The encumbered condition, as per page 321, applies a -2 check penalty if you're unarmored. Alternatively, it increases an armor's existing check penalty by 2. If I'm wearing leather or padded armor, I'm neither unarmored nor do I have a check penalty to increase.
If that wasn't intentional, then the phrasing should be tweaked.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
You have an armor check penalty of zero, which gets increased to 2 if you are encumbered.
No, you have an armor check penalty of "-", which isn't "0". Should "-" be treated as "0"? Probably. But if we're going to go that route, then we might as well not use "-" in the first place; just call it "0" (well, "-0").
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
It also communicates "not applicable", and we can convey what is meant to be conveyed with less ambiguity (see the difference between the Dart's Reload entry of "-" and the Longbow's Reload entry of "0").
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
The "-" communicates zero well enough, and takes less effort to input into the table and less ink to print.
I'm going to agree with Tectorman: the weapons section makes it VERY clear that '-' is different than '0'. Given that, they need to be clear which they mean. It would be different if they didn't have instances where it's different but they went there.
Yeah, reload - for instance is a very different beast than reload 0, which is frustrating. While I feel like the intent with armor is that - does actually mean 0, they should just say 0.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I guess context doesn't matter then?
I do find it odd that the reload entry for certain weapons has a "-", but it is very clear not just that "-" is different from "0" in that context, but also whyit is different.
There is no context that actually makes the "-" in the armor chart appear to be anything other than meaning zero.
Sure, there is, the very subject of this thread is that context. Encumbered applies a check penalty when you are either unarmored or when you have an existing check penalty, even if that penalty is 0. Unarmored has a check penalty of "not applicable" because the very state of being unarmored triggers Encumbered's ability to apply a check penalty, regardless of what other number could have been there.
Any kind of armor, by definition, isn't unarmored, and therefore requires you to go to the other trigger (have an existing check penalty) for Encumbered to do anything to that check penalty. So because it matters what number is in the check penalty entry, we need a number, even if it's 0, not just a "-".
Alternatively, they could just clean up Encumbered's phrasing. "You apply an armor check penalty of -2, or if you have an armor check penalty, that penalty increases by 2." There you go. That covers unarmored and padded and leather and all the armors that have check penalties and all of that in combination with shields. No gaps.
I guess context doesn't matter then?
It sure does... And that context is that the equipment section treats a '-'differently from a '0'...
With the ease that this can be fixed, I don't see WHY it would or SHOULD be left to questionable context when they can make intent clear. If it's too much ink, I can think of a few dozen things to cut before this.
The current text can be interpreted two ways.
I disagree. NOTHING in the book indicates/infers '-' ever equals '0'. If fact it seems to go out of it's way to make the inference that that aren't the same.
Look at prices where '-' doesn't equal '0'. "However, some of the items listed have an inherent or otherwise meaningless cost, indicated with “—”. This typically indicates that an entry can’t be purchased. An item with a “0” Price indicates that it is normally free, but its value could be higher based on its quality or the composition of its materials."
Or look at Bulk: "negligible for the purpose of determining Bulk (indicated by a —)." + "Items of negligible Bulk don’t count toward Bulk unless you try to carry vast numbers of them, as determined by the GM." So '-' isn't the same as 0 either, as 0 never increases bulk.
We've already gone over weapons...
Now look at the armor section itself. Do you REALLY want to argue that the max dex cap for unarmed is a 0, as that is listed as a '-'? I'm not seeing the RAW interpretation of '-' equaling '0' as making the least amount of sense when you actually dig into the rules and not looking JUST at the armors in question in a vacuum.
If nothing in the book indicates/infers that "-" equals "0", then how on earth have I arrived at the conclusion that most of the time "-" is the same as zero according to the book?
A cost of "-" doesn't mean zero? Okay, then how much do you have to pay for an item that has a cost listed as "-"? If you don't say "nothing", you might, maybe, just ever so slightly, have a point behind your disagreement.
Things that cost "—" can't ever have their cost increased by quality or materals (because such things don't exist). E.g. a tree branch. It has the same cost as 0 in the case of buying the base item, but it IS mechanically different:
Things that cost "0" can be made out of adamantine or be of master quality (and thus, have a base cost of 0, but a higher actual cost).
If nothing in the book indicates/infers that "-" equals "0", then how on earth have I arrived at the conclusion that most of the time "-" is the same as zero according to the book?
Most likely you looked at it in a vacuum and not in conjunction with the rest of the book. The actual book goes out of it's way to point out numerous times that it doesn't work the way you inferred so I'm inferring that you brought outside knowledge, like '-' meaning 0 in another book into this one. I'll concede if you can point out one instance that it's overtly pointed out that '-' = 'o' because I can point to 5 places where it says the opposite.
A cost of "-" doesn't mean zero? Okay, then how much do you have to pay for an item that has a cost listed as "-"? If you don't say "nothing", you might, maybe, just ever so slightly, have a point behind your disagreement.
It's PRETTY CLEARLY tells you in the rules how much it costs and how to get it.
"However, some of the items listed have an inherent or otherwise meaningless cost, indicated with “—”. This typically indicates that an entry can’t be purchased.": like your fist has a '-' cost since you don't go out and BUY a fist as a weapon... It's an "inherent" part of your body so cost is "meaningless" much like it is for the cost of base unarmored 'armor'. It's the same for a shield bash: the 'weapon' is part of the cost of the shield itself and has no additional cost.
Really, this is super clear if you take the time to look over the rules you're debating: just LOOKING at what's '-' cost shows you what it's talking about.
Things that cost "—" can't ever have their cost increased by quality or materals (because such things don't exist). E.g. a tree branch. It has the same cost as 0 in the case of buying the base item, but it IS mechanically different:
It might cover such items too but the one given in the actual equipment sections are things that are part of something else: your 'fist', your 'skin', smacking someone with your shield. If it's like the old pathfinder, a branch could be made into a magic item or increased in quality: A greatclub for instance, can be a "simple branch from a tree" and they can be made masterwork.
If it's like the old pathfinder, a branch could be made into a magic item or increased in quality: A greatclub for instance, can be a "simple branch from a tree" and they can be made masterwork.
Sure, but you still can't make one out of adamantium. :P
(Unless you've got an adamant tree around somewhere) ;)But yes, fists and shields are better examples
If it's like the old pathfinder, a branch could be made into a magic item or increased in quality: A greatclub for instance, can be a "simple branch from a tree" and they can be made masterwork.Sure, but you still can't make one out of adamantium. :P
(Unless you've got an adamant tree around somewhere) ;)But yes, fists and shields are better examples
Well, materials are one thing but until we get the actual rules we can't be sure on quality: if club type weapons continue to be described as 'branches' and we have the return of masterwork transformation, it's possible we could see Master quality branch. It's why I don't think things like a branch should fall under '-' as it might be possible to improve/modify them.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
To see such effort made to create a distinction between nothing and zero (the mathematics representation of nothing) is just inspiring. How appropriate that this appears in the playtest forum, as it does so much to explain why PF2 feels the need to be exceedingly granular on traits of feats, actions, and spells. Seeing this amazing analysis, it's apparent they may not have gone far enough. Perhaps an even more technical language approach is needed.
Paizo, I suggest you make it clear in alll materials PF2 that if an entry describing how much penalty something applies lists no penalty, that no penalty is also zero penalty. This is somehow a matter which is unclear. Please also specify that "not applicable" is abbreviated as NA or n/a, as it has somehow come to confusion that "-" means not applicable. Thank you.
Really, this is super clear if you take the time to look over the rules you're debating: just LOOKING at what's '-' cost shows you what it's talking about.I'm kind of impressed. It seems like you are arguing against me, but this quoted bit here is precisely my argument.
Yes, it's "precisely" you argument, and precisely why you're wrong. You seem to be arguing a case of RAI so even though ALL the evidence comes out on the other side, your reading of intent overrides the actual content.
SO if you want to start a debate on the intended meaning I could agree with you: they most likely didn't intend for it to read like it does but that doesn't change what the actual wording is or the ramifications of their making a clear differentiation of "-" and "0".
That's absolute nonsense graystone - you are basically insisting that because the language used happens to have multiple possible definitions of words, that it is inherently unclear which definition is meant in one place if you use any other definition of the same word in a different place.
You are willfully refusing to understand the context of the rules text, and thus the very clear meaning.
Here's another way of looking at it:
Player: "Okay, I'm encumbered. What does that mean?"
DM: "Well, your speed is decreased by 10 feet to a minimum of 5 feet, and are you wearing armor?"
Player: "Yeah, leather."
DM: "You increase its check penalty by 2."
Player: "Okay... but it doesn't have a check penalty, so what does that mean?"
DM: "What's 2 worse than nothing?"
Player: "-2, yeah... sorry, that should have been obvious."
We can avoid it even more, as per my above suggested change to Encumbered.
Player: "Okay, I'm encumbered. What does that mean?"
DM: "Well, your speed is decreased by 10 feet to a minimum of 5 feet, and you either get an armor check penalty of -2, or your armor check penalty gets worse by 2."
Player: "I'm wearing leather which doesn't have a check penalty-"
DM: "Which means that now you do, and it's -2."
Good grief, this was supposed to be a simple suggestion to tidy up the language, not rehauling the four tiers of success mechanic.
you are basically insisting that because the language used happens to have multiple possible definitions of words
No, it DOESN'T HAVE multiple definitions: the books makes it VERY CLEAR the '-' and '0' are DIFFERENT things.
You are willfully refusing to understand the context of the rules text
You are willfully ignoring the actual rules for 'context'/intent. That's called houseruling to use rules as you think they are intended over the actual rules text.
I'm arguing what the rules actually say and you're debating what you think they should say. You can say it's obvious what is meant all you want, that doesn't change what the actual rules say: in this case obvious is wrong when you look at how the rules make '-' different from '0'.
Good grief, this was supposed to be a simple suggestion to tidy up the language, not rehauling the four tiers of success mechanic.
I thought it was pretty simple: a request to replace the incorrect '-' with a correct '0'. I don't know why thenobledrake wants to keep the more confusing and incorrect text by claiming it's correct. I'm kind of baffled myself.
Armor should not make you immune to encumbrance.
It should be possible to differentiate between "Numerically Zero" and "Not Applicable."
Armor should not make you immune to encumbrance.
I'm pretty sure everyone here agrees with that.
Entries on the armor chart do not rely on entries on the weapons chart for context, nor are they affected by that chart. That's just not how language , or charts, work.
The entire equipment section makes a point to have '-' not equal '0'. It's also interconnected as you have to look at bulk [that points out that '-' and '0' are different] and price [that points out that '-' is different than '0'] when you look at the armor, equipment and weapon sections.
But let's look JUST at the armor section. What is the dex modifier cap for unarmored? If we go with your alternate reality of what '-' means, then everyone using unarmed has a dex cap of +0 meaning that can add nothing from dex. Now look unarmored's bulk? Where would we find that? In the bulk section that tells us '-' is different than '0'.
You can keep saying I'm ignoring the "rules", but the fact is I'm following the rules - both of the game, and of the English language.
You are 100% ignoring the rules. You are really going out of your way to do so.
Good grief, this was supposed to be a simple suggestion to tidy up the language, not rehauling the four tiers of success mechanic.I thought it was pretty simple: a request to replace the incorrect '-' with a correct '0'. I don't know why thenobledrake wants to keep the more confusing and incorrect text by claiming it's correct. I'm kind of baffled myself.
Actually, I was only ever after a change in Encumbered's phrasing, how it left a gap regarding padded and leather armor that could easily be resolved just by making the distinctions different (from "increase an armor's check penalty or add a penalty if unarmored" to "increase an armor's check penalty or add a penalty period"). Fun as delving into the game's distinctions between "-" and "0" has been, I considered it only a tangent, really.
Thenobledrake, you were talking earlier about the virtues of saving ink and not changing the table. Okay, let's save ink and not change the table. Instead, the last sentence in the Encumbered condition can say "You also increase your armor's check penalty by 2, or take a -2 penalty if you don't have one." where it previously said "You also increase your armor's check penalty by 2, or take a -2 penalty if you're unarmored."
Literally the only difference between those two sentences is what I've bolded.
Previously: 're unarmored (one apostrophe and eleven letters)
My version: don't have one (also one apostrophe, also eleven letters, and fewer gaps in what the rule covers)
Any ink getting wasted? Any tables need to be changed? What was the objection, again?
Actually, I was only ever after a change in Encumbered's phrasing
If there are going to be things that modify an armor's ACP, a '0' makes more sense as you don't need to mention unarmored at all: for encumbered for instance, all that needs said then is "You also increase your armor check penalty by 2" as every armor, including unarmored/no armor, is 0+ ACP. Now that's ink saved. ;)
The entire equipment section makes a point to have '-' not equal '0'.No, that's inaccurate. A specific section of the equipment chapter makes a point that, in a specific context, '-' and '0' should be treated differently.
Why does it do that? Because in other parts of the book they shouldn't.
Totally, 100% accurate. It happens in MULTIPLE parts of the book INCLUDING the part in question.
If you disagree then PLEASE answer my questions I had before. Is unarmored dex maxed at +0? If yes, you're agreeing that YOU ARE WRONG from the the point you've been making. If you agree that unarmored people can add dex bonuses, then you are WRONG from my point of view. At no point does it make sense that the table uses the 'terms' differently: Really, there is no version of this were you aren't wrong as 0 being a replacement for - makes NO sense in the context of unarmored and hence the armor section as a whole... :P
PS: to hammer the point. MULTIPLE SECTIONS in equipment make to totally clear that '-' and '0' are different and they are sections you NEED to read to understand and section you look at in that section [bulk, cost] in addition to the sections you ARE reading [armor, weapons].
Actually, I was only ever after a change in Encumbered's phrasingIf there are going to be things that modify an armor's ACP, a '0' makes more sense as you don't need to mention unarmored at all: for encumbered for instance, all that needs said then is "You also increase your armor check penalty by 2" as every armor, including unarmored/no armor, is 0+ ACP. Now that's ink saved. ;)
Yeah, you're right. I do want my Monk characters to be able to apply a Dex bonus to AC (not possible if "-" means "0"), and that would save precious, precious ink in the description of Encumbered, so I guess we do need to work on the table, too.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If you disagree then PLEASE answer my questions I had before. Is unarmored dex maxed at +0?No, because context clearly doesn't want it treated that way.
Just like context clearly doesn't want the '-' in armor check penalty for armors to mean "doesn't act like like zero"
You're still trying to claim the equivalent of that because I said "I read a book" once that when I say "I read as a hobby" my meaning isn't perfectly clear.
Which of these — are actually 0 and which are not exactly 0?
No armor — +0 +0 — — — — —
Hint: some of them are not actually 0.
Reply by replacing each with a 0 (actually 0) or N (Not Applicable) as appropriate.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I reiterate:
Thenobledrake, you were talking earlier about the virtues of saving ink and not changing the table. Okay, let's save ink and not change the table. Instead, the last sentence in the Encumbered condition can say "You also increase your armor's check penalty by 2, or take a -2 penalty if you don't have one." where it previously said "You also increase your armor's check penalty by 2, or take a -2 penalty if you're unarmored."
Literally the only difference between those two sentences is what I've bolded.
Previously: 're unarmored (one apostrophe and eleven letters)
My version: don't have one (also one apostrophe, also eleven letters, and fewer gaps in what the rule covers)Any ink getting wasted? Any tables need to be changed? What was the objection, again?
I noticed a place where the language lent itself to some ambiguity (no, not 100% guaranteed ambiguity) that would be completely mitigated by a very simple-to-execute modification to the existing text.
How did that become something THIS objectionable? What did clarity of language do to deserve this?
It's neither a deliberate distraction nor any other kind of distraction. Nor a waste of effort when such effort is so trivially small to implement, anyway. We're at the playtest, where we go out of our way to stress-test every aspect, big and small, of this game to see how it can be improved. And that includes areas where the phrasing isn't clear or as clear as it could be, and can be made more clear. If we're not addressing this now, when will we? This isn't a zero-sum game, where effort, any small amount of effort, spent in one place must be a detriment somewhere else.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Daco18s, if you take anything out of its native context, you obscure the meaning.
I didn't include it in my post because it's there in the book.
In any case, this is what you came up with:
No armor N +0 +0 N 0 0 N N
Note how two of them turned onto 0s and four of them turned into NA. This means that any given — can be two different things.
There are exactly 3 places in the book that tell us how to interpret "—". One of them is for price (NA), one for bulk (functionally NA in most situations), and one for reload (NA).
NA for check penalty makes sense: this doesn't have any, don't apply it. Except...
silly encumbrance-immunity that happens if you treat it is meaning "not applicable".
Hence the problem.
Either:
Paizo needs to print a 0 here (anyone can tell that a check penalty of 0 means that there's no check penalty)
Or:
Paizo needs to detail what "—" means (either explicitly allowing the silliness or fixing the other paragraph).
Just because "its obvious what they meant" doesn't mean that it isn't broken.
I mean it's obvious that you can pluck a sphere off a Necklace of Fireballs and not throw it...right? How long does it survive off the necklace? Does it cost resonance to do this?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
To be fair, “0” was used in PF1 for the armor tables for check penalties, and it never led to confusion; I don’t see why one would use “-“ in this context when “0” would be clearer. I REALLY don’t think Paizo saving ink on a printed page comes into it. :-)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
To be fair, “0” was used in PF1 for the armor tables for check penalties, and it never led to confusion; I don’t see why one would use “-“ in this context when “0” would be clearer. I REALLY don’t think Paizo saving ink on a printed page comes into it. :-)
Exactly
This is clearly a case of RAW conflicting with RAI and people making huge leaps of judgement to try and fit their narrative. I do agree though, the wording can be cleaned up a little bit here just to remove the potential of someone trying to rules-lawyer this.
This is clearly a case of RAW conflicting with RAI and people making huge leaps of judgement to try and fit their narrative. I do agree though, the wording can be cleaned up a little bit here just to remove the potential of someone trying to rules-lawyer this.
And then people arguing that it doesn't need to be fixed because THEY understood what it was supposed to mean just fine.
Yes, and clarity of intent, or if possible, improved clarity of intent (and since we're a year-ish away from the final print and this is what's called :low-hanging fruit", it certainly is possible) is just a part of presentation.
I mean, are you really suggesting that if P2E, in its final draft, still has issues, even large-scale issues, where the game doesn't function as intended or advertised, it's all because a developer took the three (if that) minutes necessary to change "-"s to "0"s? That would be like Fry in Futurama lamenting that the Titanic sunk because it only had five thousand hulls, rather than five thousand and one.
You disagree that this is worth the time and effort. You've clearly established that. Any other objections? Can we move on?
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I understand how this can be seen as an issue from a language and programming perspective, but someone would literally have to intentionally take the most acute form of slanted gimme'gimme justification to quibble over what a "-" means numerically when being modified by a bonus or penalty.
No, that's not what I am suggesting at all.
I'm suggesting the time spent reading this thread would be better spent reading another, and the time spent fixing this "problem" and others of the same sort/magnitude (minuscule things with no serious impact on the game as a whole, that it is likely most people aren't even going to have any issue understanding) would be better spent doing some other part of polishing up the new system.
Nothing more than that, as that would be ridiculous.
So, again, when does this ever get fixed? Now is the playtest. Now is when we have the best opportunity to polish up the entirety of this game, both the system at large and all the lesser things that CAN potentially trip a player up and don't need to be there when we can be clearer.
How many entries in the updates are things just like this, potentially confusing elements that a player can probably figure out what was meant yet still got fixed anyway?
The first time I read the Alchemist class, I tripped up over this odd thing called a Feral Mutagen. Where the crap is this thing? Surely it's got to be with the other Alchemical Items; every other Alchemist feat that references a mutagen refers to a specific set of items in that section. Maybe it's supposed to be the Bestial Mutagen and the name is simply wrong. Yeah, I'm 99% sure that's the case and other players can probably figure that out and/or help a new player if he's one of those rare ones that lacks the capacity for literacy.
And even then, that was still on my docket of issues to bring up. The only reason I never did is because someone beat me to it. Something we can probably figure out anyway, but where's the profit in leaving it to chance? What was the cost of a developer taking the time to read that thread and fix that issue?
This is the playtest. "An issue so unimportant it shouldn't even be raised" is not a thing that exists right now.
I genuinely can't believe you just equated an actual error and a thing which has to be deliberately misunderstood in order to not be clear.
And no, this being a play-test does not mean there is no such thing as an issue so unimportant it shouldn't even be raised. There are all kinds of things which someone might view as an issue that a) aren't actually important at all, and/or b) are outside the scope of what a play-test is and does.
But I wasn't going out of my way to deliberately misunderstand it the first time I read it; it not being as clear as it could be was there on its own. Yeah, believe it or not, this wasn't me going of my way to waste my, yours, or the developers' time. I genuinely had no idea this would garner THIS much of a negative reaction; it's astounding. And while I'll cop to some responsibility for this, if a developer takes any amount of time that could be called "inordinate" reading this thread, it's because of all of this back-and-forth. My goal was and is to get all of this working, the big and the small.
Again, if we're not fixing this here and now, before the final product comes out, when does it get fixed? After the final print? Isn't that, by definition, too late to do anything about it? And while this isn't an issue with the game itself but rather how the game is presented and understood, it's still an issue with the game. If I'm not bringing it to someone's attention here, where else do you suggest (besides the open-question survey, of course)? Is there a Pathfinder Playtest Presentation forum somewhere I didn't know about?
Edit: Another example: over in the Paizo Blog: Halfway to Doomsday thread, an issue was raised regarding the naming of feats; namely, that they're all named feats. Class feats, ancestry feats, skill feats, general feats. Having them all have that same name creates the dxpectation that they are all interchangeable from a power level perspective when, according to Jason Bulmahn, they were never meant to be. It also means new players can get confused and accidentally pick one in place of another. The flipside is that changing the names increases the terms players have to be familiar with.
Again, not an issue with the game so much as how the game is presented. An issue that 99% of all gaming groups can resolve themselves, but it still merits discussion here and now before the final product is released. A valid topic of discussion that the developers had amongst themselves before the playtest was released and that is still ongoing now amongst forumgoers, including Jason (hmm, I guess the developers aren't quite so pressed for time or to pay attention only to the critical issues as you seem to think).