Well there are plenty of things that go the other way.
There are some but not even most of your list qualifies.
Sohei monk technically removed armor restrictions on flurry when it replaced armor. That could have been said to not mean replace the flurry restriction. But the FAQ was that it did replace the flurry restriction.
I don't see how it technically removed armor restrictions. You're supposed to be amonk in light armor. YOu couldn't do that if you couldn't flurry in light armor.
Mithral is light armor for things except proficiency, and now also armor categories. Easily could have been that they meant it's now light for everything except proficiency.
Armor catagories were something new with the armor masters handbook and had to decide mithral on their own.
mithral chainshirt for large creatures might be 1200 or 2200. The devs met and quickly thought it was one value, but then were persuaded by arguments brought up in the debate threads to need to reconsider their answer.
And haven't come back with it since.
Bardic masterpieces working or not with other bard songs.
Not sure what the issue is here.
Dragonscion fighter and it's arcane strike. Who knows if it's supposed to scale or not.
That came out like last week, right?
double dipping stats.
The non persnickity answer is no double dipping: thats the entire point of sources and bonus types.
The persnickity answer was ALSO no double dipping. Arguments to the contrary involved selective ideas of what a source was.
This one was obvious. People vehemently insisted it wasn't the case in defiance of the common sense answer.
Are spiked shields a weapon in their own right or are they considered a modified shield.
again, the common sense answer that your shield got a size boost won out.
mounted combat, since they keep changing their minds of what they mean and how it works, and it still never works.
The common sense answer to ignore the charge rules and let the person on the horse do person on a horse stuff also won out here.
There are lots of issues where it easily could be either option. If the rules team just met and flipped a coin for all these issues and just went with the result we wouldn't know the difference.
I think it would look a little different. Right now it looks like they have a d6 and the 6 says "persnickit" and the rest of the numbers say "Rai"
Like had they ruled that only arcane casters qualify for improved familiars. I could easily have said, "See this just shows that the rules are what the text means rather than 'some extrapolated and twisted meaning of the words'."
Extrapolation is not twisting. It gets you the right answer far more often than not, as your own list shows.
Spell combat says, "This functions much like two-weapon fighting", so it's strange to say the magus' off hand spell isn't considered as being very similar to a weapon.
Kind of. But then it lists an exception from the general rules regarding TWF (that is, two weapons must be used), which is stating that instead of the off-hand being a weapon, it's a spell that you cast with a casting time of 1 standard action or less.
If anything, it's more strange to ignore FAQs that specifically state that spells aren't weapons. From what the FAQs say, they only count as weapons for feats that requires specific choices, and for applying bonuses/penalties to attacks and (conditionally) damage rolls. Nothing else.
I don't see how it technically removed armor restrictions. You're supposed to be a monk in light armor. You couldn't do that if you couldn't flurry in light armor.
The author didn't intend to let them flurry in their armor. If the author had had their way the answer was no. So the author of the monk in light armor, meant no when he wrote it. That makes a strong case that the intention of the archetype and what the rules meant to the author was no.
Armor catagories were something new with the armor masters handbook and had to decide mithral on their own.
This came out before armor masters. There were traits, and magic enhancement that could only work for medium or light armor. The FAQ came out and said that such traits and magic enhancements were tied to the original category of the armor, instead of the lighter category. But had the coin flipped the other way it would be just as easily based on the lighter.
And haven't come back with it since.
Right, and either way the rule it will have rules support, there isn't a clear answer as currently written, and they don't even know intent right now. So a coinflip would be as valid as whatever way they do go to decide.
Not sure what the issue is here.
does it make sense that your 10 hour buff that you've had for 5 hours turn off as soon as the bard starts to inspire courage? Cause that's the effect if masterpieces really are just performances. If they are something special then how are they special?
That came out like last week, right?
Does it matter? maybe a better example would have been The magus' flamboyant arcana that was ruled to have a swashbuckler level of 0. Does that seem like rules intended? You gain abilities as a swashbuckler but not any levels of it. Seems as valid as saying that you shouldn't count as arcane caster level for the feat. But improved familiar didn't care so maybe this shouldn't either.
again, the common sense answer that your shield got a size boost won out.
So you don't think it's common sense that a spiked shield is a different weapon from a normal shield? Especially when the text says that a spiked shield was treated as a weapon on it's own right?
The common sense answer to ignore the charge rules and let the person on the horse do person on a horse stuff also won out here.
What do you mean? As far as I'm aware there is no legal way of running this for the primary example case, hence no current winner. And do you really feel that the most common sense solution is to ignore the rules?
I hadn't even mentioned the FAQs that get reversed. Monk's flurry is or isn't able to be done with one weapon, dev intent was no, then when they said no they realized how bad of intent that was and changed their intent to yes. I'd be SUPER surprised if you had predicted that as the obvious way to have parsed the rules text.
SLA are spells or not. Does Spell focus evocation work for SLA fireball?
Does Elemental focus fire work for SLA fireball?
No they aren't spells... But yes cause Augment Summoning works?
Did you accurately predict the weapon-like Spells FAQ answer?
If you feel that all of these are obvious and you get 90+% of all FAQs right, good for you! You are most likely not the majority, else these topics wouldn't have so much debate.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If anything, it's more strange to ignore FAQs that specifically state that spells aren't weapons. From what the FAQs say, they only count as weapons for feats that requires specific choices, and for applying bonuses/penalties to attacks and (conditionally) damage rolls. Nothing else.
That's just specific vs general. Spells aren't treated as weapons, except when they are. Spell combat is one of the cases where they are.
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
Mechanics that have long been accepting as working.
Working by players, not by GM or by Paizo.
the rules are usually what the text means rather than the exact persnickity thing they say.
If more embraced this, there would little or not trouble during waves of Errata.
Did you accurately predict the weapon-like Spells FAQ answer?
If you feel that all of these are obvious and you get 90+% of all FAQs right, good for you! You are most likely not the majority, else these topics wouldn't have so much debate.
Yes, but I had dev team members posting how it works from 2009+.
Also, yes I'm right on 90%+ or more like 99% of the time. But I'm also aware I'm not in the majority.
The only FAQ I've been wrong about:
Maneuver Master Flurry of Maneuvers
Sohei Flurry in Light
Free actions during Attacks of Opportunities
I've been right on:
double stack ability
weapon like
spiked shields
virtual size with actual size
ranged sneak attack from flanking
and so many others that I can't count...
Mechanics that have long been accepting as working.Working by players, not by GM or by Paizo.
the rules are usually what the text means rather than the exact persnickity thing they say.If more embraced this, there would little or not trouble during waves of Errata.
Did you accurately predict the weapon-like Spells FAQ answer?
If you feel that all of these are obvious and you get 90+% of all FAQs right, good for you! You are most likely not the majority, else these topics wouldn't have so much debate.
Yes, but I had dev team members posting how it works from 2009+.
Also, yes I'm right on 90%+ or more like 99% of the time. But I'm also aware I'm not in the majority.
The only FAQ I've been wrong about:
Maneuver Master Flurry of Maneuvers
Sohei Flurry in Light
Free actions during Attacks of OpportunitiesI've been right on:
double stack ability
weapon like
spiked shields
virtual size with actual size
ranged sneak attack from flanking
and so many others that I can't count...
If we include Errata too are you as accurate? Like a magus counting as a lv0 swashbuckler for his abilities from flamboyant arcana?
And yes, the more FAQs we get the easier it is to predict the answers for the next because you can get a feel for the way the PDT thinks. But if you take any of these in isolation and have to guess which way some randomly selected GM would rule it how accurate would you be? We have the situation that we have had the same selected GM for years, so we can begin to get a feel for which way they'll rule.
That's just specific vs general. Spells aren't treated as weapons, except when they are. Spell combat is one of the cases where they are.
If anything, it's more strange to ignore FAQs that specifically state that spells aren't weapons. From what the FAQs say, they only count as weapons for feats that requires specific choices, and for applying bonuses/penalties to attacks and (conditionally) damage rolls. Nothing else.
All you can say with absolute certainty are the examples where the FAQ says they count as weapons, and the FAQ says for anything that doesn't follow the listed example, they are not considered weapons.
To reference the relevant FAQ text once more:
Certain special abilities (for instance rays, kinetic blasts, and mystic bolts) can specifically be selected with feats like Weapon Focus and Improved Critical. They still aren’t considered a type of weapon for other rules; they are not part of any weapon group and don’t qualify for the effects of fighter weapon training, warpriest sacred weapon, magus arcane pool, paladin divine bond, or any other such ability.
There you go; it outright says that special abilities (which by the FAQ title, includes spells,) are considered valid choices for feats that require specific weapon choices, but are not a weapon for other rules, whether it's for selecting via weapon groups, enhancing as manufactured weapons, and so on. Based on that, and the fact that it's an inclusive/exclusive sentence structure (because any rule outside of the listed exception becomes rules other than the listed exception, or as the FAQ stated it, "other rules"), there's plenty of evidence to support the ideal that spells, no matter how they're cast (Spell Combat or not), are not weapons.
|
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
I had the examples he gave in mind. That he or anyone actually predicted all the results from the FAQ of the CRB alone is even less credible. Or did anyone predicted those FAQS that contradicted/superseded the other FAQS?That's like far from 99%.3 out of how many hundred entries on the CRB page alone?
Look at my posts. Find any other examples where I got it wrong.
I can't recall any others, so find one and I'll cede the claim.
Edit: the real point is you can predict which way they go based on past answers.
...
Armor catagories were something new with the armor masters handbook and had to decide mithral on their own.This came out before armor masters. There were traits, and magic enhancement that could only work for medium or light armor. The FAQ came out and said that such traits and magic enhancements were tied to the original category of the armor, instead of the lighter category. But had the coin flipped the other way it would be just as easily based on the lighter.
...
Which FAQ was this? I don't remember seeing that part about traits anywhere.
Look at the FAQs for Arcane Strike and Spell Combat + Haste .
The initial decisions on both were reversed by a full 180°
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
What do you mean? As far as I'm aware there is no legal way of running this for the primary example case, hence no current winner.
They've changed the rules multiple times specifically to allow it and SKR even had a chart showing what you're supposed to be able to do with it.
And do you really feel that the most common sense solution is to ignore the rules?
This is why you're doing worse than a coin flip at rules interpretation.
Using what the text seems to be implying rather than a legalistic word for word technical dissection is.not.Ignoring.the.rules.
Letting the text say what it seems to be trying to say, balancing raw, rai, power, and evidence gives you better results with both the developer team AND the gaming community because most gamers do not go sola raw as an interpretation method. Insisting that raw is THE way to play is both wrong and pointless. It's not how the rules are written and absolute raw isn't even objective: words can almost always be read more than one way.
It doesn't happen often, even in PFS.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And do you really feel that the most common sense solution is to ignore the rules?Using what the text seems to be implying rather than a legalistic word for word technical dissection is.not.Ignoring.the.rules.
Letting the text say what it seems to be trying to say, balancing raw, rai, power, and evidence gives you better results with both the developer team AND the gaming community because most gamers do not go sola raw as an interpretation method. Insisting that raw is THE way to play is both wrong and pointless. It doesn't happen, even in PFS.
If you stare too hard, Chess Pwn, you will miss the rules for the words. Sometimes you just need to cross your eyes and let the trees become a forest.
So now this thread is about James Risner being right? And how often? And under which circumstances?
What a derail...
A rules discussion to get an answer went to a discussion about how you read rules to get the answer
