It is on the 1 handed table. I believe the major counterargument is that the Weapon Description on page 190 states that it can be any limb or appendage.
Also that the system doesn't have teeth claws and horns as normal, so why would you think the conditions under normal applied? One of the conditions under normal clearly doesn't apply.
That normal creates a rules that applies unless something specifically names it as an exception... is not a rule. That idea is also clearly contradicted by the numerous ways in the game to achieve the same or similar results as the feat.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
<snip>
Pretty sure unarmed attacks and natural attacks are different. Unarmed attacks you have got to have training to use effectively. While on the other hand, natural attacks are...... well natural. You can use your natural attacks to do harm. The vesk are a warrior race that until recently in the fluff was at war with everyone and everything. I am pretty sure they are "trained" to use their natural attacks effectively. A bull can gore you with his horns but a Minotaur Gladiator can use his gore attack to rip out a victim's throat or target vital areas in armor. An untrained person would not know how to use his or her unarmed attacks.
Vesks be trained to kill things with their natural attacks. and so are armed even without a man made implement of death.
<snip>
And why is there a huge focus on gore attacks? The ring does not give you horns. If you got to "use your head" to fight then your hands are probably busy doing something else and can't be bothered to come to your aid. I do not envision an effective way to use horns that are sticking out the side your head as main useful weapon. You got to lower your head and two you have to take your eyes off your opponent which would leave you vulnerable to counter attack<I do not think counter attacks...
In Pathfinder, Natural Weapons and Unarmed Strike do have enough distinguishing mechanics that such round about discussions doesn't seem necessary. There are different feats impacting the two things and they effect full attacks differently.
In Starfinder, this is not the case.
On page 158 of the Core Rule Book (CRB) you have a feat, Improved Unarmed Strike, which describes the game mechanics of unarmed combat. On page 190 of the CRB, you have other rules for Unarmed Strikes which muddy the waters of how unarmed combat may be resolved. That's the core problem.
All of that seems to spiral arguments about hands free or not and requiring a feat or not.
Here is my take on how it works.
Unarmed Strike is a weapon type with the following properties: does not require a manufactured weapon to be wielded*, Archaic, Non-Lethal, doesn't threaten spaces, requires a free hand to apply, but still counts as an uncategorized weapon for the purposes of applying effects which modify weapon damage (like Weapon Specialization).
*The only distinction between Unarmed Attack and Armed Attack seems to be if you can be disarmed or not and if you threaten a space applicable to an attack of opportunity. Again, Unarmed Attack and Weapon Attacks are how you resolve an action but different descriptors resolve damage.
Natural Weapons are a sub-type of Unarmed Strike with the following properties: removes archaic, switches to lethal, increases the value of Weapon Specialization, still doesn't require a manufactured weapon to be wielded, shifts the character to a status of "armed" at all times and therefore threatens spaces. The free hand requirement doesn't appear to matter since you are considered armed as long as your natural weapon is available. If it is not available, then go back to the default Unarmed Strike rules above.
Integrated Weapons are somewhat similar but the wielder has a manufactured weapon as a part of their body and this weapon is not subject to being disarmed (Alien Archive pg 151) and it doesn't gain benefits like a Natural Weapon (Weapon Specialization). As long as this weapon is available, there should be no reason why a wielder couldn't attack with it (again, free hand be damned).
Improved Unarmed Strike removes several limitations of the basic Unarmed Strike and also increases the damage die.
Getting to this point requires me to look at page 158 first, then relevant pages in the equipment section, and then relevant sections of the Alien Archives to even define what a Natural Weapon is. Also, since Natural Weapons are just a layered sub-type of Unarmed Strike there appears to be no limit to other modifiers (i.e., Improved Unarmed Strike) unless explicitly called out (i.e, Hammerfist).
So yeah, it's needlessly confusing and I can see why people get so hung up on it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Natural Weapons are a sub-type of Unarmed Strike with the following properties: removes archaic, switches to lethal, increases the value of Weapon Specialization, still doesn't require a manufactured weapon to be wielded, shifts the character to a status of "armed" at all times and therefore threatens spaces. The free hand requirement doesn't appear to matter since you are considered armed as long as your natural weapon is available. If it is not available, then go back to the default Unarmed Strike rules above.
The bolded is not currently settled by any means. "...As long as your natural weapon is available..." None of the natural weapons races actually specify in their racial trait text what their natural weapons actually are, so therefore it is impossible to say, from a rules perspective, that their "natural weapon is available." The Ring of Fangs might give you a bite attack and Nuar might have pointy horns, but all the rules say is that they have a piercing unarmed strike that you need a free hand to use.
Natural Weapons are a sub-type of Unarmed Strike with the following properties: removes archaic, switches to lethal, increases the value of Weapon Specialization, still doesn't require a manufactured weapon to be wielded, shifts the character to a status of "armed" at all times and therefore threatens spaces. The free hand requirement doesn't appear to matter since you are considered armed as long as your natural weapon is available. If it is not available, then go back to the default Unarmed Strike rules above.The bolded is not currently settled by any means. "...As long as your natural weapon is available..." None of the natural weapons races actually specify in their racial trait text what their natural weapons actually are, so therefore it is impossible to say, from a rules perspective, that their "natural weapon is available." The Ring of Fangs might give you a bite attack and Nuar might have pointy horns, but all the rules say is that they have a piercing unarmed strike that you need a free hand to use.
Yeah, I’m aware.
In the absence of explicit rules as written some love to get really pedantic about the topic.
Natural Weapons are a sub-type of Unarmed Strike with the following properties: removes archaic, switches to lethal, increases the value of Weapon Specialization, still doesn't require a manufactured weapon to be wielded, shifts the character to a status of "armed" at all times and therefore threatens spaces. The free hand requirement doesn't appear to matter since you are considered armed as long as your natural weapon is available. If it is not available, then go back to the default Unarmed Strike rules above.The bolded is not currently settled by any means. "...As long as your natural weapon is available..." None of the natural weapons races actually specify in their racial trait text what their natural weapons actually are, so therefore it is impossible to say, from a rules perspective, that their "natural weapon is available." The Ring of Fangs might give you a bite attack and Nuar might have pointy horns, but all the rules say is that they have a piercing unarmed strike that you need a free hand to use.Yeah, I’m aware.
In the absence of explicit rules as written some love to get really pedantic about the topic.
Pedantic is my middle name! Drac Pedantic Omicron... I usually leave it out because it's a little unwieldy.
The level of mental gymnastics being used to ignore always armed as part of the rules goes well beyond pedanticism. I think some people just really dislike how good natural weapons are.
The level of mental gymnastics being used to ignore always armed as part of the rules goes well beyond pedanticism. I think some people just really dislike how good natural weapons are.
I LOVE natural weapons! They are VERY good, even with the restrictions plainly listed in the core rulebook. My main SFS character is a vesk soldier who often drops his weapon (or uses a swift action to shift his grip) to start brawling unarmed.
I just also like game balance, and can't justify ignoring the rules just because it "feels" better to me. Your take on them is TOO good for the investment involved.
Next level I'll pick up Improved Unarmed Strike, because it's worth the investment.
RE: The Ring of Fangs, the thing ONLY makes sense as a balanced item if you take into account all of the unlisted side effects of being an unarmed strike (and even then it is iffy, due to its interaction with Natural Weapons users). Lethal unarmed damage with double level specialization for 315 credits is NUTS until you take into account that it is still Archaic, still requires a free hand, and doesn't give you the ability to make Attacks of Opportunity (the entry doesn't say that it is a "natural weapon" like the Vesk racial).
To concede otherwise is to say that anyone can be better than a Vesk at unarmed combat for the low low price of 315 credits, a magic item slot, and a $16 PDF.
As it stands, it is practically free damage for a Natural Weapons user; my 23 Strength Vesk Soldier would go from 1d3+19 unarmed damage to 1d3+23 unarmed damage at 7th level. 315 credits. I spent over 6000 credits upgrading my 1d8 pike to a 3d4 plasma lance, and while raw damage wasn't my only concern, that is only an average of +3.5 damage.
My new ranged combat soldier is investing his level 3 Gear Boost (Raw Lethality) and feat (Improved Unarmed Strike) into unarmed combat; with a Ring of Fangs and 14 Strength, he'll be doing 1d6+16 lethal damage at level 7... on average one point behind my established beatdown tank. He also in the process gained the ability to make AoOs, fight unarmed without a hand free, ignores the Archaic quality, and gained a crit effect.
It's all about character investment. I have to sink some serious resources to rival a dedicated bruiser... Gear Boosts don't grow on trees unless you are a Khizar Soldier. But a liberal reading of the Ring of Fangs without taking into account the Unarmed Strike restrictions says that I would not need to do ANY of that business to rival a Vesk killer if I have 315 credits handy.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
So what if the Ring of Fangs explicitly stated it granted a natural weapon (bite) with a 2xlevel Weapon Specialization effect but only with said bites?
I feel that was the intent of the item, but that isn't how it was written. I also would have loved for more explicit statements about natural weapons. Unfortunately Vesk seem like a reverse power creep. They have an untyped natural weapon. Their physical description includes several options but none of these are referenced under the trait.
Since their natural weapon has no descriptor (e.g., slashing, piercing, bludgeoning) it is easy to make the argument they punch harder. However, the Alien Archive disputes that under the definition of what Natural Weapons *are*. Other races in the first Alien Archive get a bit more descriptive but you still have to parse their physical description.
Then the Armory includes Pistol Whip which grants a new bonus to unarmed combat for Operatives with rationale that natural weapon races just hit harder with the maneuver.
Finally, you have Alien Archive 2 which just gets flat out lazy with some descriptions like the Uplifted Bear "function like those of vesk, except the bears’ natural weapons deal slashing damage".
If we're not supposed to incorporate *any* of the descriptor text of what natural weapons *are*, then we have Uplifted Bears punching so hard they cut people. Or because they are described as having claws, they can hit harder with the butt end of a pistol than a human. None of that makes any lick of sense.
To each their own though.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So what if the Ring of Fangs explicitly stated it granted a natural weapon (bite) with a 2xlevel Weapon Specialization effect but only with said bites?
I feel that was the intent of the item, but that isn't how it was written. I also would have loved for more explicit statements about natural weapons. Unfortunately Vesk seem like a reverse power creep. They have an untyped natural weapon. Their physical description includes several options but none of these are referenced under the trait.
NONE of the Natural Weapons races actually specify what natural weapon they are specifically using, and it doesn't matter, since they all use the same rules, except where differentiated in the text.
Vesk natural weapons are Bashing, because Unarmed Strikes are Bashing (see page 171 in the CRB). Their tails, teeth, horns, whatever all do Bashing damage, because any rule that isn't specifically changed defaults to the "normal." Bears' natural weapons are Slashing, because their entry says that they are slashing, but that could be their teeth, claws, or a very sharp headbutt (I call it the "splitting headache").
Since their natural weapon has no descriptor (e.g., slashing, piercing, bludgeoning) it is easy to make the argument they punch harder.
That is the accurate rules assessment.
However, the Alien Archive disputes that under the definition of what Natural Weapons *are*. Other races in the first Alien Archive get a bit more descriptive but you still have to parse their physical description.
You really don't. That's all fluff. Just go by the listed game mechanics.
If we're not supposed to incorporate *any* of the descriptor text of what natural weapons *are*, then we have Uplifted Bears punching so hard they cut people. Or because they are described as having claws, they can hit harder with the butt end of a pistol than a human. None of that makes any lick of sense.
You can flavor it how you want. Unarmed Strike says you can use any part of your anatomy to do the Unarmed Strike (even without IUS) as long as you go by the restrictions: 1d3 Nonlethal Bashing damage, need a hand free, Archaic property, and can't perform AoO. Natural Weapons adds the following modifiers to that: Damage may be Lethal (and type may change), adds bonus Specialization damage, the attack is not Archaic, and can perform AoO (assuming a hand free).
Trying to ascribe direct "sense making" criteria to game mechanics is a fool's errand. What makes sense in the game or real world does not necessarily make sense, rules-wise. It doesn't make sense that you could get bit by an Akata so hard that you get infected by its spawn via the wound, but it only takes a 10 minute rest to shake off all of the damage. There's tons of stuff like this in the game. Either play a more realistic game, or accept that game logic and real world logic are not the same thing.
Or another option is to run the game how I see fit at my table. I can also choose not to play with people that decide to go another way, or I can play with those people as long as I accept it.
Also, saying that rules don't necessarily need to make sense pretty much ends this conversation. Trying to apply reality to the game is one thing. Having a discussion about applying interpretation is something completely different.
There is no need to tell me to go find another game when I am also clearing stating my views as my opinions not as matters of fact.
I just also like game balance
Which is a highly subjective determination. The idea that a racial ability can't negate most of the ability of a feat is completely incongruous with ysoki coming with kip up out of the box.
Once you were corrected from your previous erroneous reading that natural weapons didn't let you threaten the only remaining difference is that they let you threaten while holding a laser rifle. We know the value the game places on that, roughly 300 credits.
and can't justify ignoring the rules just because it "feels" better to me. Your take on them is TOO good for the investment involved.
You have absolutely no problem ignoring rules when you pull three backflips and a half twist to ignore always armed. You have no problem crying "fluff" to ignore the crunchy bits of the rules while holding that the line from normal creates an exacting ironclad rule unless every single part of it is counteracted by name. You have absolutely no problem ignoring the rules when you pretend to not know what armed means, and sloppily equate unarmed strikes with unarmed attacks. You have absolutely no problem ignoring that armed is obviously the opposite of unarmed.
Your argument is flawed on every conceivable level. It doesn't work by raw, it doesn't work by sense, and it's not helped by dogmatically clinging to it while accusing others of cheating and being irrational.
A space minotaur being able to gore people while holding a laser rifle isn't feeling it's thinking.
So what if the Ring of Fangs explicitly stated it granted a natural weapon (bite) with a 2xlevel Weapon Specialization effect but only with said bites?
A bite is one of the most advantageous natural weapon you can have. Because it's not on a limb you can do it while holding something in your hands and even while pinned. So being "limited" to the bite isn't much of a limitation at all.
The ring can easily be parsed to be just the bite attack. It says you gain a bite attack and "these attacks". That pretty obviously means the bite. I don't know what people around here are doing when they read the tea leaves of grammar and hardware the tech to come up with "the real meaning" but it's rarely if ever the same as what paizo means.
Or another option is to run the game how I see fit at my table. I can also choose not to play with people that decide to go another way, or I can play with those people as long as I accept it.
I mean no offense. OF COURSE you can make the ruling you want. I'm just trying to explain what the text of the rules say. It is understandably confusing, because the rules are spread out throughout the book.
House rules are the golden rule of your own table. Starfinder Society has a stricter interpretation on it, though, which is where this discussion hits home the hardest.
Also, saying that rules don't necessarily need to make sense pretty much ends this conversation. Trying to apply reality to the game is one thing. Having a discussion about applying interpretation is something completely different.
There is no need to tell me to go find another game when I am also clearing stating my views as my opinions not as matters of fact.
My apologies if I was blunt. Starfinder is NOT a realistic game, though. None of the D20 games are, really. You want realism, you play something else. GURPS, perhaps? That's a joke, nobody actually plays GURPS, they just collect dozens of sourcebooks.
Once you were corrected from your previous erroneous reading that natural weapons didn't let you threaten the only remaining difference is that they let you threaten while holding a laser rifle. We know the value the game places on that, roughly 300 credits.
...I never said that natural weapons didn't let you threaten. I said that the reason that they let you threaten is because the rules specifically allow Natural Weapons to threaten in "Reach & Threatened Sqaures," not because of some nebulous interpretation of the word "armed" which isn't defined in the rules anywhere and can mean anything from the unarmed vesk being dangerous to holding two pistols to having both hands on a rifle. Not all of those situations allow an Attack of Opportunity.
You have absolutely no problem ignoring rules when you pull three backflips and a half twist to ignore always armed.
What rule am I ignoring? "Armed" has no defined meaning and can logically mean a few things that don't indicate "threatens squares within reach at all times." If they meant that, they'd have said, "Vesk are always considered armed with a melee weapon for the purposes of attacks of opportunity."
You have no problem crying "fluff" to ignore the crunchy bits of the rules while holding that the line from normal creates an exacting ironclad rule unless every single part of it is counteracted by name.
The default rule is that all rules apply unless specifically counteracted by name. Specific overrules general, right? But that specific has to actually be specific and not assumed.
You have absolutely no problem ignoring the rules when you pretend to not know what armed means, and sloppily equate unarmed strikes with unarmed attacks.
I know what "armed" means. I have a degree in English.
And "unarmed attacks" aren't even a thing. All Natural Weapons does is modify the weapon "Unarmed Strike" on the weapons table on page 171. Tell me where you find the weapons "Unarmed Attacks" or "Natural Weapons" in the Equipment section. I'll wait. Barring those, everything has to be a modification of Unarmed Strikes, which has specific rules attached to it.
You have absolutely no problem ignoring that armed is obviously the opposite of unarmed.
...what does that even mean? A vesk is never unarmed. A vesk is always armed. It means that a vesk always has an available weapon in their natural vicious abilities, not that they can ignore rules that their statblock doesn't even mention. A halfling carrying an Azimuth Artillery Laser is also armed. She can't make attacks of opportunity without knowing some Hobbit-Fu.
Your argument is flawed on every conceivable level. It doesn't work by raw, it doesn't work by sense, and it's not helped by dogmatically clinging to it while accusing others of cheating and being irrational.
I've never said that anyone was "cheating" or acting irrationally. You're kinda doing that now, though. I've always said that people are welcome to make their own rulings at their own tables (and that I would welcome them, personally); this has always been a discussion about the text of the rules, and how it may relate to Starfinder Society, which doesn't have the advantage of house rules.
A space minotaur being able to gore people while holding a laser rifle isn't feeling it's thinking.
*shrug* It doesn't really matter how you justify it. It just seems like you're feeling this discussion more than thinking about it, though, because you've yourself stated that Natural Attacks are Unarmed Strikes, and most of your argument stems from them NOT being Unarmed Strikes, but an undefined "similar ability."
As close as I can tell, you want them to be Unarmed Strikes because you want to be able to get the damage bonus if you take Improved Unarmed Strike and/or use the Ring of Fangs, but you DON'T want them to be Unarmed Strikes because you don't want to have to take IUS to threaten adjacent squares with your hands full. Seems like wanting it both ways depending on which one is more advantageous.
But I could be way off base.
...I never said that natural weapons didn't let you threaten. I said that the reason that they let you threaten is because the rules specifically allow Natural Weapons to threaten in "Reach & Threatened Sqaures," not because of some nebulous interpretation of the word "armed" which isn't defined in the rules anywhere and can mean anything from the unarmed vesk being dangerous to holding two pistols to having both hands on a rifle. Not all of those situations allow an Attack of Opportunity.
So what is more likely.
A very crunchy bit of rules describing how an ability works used the word armed... which is completely meaningless. They expect a vesks player to know how their natural weapons work and what they do from a paragraph in the combat section 200 pages away.
OR
The same people that used armed in pathfinder used armed in starfinder the exact same way that they did in pathfinder.
Question: Do Vesk Natural Weapons Threaten?
Developer answer: Vesk have natural weapons, and are always considered armed. They threaten with their natural weapons.
What is more likely here? That armed means what I said it did or that he's using that word out of the blue for absolutely no reason? He just defined armed for you.
.
What rule am I ignoring? "Armed" has no defined meaning
So the meaning from pathfinder just happens to fit
-the rules in the vesk section
-the developers comment on the boards
-fitting the exact opposite of unarmed
By sheer coincidence?
I know what "armed" means. I have a degree in English.
Which explains your assurance when reading the tea leaves of grammar.
You didn't pathfinder. I do. Believe me when I tell you that I grammared the sentence and i KNOW it means ______ is a surefire way to get the wrong answer. Especially when you let that reading decide how you see all other evidence to the contrary.
And "unarmed attacks" aren't even a thing.
Normal: You don’t threaten any squares with unarmed attacks, and you must have a hand free to make an unarmed attack.
If unarmed attacks aren't a thing then the normal rule don't have anything to apply to.
All Natural Weapons does is modify the weapon "Unarmed Strike" on the weapons table on page 171.
This is not the rules. Randomly deciding what something does or doesn't change is you making stuff up.
. Barring those, everything has to be a modification of Unarmed Strikes, which has specific rules attached to it.
You assumption here is that all unarmed strikes are unarmed attacks. Natural weapons are specifically armed, so the rules for unarmed attacks do not apply to them because for a vesk unarmed strikes are not unarmed attacks. Even something as obvious as armed is the opposite of unarmed completely undercuts your argument here.
...what does that even mean?
Armed is to Unarmed as naked is to clothed. Really.
not that they can ignore rules that their statblock doesn't even mention.
This is completely circular. You are using your conclusion as evidence for your conclusion.
.
I've never said that anyone was "cheating" or acting irrationally.
You've called disagreeing with you house rules, home brew, not how SFS would allow it etc. You've repeatedly derided disagreement with you as based on feeling. Your outright derision for the opposing opinion has been inversely proportional to the quality of your argument against it.
You're kinda doing that now, though. I've always said that people are welcome to make their own rulings at their own tables (and that I would welcome them, personally); this has always been a discussion about the text of the rules, and how it may relate to Starfinder Society, which doesn't have the advantage of house rules.
And you're doing it again.
Please stop doing this disservice to starfinder society. It is not the rules persnicket society, it is not the inane raw society, and it is not the beholden to any particular argument anyone can come up with society. Society dms are beholden to the rules but how those rules are interpreted is left to each individual DM. I run more than a fair bit of starfinder society and vesk are free to tailwhack things while carrying laser cannons or drinking their way through VeskBoot. I don't think I've seen it ruled the other way, ever.
When different Starfinder Society DMs read the rules they all have a different priority they assign to grammar, balance, power levels, and yes, verisimilitude. The idea that your argument is so good that the rules CAN"T legitimately be read the other way? Complete horsefeathers. If anything after these conversations I consider not letting someone with natural weapons threaten with their hands full the house rule. There's no way to justify it by raw. Armed is written. You have to deal with that, not pretend you don't know what it means.
It just seems like you're feeling this discussion more than thinking about it, though
SSo your feeling is that I'm feeling not thinking.
because you've yourself stated that Natural Attacks are Unarmed Strikes, and most of your argument stems from them NOT being Unarmed Strikes, but an undefined "similar ability."v
And yet you can't even paraphrase my argument correctly.
Natural weapons are armed [unarmed strikes].
The prohibition on threatening and requiring a free only applies to unarmed attacks. Not unarmed strikes.
As armed (the opposite of unarmed) attacks the rules that apply to unarmed attacks do not apply to natural weapons.
The specific vs general mantra is a complete canard here. Its arguable which one is which and completely pointless.
The definition from pathfinder and the developers post are helpful, but not necessary. Armed attacks do not resolve as if they were unarmed, so the normal field doesn't apply to them. You are going way, WAY out of your way to avoid concluding what armed means.
Eh.
I'm currently tired of going around in circles about this.
Starfinder and Pathfinder are not the same game, and I'm not about to accept assumptions from one to the other. It's bad game design, and frankly they are quite different games. "Armed" being able to make AoO in Pathfinder at least makes some sense with the melee emphasis that game has, but most characters in Starfinder are ranged, and "armed" is a bit of a misnomer when most people have quite powerful guns.
As I have said many times before, I would love to be wrong. A CLEAR dev ruling would satisfy me and I'd be glad to admit my gaffe. That they have not chimed in thusfar despite a pile of posts about it makes me think that they're still working on exactly what the ruling should be for errata purposes, though as you say they have let things stew before.
I look forward to the resolution, whatever it is.
|
OR they haven't stepped in because they have better, more important things to do. This matter is completely minutia, wherein it can be chalked to table variation. Why settling on that fact is so terrible, I do not know. Why ya'll have spent so much time on this argument between multiple threads is beyond me.
It is unclear. If it was clear, then this wouldn't have happened. So it is unclear, therefore falls into "whatever the GM at the time says". Seems like a good enough resolution to me. The devs and whatnot know by now that peeps would like a clarification. If they give it then yay! Until that time, despite either side's rantings and ravings, it will remain unclear, therefore in the "whatever the GM at the time says" zone. Come to terms with this fact.
Now I assume that someone will likely begin to disagree or something. Saying that I [yada yada yada] and then [begin to argue their point again]. I respond by saying simply...It doesn't matter! You can play how you want. Other people will play how they want and, surprise, how other people play (so far away from where you play) doesn't actually affect you!
I mean, there is value in understanding how something is supposed to be run. However, if there isn't a clear understanding and the topic being contentious then leaving it up to your table GM to decide is probably a better answer than arguing with someone endlessly on the internet.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I mean, there is value in understanding how something is supposed to be run. However, if there isn't a clear understanding and the topic being contentious then leaving it up to your table GM to decide is probably a better answer than arguing with someone endlessly on the internet.
I have on rare occasion run into the same people on the boards playing organized play. More frequently I'll see arguments from the rules forums trickle over into organized play. I would much rather work out my response and reaction to a rules disagreement online and go to the table prepared for it than to be blindsided at the table by it.
I mean, there is value in understanding how something is supposed to be run. However, if there isn't a clear understanding and the topic being contentious then leaving it up to your table GM to decide is probably a better answer than arguing with someone endlessly on the internet.I have on rare occasion run into the same people on the boards playing organized play. More frequently I'll see arguments from the rules forums trickle over into organized play. I would much rather work out my response and reaction to a rules disagreement online and go to the table prepared for it than to be blindsided at the table by it.
In this we agree. Arguing at the table is not a productive use of extremely rare and precious game time, and the potential for real-life hard feelings exists.
One would hope that people would take things into stride and just concentrate on having fun, but the world isn't ideal like that sometimes.
Hence, it is good to have the official clarifications beforehand.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
In this we agree. Arguing at the table is not a productive use of extremely rare and precious game time, and the potential for real-life hard feelings exists.
Several of your comments here would have sorely tempted me to throw you out of my tables. If you start doing organized play you may want to be mindful that accusing someone of using house rules is very close to an accusation of cheating.
One would hope that people would take things into stride and just concentrate on having fun, but the world isn't ideal like that sometimes.
Two things suck the fun out of organized organized play and the usability of the rules forums that have come up here.
1) The idea that SFS (or even the rules forum) is some uber strict THE RAW IS THE LAW organization where DMs have to grammar the tech to read the sentence and can ONLY grammar the tec to read the sentence.
DMs aren't allowed to use evidence, balance, common sense, reason, evidence or verisimilitude at all to guide their reading of what the rules MEAN. They HAVE to go by what they say, as parsed by some tea leaves of grammar. This is despite the developers repeatedly saying that they do NOT write the rules that way.
2) The idea that the rules are some perfectly coherent logical system and that they are perfect logicians (for various values of they). So you can argue A implies B which Implies C which implies D and because that argument exists, that IS the rules. Its completely impossible that the rules say both A and Not A*, or that any argument that Z implies X which implies Not D is even possible. This is also despite the developers being the first one to state that the rules will not work that way.
What that means is that instead of answering why it looks like Z implies X which implies Not D, all you have to do is repeat that A implies B implies C, Implies D. That would only be a counterargument if it were impossible that the rules could be giving contradictory information, or even anything that can possibly be read as contradictory information. It completely bypasses actual discussion, competing views, contradictory evidence, and the possibility of error if you think you're as objectively right as math rather than working from the preponderance of the evidence
Letting those ideas go, unanswered, unchallenged, makes it look like it must be true to everyone else watching. To DMs that don't want to put up with it from their players insanity, the insanity is usually against the actual rules. To people looking at getting into organized play that are worried it's full of munchkin rules lawyers? The DMs are absolutely NOT beholden to whatever blatherskite argument players can come up with while shouting it's the raw. Organized play DMs can't houserule, but reasonable, differing interpretations of the rules are NOT house rules. To people trying to decide how a rule actually works? Laying out the evidence for and against an idea is a lot more useful than a sentance diagram and an allegedly objective answer.
To people looking at getting into organized play that are worried it's full of munchkin rules lawyers?
As someone who doesn't play organized play, I can confirm this is EXACTLY how SFS comes across to me.
I've been playing these games for a long time, and I understand that real organized play isn't necessarily like that. However, people that make constant commentary about putting SFS in statements of what appear very munchkiny... well it turns me off.
I hadn't participated in the forums much either after some of these threads like this. Please understand that forum rules on decorum are there not just for the people arguing, but they are there for readers too. There is no harm in having discussions about rules interpretations but be mindful of their presentation.
Negative perceptions are bad for businesses.
Jiminy, BNW, I can't even agree with you without you getting super contrarian. "House rules are cheating?" I can't even begin to comprehend that. House rules are the golden rule of gaming. The GM's word is law.
I already play SFS; as a player I generally don't argue at the table because, as I said, it is rare and valuable time that is supposed to be fun.
If I were at your SFS table, I would say, "Okay I use a swift action to shift my claw off my Yellow Star Plasma Lance so I can make an Unarmed Strike Attack of Opportunity against the halfling when he tries to run." You would say, "You are a vesk, you don't need to take your hand off of your weapon to do that." And I would say, "Cool."
Rules should be clear. This isn't a controversial statement. I realize that in a product as large and complex as Starfinder that there are going to be things that slip through the cracks, but that doesn't mean that we can't strive to correct misconceptions or fuzzy wording when found.
And the rules aren't clear. The fact that we're having this discussion is proof enough of that, and I've tried to explain my position with as much clarity as possible. Like you, I would like for Paizo to make a ruling so that I can say, "Oh Owen resolved that question."
A little story.
I had an argument with one of my players at my table who disputed that a bone trooper could take a guarded step and draw a weapon at the same time, then attack with his standard action. The the Draw of Sheathe Your Weapon states, "If you have a base attack bonus of +1 or higher, you can combine drawing or sheathing a weapon or weapon-like object with moving up to your speed as a single move action."
Playing SFS, everybody I played with before that said that the phase "moving up to your speed as a single move action" includes Guarded Steps, because it is technically correct that they are taking a move action to move "up to your speed..." in this case, only moving one space, which fits the "up to" requirement. When I first heard this, I was a little confused, but EVERYBODY at my SFS tables played it this way. When I brought up the question, they just scoffed at me.
The player actually had the same interpretation that I did originally, that "moving up to your speed as a single move action" specifically referred to the Move Your Speed action, which states, "The simplest move action is moving up to your speed." The context of the Draw Or Sheathe Your Weapon exception implies that the simplicity of the "Move Your Speed" action allowed you to draw your weapon if you had +1 BAB or higher, and Guarded Steps are implied to require too much concentration and effort, BUT it is not explicit because it only references an effect of the action instead of the action itself.
I found myself arguing against MY OWN ORIGINAL POSITION for five minutes and the game ground to a screeching halt because I was accepting the interpretation of the SFS GMs I've played with. In the end I accepted the player's interpretation just to get the game moving again (he still got his butt handed to him by the bone trooper anyway).
Has that question about drawing or sheathing a weapon in a guarded step been resolved? It would have been nice to know before I got into that particular discussion.
Am I pedantic? Yeah. But I'm pedantic on the forum because I want play time to be fun. Grammar and context are really interesting to me, and I want my game rules to be written well. If they're not, I think that they should be clarified ASAP to avoid confusion.
I never said that individual Society GMs can't make their own rulings, but until things get clarified, we're going to see table variation in rules interpretation, and that, probably more than people disagreeing on the internet ("Come to bed, honey." "I can't, someone's wrong on the internet."), turns people off Society play.
Am I pedantic? Yeah. But I'm pedantic on the forum because I want play time to be fun. Grammar and context are really interesting to me, and I want my game rules to be written well. If they're not, I think that they should be clarified ASAP to avoid confusion.
The rules could be better but you have to meet them half way. You have to actually try to read them and not force a reading on them. What you're doing here is DEFINITELY the later and SFS is not an excuse to do that.
Has that question about drawing or sheathing a weapon in a guarded step been resolved? It would have been nice to know before I got into that particular discussion.
No. And SFS doesn't keep a secret drawer full of clarifications to hand to DMs. The requirements to dm are a character number, that's it. So there is no SFS answer, but the SFS players in your area/group may have locally set on an answer to that question. They're not the same thing. (for the record I don't think move up to your speed is a coincidence, Its specifically calling up the [move action] not just an action where you move. ) You see this sort of thing come up online and in big conventions a lot where people have gotten a local interpretation and the rules mixed up.
No natural attack in the game has the archaic property (at least, none that I'm aware of). Why in lost Golarian would you think that the bite attack given by a ring of fangs has the archaic property?
No natural attack in the game has the archaic property (at least, none that I'm aware of). Why in lost Golarian would you think that the bite attack given by a ring of fangs has the archaic property?
Argument for it being archaic.
For PCs, a natural weapon is an unarmed strike.
The ring changes that attack to a bite attack (so armed)
Lethal as opposed to non lethal
Piercing as opposed to bludgeoning
2x level as opposed to level for specialization
Argument Against it being archaic
Would be that all natural weapons are not archaic by default rather than a special property of each natural weapon.
I think that would change my mind about them being archaic. Although the context there being monster abilities rather than PC abilities leaves me with some doubt.
|
|
I can say, though I have been known to be "toxic", so, grain of salt, that BNW or Dracomicron are not 'the' example of what organized play is like.
As a society GM, I often make rulings on the spot, often in the players favor (unless it really breaks the game) regardless of what the RAW says so that the game can move along. There 'are' a fair amount of munchkin/rules lawyers about in society, it is what it is. That said, they are often easily quieted by a firm GM or player. If you've got a solid home group, I'd say that you would be fine without playing society. If you're hankering to play and you've got no one else to play with, society is a great option.