2. There is no use (that I'm aware of) of the Pathfinder Skill Mastery talent to double/triple/quadruple damage and automatically inflict conditions on targets in combat. I could be wrong as I have not played not GM'ed a Rogue above 10th level.
Hope that clears up your confusion.
A build designed to make feinting a move action, combined with Skill Mastery, basically functions exactly the same as here.
Feint -> Target is flat-footed -> Flat-footed is subject to sneak attack.
There are probably others, but that is the automatic first to mind.
Well done! I figured there is likely some way to do something similar.
The feat cost for this would be high though and not even possible till 10th level. I guess there in is the main difference really. While your example in Pathfinder is feat heavy (takes two feats) and Skill Mastery isn't available till 10th level, the Operative gets all that automatically at 7th level.
Still different game so different class mechanics.
Thanks for the example.
I would have been surprised if someone argued that Operatives can't take 10 before, but now that Owen Stephens has weighed in I'm seriously wondering how there's still an argument.
1. It's not overpowered.
2. It saves time in play.
3. It makes sense based on a casual, non-lawyer-y reading of the rules.
4. It makes sense logically. (If the "stress and distraction" of combat isn't what keeps you from taking 10, then what feature of combat is the problem?)
5. It's not a guarantee for high level threats (i.e. Where it actually matters)
6. It's consistent with the root game system (Pathfinder)
7. A developer has flat out stated it works, and is mildly surprised that it was even a question.
Well one reason for the discussion is that after a year and a half there has been no mention of this in the official FAQ and some, like myself, would like it stated in unambiguous terms.
Covering your points in turn ...
1. Well that is the discussion really and personally I'm not convinced it isn't.
2. Nice but not really relevant.
3. Well really isn't rule lawyering exactly why it's still being debated?
4. It can be argued that combat is a super-set beyond just "stressful and distracting" in that getting shot or stabbed is far and apart different then being in a rain storm.
5. If you are throwing ultra high CR threats at your players that is an entirely different issue.
6. Not really. while recently pointed out there is at least one similar way to get the same effect, it's way harder to achieve.
7. I completely grant this as important. K.C and the rest just need to make it official and the debate is over.
Peace.
They call out combat as a separate situation than "distracted" or "stressed" thus we must assume they feel it is different.No. You don't.
If someone tells you no X Y Z then X Y Z are probably different things.
But if someone tells you no carbs no doughnuts no cookies you know that one is a subset of the other because you know what those specific things are. Combat is both stressful and distracting, not an entirely separate clause.
Without a special ability ... what special ability do you think they're talking about? It's not like there's another ability somewhere that says you can take 10 in combat but not while in danger or distracted by non combat stuff to compare it to.
Yes. You do.
If they had included it in the "X Y Z" format I'd be willing to concede the point, but they didn't. While you personally can believe that combat is the same as stress and distraction my contention is combat is far more than having gnats fly in your face or standing on a shear cliff trying to run that hacking program to get in a door.
The actual line: "Unless you have an ability that states otherwise, you cannot take 10 during a combat encounter." That's the whole point, the condition of being in combat is called out specifically. It is not called out in the Operative Specialization Skill Mastery wording that combat is included, that is why it needs to be errata'd and the FAQ updated. They very likely are referring to that class ability but due to the wording it's ambiguous. For the sake of clarity it needs to be given either the official stamp of approval for use in combat or a statement that combat isn't included.
Peace.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yes. You do.
Objectively, absolutely, 100% demonstrably false.
Observable evidence, I do not assume they are different. I do not conclude that they are different. I do not think they are different.
That would not be possible if i HAD to read the rules that way.
Despite what you might think, observable evidence trumps baseless declarations and suppositions.
The rules are NOT written to be read objectively. In fact it seems the harder that people push for an objective meaning in what they're reading the less likely they are to be right because you're not reading it in context. You say it stands alone. It was grouped together a sentence earlier. That matters.
The actual line: "Unless you have an ability
Changes absolutely nothing so you're correcting me for it's own sake. None.
When it was grouped together three sentences earlier. You have to try to read what's written in context. You can't dissect the words down to the word or sentence or even paragraph and still expect it to work.
THATS what really annoys people. The objectivity you expect is there. The larger the block of text the less objective it is.
They very likely are referring to that class ability but due to the wording it's ambiguous.
Which is it? Ambiguous or that you have to read it as not working in combat?
For the sake of clarity it needs to be given either the official stamp of approval for use in combat or a statement that combat isn't included.
At which point you'll complain about the faqratta.
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
@Castrin so your key complaint is really that the developer made a crystal clear decision ("yes they can do that") but didn't put it in an FAQ. And you only accept developer rulings if they've got sufficient formalities attached.
I think you're overestimating the formality of Paizo's way of doing things.
Yes. You do.Objectively, absolutely, 100% demonstrably false.
Observable evidence, I do not assume they are different. I do not conclude that they are different. I do not think they are different.
That would not be possible if i HAD to read the rules that way.
Despite what you might think, observable evidence trumps baseless declarations and suppositions.
The rules are NOT written to be read objectively. In fact it seems the harder that people push for an objective meaning in what they're reading the less likely they are to be right because you're not reading it in context. You say it stands alone. It was grouped together a sentence earlier. That matters.
Ah, I see. So if I read the rules differently I'm wrong because you are so much better at reading the rules objectively.
The actual line: "Unless you have an abilityChanges absolutely nothing so you're correcting me for it's own sake. None.
When it was grouped together three sentences earlier. You have to try to read what's written in context. You can't dissect the words down to the word or sentence or even paragraph and still expect it to work.
THATS what really annoys people. The objectivity you expect is there. The larger the block of text the less objective it is.
You are obviously referring to the "immediate danger" entry in the previous paragraph. Which is where you fail.
I pointed this line out to compare not with anything on that page but to compare it with the wording on CRB p93 where "immediate danger" or ""combat" was not called out. That's is the crux of the discussion which you fail to understand.
For the sake of clarity it needs to be given either the official stamp of approval for use in combat or a statement that combat isn't included.At which point you'll complain about the faqratta.
Absolutely, 100% demonstrably false.
My reply on 2/22 @ 8:09am clearly refutes your sad attempt at framing me. You simply don't comprehend that someone can debate and discuss something without some kind of agenda. Instead you stoop to baseless accusations and assumptions of the person that doesn't agree with you.
Well I'm done discussing this with you since there seems to be little point in it.
@Castrin so your key complaint is really that the developer made a crystal clear decision ("yes they can do that") but didn't put it in an FAQ. And you only accept developer rulings if they've got sufficient formalities attached.
I think you're overestimating the formality of Paizo's way of doing things.
Haha! You are probably correct. I'm likely overestimating it but hope springs eternal. :D
As for my key complaint, no, that's not it. In a nut shell my key complaint is allowing an auto success in combat is counter to the idea that in combat you can always fail. However in discussing this with others I've come around to the realization that the Take 10 in combat ability of Operatives isn't overpowered. While it's still counter to the spirit of the d20 rules, an Operative still needs to hit just like anyone else so giving them an artificial boost to their damage and automatic conditions, while powerful, isn't overbalanced. I just wish they'd errata/FAQ the rules on p93 and make it clear outside of this forum.
Thanks for the laugh.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Stated in unambiguous terms?
There is no ambiguity here whatsoever.
And until such a time as an official faq is released, what is wrong with taking a declaration of intent from a game developer and treating it as the highest available authority on the games rules? (Which it legitimately is, and should be treated as such.)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Ah, I see. So if I read the rules differently I'm wrong because you are so much better at reading the rules objectively.
No, you're worse than me at reading the rules because you expect them to be objective.
Rules are spread out all over the place. Different sentences and wording imply different things to a greater or lesser degree. Knowing that they are subjective allows (even requires) taking ALL the bits of evidence , weighing them against each other, and reaching a conclusion. It's not perfect, but it has a MUCH better track record than reading the tea leaves of grammar for one sentence and insisting it's the real rules.
If the rules had an objective, perfectly coherent meaning you could dissect the grammar of the rules, read one sentence alone without context, and treat any three words as completely discreet categories.
Instead the rules are written in plain english, meant to be read in context, and what the words are matters. It's also borrowed more than a little wording from pathfinder. So if words meant something in pathfinder they probably mean the same thing in starfinder.
Case in point...
You are obviously referring to the "immediate danger" entry in the previous paragraph. Which is where you fail.
All I "failed" to do is read the rules in an overly persnickety manner that the rules aren't written in.
I pointed this line out to compare not with anything on that page but to compare it with the wording on CRB p93 where "immediate danger" or ""combat" was not called out. That's is the crux of the discussion which you fail to understand.
Disagreeing with you is not not understanding you. You're treating the words in quotes like "x" and "y" two obviously and objectively different things but they're not. Because they're not X and Y. Combat and immediate danger are related concepts. Combat is the most common form of immediate danger. It's a subgroup of immediate danger, like canine and domestic dog. If you have the ability to take 10 with canines then you have the ability to take 10 with domestic dogs even if they're called out as separate.
My reply on 2/22 @ 8:09am clearly refutes your sad attempt at framing me.
can't tell which one you're referring to. Different time zones and after looking twice i don't see any ending in 09.
You simply don't comprehend that someone can debate and discuss something without some kind of agenda.
I know that it's possible but I don't deem it likely when someone tells everyone else how they HAVE to read the rules and complains about a clarification from the guy in charge of the rules not being official.
Paizo's FAQ process takes a ponderously long time. I really don't understand WHY it takes that long, but it does. Be thankful they're doing message board updates so they can actually clear up the confusion in a more timely manner.
My reply on 2/22 @ 8:09am clearly refutes your sad attempt at framing me.can't tell which one you're referring to. Different time zones and after looking twice i don't see any ending in 09.
https://paizo.com/threads/rzs2unp7?Can-Operatives-take-10-in-combat#45
The rest of your comments are simply disagreeing for the sake of disagreeing and I'll not bother to respond as we have fundamentally different thinking and I see no middle ground to be found here.
Peace.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
and I'll not bother to respond as we have fundamentally different thinking and I see no middle ground to be found here.
Peace.
They're disagreeing because you have completely different thinking.
The way you're looking at the rules has been shown time and time again to NOT be how the rules are actually written. It's been shown time and time again to not be how the rules should be interpreted. You can't interpret english by latin grammar and you can't determine paizo rules like a computer code or stereo instructions.
If you keep reading them like that , if you keep insisting that the way you read the rules is THE right way and everyone else, including the people that write and clarify them are wrong, you are going to keep running into that problem. The way you read them is an arbitrary paradigm, NOT something where you and everyone else MUST read the rules that way.
and I'll not bother to respond as we have fundamentally different thinking and I see no middle ground to be found here.
Peace.
They're disagreeing because you have completely different thinking.
The way you're looking at the rules has been shown time and time again to NOT be how the rules are actually written. It's been shown time and time again to not be how the rules should be interpreted. You can't interpret english by latin grammar and you can't determine paizo rules like a computer code or stereo instructions.
If you keep reading them like that , if you keep insisting that the way you read the rules is THE right way and everyone else, including the people that write and clarify them are wrong, you are going to keep running into that problem. The way you read them is an arbitrary paradigm, NOT something where you and everyone else MUST read the rules that way.
I never said anyone was reading the rules wrong, only you used that term in reference to me. I simply have a different point of view which allows me to read them differently and which you personally take offense to.
It's a moot point anyway. Dev has spoken and it is what it is regardless of if anyone thinks differently.
Good day.