I know this question was kind of already posted and I looked at those questions, but it doesn't really answer the question. I have looked over Arcane Builder and the discovery doesn't have any requirements. Not only that, the discovery if going by RAW,
"You have an exceptional understanding of the theory behind creating magical items.
Benefit: Select one type of magic item (potions, wondrous items, and so on). You create items of this type 25% faster than normal, and gain a +4 bonus on Spellcraft checks (or other checks, as appropriate) to craft items of this type.
Special: You may select this discovery multiple times; its effects do not stack. Each time you select this discovery, it applies to a different type of magic item"
This seems to allow the character to create the item.
The key area I'm focusing on, with consideration to RAW, is "You create items of this type 25% faster than normal". It says straight out that you create the item with the modifier of having the increased speed of creation. Also, necessary and sufficient condition logic would lead one to realize that a person cannot create an item 25% faster if they could not already create the item. Seeing there is no item creation feat that is a prerequisite, the discovery covers the item creation feat that the person picks as stated from the benefit. The +4 gained modifier to the check adds to the case I'm stating.
Can I get a hardcore confirmation on this?
|
2 people marked this as a favorite.
|
Personally I would rule that it does NOT waive the usual requirements (that is, the requisite item creation feats) for crafting: 25% faster than 'not possible' is still not possible. Likewise, a +4 bonus on a check you are not allowed to attempt does not allow you to attempt the check.
To me it seems pretty clear that the intent (RAI) is that it provides a nice bonus (increased speed and a bonus to the skill check) to characters already able to craft certain items.
RAW it doesn't say it waives or satisfies the requirement for the feats, hence they are still required.
gplayle wrote: I know this question was kind of already posted and I looked at those questions, but it doesn't really answer the question. Do you really think previous threads on this don't really answer the question, or were you just hoping someone would give you an answer you liked?
I just did a search on it myself to see if anyone had an argument that would convince me to change the above stance, and after reading several topics I only found one other person who thought the discovery also satisfies the feat requirements; that person received two replies both agreeing that it does not and then agreed that he had misread the text.
To me that seems pretty clearly answered.
Had an afterthought but left it too long to add to my first reply.
You might be wondering, if my interpretation is correct and you still need the feats then why weren't they listed as prerequisites?
A wizard with an arcane bonded item doesn't need the relevant feat to improve that specific item, and could therefore benefit from this ability without needing the feat first. :)
(This is discussed in some prior threads you should have seen with your search.)
The bottom line is that without the prerequisite feat "normal" is never. You need the feat to have a "normal" item creation time to reduce.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Does a class that gives away free item creation feats really need to skip the need for free item creation feats?
This is not RAW it's an intentional misreading.
You don't necessarily need the prereq because you can use it for a bonded item as mentioned by jbadams. However, for non-bonded items I would not allow this discovery to bypass the crafting feat requirements. Your logic isn't sound in this case: meeting the required prerequisites for item creation is an entirely different consideration to the speed it takes to create said item. Otherwise all abilities that increased your crafting time would enable the crafting, which would be nonsensical.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Also, it would be incorrect to list just one prerequisite feat, as there are several choices (Craft Arms and Armor, Craft Wondrous Items, etc.) and you only need one of those feat, not all of them.
I suppose they could have said "one of the following feats" and then listed every one of the magic item crafting feats. That's excess word count that isn't necessary because the general crafting rules say you NEED the appropriate feat to craft any magical item. This discovery does not change the general rule . If it did change the general rule with a specific rule it would need to actually say so. It does not say so, so it does not change the general rule.
In short, you cannot assume an overwriting specific rule unless that rule is specifically specified.
To jbadams:
The idea isn’t whether you personally would rule it or not, it is to know and understand the truth of the rule. With that idea in mind, the RAI to me doesn’t seem so clear.
Now I would agree with you for:
jbadams wrote: 25% faster than 'not possible' is still not possible. Likewise, a +4 bonus on a check you are not allowed to attempt does not allow you to attempt the check. If you can’t do something, you can’t do it at a decreased time nor make a check related to something you can’t do. My argument, with the RAW, is that it does possibly read to allow you to do it, so your piece of explanation is irrelevant. There isn’t a clear separation of RAW and RAI with this discovery.
The idea is to find some ammunition in which if my GM doesn’t read it the same way, be able to convince the GM. If he doesn’t allow it, he doesn’t allow it. That is fine.
And you finding the same threads I did and reading people that agree with you is anecdotal evidence/confirmation bias.
As for arcane bonded item not needing the relevant feat to improve that specific item, that is a weak premise. As for Arcane bond item it reads:
“A wizard can add additional magic abilities to his bonded object as if he has the required Item Creation Feats and if he meets the level prerequisites of the feat.”
The reason this works so well for a bonded item is because the bonded item is treated as if the character has such creation feat. It states preconditions for desired improvement on said item. So that part of your argument is worthless for understanding Arcane Builder.
jbadams wrote: Or were you just hoping someone would give you an answer you liked? Who doesn’t want to find information that confirms what they are looking for? That question seems as an attempt to be a slight; to reduce credibility of my post, and thus, holds no real value. But as I said earlier, I'm really looking for the truth. As for my initial post, I asked for a hardcore confirmation about this. You have not given me one. If you can, that would be just fine. I'll go with what is true, and then work my on.
To dragonhunterq:
I would agree with you if it weren’t for the fact that Craft skill has this covered. With Craft skill, and whatever area you choose, you create normal items, normally. As, with that said, the item creation feats are all magical items. They aren’t normal item creation.
Now, if you mean normal, as one would be able normally perform a task, which I think you mean, then that is fine, but we are still where I started in that the RAW reads, “select one type of magic item.” Which still leads me to think that this could possibly mean that the discovery has the feat intrinsically part of the discovery.
You're saying without the prerequisite feat, but the discovery has no prerequisites. Again, leading to what I said, that RAW and RAI does not have a clear separation as some are wanting to claim.
|
3 people marked this as a favorite.
|
gplayle: No one is going to support your obviously wrong interpretation. Calling us mean for disagreeing with you accomplishes nothing. Let it go.
To Cavall:
Cavall wrote: Does a class that gives away free item creation feats really need to skip the need for free item creation feats?
This is not RAW it's an intentional misreading.
Explain what you mean here please? Because the way I'm reading your comment is you gain the creation feat for free and not needing to use a feat or bonus feat.
If Wizards get a free item creation feat without having to use up a feat one gets because of class or through natural progression, please show me.
And I'm not intentionally misreading. Are you omniscient or can read my mind and intentions? (Intentional sarcastic, rhetorical question.)
"Normal" in this context refers to the time it takes to produce an item, not the items produced. Without the item creation feat you have no normal time to produce a magic item which could be reduced by the discovery. There is no text which supports your desired reading of the rules. There is nothing to so much as imply that the discovery would allow you to bypass the feat requirement. Without text stating "you can make these items as though you had the required item creation feat," you must have the feat in question. Seriously. No quibbling.
DM_Blake wrote: Also, it would be incorrect to list just one prerequisite feat, as there are several choices (Craft Arms and Armor, Craft Wondrous Items, etc.) and you only need one of those feat, not all of them.
I suppose they could have said "one of the following feats" and then listed every one of the magic item crafting feats. That's excess word count that isn't necessary because the general crafting rules say you NEED the appropriate feat to craft any magical item. This discovery does not change the general rule . If it did change the general rule with a specific rule it would need to actually say so. It does not say so, so it does not change the general rule.
In short, you cannot assume an overwriting specific rule unless that rule is specifically specified.
Blake, the prerequisite could have easily said "related Item Creation feat for craft item" without having to go into all the different specific ones. The idea of claiming prerequisites or explaining other preconditions for whatever is so things can be with least confusion as possible. It says "choose" and "can craft" specifically in the benefit section of the feat.
Legio_MCMLXXXVII wrote: "Normal" in this context refers to the time it takes to produce an item, not the items produced. This is what I said to dragonhunterq:
gplayle wrote: Now, if you mean normal, as one would be able normally perform a task, which I think you mean "As one would be able normally perform a task", (should have typed it "as one would be able, normally, to perform a task"). But the point of the statement is that it intrinsically has the aspect of time included.
You saying there is nothing to even imply this, then why doesn't it just come out and say it instead of the confusing linguistics? Or why is it that others have had the same question?
I'm looking for a hardcore, concrete, confirmation of what this truly means. If one can supply it, fine, otherwise, RAW/RAI/GM discretion for my specific campaign is all that I care about.
Casual Viking wrote: gplayle: No one is going to support your obviously wrong interpretation. Calling us mean for disagreeing with you accomplishes nothing. Let it go. Dude, I didn't call anyone mean.
gplayle wrote: Legio_MCMLXXXVII wrote: "Normal" in this context refers to the time it takes to produce an item, not the items produced. This is what I said to dragonhunterq:
gplayle wrote: Now, if you mean normal, as one would be able normally perform a task, which I think you mean "As one would be able normally perform a task", (should have typed it as one would be able, normally, to perform a task). But the point of the statement is that it intrinsically has the aspect of time included.
You saying there is nothing to even imply this, then why doesn't it just come out and say it instead of the confusing linguistics? Or why is it that others have had the same question?
I'm looking for a hardcore, concrete, confirmation of what this truly means. If one can supply it, fine, otherwise, RAW/RAI/GM discretion for my specific campaign is all that I care about. RAW, you must have an item creation feat to create magic items, unless a specific exception is spelled out. As an example of a specific exemption, the Bonded Item of a Wizard's Arcane Bond class feature allows you to upgrade a Bonded Item as though you had the requisite feat. It's called out in the text explicitly. Arcane Builder does not have such an exception explicitly called out. Therefore, no such exception exists.
The only way to think this grants you the feat is if you're intentionally misrepresenting the basic rules of the game.
I mentioned the Arcane Bond because it provides an explanation other than the length of the text for not listing item creation feats as prerequisite; the designers likely intended the ability to be useful for Wizards to improve their arcane bonded item.
That is absolutely relevant if you're claiming that the feats not being listed as prerequisites support your interpretation; by showing an alternative explanation exists for the feats not being listed as pre-requisite, we must consider that your argument may not be valid.
As to my mention of the other topics, I looked at every discussion linked on the first page and a small selection from the second: I didn't find a single person agreeing with your interpretation (other than the above mentioned one who almost immediately changed his mind). When you said that previous topics "didn't really answer the question" I was expecting to find disagreement rather than a unanimous front. You're right that people agreeing with me doesn't make me correct, but it does lens credence to my position which yours appears to be lacking: can you point to a single example of someone who agrees with you?
If you're looking to pursued your DM support for arguments will almost certainly be taken into account, so again this is relevant.
gplayle wrote: Casual Viking wrote: gplayle: No one is going to support your obviously wrong interpretation. Calling us mean for disagreeing with you accomplishes nothing. Let it go. Dude, I didn't call anyone mean. "Who doesn’t want to find information that confirms what they are looking for? That question seems as an attempt to be a slight; to reduce credibility of my post, and thus, holds no real value."
gplayle wrote:
Or why is it that others have had the same question?
What others?
This is exactly why I mentioned the search results, because I couldn't find any. If there are others who agree with your interpretation please provide links - perhaps their arguments will be able to pursuede us.
Don't think of it as me trying to reduce the credibility of your post: think of it as your opportunity to increase the credibility of your post, with very little effort if you've already made the search.
:)
I'm sorry that everyone thinks I'm intentionally misreading/misrepresenting this discovery. I'm not. Although, honestly, the discovery, if what everyone is saying is true, most likely should have been written like this:
Prerequisite: Appropriate magic item feat [or could write "ability to create magical item"]
Benefit: Select one type of magic item you can create (potions, wondrous items, and so on). Items of this type are created 25% faster than normally, and gain a +4 bonus on Spellcraft checks, or other appropriate checks, to craft items of this type.
Special: You may select this discovery multiple times; its effects do not stack. Each time you select this discovery, it applies to a different type of magic item.
It is 7 or 8 words difference and clears up every issue I have, and what seems to be others have had as well.
Again, what others?
As written, your modified version wouldn't allow for use on an Arcane Bonded Item as the currently written version does, which I feel may explain why it's written as-is.
Casual Viking wrote: gplayle wrote: Casual Viking wrote: gplayle: No one is going to support your obviously wrong interpretation. Calling us mean for disagreeing with you accomplishes nothing. Let it go. Dude, I didn't call anyone mean. "Who doesn’t want to find information that confirms what they are looking for? That question seems as an attempt to be a slight; to reduce credibility of my post, and thus, holds no real value."
That's fine. I said "seems". Either, it isn't and we can move on in that the person's comment wasn't a slight (only just a possible interpretation); or the comment was a slight, and that person really is mean. (If the person really was being mean and acting out such negative intentions, then anyone could call that person mean and shouldn't be criticized for calling someone mean. That being said, I did not make any concrete claim of anyone being mean.)
jbadams wrote: Again, what others?
As written, your modified version wouldn't allow for use on an Arcane Bonded Item as the currently written version does, which I feel may explain why it's written as-is.
Yes, my modified version would allow for bonded items because bonded items are treated as if the character has that feat/ability (even if it is only that specific item.)
gplayle wrote: Yes, my modified version would allow for bonded items because bonded items are treated as if the character has that feat/ability (even if it is only that specific item.) Except that you said "create an item", and people would argue that by RAW you don't actually create your bonded item, you add enhancements to an existing item. Your intended meaning would therefore require additional wording to allow that possibility.
There may also be other exceptions that would not otherwise be covered, the arcane bonded item just happens to be the one myself and others thought of; it takes a lot of research to properly establish the impact of a small change in wording.
jbadams wrote: gplayle wrote: Yes, my modified version would allow for bonded items because bonded items are treated as if the character has that feat/ability (even if it is only that specific item.) Except that you said "create an item", and people would argue that by RAW you don't actually create your bonded item, you add enhancements to an existing item. Your intended meaning would therefore require additional wording to allow that possibility.
There may also be other exceptions that would not otherwise be covered, the arcane bonded item just happens to be the one myself and others thought of; it takes a lot of research to properly establish the impact of a small change in wording. Look at it again. I gave two versions of how to word the prerequisites:
"Prerequisite: Appropriate magic item feat [or could write "ability to create magical item"]"
Do you agree with me that to create a magical item, one must have the proper magical item feat? I think you do.
Do you agree with me that to alter/enhance a magical item or to alter/enhance a regular item into a magical item, one must have the proper magical item feat? I would also say you agree to this.
Going from the rules of other sections, specifically the section on adding new abilities, one must have the proper magical item feat. As for a bonded item, the rules state that the character is treated as having this feat for this bonded item.
My modified version does not need to make that explicit because it piggybacks off of adding new abilities and bonded item preconditions. With the rule the way it was before, it was not clear about how it piggybacks off of the other concrete rules.
My modified version of either "appropriate magic item feat" is clear about creation or enhancement, or the other way to write it "ability to create magical item" must have the ability before taking that discovery, which means one must be able to create a magical item, which means the feat, which means to alter/enhance as well, intrinsically. Considering a bonded item is treated as such, the progression works naturally downward.
Either way of the modified version, the prerequisite is checking if the character has the feat (or with regards to bonded items, treated as having the feat).
Ultimately, that is my biggest problem with the way Arcane Builder is currently written. It doesn't check (like when you write code, the computer checks for certain parameters), but with games like this if it doesn't check then it doesn't need to check. And not only does the discovery not check, it says explicitly "select one type of magic item...you create items of this type" without saying that it must go through a check. This is the way logic works and why I'm not intentionally misinterpreting this; unless someone can get me a concrete confirmation. I don't think it is likely as I don't suspect people would have communication to the writer(s) of that Arcane Discovery.
Ok, I don't agree with that, but we're getting sidetracked into a tangent here anyway; the validity or lack thereof of your hypothetical alternative wording doesn't actually matter.
Got links to any of these posts you've mentioned repeatedly where others share your interpretation? They may lend credence to your position, both with us and with your GM.
As it is it looks to us like you're the only one who interprets it that way, making any rewrite unnecessary unless you can show otherwise.
-------
It doesn't just say "you can create an item", it says "you can create an item 25% faster than normal".
Without the requisite feat "normal" for you isn't even possible, so 25% faster does nothing. Simple logic, and exactly how the wording reads grammatically.
You compare to a computer program doing exactly as told, but where is the 'program' specifically told to ignore the established general rule that the feats are always required? It probably wasn't just forgotten - they remembered it when they wrote the arcane bond - so have you considered it may not be there on purpose?
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Quote: Arcane Builder: You have an exceptional understanding of the theory behind creating magical items. Select one type of magic item (potions, wondrous items, and so on). You create items of this type 25% faster than normal, and gain a +4 bonus on Spellcraft checks (or other checks, as appropriate) to craft items of this type. You may select this discovery multiple times; its effects do not stack. Each time you select this discovery, it applies to a different type of magic item. Two arguments against your interpretation:
1) What is "normal" for a character without the item creation feat? Answer: they cannot create the item. Being 25% faster than "can't" is still "can't". If you have a way to bypass the item creation feat, then yes, you can avoid it and craft an item of the appropriate type 25% faster.
2) Game balance. If this ability does what you suggest, what wizard would ever pick up the item creation feats when they can sub this ability in for it as any feat they gain? Also, Scribe Scroll: a completely wasted class feature, and more expensive than any other item creation ability, if you are right, since a wizard has to spend a feat to scribe scrolls faster, but not any other type of item.
The onus is on you to demonstrate that the discovery must incontrovertibly allow the feat to be bypassed, meaning you must show that "normally" means "even characters without the item creation feat can create items", and also show that this ability as you read it is balanced against the item creation feats themselves.
gplayle wrote: I know this question was kind of already posted and I looked at those questions, but it doesn't really answer the question. I have looked over Arcane Builder and the discovery doesn't have any requirements. Not only that, the discovery if going by RAW,
It does have a requirement..... Wizard levels. You need wizard levels to take arcane discoveries.
Chemlak wrote: 2) Game balance. If this ability does what you suggest, what wizard would ever pick up the item creation feats when they can sub this ability in for it as any feat they gain? Also, Scribe Scroll: a completely wasted class feature, and more expensive than any other item creation ability, if you are right, since a wizard has to spend a feat to scribe scrolls faster, but not any other type of item.
The onus is on you to demonstrate that the discovery must incontrovertibly allow the feat to be bypassed, meaning you must show that "normally" means "even characters without the item creation feat can create items", and also show that this ability as you read it is balanced against the item creation feats themselves.
I agree with your comment on game balance. I already kind of said that. You would just pick this discovery if the ability to craft the item is intrinsic to the discovery. As for Scribe Scroll, I see your logic, but sometimes games just do that. Give you something of value, unless you go another direction. It happens.
As for the onus part. I never made a concrete claim about what the discovery does entail. The claim I made was that the discovery is disputable and I'm looking for concrete confirmation. The onus is not on me for that.
Now I'll go with you that the onus is on me with context to my GM and the campaign I'm playing, but not for proving something about a rule I didn't write and that is, at least, somewhat debatable. Saying the onus is on me is very close to the "Begging the question" fallacy.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
You're pushing pretty hard for this. If it's your own home campaign, do what you obviously want very much to do. If not, you're stuck with whatever your GM thinks is right.
I'll say it again. There are prerequisites for crafting magic items. One of those that cannot be ignored is that you MUST have the crafting feat for that kind of item. Period. This discovery does NOT have even one shred of wording that says "go ahead and ignore that other prerequisite" no matter how much you wish it did. Wishful thinking and liberal interpretation do not constitute RAW. If you can point at the text that EXPLICITLY says you can ignore that prerequisite, then I will wholeheartedly agree with you, and so will everyone else.
But there is no such text.
Sure, in this game we're always saying "Specific rules overwrite general rules". In this case, we have a general rule and you are wishing for a specific rule to overwrite it but no such specific rule exists. At least, not in this discovery. So you're stuck with the general rule.
So house-rule it the way you want it to work. Or deal with the actual rule. Those are your only options.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
You have violated the Geneva Convention by torturing the English language. 25% faster than normal is pretty easy to parse. If you normally craft wondrous items, you do it 25% faster. If you don't, you do it 0 percent faster, because it is not something that you do. Feats like this don't require a prerequisite listing that you have to have the ability to do something in order to do it faster. If a discovery were going to grant you two feats it would have to explicitly spell it out; not the other way around.
As always you should of course honour rule 0, and for a home game that you're running you should interpret it as you see fit. You seem to be looking to understand the proper role though so...
gplayle wrote: The claim I made was that the discovery is disputable The problem a lot of us are having with that is it seems like you are literally the only person who thinks that it's disputable. Everyone else thinks the wording is perfectly clear and agrees on the same interpretation.
I didn't want to be an ass and continue to hammer this point only to be immediately disproven, so I actually took the time to go through every thread listed in the first ten pages of search results here: I only found the one above mentioned person who initially shared your interpretation, but that person agreed they had misread the text and changed their stance.
I did a quick Google search and couldn't find anyone who shares your interpretation in any other community either.
You've claimed repeatedly that the wording isn't clear and that you're not the only one who disputes it, but after being asked to provide examples multiple times have failed to do so. The only reasonable assumption we can make is that you do not have any examples to provide.
As literally the only person out of the many who have discussed it to think the wording is unclear and interpret it your way, I would suggest you should reassess your position.
You're simply reading it incorrectly, and you've been given multiple logical arguments to support that, whilst your only refutation is that you think otherwise.
Again, if your GM is happy to run the rule as per your interpretation that's absolutely fine, but that will be a house rule and simply isn't the actual rule as intended or written.
gplayle wrote:
Now I'll go with you that the onus is on me with context to my GM and the campaign I'm playing, but not for proving something about a rule I didn't write and that is, at least, somewhat debatable. Saying the onus is on me is very close to the "Begging the question" fallacy.
Affirmanti incumbit probatio... The burden is on the person who affirms. You must provide proof that the wording gives you the permission to bypass the normal rule.
Quote: Select one type of magic item (potions, wondrous items, and so on). You create items of this type 25% faster than normal The "normal" creation time for an item for someone who lacks the feat is "It cannot be done.". 25% faster than "it cannot be done" is still "it cannot be done".
The onus is on you to provide proof or evidence that, somehow, this discovery grants you the ability to create in addition to creating 25% faster.
Let it go. You know you're wrong.
gplayle wrote: This seems to allow the character to create the item.
Can I get a hardcore confirmation on this?
It does not bypass the feat requirements. Why? because it nowhere mentions that it bypasses requirements. It is very clearly worded what it does.
If you craft an item, you become faster at it. But to start crafting an item in the 1st place, you need the appropriate feat.
Your "interpretation" sounds to me like wishful thinking if i am polite...
Last example:
If you'd take the hypothetical feat "Super-duper Get-Away Driver", which lets you drive through inner-city traffic 25% faster, and nothing else.
Where then would you get the interpretation that it summons you a virtual car out of thin air if you have no automobile, so you can use that speedbonus? Get a car 1st, then you can use the faster driving feat.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Also:
Quote: Note that all items have prerequisites in their descriptions. These prerequisites must be met for the item to be created. Most of the time, they take the form of spells that must be known by the item's creator (although access through another magic item or spellcaster is allowed). The DC to create a magic item increases by +5 for each prerequisite the caster does not meet. The only exception to this is the requisite item creation feat, which is mandatory. In addition, you cannot create potions, spell-trigger, or spell-completion magic items without meeting their spell prerequisites. Since specific trumps general, we need a specific rule to overcome this. Nowhere does the discovery specifically state it avoids this mandatory prerequisite.
How fast can one normally craft an item without the feat to do so?
Yup... Increasing normal speed seems pretty obvious.
You use this to modify a feat that you have already taken, it does not grant a feat.
So, I want to go back to my original post and mention that I only said "seems" and that I was asking for a "hardcore confirmation".
I didn't really get the confirmation I wanted, but your answers were helpful. So...with that said, thank you for that and all the comments.
As for jbadams...I saw like maybe 3. One of those people was the person you mentioned, as I didn't read his last comment. I didn't feel like going back and looking for all the places I saw them...so you can stick me with that if you want. *Shrugs*. I've been doing a lot of research on this wizard build.
As for an earlier comment, I did bring it up with my GM, and he agrees with what was the overall sentiment. (Which I already admitted I would be fine with that.)
So, thanks again for the comments.
gplayle wrote: So, I want to go back to my original post and mention that I only said "seems" and that I was asking for a "hardcore confirmation".
I didn't really get the confirmation I wanted, but your answers were helpful. So...with that said, thank you for that and all the comments.
As for jbadams...I saw like maybe 3. One of those people was the person you mentioned, as I didn't read his last comment. I didn't feel like going back and looking for all the places I saw them...so you can stick me with that if you want. *Shrugs*. I've been doing a lot of research on this wizard build.
As for an earlier comment, I did bring it up with my GM, and he agrees with what was the overall sentiment. (Which I already admitted I would be fine with that.)
So, thanks again for the comments.
Your argument is pretty much the same as the one that was used by some who argued that a human taking Racial Heritage (Kobold) and the Tail Terror feats gave you a tail because Tail Terror says "You can make tail slap attacks with your tail." and doesn't list having a tail in the prerequisites. The devs ruled that it does NOT give you the required tail and that the requirement was implied.
If a discovery, feat or other ability would allow you to do something that implicitly requires another item, feat, etc... you must meet that requirement even if the Prerequisite text doesn't state it.
In the case of this discovery the requirement be able to already craft items is implied and the discovery itself does NOT give you that feat for free.
OldSkoolRPG wrote: Your argument is pretty much the same as the one that was used by some who argued that a human taking Racial Heritage (Kobold) and the Tail Terror feats gave you a tail because Tail Terror says "You can make tail slap attacks with your tail." and doesn't list having a tail in the prerequisites. The devs ruled that it does NOT give you the required tail and that the requirement was implied.
If a discovery, feat or other ability would allow you to do something that implicitly requires another item, feat, etc... you must meet that requirement even if the Prerequisite text doesn't state it.
In the case of this discovery the requirement be able to already craft items is implied and the discovery itself does NOT give you that feat for free.
Dude...seriously? I make a cordial, sincere comment about everyone's comments and being fine with what everyone says, and you make a comment like that?
And as for your analogy...it's not congruent. The idea I would look at is if Racial Heritage gives you another limb. Gaining an ability to do something and magically having another limb are different.
And just for measure I went and looked up the comments you were referencing:
"'Benefit: You can make a tail slap attack with your tail.' Racial heritage lets you be considered as a Kobold for "Requirement: Kobold", it never says anything about being granted additional limbs"
You referenced having a tail with Tail Terror feat, when it should be referencing being if considered a Kobold, for Racial Heritage, if it gives you a tail. As well as Tail Terror seems more explicit because it says "your tail" than implicit. So having a tail is an explicit requirement for taking that Feat.
But even saying the rule was implied shows interpretation can be different. It's only when things/rules are explicit do interpretation claims lose credibility.
With my question for Arcane Builder, my question wasn't whether it was implied requirement, I was asking for something more explicit. I was quite fine with any implied ruling, considering I mentioned I would be fine that my GM sided with what others were saying. I wanted some hardcore, concrete, explicit confirmation and no one gave me that.
gplayle...
Saying that no-one gave you "hardcore, concrete, explicit confirmation" is not accurate.
Without a feat, how fast would your character "normally" make a magic item?
alexd1976 wrote: gplayle...
Saying that no-one gave you "hardcore, concrete, explicit confirmation" is not accurate.
Without a feat, how fast would your character "normally" make a magic item?
I don't want to go through this again. I said there is some vagueness to it because there is implied connections. I thanked everyone for their comments.
gplayle wrote: alexd1976 wrote: gplayle...
Saying that no-one gave you "hardcore, concrete, explicit confirmation" is not accurate.
Without a feat, how fast would your character "normally" make a magic item?
I don't want to go through this again. I said there is some vagueness to it because there is implied connections. I thanked everyone for their comments. Nothing vague about it. No implied connections.
How fast do you normally craft without the feat?
No to crafting items without the appropriate crafting feats, with the exception of bonded items. Even with Arcane Builder.
gplayle wrote:
Dude...seriously? I make a cordial, sincere comment about everyone's comments and being fine with what everyone says, and you make a comment like that?
And as for your analogy...it's not congruent. The idea I would look at is if Racial Heritage gives you another limb. Gaining an ability to do something and magically having another limb are different.
And just for measure I went and looked up the comments you were referencing:
"'Benefit: You can make a tail slap attack with your tail.' Racial heritage lets you be considered as a Kobold for "Requirement: Kobold", it never says anything about being granted additional limbs"
You referenced having a tail with Tail Terror feat, when it should be referencing being if considered a Kobold, for Racial Heritage, if it gives you a tail. As well as Tail Terror seems more explicit because it says "your tail" than implicit. So having a tail is an explicit requirement for taking that Feat.
But even saying the rule was implied shows interpretation can be different. It's only when things/rules are explicit do interpretation claims lose credibility.
With my question for Arcane Builder, my question wasn't whether it was implied requirement, I was asking for something more explicit. I was...
I'm not sure what part of the post you found worth a Dude...seriously?"
The two are not inequivalent arguments. You are saying that because the text says "You create items of this type 25% faster than normal" so it seems like it gives you the ability to create the item. The Tail Terror argument was that Tail Terror says "You can make a tail slap attack with your tail" so it seems like you must grow a tail.
Also saying a rule is implied does not show it is open to interpretation. It is only in cases like this where someone is attempting to stake out an obviously incorrect position that such a claim is ever made.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
gplayle:
You're welcome for the insight. Glad to hear that it sounds like you and your GM came to what sounds like, at least from my perspective, the correct decision.
Oh, and welcome to the rules forum. Most people here won't stop until you are utterly humiliated. I accept your most gracious acceptance of what at least appears to be fact.
Have a good night.
gplayle wrote:
Dude...seriously? I make a cordial, sincere comment about everyone's comments and being fine with what everyone says, and you make a comment like that?
Walk away. There is no dignity or pride for you to scavenge from this thread. Let it die with a whimper. Please. For your own sake.
I think the reaction was mostly due to the false dichotomy you've presented between inductive and deductive reasoning. In all sets of rule not everything can possible be spelled out explicitly; this is true of legislation and game rules. I think people take exception to your assertion that explicit statement is more valid that the very logical reading of the arcane builder feat. There is no more evidence to be gathered on this front; as is true for most of the PF rules. So when you say, you appreciate the comments but didn't really find what you are looking for, I believe most of the commenters are looking for you to realize that your desire for a more explicit statement is a faulty assumption; particularly in an open-ended and constantly expanding rules set.
The default logic should be if an ability is not explicitly grant, it's not implicitly granted, rather than, if a power could be read as implicitly granting an additional ability it should be assumed as granted unless it is explicitly denied.
So while I cannot fault your politeness, I truly believe people are looking for recognition that you are misunderstanding the appropriate way to read PF rules. that the assumptions that underlie your argument are faulty, and that there remains no open question on this topic.
Create Mr. Pitt wrote: I think the reaction was mostly due to the false dichotomy you've presented between inductive and deductive reasoning. In all sets of rule not everything can possible be spelled out explicitly; this is true of legislation and game rules. I think people take exception to your assertion that explicit statement is more valid that the very logical reading of the arcane builder feat. There is no more evidence to be gathered on this front; as is true for most of the PF rules. So when you say, you appreciate the comments but didn't really find what you are looking for, I believe most of the commenters are looking for you to realize that your desire for a more explicit statement is a faulty assumption; particularly in an open-ended and constantly expanding rules set.
The default logic should be if an ability is not explicitly grant, it's not implicitly granted, rather than, if a power could be read as implicitly granting an additional ability it should be assumed as granted unless it is explicitly denied.
So while I cannot fault your politeness, I truly believe people are looking for recognition that you are misunderstanding the appropriate way to read PF rules. that the assumptions that underlie your argument are faulty, and that there remains no open question on this topic.
I didn't present any false dichotomy between inductive and deductive reasoning. I understand that not all rules can be spelled out explicitly. That's totally fine. But with base order logic, anything that has implicitness to it means there must be an inductive order. With induction, there is variance, meaning interpretation is allowed and intrinsic. (However small room there might be between piecing things together.) With this in mind, only deductive things can be "valid". Anything with induction must be strong or weak. Labeling inductive logic with the aspect of "valid" is just simply wrong. Pure and simply wrong. So my assertion that explicit statements are more valid is correct of logic, and the only correct way. Hence, and I want to make sure I express this abundantly clear, I was ASKING for an explicit confirmation. Everyone jumping down my throat, for asking this question, was unwarranted. Everyone jumping down my throat, saying I had no right to attempt to interpret anything, when there is inductive connections, was also not warranted.
The strong logical reading of arcane builder is exactly what everyone said. I will grant them that. I agree. I agree the weak logical reading of arcane builder is what I was hinting at. I was asking if there was a way to move from reading this rule as being strong or weak, to gaining a valid or invalid confirmation. Having a valid confirmation is an extremely better way of knowing something, when it comes to Epistemology. With induction, even the strongest connections have a little bit of what is know as "epistemic luck". (Tanget thought, this message board is saying "epistemic" and "tanget" is spelled incorrectly. I think that's kind of funny.)
The rule had a small room for interpretation. So when I said I didn't find what I was looking for, I mean directly, an explicit confirmation; not the strong inductive connection, which everyone was expressing, that I could see for myself prior to post, and in which I agreed.
I mentioned that if I could not get this type of answer, that would have been fine, but the confirmation was what I was looking for; not that I was asserting anything like others have been placing on me. My original post was a question. It was not a post to settle a dispute in which I made a hard claim about the rule; in which others were trying to tell me I was wrong.
This post went from a question to others trying to tell me that I was wrong, that the rule didn't have room for interpretation, and that I was intentionally reading the rule incorrectly.
The default logic should be if an ability is not explicitly granted, it's not implicitly granted? I would say that isn't exactly true either. I will say that is generally what should be done, but the whole idea of RAW and RAI shows that default logic is not always the case 100% of the time. Again...which leads to variance.
Well, maybe that's what people are looking for. Maybe they are looking for more. Or maybe they have other intentions.
Again...I will grant them the strong inductive connection between the rule and what should happen. But I cannot grant them that this rule didn't have at least a small room for interpretation and honestly that's what this is all about. That people think there isn't any small room when there is, at least when it comes to inductive connections.
So...I'll go along with the inductive answer. That's fine. If someone said "I don't think you're going to get the kind of confirmation you're looking for" instead of what was said, and in the tone in the way I was reading it...Well, yeah.
I actually did not read your post in a rude tone. You were attempting to explain things. So thank you for that. As for your claims that I was false about inductive and deductive reasoning, no. If it helps you believe me, I even taught Logic at the university level. Granted this doesn't make me perfect, but inductive reasoning...well, I hope you are seeing what I'm leading towards, haha.
|
