| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
"Barbarian's Damage Reduction" always meant DR gained from the class, not just a Barbarian who has DR from any source.It does not say "Barbarian's Damage Reduction". It says "barbarian's damage reduction".
The difference between a common and proper noun is important.
If they are going to issue errata due to the FAQ, they should fix it in all places. 'Tis all.
So wait... you are saying that how it's written - the DR would stack with say ... stoneskin.... because when someone casts that on the barbarian it becomes 'barbarian's damage reduction'?
What about mithril armor? Why didn't everyone suddenly understand that IR with mithril armor and stoneskin would be 'invulnerable' in the true meaning of the word!
Are we going to have an argument now about how a barbarian's damage reduction class feature, despite granting DR/-, doesn't work against spells that do physical damage?
"Barbarian's Damage Reduction" always meant DR gained from the class, not just a Barbarian who has DR from any source.It does not say "Barbarian's Damage Reduction". It says "barbarian's damage reduction".
The difference between a common and proper noun is important.
If they are going to issue errata due to the FAQ, they should fix it in all places. 'Tis all.
So wait... you are saying that how it's written - the DR would stack with say ... stoneskin.... because when someone casts that on the barbarian it becomes 'barbarian's damage reduction'?
What about mithril armor? Why didn't everyone suddenly understand that IR with mithril armor and stoneskin would be 'invulnerable' in the true meaning of the word!
One of the reasons I hate dealing with intentionally fallacious people.
(And I'm gonna assume you meant Adamantine)
I did! Although in the context for which it's meant... did it matter? I did forget my [sarcasm] tags though....
Fine, but class features, special abilities, and special qualities aren't capitalised in text under the normal writing conventions for Pathfinder, so "barbarian's damage reduction" could be referring to the class feature or the special quality, and it is impossible to tell which without further clarification. What needs fixing is not that it says "barbarian's damage reduction" without any capitalisation, but that it needs to say "barbarian's damage reduction class feature", because "barbarian's Damage Reduction" is incorrect formatting by Paizo's own style rules.
|
Fine, but class features, special abilities, and special qualities aren't capitalised in text under the normal writing conventions for Pathfinder, so "barbarian's damage reduction" could be referring to the class feature or the special quality, and it is impossible to tell which without further clarification. What needs fixing is not that it says "barbarian's damage reduction" without any capitalisation, but that it needs to say "barbarian's damage reduction class feature", because "barbarian's Damage Reduction" is incorrect formatting by Paizo's own style rules.
Barbarian's damage reduction refers to the class ability. There is absolutely nothing that specifically interacts with other types of DR a Barbarian might have from other sources that is also dependent upon specifically a Barbarian having it.
|
|
What needs fixing is not that it says "barbarian's damage reduction" without any capitalisation, but that it needs to say "barbarian's damage reduction class feature"....This is exactly what I am meaning. We are on the same page.
That is completely unnesecary.
Where are these Abilties that specially target a Barbarian's Cold Iron DR, but only because they're a Barbarian and not a Fighter or Cleric?
Silver DR?
Magic DR?
There aren't any. Barbarian's damage reduction refers specifically to the class ability. Adding "class feature" after it would just be superfluous.
|
|
Barbarian's damage reduction refers specifically to the class ability. Adding "class feature" after it would just be superfluous.Naming the class ability to be the exact same name as an existing game definition is bad form and what caused the confusion, hence the FAQ. It's only due to the FAQ that this confusion was removed.
We both agree the confusion was removed. You assuming I do not is in error.
The PDT brought up errata though. I simply pointed out another location that also needs to be errata'd to go with the FAQ so that their explained RAI matches RAW without the unnecessary confusion.
*************************
To answer your question of "Where are these Abilties that specially target a Barbarian's ... DR, but only because they're a Barbarian and not a Fighter or Cleric?", see Invulnerable Rager archetype.
The FaQ has put into effect that Barbarian's damage reduction and damage reduction gained from the Invulnerable Rager's Invulnerability are two different things.
I'm asking what else is there that would cause you to think that Barbarian's damage reduction could refer to anything besides the class ability?
Barbarian's damage reduction refers specifically to the class ability. Adding "class feature" after it would just be superfluous.Naming the class ability to be the exact same name as an existing game definition is bad form and what caused the confusion, hence the FAQ. It's only due to the FAQ that this confusion was removed.
We both agree the confusion was removed. You assuming I do not is in error.
The PDT brought up errata though. I simply pointed out another location that also needs to be errata'd to go with the FAQ so that their explained RAI matches RAW without the unnecessary confusion.
*************************
To answer your question of "Where are these Abilties that specially target a Barbarian's ... DR, but only because they're a Barbarian and not a Fighter or Cleric?", see Invulnerable Rager archetype.
The FaQ has put into effect that Barbarian's damage reduction and damage reduction gained from the Invulnerable Rager's Invulnerability are two different things.
I'm asking what else is there that would cause you to think that Barbarian's damage reduction could refer to anything besides the class ability?
Well, I assume that's because it's awkward that "damage reduction" isn't referring to the core game mechanic of damage reduction but the specific ability "damage reduction". I never agreed with that viewpoint, but I can understand how someone could come to the conclusion that the rage power was referring to the mechanic in general.
|
|
The FaQ has put into effect that Barbarian's damage reduction and damage reduction gained from the Invulnerable Rager's Invulnerability are two different things.
I'm asking what else is there that would cause you to think that Barbarian's damage reduction could refer to anything besides the class ability?
If they had of just left it as a FAQ only, I wouldn't have said a thing. It's not the first FAQ that I have disagreed with yet will still enforce when I GM PFS.
But, they mentioned adding errata. If they are going to fix one thing with errata, they should just go ahead and fix all parts that caused the confusion in the first place.
Remember, most of their clients don't even read the FAQs. This clarification will never reach anyone but FAQ users. They do use the books and/or PRD though. So, get the clarified info out to them too..?
It won't be clarified for people who don't read the FAQs since they'll still assume that "Barbarian Damage Reduction Class Feature" will also apply to an Invulnerable Rager's Invulnerability.
Tacking class feature on the end will "fix" nothing, basically they would need to completely rename the base ability and everything that references it.
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
What needs fixing is not that it says "barbarian's damage reduction" without any capitalisation, but that it needs to say "barbarian's damage reduction class feature"....This is exactly what I am meaning. We are on the same page.
They simply never do this, so they won't be starting just because you'd like to find a reason to disagree with a FAQ.
|
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
Not sure what surprise you mean on my side. I wasn't surprised by the FAQ.I was surprised that they mentioned performing errata in the FAQ.
As you said... "They simply never do this".
If they are going to perform errata, I tried to find the other places that could use it too based on and to support the FAQ. I've found two others only so far.
I was saying they never refer (or at best rarely) refer to things as "class features". They don't say "Ac bonus class feature" or "channel class feature". So don't expect that they should say "damage reduction class feature" because we already know in context they are referring to the barbarian damage reduction class feature.
We also won't get it confused with the invulnerable class feature, as it works off level/2 instead of a chart progression like normal barbarian damage reduction class feature. So no one should confuse the two. The errata might be because they feel this needs extra attention to avoid confusion.
Not sure what surprise you mean on my side. I wasn't surprised by the FAQ.I was surprised that they mentioned performing errata in the FAQ.
As you said... "They simply never do this".
If they are going to perform errata, I tried to find the other places that could use it too based on and to support the FAQ. I've found two others only so far.
All FAQs get incorporated into the errata. However that may not happen for a while as they only do errata when they need to reprint a batch of books. It could be 2 years, 6 years, or never before the actual errata is published on such an old book as this.
|
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
Just spent 20 minutes on Archiveofnethys searching on "class feature" and the only occurrences I found were in per-requisties lines. I couldn't find a single reference to "class feature" in ability text.
So the above mentioned "Dragon Totem Resilience" reference to "class feature" is certainly in the minority if not an error that should be corrected by removing "class feature" from the text.
Devil's advocate (I'm actually happy with the wording not being changed and them removing IDR from the IR rage powers suggestions), but while class feature is a relatively rare term, class ability crops up in a heckuvalot of places, including feats, classes, archetypes, and even the description of skill checks in the core rules.
Just gonna drop this here as an explanation for why this particular FAQ mentions incorporation into errata.
Who knows? It depends on whether people buy them all, I guess. But one of my pushes for us is to make it clear when there's something we'll definitely need to errata next time when/if it happens. Not even counting the fact that it's a good tag for future errata, FAQs are in a special situation I've mentioned several times in this thread where smart awesome players are coming to two (or more) different conclusions, and thus no matter what the answer, some people might be upset the FAQ goes the other way. Mentioning that we're going to errata something in the FAQ is the best I can think of as a sort of acknowledgement that everyone involved was awesome, and nobody was "wrong" (the ones who aligned with the FAQ can feel they were right because that was the FAQ, and the ones who didn't have saved face because we agreed with them that the original text could lead [or even flat-out does lead] to their interpretation and it needs a fix).This is of course implying that almost six years after its second printing the APG is ever going to get an errata. :P
Well another thread that's going to get locked, way to go community.
Keeping up with the constant, confusing, and often contradictory FAQs and errata is becoming a very unfun exercise. I know we all probably enjoy a little Accounts & Ledgers, but this is becoming overly burdensome for me as a DM.
There are already mountains of rules being churned out every month but on top of that I apparently need to review all past material every other month for errata and FAQs.
Playing Pathfinder by the 'rules' feels like an Sisyphean task.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Or what I do, and disregard all errata.
Or what I do, and disregard all errata.
Far better option, particularly on the smaller scale of individual groups. Only problem I have is everyone at the table seems to have different books...
I'm really never going to understand this errata fetish at Paizo... home games are more than capable of house-ruling anything they consider to be a problem already, and PFS already has its own special subset of rules. Why on God's green earth do we need yet another subset of ever-changing, borderline untrackable rules? We constantly hear about manpower shortages at Paizo, but hammering anything that looks 'too popular' is how they choose to expend what little extra they might have? C'mon...
That's why we cannot play by the rules, too many changes in too short time....
This. When your party plays through an AP and by the time they're finished, every single character is now technically 'illegal', you know there's a problem.