What would the PDT do vs What do the words say?

[Legio_MCMLXXXVII]

Darigaaz the Igniter wrote:

What the Words Say

Because the other option has given us crane wing, metaphorical hands, 1/day magic items with attunement periods, (previously) requiring 2 actual weapons to flurry of blows, feats and abilities letting you add spells known not working unless they're in-class, and many more.

This man knows what's up.

[Create Mr. Pitt]

What the words say matter. As does the general intention of the spell. Words matter most, but if a literal reading invalidates a spell I might look at other evidence. This almost always happens because of an ambiguity or lazy writing on powers and items that will never be updated or errataed.

So yeah words are going to be your most important tool, but words need to be interpreted sometimes; especially when the terms are ambiguous. Most of the time this is super easy, in a few corner cases it's hard. But you don't need to choose, it's contextual.

[Starbuck_II]

Rhedyn wrote:

Words > intent

But context does matter along with internal consistency. Dev intent doesn't matter because a good dev can express intent with the rules and a bad dev is not worth listening too.(Dragon totem DR)

As for the twf feat. Context would lead you to believe the feat removes twf penalties not power attack penalties while twf.

Ohh, so now we can use one handed weapons and that shield without a -4 penalty?

We don't even need TWF feat since as you claim it ignores all TWf penalties?

[Rhedyn]

Starbuck_II wrote:

Rhedyn wrote:

Words > intent

But context does matter along with internal consistency. Dev intent doesn't matter because a good dev can express intent with the rules and a bad dev is not worth listening too.(Dragon totem DR)

As for the twf feat. Context would lead you to believe the feat removes twf penalties not power attack penalties while twf.

Ohh, so now we can use one handed weapons and that shield without a -4 penalty?

We don't even need TWF feat since as you claim it ignores all TWf penalties?

well no, I would ban poorly written feats. Especially anything outside the prd or DSP psionics, I view with the same scrutiny as homebrew.

If the feat says it removes twf penalties, then it removes twf penalties.

[Darigaaz the Igniter]

Darigaaz the Igniter wrote:

What the Words Say

Because the other option has given us crane wing, metaphorical hands, 1/day magic items with attunement periods, (previously) requiring 2 actual weapons to flurry of blows, feats and abilities letting you add spells known not working unless they're in-class, and many more.

Oh, almost forgot that temporary hard limit of like 4 free actions per turn since they were trying to nerf the double-barreled pistol juggler into the ground.

I'll forgive the SLA early access ruling, but only because they always had a clause about revisiting it later.

[Chess Pwn]

I hate it because the clause was, "if this leads to characters that are too strong" and I believe it was changed for, "it's now to hard to write things (prestige classes and feats) and remembering to use CL 5 instead of 3rd level spells. "

[wraithstrike]

I do agree about the lack of consistency being a problem. As an example, the "no ruling" on taking 10 which as written makes it a player choice, but per the FAQ is a GM option.

[Imbicatus]

Well, to show the weaknesses of rules as written, what exactly does a first printing Tetori Monk get for bonus feats at 2nd, 10th, and 18th level?

[captain yesterday]

Crushing Embrace (2nd), Twin Lock (10th), and Backbreaker (18th)

Edit: which all, evidently, don't exist in the first printing. :-)

[Liz Courts]

Removed posts and their responses. Keep this on the topic the OP presented—if you've got commentary about anything else, including your dislike of the FAQ system, take it to another thread.

[Calth]

Imbicatus wrote:

Well, to show the weaknesses of rules as written, what exactly does a first printing Tetori Monk get for bonus feats at 2nd, 10th, and 18th level?

Some rules being broken as written does not change that the actual written rules should be the first recourse when discussing what the actual game rules are. It can procede from there to discussing if its broken/unintended/game-breaking/whatever, but the actual written words determine the baseline.