I didn't move any goalpost.
There are no rules for a "bite" attack for a PC other than what are in the Unarmed Strike One Handed Basic Melee Weapon entry- dracomicron
There are now rules for a bite attack for a PC besides the one that are in the unarmed strike one handed basic melee weapon entry. They are EXACTLY what I said they were.
The goal was always to have a clear and concise ruling that didn't leave room for doubt.
That simply isn't possible. Look up some of the klar discussions for example. Or that you still argue that armed is fluff.
The rules for PC natural attacks in AA3 are specifically (and explicitly) ONLY for those with the Natural Weapons racial trait. I'm not sure why you can't accept that they made that specific ruling that excludes the Ring of Fangs.
Right. So no one will actually clarify what the ring is supposed to do, but they WILL sneak in a secret back door caveat that means the ring MUST work your way...
No.
I get it, you want things to make logical real world sense.
Absolutely not. And as much as you hate to hear it you're absolutely wrong. This is something inside my head, I know it and you don't.
I want the rules to be logical and consistent with themselves . If you're using a bite attack to mean something here it has to mean just about the same thing over there. And so far, it does. I looked at the rule for vesk natural weapons, told you what the general rule for natural weapons was. And I was right.
How likely is that in your post modern view that there's no underlying fundamentals about how the game works?
The game will deviate from reality. It will also rely on common sense. It's not always consistent with when its doing which, but its usually pretty good about spelling out when that happens. Its why a minotaur doesn't need a free hand to gore people despite "raw" Arguments to the contrary. (which arent' really raw)
That would be totally unbalanced in Monopoly, same as letting the Ring of Fangs circumvent the requirement of having Natural Weapons.
The writers ideas of balanced can vary a lot from yours.
|
I do not see how the alien archive 3 clarification didn't end this.Because it's not applicable. It talks about NPCs and it talks about PC racial traits. The Ring of Fangs isn't covered by either of those.
So, to avoid the conclusion that the thing that says you get a bite attack actually gives you a bite attack we must propose that
1) there is some third unknown way natural weapons and unarmed strikes interacts/relates
AND
2) whatever that method is it will drop the fangs out as archaic.
This is in spite of nearly identical language for NPCS natural weapons, the examples we have of PC natural weapons, and the new spelled out rules for PC natual weapons all having very similar language and identical effects.
That is NOT a reasonable counter argument.
The AA3 rule doesn't strictly speaking apply to the ring of fangs. That's clear from the text.
What you're saying is that it's similar enough that you can use it to fill in the blanks on what we don't know about the ring of fangs.
The problems I have with that are that:
1) That's a whole lot more subjective than being able to say that it's clearly the rule. One GM might choose to adopt that analogy, another might not. We still want a decisive developer answer.
2) I find the similarity not so good as you find it. If the AA3 version matched everything about the ring of fangs except the blanks that we're trying to fill in, then I'd be more inclined to accept the analogy. But there are explicit differences: the 1.5x vs. 2x weapon specialization.
|
BNW, how do you run the carnivorous spell?
Your mouth expands to twice its normal size, and fills with rows of razor-sharp teeth, giving you a bite attack.
It's very similar to how the ring of fangs is worded:
When you wear this ring, your teeth become long and sharp, giving you a powerful bite attack.
It doesn't matter what the text states after the period, right? We should just stop reading after the first line?
2) I find the similarity not so good as you find it. If the AA3 version matched everything about the ring of fangs except the blanks that we're trying to fill in, then I'd be more inclined to accept the analogy. But there are explicit differences: the 1.5x vs. 2x weapon specialization.
They do not need to match point for point. That natural attacks like a bite are unarmed strikes is all it takes. That's some pretty big picture stuff for a magic item to change and even bigger picture stuff for an item to change without even hinting.
Once "these unarmed strikes" returns as the bites the entire item makes sense. The only way you have to go into some weird rules lawyering is if "these unarmed strikes" and the bite the ring says it gives you are a contradiction.
It doesn't matter what the text states after the period, right? We should just stop reading after the first line?
If you want to know why you're sensing some annoyance at people taking a very simple thing and making it complicated? Its jabs like this.
I do not stop reading after the first line. Carnivorous tells you exactly how it works. So does the ring of fangs.
I don't think its arguable anymore that a bite is a natural attack, natural attacks are unarmed strikes. This has been proven up and down.
When you wear this ring, your teeth become long and sharp, giving you a powerful bite attack.
You can choose to have your unarmed attacks deal lethal piercing damage (by biting people)
and if you are 3rd level or higher, you automatically gain a special version of the Weapon Specialization feat that adds double your level to the damage of these unarmed attacks (rather than adding your level) (these unarmed attacks is the bite you get)
There is no contradiction between the first half of the item and the last half unless you don't know that natural weaponry are unarmed strikes in starfinder.
Once "these unarmed strikes" returns as the bites the entire item makes sense. The only way you have to go into some weird rules lawyering is if "these unarmed strikes" and the bite the ring says it gives you are a contradiction.
Growing up your entire life with claws, a beatdown tail, and head spikes is very different from putting on a magic item and suddenly your teef are big.
Natural Weapons implies a level of familiarity with your weapons that is not conveyed by the description in the Ring of Fangs. Carnivorous says that it is a basic melee weapon... if there was a class that didn't have basic melee weapons, they wouldn't have proficiency. Junksword specifically says that you have proficiency in the weapon that the spell creates.
Again, it's not rules lawyering when the item gives something outside the scope of other abilities (x2 level damage for cheap). It's completely natural to look at that and say, "Okay, what's the catch?"
Because, if we listen to you, there is no catch, it's flat better than a vesk, and there's no reason for anyone without a huge need for their magic item slots not to use it. Everyone gets pointy teeth for days.
Again, it's not rules lawyering when the item gives something outside the scope of other abilities (x2 level damage for cheap). It's completely natural to look at that and say, "Okay, what's the catch?"
It is rules lawyering it's just rules lawyering away from a power level rather than towards it.
It is rules lawyering it's just rules lawyering away from a power level rather than towards it.
Again, it's not rules lawyering when the item gives something outside the scope of other abilities (x2 level damage for cheap). It's completely natural to look at that and say, "Okay, what's the catch?"
And trying to prevent abuse is bad because... ?
And trying to prevent abuse is bad because... ?
because the methods are dishonest. If you're going to nerf something nerf it, don't pretend it's "just the rules" doing that because it isn't.
That the ring of fangs gives you a bite attack isn't a loophole or some odd reading you only get twisting it sideways. Its not some myopic reading of a technicality that ignores the big picture (like we had with pummeling style) it is the big picture. It isn't some weird thing where the math might work out one way or another.
Nothing says power level can't be something you include in your rules evaluation, but the pointy fist conclusion seperates two halves of 3 sentence item.
Growing up your entire life with claws, a beatdown tail, and head spikes is very different from putting on a magic item and suddenly your teef are big.
This argument starts iffy on the grounds that magic is the part of the game where it doesn't need to make real world sense. Also polymorph spells inherently give you instant proficiency with your claws and whatnot. Turn someone into a tendradactyl ? Poof. They're immediately proficient with their snickerdoodles. I'm pretty sure creatures are still proficient with their natural attacks by default.
I have been following this thread with equal amounts of amazement and disbelief.
So I think it might be time to invoke the Dave Mason Rule.
So let's leave it alone 'cause we can't see eye to eye
There ain't no good guy, there ain't no bad guy
There's only you and me and we just disagree
Ooh ooh ooh, oh oh oh
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
We can't just move along.
I have an SFS character that I built explicitly around the Ring of Fangs. I haven't played them, because literally every time the item gets mentioned, the exact argument in this 260+ post thread happens.
I'm f*****g sick of this argument. I can't just concede the point and accept the (in just my lodge 7) different GM interpretations as all valid, because I play online, and the differences between the different interpretations means that I would have to spend game time every game re-coding the macros I use for attacks in Roll20 to make them right. When I'm GMing, I feel like I'm either punishing players who use the more liberal interpretations or just wasting time even discussing it for those with the less liberal interpretations. All of the interpretations have valid arguments, we're all just choosing to weigh them differently. When COM comes out, shields are only going to make that worse.
I need one official answer. I don't care what that answer is. I don't care if it's "This item is not legal for Organized Play." or "This item works exactly like Vesk Natural Attack except Y." or "This item has it's own rules, they they interact like this." I just need something that I can point to as a player/GM in SFS and say, "This is how it works. Let's play."
I would have been fine taking the GM consensus if there had been one. There hasn't. So, FAQ.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
We can't just move along.
Actually you can.
You have called for a FAQ. Until Paizo answers there is nothing more you can do, short of emailing people directly I guess.
When you are the GM it is your call on how the ring works... period, end of story.
When you are at another GMs table you have to play their interpretation of how the ring works.....again period end of story.
And finally you can shelve the character until Paizo clarifies the item.
Until this happens there is no need for further argument. From everything I have seen there are several individuals with several different beliefs on how the ring works. Additionally from what I have observed no one has convinced anyone that their way is correct.
You are all at a stalemate in your firmly entrenched positions and no one is going to budge.
Further argument is pointless at this point.
It is completely in Paizo's hands to clarify the item.
You have called for a FAQ. Until Paizo answers there is nothing more you can do, short of emailing people directly I guess.
Or, like, maybe occasionally replying to the thread repeating the call for a FAQ so that the thread stays at or near the top of the forum thread list...
But, that can't possibly be what I'm doing.
Further argument is pointless at this point.
It is completely in Paizo's hands to clarify the item.
I agree.
FAQ, please.
I do not see a legitimate argument being made for team pointy fist besides that its only 99% proven that the ring of fangs lets you bite people.
Unarmed strike isn't one thing in starfinder the way it was in pathfinder. Its many things. Its soft human fists, its mormalaw chomps, its formian pinchy pinchers, its .. whatever it is that vesk hit you with.
You can see this in the pc entries, you can see it in the monster entries, and you can see it in the pc race entries, and you can see it when alien archive spells out exactly what you could interpret from the pc entries.
So which kind of unarmed strikes does the item mean? It talks about big sharp pointy teeth and specifically calls out a bite attack. There is no clearer way the item could possibly call out (Unarmed strikes, bite) and no more less clear way it could be specifying (unarmed strikes, squishy human fists)
There is no positive argument being made for the pointy fists. At all. Nothing about the words "unarmed strikes" points to squishy human fists than any other kind of unarmed strike, but sharp pointy teeth and a powerful bite attack are a neon sign for unarmed strikes: bite. -unarmed strikes not bite attacks- is a straight up logical fallacy. You can't say someone is an american not a new yorker.
Really look at what unarmed strikes are in pathfinder. Really look. Then look at the ring and tell me why it couldn't the bites it means in context.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't know which of the many positions you're referring to, but I, for one, am not on team 'pointy fists'. I am on team, 'this item doesn't give you anything it doesn't explicitly say it does.'
It doesn't say it removes the archaic tag, so it doesn't.
It doesn't say you're always armed, so you aren't.
It doesn't say it gives you the 'Natural Attack' racial trait or that it works like the racial trait, so things that apply to that racial trait do not apply to this item unless they apply to all unarmed strikes.
It says it gives you a bite attack. It says how that bite attack works. It uses completely different language to describe that bite attack than any of the 'Natural Attack' racial traits use. That makes it its own thing.
Even without the stuff the racial traits give, it's a heck of a lot for a 315cr level 3 item and still one of the best items in the game. Certainly the best item for the price. I'm not going to also give it a bunch of other stuff on your word. If someone managed to convince all (or even a plurality) of the other GM's to read it that way, sure.
But since no one has done that. FAQ.
|
|
I do not see a legitimate argument being made for team pointy fist...
There is no positive argument being made for the pointy fists...
I don't think anyone in this thread is on team "pointy fists". I'm certainly not.
And that's one point that was already clarified in the audio, correct? That a Nuar can gore with their hands full?
I would likewise think that a PC wearing a ring of fangs could bite with their hands occupied.
That's not something that's being argued here, to my knowledge.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Glad to have you on the Starfinder Design Team. I moved from Pathfinder and PFS to Starfinder and SFS a while back, and don't plan on indulging in too much PFS2, so I'm looking forward to seeing your content!
On that note, have you seen BigNorseWolf's FAQ request over in the Rules Forum regarding the Ring of Fangs? We just reached 50 FAQ hits today, and I think it's currently the most FAQ'd question in the Forum.
Since the ring came from the volume of Dead Suns that you worked on, might you have any insights on how it works?
Figured I'd reach out to the source at this point ^_^
Hoping all is well,
~ Eric
I do not see a legitimate argument being made for team pointy fist...
There is no positive argument being made for the pointy fists...
I don't think anyone in this thread is on team "pointy fists". I'm certainly not.
And that's one point that was already clarified in the audio, correct? That a Nuar can gore with their hands full?
I would likewise think that a PC wearing a ring of fangs could bite with their hands occupied.
That's not something that's being argued here, to my knowledge.
If we're getting nitpicky (and that's par for the course anyway), the Q&A was hardly definitive. "I think so" is not a "yes, definitely."
That Q&A read to me that some devs were hearing about the issue for the first time and were spitballing a "logical" answer without considering the rules implications.
That Q&A read to me that some devs were hearing about the issue for the first time and were spitballing a "logical" answer without considering the rules implications.
The game relies a great deal on logic and common sense so they don't have to spell everything out. If they're hearing it for the first time that would mean that there isn't any deep seeded rules intent for the rules to trump logic.
And the rules argument isn't that good anyway. You have a direct contradiction between the weapon description for unarmed strike saying it can be made with any limb or appendage, AND you're trying to apply the normal from the feat to creatures that have similar abilities to the feat.
This one is a non starter.
The game relies a great deal on logic and common sense so they don't have to spell everything out. If they're hearing it for the first time that would mean that there isn't any deep seeded rules intent for the rules to trump logic.
That doesn't follow at all. If they're hearing it for the first time, it could just mean that they don't follow the forums closely. You're extrapolating definites from incomplete data (again).
This one is a non starter.
Oh. Okay then. I guess we all agree and there will never be another post about this.
The game relies a great deal on logic and common sense so they don't have to spell everything out. If they're hearing it for the first time that would mean that there isn't any deep seeded rules intent for the rules to trump logic.That doesn't follow at all. If they're hearing it for the first time, it could just mean that they don't follow the forums closely. You're extrapolating definites from incomplete data (again).
The rules forums are completely irrelevant to whether the developers intended to put a restriction on natural weapons not working unless they had a free hand. You either don't understand what I very plainly said, or you're just talking to have something to say. Either way, you don't have a meaningful counterargument.
You really need to accept, at the very least, that other people aren't using your Aristotelian logic to reach rules conclusions. A far better (and in the long run more accurate) method is to use evidence for and against a position, weigh the likelihood of it, and reach and answer. Thats the method I use. Thats the method you have to use to be reach a reasonable conclussion: otherwise you just argue absolutes from A B C D while someone else argues absolutes Z Y X not D.
The argument for your position is very weak. Normal does not mean "always without the feat". A first level ysoki mystic can spit a pistol out of their cheeks as a swift action despite the "normal" in quickdraw. The text in improved unarmed strike is contradindicated by the description of an unarmed strike in weapons. Its also contraindicated by creatures with natural weapons being always armed. Now, while there are some weird circumstances involving enough bubble wrap to keep a vesk from hurting you, carrying a laser rifle is a common enough situation to warrant mention on the always. Three developers thinking that they have the common sense reading in mind when writing the rules of the game is a bucket of icing on the cake.
Oh. Okay then. I guess we all agree and there will never be another post about this.
From any reasonable DM yes.
Much like armed I think I've seen the last of it from any reasonable DM.
Much like armed I think I've seen the last of it from any reasonable DM.
You seem to have missed pithica42's post.
I can't just concede the point and accept the (in just my lodge 7) different GM interpretations as all valid, because I play online, and the differences between the different interpretations means that I would have to spend game time every game re-coding the macros I use for attacks in Roll20 to make them right. When I'm GMing, I feel like I'm either punishing players who use the more liberal interpretations or just wasting time even discussing it for those with the less liberal interpretations. All of the interpretations have valid arguments, we're all just choosing to weigh them differently.
You are saying that pithica42 has six to seven different unreasonable GMs.
Anecdotal, for sure, but the developers making a vaguely confused ruling in a Q&A is anecdotal as well.
What is not reasonable is you saying that all arguments against your position are invalid. Nobody is doing that to you. I have always allowed that you might be correct, though I don't think it is good for the game if you are.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's not 7 GMs, it's more like 30. I just counted 7 different interpretations. He's one of the GMs in the lodges I play/run in, and, as far as I can tell, the only one with his interpretation. Every time it comes up for discussion he accuses people of being irrational or unreasonable for daring to disagree with him.
Being called stupid over this item has made me want to quit playing/running more than once. It's what led me to start the thread in the OP forum that led to this one. I know of at least two people that left the online community over the argument. It's hurting the game to leave it in limbo.
So, again, FAQ.
For the love of the gods.
If the people that you play with are so (your descriptive text here), then ban the item until it is clarified.
Absolutely (your descriptive text here)!
It's not 7 GMs, it's more like 30. I just counted 7 different interpretations. He's one of the GMs in the lodges I play/run in, and, as far as I can tell, the only one with his interpretation. .
Every single player I've seen using it has either used that same ruling or combined it with mormalaw tusks/vesk natural attacks to the same end.
Being called stupid over this item has made me want to quit playing/running more than once
Not stupid. Just needlessly nitpicky.
The way I run it is.. i don't ask. At all. Besides making sure someones not trying 3.5 x level damage. If someone wants to slap raw lethality on their unarmed attacks and then put the ring on its... close enough for me.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The way I run it is.. i don't ask. At all. Besides making sure someones not trying 3.5 x level damage. If someone wants to slap raw lethality on their unarmed attacks and then put the ring on its... close enough for me.
An optional gear boost tax is a terrible status quo. Put two RoF characters in the same scenario, one whose player (in my mind, properly) uses Raw Lethality, and the other simply assuming that the ring gives them unlisted abilities, who therefore took Melee Striker instead, will result in an unbalanced situation favoring the person who didn't check themself.
There are times when it is okay to be a lax GM. Letting one player selectively choose rules that affect themself and thus be able to contribute more to the party than another player with a similar build is not a good time to be so easygoing.
Thus, FAQ.
| 2 people marked this as FAQ candidate. 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Obligatory re-request for the new development team to not forget about the 90+ FAQ requests and 278ish posts on this thread.
[cough]FAQ, Please.[/cough]
|
|
I finally got to play my RoF character at a Convention this weekend, and none of my GMs were aware of the issue. They each let me play it as I understood it.
At Level 3 and then Level 4, there were other characters in my parties who were dealing more damage with actual weapons and class abilities.
If I'd been dominating the table, there might have been more scrutiny, but as it was we just got to enjoy the stories.
I finally got to play my RoF character at a Convention this weekend, and none of my GMs were aware of the issue. They each let me play it as I understood it.
At Level 3 and then Level 4, there were other characters in my parties who were dealing more damage with actual weapons and class abilities.
If I'd been dominating the table, there might have been more scrutiny, but as it was we just got to enjoy the stories.
While it is good, anecdotally, that you didn't have any trouble, you don't seem to have had two RoF characters built using different assumptions at your tables, right?
The problem has never been "Can a RoF character complete a Society adventure without setting off the rules equivalent of a nuclear bomb?" It's always been about being fair to parties with similar builds but different interpretations.
Thus, FAQ.
Something i noticed today (don't know if i've mentioned it before) that the ring mentions "unarmed attacks" twice. The thing people want to F(x) between the ring is unarmed STRIKES. Those are different things in starfinder.
It never mentions unarmed strikes (puny human fists) only unarmed attacks (the broad catagory that does include puny human fists but also includes bites)
Starfinder Lead Designer
|
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
Hi there! As the recently minted Starfinder Lead Designer, I'm looking at this closely.
I appreciate the many of you who have marked this as a FAQ. I've had some discussion with the team about the questions raised in the first and twelfth posts of this thread (the ones prominently marked for FAQ).
I'll get back to you here as soon as I have some answers for you.
Thanks!
Thanks, Joe. And congrats on the new position. Who did you annoy to get this punishment? (kidding!)
Awesome! Thanks, Joe!
Is there some kind of ETA on that besides soon?(tm)
|
Starfinder Lead Designer
|
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
Hello again, all!
I've posted some clarifications about the ring of fangs (in a separate thread to help those looking for similar answers in the future).
Thank you again to those of you who marked this as FAQ!
|
|
Hello again, all!
I've posted some clarifications about the ring of fangs (in a separate thread to help those looking for similar answers in the future).
Thank you again to those of you who marked this as FAQ!
Great to have some answers! I posted a few follow-up questions though...
Thanks, Joe. And congrats on the new position. Who did you annoy to get this punishment? (kidding!)SO MANY people. But joke's on them—turns out I enjoy working with my colleagues and y'all to find solutions and play fun games ^_^
The secret to happiness is to love the stuff people think you'll hate?
I can dig it!