weapons with decent crit ranges. Armor spikes have terrible crit ranges, so they don't feed into the systems that help TWF characters generate their damage with any degree of effectiveness, and your split stats mean you're less likely to confirm the crits you do get.
So again, the ruling the FAQ supports is good for the game in providing clear design principle, though it could do a better job of explicitly spelling out the rules that aren't actually clearly stated elsewhere, but it's not protecting the game from power-gaming THF armor spike wielders destroying game balance, because most actual power-gamers are going to be smart enough to realize that that's a sub-optimal option anyways.
I'm traveling and posting from my phone, but if someone else doesn'the link the appropriate proofs in first before I get to a computer, I'll try and throw them up in the thread when I get an opportunity.
Step 1: Look up any of the dozen+ proofs that TWF is superior to THF in terms of DPR.
Step 2: Realize that this combo would have an extra couple of points of damage from dice, bigger benefit from PA, and an extra .5x Str damage.
Step 3: Realize that you were wrong.
It's cute how willing to be smugly superior you are when you haven't shown any indication that you understand the math you're touting. As others have noted, it takes about 30 seconds to do a quick search and find a number of well thought out proofs showing that TWF with a TH weapon and armor spikes doesn't actually stack up to either straight TWF or straight THF when even a minor degree of system mastery is applied.
Your step 2 "proof" is either an active exercise in willful ignorance, an attempt to appeal to people who don't understand the system either, or simple lack of consideration for the nuance of the game. To THF with armor spikes, you have to split your stats. Right out the gate you're less accurate than a DEX-based TWF or a STR-based THF. Sure, when you hit with both attacks on a full attack it will be for more, but you'll hit far less often than either of the other dedicated fighting styles, and the extra damage doesn't compensate for that.
Also, effective TWF only outstrips THF in damage dealing under specific circumstances (when you're making more full attacks than standard action attacks), and only due to your ability to generate more critical hits with weapons with decent crit ranges. Armor spikes have terrible crit ranges, so they don't feed into the systems that help TWF characters generate their damage with any degree of effectiveness, and your split stats mean you're less likely to confirm the crits you do get.
So again, the ruling the FAQ supports is good for the game in providing clear design principle, though it could do a better job of explicitly spelling out the rules that aren't actually clearly stated elsewhere, but it's not protecting the game from...
is it... this one?
this is a link to the DPR and builds
Classic Omar's Hatchet
No, actually, it's not. The penalties to hit, the wealth requirements, the splitting stats, etc. all work out to it being a thematic but not particularly powerful fighting style. It just looks big when you don't take the time to actually do the math and see the results.Other than the fighter - who focuses so much upon a single weapon - that's simply untrue.It has been mathematically proven multiple times in multiple places ont hese boards that a two-handed weapon combined with armor spikes or some similar weapon is inferior to traditional TWF or THF.I'm actually fine with it working this way.
(although I agree it needs to be spelled out much more clearly)If 2-H + armor spikes were legit, you'd be forced to use them (if you wanted to stay competitive). Making everyone use boot blades, armor spikes, etc to keep up in damage just feels a bit gimmicky and non-iconic to me. It's as much about flavor preservation as power creep, imho.
Step 1: Look up any of the dozen+ proofs that TWF is superior to THF in terms of DPR.
Step 2: Realize that this combo would have an extra couple of points of damage from dice, bigger benefit from PA, and an extra .5x Str damage.
Step 3: Realize that you were wrong.
You clearly don't know what the smurf you're talking about.
I seriously dislike what that word does to avatars.
|
The Sea Knife and the Barbazu Beard are the Exception to the rule. This should tell you something.
It means that even though you can get a third attack with those two specific items, other items that does not spell out the circumstances and out right say that it provides a way to get a third attack (like the Sea Knife and the Barbazu Beard), those items can not be used as a third weapon. (like the Sea Knife and Barbazu Beard can)
I really question how someone can fetter out these items and say that all others should be able to do the same thing, when this FAQ clearly states otherwise.
The Sea Knife and the Barbazu Beard are the Exception to the rule. This should tell you something.
It means that even though you can get a third attack with those two specific items, other items that does not spell out the circumstances and out right say that it provides a way to get a third attack (like the Sea Knife and the Barbazu Beard), those items can not be used as a third weapon. (like the Sea Knife and Barbazu Beard can)
I really question how someone can fetter out these items and say that all others should be able to do the same thing, when this FAQ clearly states otherwise.
The issue is that there isn't a rule to suggest that they ARE exceptions. Even the FAQ in question doesn't use any existing rules to back it up. It uses 'unwritten' rules that are by definition not written anywhere. What you see as exceptions to me looks like an explanation of how non-hand weapons work in general. It states they are "off-hand weapon that requires no hands to use; thus, a warrior could combine use of a barbazu beard with a two-handed weapon." So not 'barbazu beard are special so they do this' but 'barbazu beard don't take hands' and that means 'you can use them with a two-handed weapon."
So non-hands is the exception, not the Sea Knife and the Barbazu Beard IMO.
NO *****ing way!
I've got more DPR threads to read, woot!
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The Sea Knife and the Barbazu Beard are the Exception to the rule. This should tell you something.
Yes. There are no written rules for them to be an exception to.
That would mean, that, the only way they are an exception, is if they are an exception to an unwritten rule.
|
|
The Sea Knife and the Barbazu Beard are the Exception to the rule. This should tell you something.
It means that even though you can get a third attack with those two specific items, other items that does not spell out the circumstances and out right say that it provides a way to get a third attack (like the Sea Knife and the Barbazu Beard), those items can not be used as a third weapon. (like the Sea Knife and Barbazu Beard can)
I really question how someone can fetter out these items and say that all others should be able to do the same thing, when this FAQ clearly states otherwise.
The issue is that there isn't a rule to suggest that they ARE exceptions. Even the FAQ in question doesn't use any existing rules to back it up. It uses 'unwritten' rules that are by definition not written anywhere. What you see as exceptions to me looks like an explanation of how non-hand weapons work in general. It states they are "off-hand weapon that requires no hands to use; thus, a warrior could combine use of a barbazu beard with a two-handed weapon." So not 'barbazu beard are special so they do this' but 'barbazu beard don't take hands' and that means 'you can use them with a two-handed weapon."
So non-hands is the exception, not the Sea Knife and the Barbazu Beard IMO.
So your saying that the Sea Knife and the Barbazu Beard need to be denoted to be NON HANDS items? Or that those items show a way for all other items "like" them to be used like they are, that there is a normal "Non Hands" slot that was not there before the FAQ discounted it?
If it is an explanation, it is one that is particular to the weapon that explanation is in. It does so because the normal rule is otherwise, not because it warranted an explanation of a rule that is elsewhere.
Weapons have been the same since the 1st edition of the game, you hold it, wield it, fight with it. You use one normally, though you can use two at the same time with abilities (Class or feats, depending on edition). Currently, there is no "written rule" to let someone get in a third attack with a third weapon. Alchemists "third arm" specifies that it does not do this. (Because other multi-arm races can do it with a Bestiary feat)
Tell me what I am missing. What do you see that allows for this that isn't an exception? (like the Sea Knife and Barbazu Beard)
|
|
The Sea Knife and the Barbazu Beard are the Exception to the rule. This should tell you something.Yes. There are no written rules for them to be an exception to.
That would mean, that, the only way they are an exception, is if they are an exception to an unwritten rule.
Really. Do you really want another book as thick as the CRB that only has all the "Unwritten Rules" for everyone to look through when there is an argument about silly stuff like this?
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Really. Do you really want another book as thick as the CRB that only has all the "Unwritten Rules" for everyone to look through when there is an argument about silly stuff like this?
I wouldn't expect you'd need another book as thick as the CRB, not when judicious use of sidebars to illuminate designer rationale every once in a while would suffice.
But seriously, one person's "silly stuff" is another person's point of interest. Being dismissive of it isn't going to make the issue go away.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Really. Do you really want another book as thick as the CRB that only has all the "Unwritten Rules" for everyone to look through when there is an argument about silly stuff like this?The Sea Knife and the Barbazu Beard are the Exception to the rule. This should tell you something.Yes. There are no written rules for them to be an exception to.
That would mean, that, the only way they are an exception, is if they are an exception to an unwritten rule.
Sure, if it had the answers to our questions it would be a nice thing to have. I personally don't care how big the book is, only what's in it.
Weapons have been the same since the 1st edition of the game, you hold it, wield it, fight with it.
In 3.5 they made an FAQ that clearly pointed out that non-hand weapon where perfectly fine for use with two handed weapons. The said that TWF was fighting with two weapon and as long as you could find a way to make that happen it didn't matter if one on them used both physical hands. Pathfinder didn't alter ANY of the TWF rules so the logic still applies. Any two weapons are find with TWF as long as you manage the requirements. An exception is needed to make it NOT work. So far that rule exception hasn't been made, just an FAQ that really doesn't clarify much IMO [more creates more questions than it could EVER hope to answer].
Tell me what I am missing. What do you see that allows for this that isn't an exception? (like the Sea Knife and Barbazu Beard)
The only thing special is that they are non-hand weapons. As such, they don't require the use of a physical hand. As is pointed out by the weapon entries 'thus, a warrior could combine their use with a two-handed weapon' and 'This allows the wielder to use a two-handed weapon, or wield a weapon with one hand and carry a shield, and still make off-hand attacks' with them.
Pretty much the only 'exception' is that non-handed weapon don't require a hand to use them.
|
|
I know of two that does not need the "Hand" of effort to make an attack, those mentioned in this thread. (Sea Knife and Barbazu Beard)
When did the 3.5 FAQ come out. Was it when the very much broken 9 swords book was out, or before that?
There was a lot of really questionable rulings/supplements the last couple of years before 4dventure edition came out.
Pathfinder does not use the 3.5 FAQ. They have their own, and it went against this sort of extra. If you want the Paizo staff to clarify a ruling because it is inconsistent with some of another company's stance on it, I am afraid you in for a long wait.
So, a FAQ tells one you can not use Armor Spikes in addition to attacking with a Two Handed Weapon or when TWF. What exactly is unclear about this?
Armor Spikes: Can I use two-weapon fighting to make an "off-hand" attack with my armor spikes in the same round I use a two-handed weapon?
No.
Likewise, you couldn't use an armored gauntlet to do so, as you are using both of your hands to wield your two-handed weapon, therefore your off-hand is unavailable to make any attacks.
So the same is said for the Boot Knife, knobby knee, eldritch fingernail and any other "non-hand" weapon you can think of. The exception to that is those mentioned previously. (Sea Knife, Barbazu Beard) You can also assume that TWF applies to this as well.
Now, can the FAQ be expanded to further clarify it? Sure, but it is unnecessary in my opinion. Does it actually go against previously understood rulings for Pathfinder? No, this type of additional weapon wielding has been addressed with the Alchemist and with Eidolons. It is consistent with those discussions and rules.
It is a game. It isn't written in Lawyerise, common sense is expected to be used. There is a consistent output of offense that is put out by a character, this FAQ is keeping with that output. Two "Hands" of effort. 1.5 times strength maximum damage (bearing abilities that would trump that), and the use of those two hands doesn't allow for a third option. (unless an exception is used, such as the Sea Knife or Barbazu Beard)
Notice that both of the exceptions have limits imposed, OoA for the beard and not being able to Run/walk for the Sea Knife.
thaX:
3.5 FAQ: No clue. haven't memorized the dates of either. Bottom line, the actual rules it clarified are still in place today.
Current FAQ: What's unclear is what the ruling was based on. Hands of effort show up nowhere in the actual rules and it has continued to confuse people in more and more issues as they wonder how hands of effort apply to other issues. It's a big steaming pile of mess.
Lawyerise: It was Lawyerise that was required to explain how you have to use your physical off hand to make an off hand attack even with a non-hand weapon. In essence you're required to use your left hand to kick someone which is totally nonsensical. It was also made out of thin air as no such rule exists and in fact the only evidence is that non-hand weapon DON'T require your physical off hand.
limits: Wyvarans, Syrinx, Strix and Gathlains can walk and run without issue at first as they fly, Add a few levels and most creatures can fly. The sea knife is only an issue in a 100% mundane game. The sad thing is, it's not beating out other styles of fighting so the FAQ is really there to punish flavor builds.
Well, if you want to take the FAQ, as written, without referencing unwritten rules, then all it tells us, is that you need a free hand to attack with Gauntlets, and Armor Spikes.
No hands of effort. No restrictions on other non-hand weapons. No strength to damage caps.
None of that.
True, I COULD follow the letter of the FAQ and continue to TWF with my boulder helmet and dorn-dergar.
|
|
Also keep in mind... Natural attacks can be used at the same time as manufactured weapons attacks, just as long as they are not using hands/arms. (Bite, gore, sting, tail slap, ect...)
If an item gives you a natural attack...
Might be how the Barbazu Beard give you the attack (provoking AoO, but still)
I know of two that does not need the "Hand" of effort to make an attack, those mentioned in this thread. (Sea Knife and Barbazu Beard)
When did the 3.5 FAQ come out. Was it when the very much broken 9 swords book was out, or before that?
There was a lot of really questionable rulings/supplements the last couple of years before 4dventure edition came out.
Pathfinder does not use the 3.5 FAQ. They have their own, and it went against this sort of extra. If you want the Paizo staff to clarify a ruling because it is inconsistent with some of another company's stance on it, I am afraid you in for a long wait.
So, a FAQ tells one you can not use Armor Spikes in addition to attacking with a Two Handed Weapon or when TWF. What exactly is unclear about this?
Armor Spikes: Can I use two-weapon fighting to make an "off-hand" attack with my armor spikes in the same round I use a two-handed weapon?
No.
Likewise, you couldn't use an armored gauntlet to do so, as you are using both of your hands to wield your two-handed weapon, therefore your off-hand is unavailable to make any attacks.So the same is said for the Boot Knife, knobby knee, eldritch fingernail and any other "non-hand" weapon you can think of. The exception to that is those mentioned previously. (Sea Knife, Barbazu Beard) You can also assume that TWF applies to this as well.
Now, can the FAQ be expanded to further clarify it? Sure, but it is unnecessary in my opinion. Does it actually go against previously understood rulings for Pathfinder? No, this type of additional weapon wielding has been addressed with the Alchemist and with Eidolons. It is consistent with those discussions and rules.
It is a game. It isn't written in Lawyerise, common sense is expected to be used. There is a consistent output of offense that is put out by a character, this FAQ is keeping with that output. Two "Hands" of effort. 1.5 times strength maximum damage (bearing abilities that would trump that), and the use of those two...
Why is your idea the Wizards made a bad ruling in the past more relevant than my opinion that Paizo made a bad one now?
The point that Wizards made a different one before clearly shows that it was not designed with the unwritten rule that Paizo mentions. The actual designers of the original game, of which Paizo changed no wording, have stated that Armor Spikes do work with THW and TWF. If nothing else, Paizo should at least own up to the fact that it is an actual change and modify the actual rules to indicate such.
Why is your idea the Wizards made a bad ruling in the past more relevant than my opinion that Paizo made a bad one now?
The point that Wizards made a different one before clearly shows that it was not designed with the unwritten rule that Paizo mentions. The actual designers of the original game, of which Paizo changed no wording, have stated that Armor Spikes do work with THW and TWF. If nothing else, Paizo should at least own up to the fact that it is an actual change and modify the actual rules to indicate such.
Just because WotC's official line was different from Paizo's doesn't meant there isn't a designer guideline working behind the scenes that was present at the beginning. It may just mean that Paizo stuck to it while WotC did not.
You seem invested in feeling aggrieved by this. While I'm not a fan of either the FAQ decision or the justification, I don't have any reason to think any of us were done wrong by it or that some deception is at work.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I know of two that does not need the "Hand" of effort to make an attack, those mentioned in this thread. (Sea Knife and Barbazu Beard)
When did the 3.5 FAQ come out. Was it when the very much broken 9 swords book was out, or before that?
Why do you consider Book of 9 Swords broken? It functions fine and appropriate to its goals.
Is it because you dislike that maneuvers are similar in structure to spells?
That you can recharge them in combat unlike 4E daily/encounter maneuvers which must be rested first?
Remember, *Orcus was like 9 Swords not at all like 4E. 4E is a nerfed version of Orcus.
*Orcus was developed as the initial plans for 4E. This idea was piece mealed to 3.5. It was a success, but the some of designers didn't like it apparently so they nerfed it to 4E.
Why is your idea the Wizards made a bad ruling in the past more relevant than my opinion that Paizo made a bad one now?
The point that Wizards made a different one before clearly shows that it was not designed with the unwritten rule that Paizo mentions. The actual designers of the original game, of which Paizo changed no wording, have stated that Armor Spikes do work with THW and TWF. If nothing else, Paizo should at least own up to the fact that it is an actual change and modify the actual rules to indicate such.
Just because WotC's official line was different from Paizo's doesn't meant there isn't a designer guideline working behind the scenes that was present at the beginning. It may just mean that Paizo stuck to it while WotC did not.
You seem invested in feeling aggrieved by this. While I'm not a fan of either the FAQ decision or the justification, I don't have any reason to think any of us were done wrong by it or that some deception is at work.
Good point. It isn't the decision itself that really troubles me. It is that the decision is a clear change of what was AND that many people seem to feel that we (the customers) have no right to question it.
I liken it to the ridiculous idea the what the DM says, goes. That worked great in high school and before, but now that I am a grown-up, my friends and I have built cooperation skills (in no small part due to playing this game) that allow us to decide things as a table for the increased enjoyment of all. There is no DM tyrant at my table.
This game is much like a piece of software. It changes and expands. All modern software grows through the influence of the customers, not just the designers.
Before PFS, the rules mattered a lot less. While I still liked to debate them, there was no vested interest by anyone. All rules could be changed at the table. It was easy to state one's opinion and move on. The addition of PFS means for the first time, there are winners and losers in regards to the rules. It upped the ante.
I don't even play PFS. For me, it is about the logic of the game. I like the vastness of the Pathfinder game, and it is the reason that I play. With that vastness comes a serious difficulty in memorizing all the rules. It is easier to memorize the underlying logic and apply it to rules questions. But lately, in my opinion, Paizo has broken from that logic quite a few times - and this is the kicker - but claim they have not.
The game is built upon exceptions to the rules. And that is fine. The problem comes when clear exceptions are treated as "normal" rules. That is where the logic starts to break down. With each additional rule, it is much harder to decide what is exception and what is normal. A prime example of this is the very long forum about losing the AC benefit of a shield if you use your off-hand for something else. There is NO reason someone should think that based on the CRB. But with a very simple extrapolation of the off-hand rules presented in the FAQ, it isn't a stupid conclusion.
I didn't like it when people attacked those with the above position in that thread. I don't like how people dismiss the underlying theme in this thread. In both cases, there is a break in the logic. This is true even if the end results stay as they are, it should be acknowledged that the break exists.
Just my 2 cp.
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Komoda, I seem to have the opposite experience. Before PFS (in 3.5 WotC days) the forums were miserable. There were no winners. People seemed to enjoy reading rules in the most absurd way (PunPun etc) and WotC rarely ever solved the debate.
We have disagreements now, but over much more trivial things. We have Errata and FAQ regularly. It is good times.
I also experience a different view of the resulting FAQ answers. If memory serves, I've got the wrong guess only twice. So for me the logic makes sense. For others it doesn't.
Komoda, I seem to have the opposite experience. Before PFS (in 3.5 WotC days) the forums were miserable. There were no winners. People seemed to enjoy reading rules in the most absurd way (PunPun etc) and WotC rarely ever solved the debate.
We have disagreements now, but over much more trivial things. We have Errata and FAQ regularly. It is good times.
I also experience a different view of the resulting FAQ answers. If memory serves, I've got the wrong guess only twice. So for me the logic makes sense. For others it doesn't.
Have things (in general, not talking about individual rules) really changed?
Throughout the 3e era, there was the Living Greyhawk organized play campaign and WotC issued FAQs and other forms of rule clarification. Throughout the PF era, there has been PFS and Paizo has issued FAQs and other forms of rule clarification. And throughout both eras, there have been players on the boards reading rules in what I consider to be the most absurd way without the games' respective publishers moving into solve all debates.
In the past there were clearly disagreements on these forums, that is for sure. My point was that no one was held to the result of any FAQ.
I imagine that Living Greyhawk would have been much like PFS. I completely forgot about that.
What I find different about this case is the fact that it is clearly not based on any written rules.
Why are people even arguing about this?
If it's for a home game, you can do whatever you want. Take or leave the FAQ guidance as you (or the GM) sees fit.
If it's for PFS play, then the FAQ is an official rules source and is thus effectively part of the written rules, and must be used.
right so I can use a two handed weapon and a kick since the FAQ doesn't say anything about that, it just says that armor spikes uses a hand. ;)
it's the explaining of the FAQ involving unwritten rules that gives the rule most things are based off of.
|
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
Have things (in general, not talking about individual rules) really changed?
Massively. There are more FAQ in 2014/2015 than the entire run of 3.5 and most of the 3.5 had no authority. They would answer how they would rule but not often how the rules worked. So people demanded Errata or "shut up".
Really. Do you really want another book as thick as the CRB that only has all the "Unwritten Rules" for everyone to look through when there is an argument about silly stuff like this?The Sea Knife and the Barbazu Beard are the Exception to the rule. This should tell you something.Yes. There are no written rules for them to be an exception to.
That would mean, that, the only way they are an exception, is if they are an exception to an unwritten rule.
I am picturing this book as a mix of rules/clarifications and the developers' reasons and thoughts on why the system works the way it does.
"The Unwritten Rules"
"Discover the inner clockworks of the Pathfinder system!"
"Peer into the minds of the true Gods of Golarion!"
SHUTUPANDTAKEMYMONEY!
Have things (in general, not talking about individual rules) really changed?Massively. There are more FAQ in 2014/2015 than the entire run of 3.5 and most of the 3.5 had no authority. They would answer how they would rule but not often how the rules worked. So people demanded Errata or "shut up".
You may think so, but I'm not seeing a significant change. I've got the 3.5 FAQ PDF from 2006 and it's 80 pages long and the vast majority of it is written in as authoritative a style as the PF FAQ. And that's without going into the 3 years of the "Rules of the Game" articles that went up on the WotC site that went into how various sticky parts of the rules worked in considerable depth.
|
|
You may think so, but I'm not seeing a significant change. I've got the 3.5 FAQ PDF from 2006 and it's 80 pages long and the vast majority of it is written in as authoritative a style as the PF FAQ. And that's without going into the 3 years of the "Rules of the Game" articles that went up on the WotC site that went into how various sticky parts of the rules worked in considerable depth.Have things (in general, not talking about individual rules) really changed?Massively. There are more FAQ in 2014/2015 than the entire run of 3.5 and most of the 3.5 had no authority. They would answer how they would rule but not often how the rules worked. So people demanded Errata or "shut up".
I still have copies of all those.
Some of it is still quite useful. Especially the stuff about Illusions.
|
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
You may think so, but I'm not seeing a significant change.I still have copies of all those.
Did you participate on the WotC forums? Pretty much no one cared about the FAQs, responding with just "not RAW".
I compiled a list called "The Book of Heavily Debated Topics" that got answers just before the run up to 4E. The people on here are way more reasonable, more accepting of the FAQ setting how the rules work.
Anyway, I guess you guys don't see a difference, but I see a massive different. Night and day.
You may think so, but I'm not seeing a significant change. I've got the 3.5 FAQ PDF from 2006 and it's 80 pages long and the vast majority of it is written in as authoritative a style as the PF FAQ. And that's without going into the 3 years of the "Rules of the Game" articles that went up on the WotC site that went into how various sticky parts of the rules worked in considerable depth.Have things (in general, not talking about individual rules) really changed?Massively. There are more FAQ in 2014/2015 than the entire run of 3.5 and most of the 3.5 had no authority. They would answer how they would rule but not often how the rules worked. So people demanded Errata or "shut up".
I still have copies of all those.
Some of it is still quite useful. Especially the stuff about Illusions.
Agreed. Not seeing the 'Massive' change. And yes, I was on the WotC forums. I don't recall any more "not RAW" talk than we see now on dev posts.