|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Read the FaQ, if they are saying do this, it's not a houseruleRead the FAQ (why are you using a lower case a?). They aren't saying "do this". They are saying "yes, it does stack. We don't do anything now, but we may change it in the future, here's a possible way we might do that".
"we haven’t reached a final decision", by the very definitions of the words, can not possibly be a decision. Changing (or keeping) the rules would require a decision. Therefore, the FAQ answer (that does't answer the question)can not possible be a ruling. Q.E.D.
Edit: Thanks, Chris.
A provisional decision stands until countermanded or confirmed. The warning label that "this may change in the future" does not change what the decision is for now.
Read the FaQ, if they are saying do this, it's not a houserule,
I read the FAQ, I didn't see anywhere they said to do anything.
A provisional decision stands until countermanded or confirmed. The warning label that "this may change in the future" does not change what the decision is for now.
Absolutely. Is there anywhere in that FAQ answer where they announced a decision? If I'm leaning towards chocolate, I haven't made a decision to have chocolate.
|
The FAQ says "We're leaning towards:" and then explicitly spells out what to do.
And again, this was an official FAQ by the PDT.
Not a post by Jason Bulmahn saying how'd he'd rule it in a game of his.
Not a post by James Jacobs saying how'd he'd rule it in a game of his.
Not a post by Mark Seifter saying how'd he'd rule it in a game of his.
It was a FAQ posted by the PDT.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Which FAQ page are you all referring to? I looked through several FAQ pages for the word "masterpiece" and found nothing.
The FAQ says "We're leaning towards:" and then explicitly spells out what to do.
That's where you lose me. If it was telling you what to do they'd have eliminated the language that it wasn't a final decision and not said they were leaning (how much are they leaning? 51%? 75%?) towards a given solution. It's an advisory opinion that they aren't confident enough to make mandatory. It's neither final, a decision, nor an instruction on what to do. It's a weird aberration that either shouldn't have been published or shouldn't have included the caveats that rob it of actual authority.
|
|
That's where you lose me. If it was telling you what to do they'd have eliminated the language that it wasn't a final decision and not said they were learning towards a given solution. It's an advisory opinion that they aren't too sure of. It's neither final, a decision, nor an instruction on what to do. It's a weird aberration that either shouldn't have been published or shouldn't have included the caveats that rob it of actual authority.The FAQ says "We're leaning towards:" and then explicitly spells out what to do.
That doesn't change the fact that it does exist.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
At the time, no one seemed to doubt that it was a FAQ.
The "FAQ!" post introducing it may have had something to do with that.
It's existence doesn't change the fact that by commonly agreed definitions of the English words used and their logical relationship through syntax that it doesn't actually resolve anything.
But how about those Bardic masterpieces, am I right? It's election day, go the first page and vote if you haven't already.
At the time, no one seemed to doubt that it was a FAQ.
The "FAQ!" post introducing it may have had something to do with that.
It certainly discusses a frequently asked question, so to that extent it is certainly a FAQ. It just doesn't mandate a solution to the FAQ, like all(?) other entries.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If they had worded it differently saying, this is the rule, we may change it. Then it's the current rule that may be changed. To say, we're thinking of making this the rule, is that currently it's not the rule, but there's a good? chance that it will become the rule.
So they are taking longer than they thought to make it the new and current rule. So we're left with their leanings of years ago, which would more likely show that they don't want to embrace that and it's allowed to stack, since they must have found it's not actually an issue needing to be limited.
Now I'm guessing that their stance is more like the early entry where they say it's the rule but might be changed. Just the message actually conveyed by the text they chose isn't that idea.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Please start another thread about FAQ leanings please the derailment is giving me a headache.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So they are taking longer than they thought to make it the new and current rule. So we're left with their leanings of years ago, which would more likely show that they don't want to embrace that and it's allowed to stack, since they must have found it's not actually an issue needing to be limited.
Now I'm guessing that their stance is more like the early entry where they say it's the rule but might be changed. Just the message actually conveyed by the text they chose isn't that idea.
Just replace the talent altogether and go with an Unchained Rogue.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That doesn't change the fact that it does exist.
No one is doubting the existence of that sentence. It's simply not written as rules relevant. Since the OD talent isn't actually unclear, they'd need to actually errata the ability if they want it changed. The text would be OKish for a gray area, but the talent is pure white (the FAQ 'answer' acknowledges that).
A provisional decision stands until countermanded or confirmed.
There is no rules relevant provisional decision. To stop OD from stacking with itself, they would need to change the rules. They didn't do this, therefore their little preview of how the rules might be in the future is irrelevant. This aren't the kindergarten group song lyrics where you can use a preliminary version until you come up with something better. They'd need to actually errata the ability.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I kinda feel like Pandora here.
Pandora?
You are choosing to read the words of the FAQ response as if they don't have any weight. Rysky and I and other people that think actions mean something read the words such that the PDT "leaning toward" a decision means that is the current best option to rule as. FAQs, like most of the Pathfinder rules, are written in a conversational style and can be read with less than absolute legalistic literal meaning.
If you really need closure, they released the Unchained Rogue, which replaces the talent with an always-on AC bonus that doesn't stack with itself. That is our best hint as to dev intent since the FAQ was issued. Just roll with it.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
So, how 'bout them Masterpieces?
(Actually, I think we pretty much covered the all arguments already in the thread. It's just a matter of keeping the issue alive (and underailed) at this point.)
Yep! Alive this thread must be kept!
Well, now you've gone and invalidated nearly the entire internet. ;)
Masterpieces keep on coming, folks. Which makes me wonder why the silence for so long?
Most recently, Campaign Setting Horror Realms has some intriguing Masterpieces: Banshee's Requiem seems to enable a Bard to eventually slay living creatures via negative levels (2 per round). There is another that allows the Bard Limited Wish. Still another that gets a song stuck in someone's head and can do Wisdom damage if saves are missed long term...
why the silence for so long?
I'm hoping it's because of all the deliberations.
Still another that gets a song stuck in someone's head and can do Wisdom damage if saves are missed long term...
...ninety-nine bottles of beer on the wall...
...ninety-nine bottles of beer...
...FAQ whether we can take one down...
...never get an answer...
...ninety-nine bottles of beer forever on the wall...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Maybe it's hibernating?
Or pining for the fjords.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Dear Santa, sorry Pathfinder Design Team.
All I want for Christmas is an answer to the Bard Masterpiece FAQ.
Thanks,
Fang Dragon.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Hey, it looks like we have a sister thread!
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Hey, it looks like we have a sister thread!
I FAQed the sister too! :)
We'll have to wait and see.
|
|
I wager one like to any one post of choice that the FAQ will not be answered in 2016. What should the odds be? 10 to 1, to make it interesting? (i.e. if I'm right, whoever has entered the wager gives me one like about anything, on demand; If I'm wrong, and they do answer before the end of 2016, I give 10 likes and/or FAQ hit to each of you who have entered the wager! (I go through each winner's list of posts and 'like' 10 random things as determined by me on the spot; otherwise too freakin' time consuming to manage) -- what say you all?)
:)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
An answer in 2016 seems unlikely. I have a feeling it won't get answered in 2017 either, although I'd be happy to be proved wrong on that account.
Masterpieces just keep coming! The latest? Two from Healer's Handbook of the Player Companion line.
One does some very minor healing while the other blocks certain status' entirely.
But do we get a ruling?! Nope. It's alright though: in my games, they will be treated as coming from the same resource, but treated separately.
Masterpieces just keep coming! The latest? Two from Healer's Handbook of the Player Companion line.
One does some very minor healing while the other blocks certain status' entirely.
But do we get a ruling?! Nope. It's alright though: in my games, they will be treated as coming from the same resource, but treated separately.
We can hope for answers.
Wow, they really take forever to answer anything lols.
Wow, they really take forever to answer anything lols.
Keep in mind that there isn't a dedicated team of FAQ writers. It's the same guys working on the books. So they have to do these when time allows them to not be doing things like working on new books or being at conventions. Once they have that time then they look at what has a high number of request and probably also complexity of the issue, before sitting down and dicussing the particular issue and addressing it. Which is why we don't see that many released, couple that with the constant increase in books and thus unforseen rules interactions, and well you can see why it always seem like they are behind.
Once upon a time, FAQs were actually answered. However, this one has been skipped or shelved for 16 months. It actually is a fairly simple matter: either a Masterpiece can or cannot be used/performed simultaneously with another Performance. Either a Masterpiece continues its effect when a Bard starts a new performance or it doesn't. Allowing a Masterpiece to be performed simultaneously and having an effect while another Performance is up is not over-powered. As I have said many times before, this is a class option that runs off a finite resource (unless one wants to spam Extra Performance as Feats--not likely) that is very precious to a Bard. It has inherent limitations as a result.
We have seen some take far longer than 1.3 years to get an answer. If other questions get touced upon and get more hits they go to the top of the pile. And while it is a simple yes or no answer the design team has to look at not only what was written but the consquences of those interactions and how they could affect the game as a whole.