|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Dawwww, thankies :3
@Mel, I did read them. There wasn't really any need for Mark to respond further (espeically with the reception he was getting), since those interpretations were made to intentionally contradict things that were working, as other posters provided counterarguments.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Counter arguments didn’t come until much later, after He had already left the discussion the first time.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Rysky as to author intent we know from the other thread on the Hornbow that Isabella wanted it to work with that one Ulfen trait just fine. Mark clarified that it does not.
As to everything I listed in my post we now don't know how those should work if they even still will. And the big one is that we now don't know if a feat is an effect on the weapon, thus working with a hornbow, gladius, spiral rapier, other weapons existing or that will exist with that wording, or an effect on the character, like proficiency is now, or like Feral Combat training and be nebulous.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
You folks really know how to make a guy less likely to chime in on rules clarification threads!Well, if chiming in breaks a fun new item, it makes sense some wouldn’t want the chime. It really would have been better to leave this to DM rulings, and just maintain the designer’s original intent.
All of this was predicated by a source with a big megaphone asserting an obviously nonsensical position ("Bards and Ninja get hornbow proficiency for free") because this is a source people do put stock in for whatever reason, someone higher up (i.e. actually present) in the chain kind of needed to answer it or it was going to be a longstanding point of irritation (Gauntlet FAQ anyone?)
I mean, Hornbows in particular are only legal in home games, so play them how you want. But I don't see anything broken by asserting a distinction between "affects the user" and "affects the weapon" other than a few old feats that rarely saw play even in their day.
I appreciate Mr. Moreland chiming in and hope he does so in the future.
Franchise Manager
|
| 13 people marked this as a favorite. |
It clearly broke the designed intent it had to let it work with previous and future materials made for both shortbows and longbows.
The designed intent shouldn't matter at all. We get in things with downright outlandish intent from freelancers all the time. It's our job as developers to correct that when we see it. In this instance, had I done my job as lead developer better, I would have just removed that last sentence. The hornbow works perfectly well without that line. In fact, if it's really such a huge problem, cross that line out in your book. Problem solved.
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
It clearly broke the designed intent it had to let it work with previous and future materials made for both shortbows and longbows.The designed intent shouldn't matter at all. We get in things with downright outlandish intent from freelancers all the time. It's our job as developers to correct that when we see it. In this instance, had I done my job as lead developer better, I would have just removed that last sentence. The hornbow works perfectly well without that line. In fact, if it's really such a huge problem, cross that line out in your book. Problem solved.
I just want to say that I think you all did a great job with Adventurer's Armory 2. It's one of my favorite Pathfinder purchases. And I definitely appreciate your participation in this thread.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
You folks really know how to make a guy less likely to chime in on rules clarification threads!
I'm sorry if you feel that way but the ruling is counter to the stated intent of the author, open up the question of what the wording actually does now and may potentially alter other rules that rely on 'effect' that applies to items. Debate on it is inevitable.
I do appreciate you coming in and offering your insight, and hope you'll do so again, but know that even seemingly simple answers can have domino effect on other things and not clearing up the collateral effects leaves things in limbo as with the Gauntlet FAQ we've been told about many moons ago...
PS: Can we expect an FAQ or a "this is an official post" post? Technically we're still under the 'thread posts are unofficial' right?
EDIT:
The hornbow works perfectly well without that line. In fact, if it's really such a huge problem, cross that line out in your book. Problem solved.
IMO, that solves everything nicely without bringing up more questions. I'd be more than pleased to see that as the ruling.
PPS: I do agree with Gisher, that Adventurer's Armory 2 was a great book. Two thumbs up, as it hit a LOT of areas that could use love, like improvised weapons. I'm more than pleased with your work on it and hope you continue with your good work. ;)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It clearly broke the designed intent it had to let it work with previous and future materials made for both shortbows and longbows.The designed intent shouldn't matter at all. We get in things with downright outlandish intent from freelancers all the time. It's our job as developers to correct that when we see it. In this instance, had I done my job as lead developer better, I would have just removed that last sentence. The hornbow works perfectly well without that line. In fact, if it's really such a huge problem, cross that line out in your book. Problem solved.
Also wanna throw in my thanks for the time you guys spend working on this product.
My only dislike of the ruling to strike the wording is that I can't Bow Nomad with horn bows that way.
My only dislike of the ruling to strike the wording is that I can't Bow Nomad with horn bows that way.
I figure that if you're playing a Kasatha PC you've already got a GM that is permissive in terms of what you're allowed to do, so why not just ask "hey can I do this with hornbows?"
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My only dislike of the ruling to strike the wording is that I can't Bow Nomad with horn bows that way.I figure that if you're playing a Kasatha PC you've already got a GM that is permissive in terms of what you're allowed to do, so why not just ask "hey can I do this with hornbows?"
My wife only considered the Kasatha as a bow nomad because it easily answered the how many attacks on a full attack question. Doubt I'm getting any more leeway.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I want to chime in that if the answer is that the line shouldn't be there cause Pathfinder doesn't want it to mean anything then I like that answer.
The question we had with the answer given was that it causes confusions as to what the intention of the line is if left. The author said it was meant to do A. You said it doesn't do A cause of reason. So we're like, well if not A what does it do and also going that the reason seems to not really be a pathfinder rule cause if that was true it would affect these other things.
The solution to remove the line is great as it solves the issue AND doesn't leave any confusion or questions in its wake.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
"this is what it was, you're changing the rules"
I know for myself, I specifically noted it didn't follow the INTENT of the author. As such, there is no issue with the "rules" but more 'what the heck does it DO now then?' Myself, I happy with the answer 'remove the sentence'.
"technically this isn't official"
Mark and others make a specific point when they post to point out that their posts aren't official and only their own opinions. Adding that to the general rule that no dev posts are official by default and I question why anyone would be bothered by asking if the post is meant to be official [like those marked official in the playtest posts] or will be make official in the future. It just seems logical IMO.
No wonder they don't like to respond.
These don't seem like unreasonable points/questions so I don't understand.
|
To be fair to the author, with the way that the community picks apart the language in the rules, it seems to have very much become a game of trying to write around those interpretations. How can I write this item so it works with things that work with all bows, but not things that only work with a specific type of bow? Well, shortbows and longbows seems to be the language used elsewhere, so let’s use it here.
Bladed Brush is another example where the author seemed to be trying to write it in a way that it would work with Swashbuckler abilities, but not Slashing Grace or Spell Combat. And that one was similarly picked apart and debated. I don’t envy the authors or the developers having to put out rules in that environment. Trying to future proof things while also navigating all of the ways the existing rules get twisted around must be difficult.
Calling out specific classes also doesn’t work, as evidenced in Inner Sea Gods, where questions came up around whether or not Warpriests get access to Varient Spellcasting, because only Cleric was called out in the book (since Warpriests weren’t published yet). Or Hunter/Druid, etc.
Mark, I appreciate you contributing here, and I think it has done a lot to clear up this specific issue.
To be fair to the author, with the way that the community picks apart the language in the rules, it seems to have very much become a game of trying to write around those interpretations. How can I write this item so it works with things that work with all bows, but not things that only work with a specific type of bow? Well, shortbows and longbows seems to be the language used elsewhere, so let’s use it here.
Bladed Brush is another example where the author seemed to be trying to write it in a way that it would work with Swashbuckler abilities, but not Slashing Grace or Spell Combat. And that one was similarly picked apart and debated. I don’t envy the authors or the developers having to put out rules in that environment. Trying to future proof things while also navigating all of the ways the existing rules get twisted around must be difficult.
I feel like Bladed Brush is a good example because in practice the best way to handle it is go to your GM and say "hey, in your estimation how does this interact with x, y, and z". Whatever the GM says there is almost certainly fine.
It's just that in the rules forum we obsess over the idea that there is a correct interpretation which supercedes case-by-case interpretation and in pursuit of this "Platonic Form of Rules As Written" we go down weird paths (in large part because people are curious.)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's just that in the rules forum we obsess over the idea that there is a correct interpretation which supercedes case-by-case interpretation and in pursuit of this "Platonic Form of Rules As Written" we go down weird paths (in large part because people are curious.)
For myself, I like to have a single way to read a rule because I play with a multitude of different DM's online. It's a pain when 'ask your DM' rules keep multiplying as it just increases the amount of work all around as you end up having to submit a list of 'case-by-case interpretations' to see what is and isn't an option before you can start planning a character...
It's easier to ask 'what house-rule to you have' than 'where do you fall on ambiguous rules'...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Its even easier not to play with things likely to result in significant table variation.
Its even easier not to play with things likely to result in significant table variation.
I'd like to but an ever increasing number of things seem to rely on "significant table variation", like the non-FAQ on take 10's. Even basic core concepts, like wield can run into "significant table variation" [is it hold, ready to attack, can make AoO, currently attacking or some other kind of wield?] so I prefer that new ruling reduce those instances of it instead of increase it. Hence my asking for clarification, because I LIKE playing with new material and don't want to avoid it because of murky wording. It doesn't seem like an unreasonable request does it? Having material that that I'm expected to avoid doesn't make me more likely to shell out cash for new products...
|
It's... an exotic weapon. Proficiency isn't an effect, it's knowledge. If I apply weapon modifiers to a Long Sword, it still has "all of the effects that apply to a long sword", but I still need an exotic proficiency to use that modified long sword. Same principal here. It's just saying that if you've got a feat or class skill that actually DOES special stuff with a short/long bow (some sniping feats, rapid shot, etc) it applies to the hornbow.
Interpreting a mediocre writing to interpret the item as giving you something the item is INHERENTLY intended not to give you is blithering idiocy. It's a friggin' exotic weapon. You need a friggin' exotic weapon feat.
Ding Ding Ding. Proficiency is not an effect of THE WEAPON. It is knowledge of the CHARACTER. Agreed 100x over. How did this thread get to 180+ posts?
If you get Shortbow proficiency as a CHARACTER. This does not impart any other weapon proficiency to your CHARACTER. The only (sort of) exception that I know of for this is a SCORPION WHIP which specifically says "it can be used like a whip IF the character has WHIP PROFICIENCY." Which is not the same as saying "it can be used it as a whip by anyone because using it like a whip is a function of the item itself."
I know we probably didn't get any but does anyone know if we got any type of ruling or advice on what counts as effects for these type weapons? Have a player looking at the Lantern Staff and don't want to steer them in the wrong direction
The official ruling is to scratch out the last line in the Orc HornBow description.
And proficiency is not an effect that affects the weapon.