| 3 people marked this as FAQ candidate. |
So my question is.... If I am playing a Copaxi from Starfinder Season 1-22 -The Protectorate Petition, they have the following racial trait:
Natural Communicator: A copaxi quickly adapts to and adopts new forms of communication. Each time a copaxi gains a rank in Culture, they learn 2 languages
rather than 1 language.
But I also want them to be a Tempered Pilgram theme, that have the following for 1st level Theme Knowledge:
You have read and studied much in your eagerness to learn about and experience new cultures, and you often know about them before you encounter them. Reduce the DC of Culture checks to recall knowledge about a culture’s customs and related topics by 5. In addition, whenever you take a rank in Culture, you learn to speak and read two new languages instead of one. Culture is a class skill for you, though if it is a class skill from the class you take at 1st level, you instead gain a +1 bonus to Culture checks. In addition, you gain an ability adjustment of +1 to Charisma at character creation.
Does this mean that they would lean three languages for every point in culture?
I would say yes because knowledge of languages tends not to be game-breaking, and linguist character seems not only really cool but useful enough that they would exist in the setting.
Thoughts?
I think that by the written rules, those abilities do not stack, because they both say "2 languages instead of one" rather than "1 additional language."
Changing this with houserules would not break the game, but is not legal if this is for an SFS character.
Either should stack with the Envoy Skilled Linguist ability, however.
The copaxi racial ability and protectorate pilgrim both say that "when you gain a rank in culture you learn two new languages instead of one."
Skilled Linguist states "You can speak and read a number of bonus languages equal to your ranks in culture"
So the Copaxi and Tempered pilgrim are both written as modifying the gained languages from culture in the same way, setting it to two languages per rank, not increasing it by one language per rank.
Skilled linguist is written as a pol of bonus languages gained from the expertise talent, and is written as an addition, not an "instead of".
So a tempered pilgrim copaxi envoy who maxes out culture would gain only 2 languages from culture at level 1, gain two more at level 2, and gain two more at level 3. If they then selected Skilled Linguist at 3, my best reading here is that they would still learn 3 additional languages at that point.
|
I’m going with “don’t make it harder than it has to be.” Since the normal number of languages per point of Culture is one, each of those abilities says “two instead of one.” Natural speaking, not as a limiter.
So I’m interpreting it as a Tempered Pilgrim Copaxi Envoy could get 4 per point of Culture.
There are so many languages, especially in SFS, which has already added at least 4, that you’ll never get them all anyway.
For SFS specifically, treating those abilities as how you think they should work and stack, instead of what was published, would not be legal.
For a regular game, it seems reasonable enough to allow that as a gm, since the polyglot envoy isn't going to break the system, or ruin the game for other players.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
For SFS specifically, treating those abilities as how you think they should work and stack, instead of what was published, would not be legal.
There's a difference between "what was published" and "hypertechnical parsing of the English language."
Suppose we're talking about an electric car. You ask me "what happens if I add 15kWh to the battery pack?" I say "you can go 250 miles instead of 200 on a single charge."
Then you ask me a second question: "what happens if I get the all-aluminum, lightweight version?" I say "you can go 250 miles instead of 200 on a single charge."
What do you think will happen if you get the all-aluminum version and the extra 15kWh battery pack? It will be more than a 250 mile range. 200 was the base comparison.
Similarly, these abilities are comparison to the base ability. "You get two instead of one."
That's taking literalism to the extreme.
Would it be better if it had been written as "whenever you take a rank in Culture, you learn to speak and read one language in addition to your normal number of languages?" Absolutely.
|
For SFS specifically, treating those abilities as how you think they should work and stack, instead of what was published, would not be legal.There's a difference between "what was published" and "hypertechnical parsing of the English language."
Suppose we're talking about an electric car. You ask me "what happens if I add 15kWh to the battery pack?" I say "you can go 250 miles instead of 200 on a single charge."
Then you ask me a second question: "what happens if I get the all-aluminum, lightweight version?" I say "you can go 250 miles instead of 200 on a single charge."
What do you think will happen if you get the all-aluminum version and the extra 15kWh battery pack? It will be more than a 250 mile range. 200 was the base comparison.
Similarly, these abilities are comparison to the base ability. "You get two instead of one."
** spoiler omitted **
Would it be better if it had been written as "whenever you take a rank in Culture, you learn to speak and read one language in addition to your normal number of languages?" Absolutely.
So, as someone who has freelanced for Pathfinder and Starfinder for third-party companies and Paizo, while also speaking in capacity as a freelancer and NOT as a representative of any company, I have issues with the foundation of your argument.
The idea that we're being too technical with rules language is fundamentally problematic. Box text and flavor text and descriptions? Your argument stands up there.
Rules language is inherently and explicitly technical writing. The wording and phrasing of rules language is paramount. The very idea that technical writing can be too technical is problematic.
Your electric car motor analogy is an example of a casual conversation. Rules language is not and cannot be a casual conversation. In a published manual about that electric car, I would be exceptionally surprised and frustrated if it included those two variables you presented and didn't have any information on the interaction of those two variables.
That said, as the Tempered Pilgrim and Copaxi appear in separate works, while I am slightly annoyed by the lack of elaboration I am unsurprised, as wordcount is narrow and tight for scenarios.
I do not have an opinion on whether or not they stack. That's up for a developer to answer. But decrying people for reading technical writing too technically... baffles and frustrates me as a designer.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Lindley, I wasn't decrying people for reading too technically, but rather for reading technical writing without context, or ignoring technical ambiguities and claiming that their interpretation is exhaustive.
Believe me, I know all about the importance of specificity in technical documentation. The number of times I've been troubleshooting for hours before finally figuring it out and yelling something similar to "how hard is it to put a pinout in the manual? That's not the standard you referenced!" or "why would you define T1 and R1 as receive from your equipment without stating that?!" can't be counted on my fingers.
Remember that I was responding to the comment
For SFS specifically, treating those abilities as how you think they should work and stack, instead of what was published, would not be legal.
There's two major problems in this statement. First is the idea inherent in the statement that "my interpretation of the text is correct." Which, for this, it might not be. It might be correct, but we can't know without designer clarification.
Second is something I have decried many times: the idea that if something is published the author, reviewer, and publisher all considered all possible interactions and worded their text to close off all inconsistencies. As I look at RevG Notice 3 of one order on my desk, I know that's not always true. It happens.
If the text doesn't close off options, then we have to consider intent. I know that's a dirty word to a lot of people, but sometimes it's necessary. To me it, looks like the intent here was that you get an extra language per point of Culture (instead of the one language most characters get).
And then we get into general game philosophy. If there's ambiguity, my general inclination is to be permissive unless it's something game-breaking. Which means if someone shows up with a Copaxi Tempered Pilgrim to my SFS table, they can have 3 languages per Culture point. If a developer clarifies that they don't stack, then they will lose some languages.
|
And then we get into general game philosophy. If there's ambiguity, my general inclination is to be permissive unless it's something game-breaking. Which means if someone shows up with a Copaxi Tempered Pilgrim to my SFS table, they can have 3 languages per Culture point. If a developer clarifies that they don't...
Because the wording is unclear, that means that, until it is specifically ruled it is open to interpretation by GMs. During that time I go by the above guidelines. OR more specifically, the question, "Does this really affect the game in any major way?"
"No? Then why the heck not? Who cares?"
"Yes? Then let's be more conservative so that everyone at the table doesn't have to watch one player play 'LOOK WHAT I CAN DO!' for the entire session."