Ambiguous Rules. Sometimes a rule could be interpreted multiple ways. If one version is too good to be true, it probably is.Since it is clear that the words "all enemies in the area" and "Each creature in the area" are ambiguous, would changing the text "Each creature in the area" to "Foes in the area" be considered too good to be true?
IMO, no. "all enemies in the area" in no way conflicts with "Each creature in the area" as enemies are a subset of creatures. Add to that creatures is in the line that has actual mechanics in it [the line telling you who saves] and it seems clear to me the line that would be removed in this case is the line referring to "all enemies".
AS to the last line of Ambiguous Rules, I don't think either options is too good/bad to make a choice obvious to me. As such, go with the part that's clearly mechanics.
"all enemies in the area" in no way conflicts with "Each creature in the area" as enemies are a subset of creatures.
While that's true, that statement has no bearing on whether or not non-enemy creatures are also effected.
"all enemies in the area" in no way conflicts with "Each creature in the area" as enemies are a subset of creatures.While that's true, that statement has no bearing on whether or not non-enemy creatures are also effected.
Why doesn't it? The first sentence doesn't contradict the second with the actual mechanics in it. As such, it seems to have a lot of bearing. Even if we give them equal weight, the default for a spell without specific targets is it affects all creatures indiscriminately: "A spell that has an area but no targets listed usually affects all creatures in the area indiscriminately." So if it's ambiguous, IMO the default should stand: I don't see how the first sentence overcomes the existence of the second sentence AND the default.
This would be so much easier if we could have something analogous to Sage Advice to get these things answered quickly.
It may seem straightforward to you, graystone, but for a lot of other people it clearly isn't.
At best if you forcefully mash that mishmash of sentences into a strict , machine-parsed Rules as Written interpretation, you may be right.
But I don't think there's any evidence one way or the other what the Rules as Intended is.
This would be so much easier if we could have something analogous to Sage Advice to get these things answered quickly.
*thumbs up*
It may seem straightforward to you, graystone, but for a lot of other people it clearly isn't.
It's badly worded: we all agree. IMO, all the ways to solve that though ends up with it hitting every creature.
At best if you forcefully mash that mishmash of sentences into a strict , machine-parsed Rules as Written interpretation, you may be right.
You either pick the sentence you're sure deals with mechanics [it talks about the save], the sentence you are sure was added after the playtest [all creatures] or you say you can't pick one and go with the default: in either case you end up with all creatures hit.
But I don't think there's any evidence one way or the other what the Rules as Intended is.
And in that case, use the default when you don't know what the targets are: "A spell that has an area but no targets listed usually affects all creatures in the area indiscriminately." No targets and can't determine what the target is meant to be seem synonymous IMO.
IMO the default should stand: I don't see how the first sentence overcomes the existence of the second sentence AND the default.
So...you and I agree? It affects everyone?
IMO the default should stand: I don't see how the first sentence overcomes the existence of the second sentence AND the default.So...you and I agree? It affects everyone?
Yep. If that's what you where saying with your prior post then I misunderstood what you where saying.
|
Ambiguous Rules. Sometimes a rule could be interpreted multiple ways. If one version is too good to be true, it probably is.Since it is clear that the words "all enemies in the area" and "Each creature in the area" are ambiguous, would changing the text "Each creature in the area" to "Foes in the area" be considered too good to be true?IMO, no. "all enemies in the area" in no way conflicts with "Each creature in the area" as enemies are a subset of creatures. Add to that creatures is in the line that has actual mechanics in it [the line telling you who saves] and it seems clear to me the line that would be removed in this case is the line referring to "all enemies".
AS to the last line of Ambiguous Rules, I don't think either options is too good/bad to make a choice obvious to me. As such, go with the part that's clearly mechanics.
It is not a question of conflict. It is a question of more than one interpretation . I would also like to know where in the CRB it states where to start the mechanics of a rule. Why is the second sentence more important than the first sentence? IMO who the spell affects is part of the spell mechanics. The first sentence implies only enemies excluding allies and the caster, the second implies all creatures including allies and the caster. This is the very definition of ambiguous.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It is not a question of conflict. It is a question of more than one interpretation . I would also like to know where in the CRB it states where to start the mechanics of a rule. Why is the second sentence more important than the first sentence? IMO who the spell affects is part of the spell mechanics. The first sentence implies only enemies excluding allies and the caster, the second implies all creatures including allies and the caster. This is the very definition of ambiguous.Ambiguous Rules. Sometimes a rule could be interpreted multiple ways. If one version is too good to be true, it probably is.Since it is clear that the words "all enemies in the area" and "Each creature in the area" are ambiguous, would changing the text "Each creature in the area" to "Foes in the area" be considered too good to be true?IMO, no. "all enemies in the area" in no way conflicts with "Each creature in the area" as enemies are a subset of creatures. Add to that creatures is in the line that has actual mechanics in it [the line telling you who saves] and it seems clear to me the line that would be removed in this case is the line referring to "all enemies".
AS to the last line of Ambiguous Rules, I don't think either options is too good/bad to make a choice obvious to me. As such, go with the part that's clearly mechanics.
Look at every other spell on that same page. The first sentence or clause of each is some form of flavorful descriptive text, not rules language. If you haven't figured out the format before reaching the 'S' spells, I don't know what to tell you.
It is a question of more than one interpretation .
I think I went over all of them. IMO, they all end up with all creatures being hit.
I would also like to know where in the CRB it states where to start the mechanics of a rule.
Pretty much after the fluff/flavor text ends.
Why is the second sentence more important than the first sentence?
Because it is? If you don't agree, then lets take them of equal value: with a disagreement of what then target is, default to what happens if you don't know. "A spell that has an area but no targets listed usually affects all creatures in the area indiscriminately." The only way it can be enemy only is if you put MORE importance on the first sentence than the second and I can't see any reason to do so.
This is the very definition of ambiguous.
I explained it before: "You either pick the sentence you're sure deals with mechanics [it talks about the save], the sentence you are sure was added after the playtest [all creatures] or you say you can't pick one and go with the default: in either case you end up with all creatures hit." If you don't agree with #1, I'm not sure why #2 or #3 aren't both valid reasons for it to hit all creatures. I literally so no way to say it should be all enemies without errata.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
There is obviously a need for clarification in the spell's description. Otherwise this thread would not have lasted this long.
The "enemies only" interpretation would likely fall under the "too good to be true" rule since the original thread's title is "Synaptic Pulse is Incredible".
The "enemies only" interpretation would likely fall under the "too good to be true" rule since the original thread's title is "Synaptic Pulse is Incredible".
Maybe the whole spell needs to be rewritten from the ground up then.
If it hits only enemies, it's too good; if it hits everybody indiscriminately, it's not worth taking.
I for one think that if it remains an emenation centered on the caster, then having it ignore enemies is not overpowering.
If it functions more like a ranged burst, like fireball, then it should be indiscriminate.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As the person who wrote that thread title and runs the "enemies only" version of Synaptic Pulse, I should clarify that I don't think the spell is overpowered. The Incapacitation trait works very well in limiting how well it can be abused. Honestly the main reason I think RAI is for it to affect enemies is because a spell with both Incapacitation AND a solid chance of messing up your own party is a really, really bad spell.
In fact in my original post instead of saying I thought the spell was overpowered I praised it as the "gold standard of what control wizards should be able to do".
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think trying to figure out RAI on an individual spell from a balance perspective is going to be pretty fruitless. Even if Synaptic Pulse affects your allies, it wouldn't be the worst spell printed in the CRB.
Add to this that spell balance can be pretty subjective. Is a spell like "Mind Link" unbalanced because it's too weak? In my mind, it isn't. Even though it's an incredibly useless spell in most adventuring scenarios, it still has its own purpose and niche.
I think trying to figure out RAI on an individual spell from a balance perspective is going to be pretty fruitless. Even if Synaptic Pulse affects your allies, it wouldn't be the worst spell printed in the CRB.
No, that would be Spirit Link, the healing spell that lets you TRADE damage instead of recovering. Available to divine and occult casters. And primal witches (because that makes sense).
Honestly the main reason I think RAI is for it to affect enemies is because a spell with both Incapacitation AND a solid chance of messing up your own party is a really, really bad spell.
For me, I see RAI as all creatures as that line was added to the spell after the playtest: it was a section replaced intentionally IMO.
I think trying to figure out RAI on an individual spell from a balance perspective is going to be pretty fruitless.
I agree with this: it would have to be something truly ridiculous to move into too good/bad when compared to what we currently have IMO. If the standard is "it's not worth taking" then IMO a lot of things aren't following their RAI...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Hiring someone for FAQ/Errata probably isn't going to save as much work.
Most of the work is talking to the designers to determine their intent, and making sure that any changes you make do not affect the ability of a character to do what the designer wanted it to do. This needs the designer to be involved.
If all they did is wrangle designers and coordinate input so everyone doesn't have to be in the same place at the same time during a bloodmoon to divine what everyone thinks it'd help a lot I think. If someone collects questions, prioritizes them and gets input from individual designers when possible and puts it all together into something easy to look over it takes less time to go over and review the issue leaving more time for creating new stuff. Add to that once they figure out what needs changing, you have to figure out how to fit it into the book within existing page counts.
I can see someone doing this full time and saving enough time to make it worthwhile. This is especially true now that there is no FAQ button in the forum to limit what you have to dig through to find things that need attention.
^ This.
I absolutely understand that game design, especially something more free-form and player-driven such as TTRPGs, is hard work. It's a creatively difficult but satisfying job, and I appreciate how the designers come up with all of their fantastic ideas and the mechanical implementations of those ideas.
But I feel this is not JUST a designer's issue, but also a management issue as well. From what I'm watched and learned via what the Paizo employees are willing to share on stream, creating the next round of errata is not the top priority from them right now. The creation and subsequent editing/polishing of the Advanced Player's Guide is what is their #1 priority right now. They would rather have the designers, both regular employees and freelancers, focus on making the APG as good as possible VS paying less attention to it to give focus on more errata or FAQ elaborations.
They don't want to answer off-the-cuff, they don't want to answer without getting everyone's inputs together, and it's clear all the designers have different perspectives and objectives when it comes to the same parts of the game. So that's why I think it's important to have someone dedicate their time to collect the most prominent parts of the needed errata, and push to get those questions answered throughout the office. It's what Mark and Lyz apparently did when they were first hired (from what's been said on stream, please correct me if I'm wrong!), and I hope they consider it a more important permanent position soon.
I can only hope that once the APG is done and at the printers, that the next big thing won't need to be done for a little while. Which will give the PF2E design team, and the website design team, enough time to implement a new FAQ/errata page to cover our most pressing issues. But that's just the hope from me, a customer.
It also doesn't help that the office are currently in a panic due to the COVID-19 pandemic, so things are slowing down even more so than usual. I just hope everyone at the office will stay safe and sound while working at home.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't want the flavour text to go away.
I think flavour and fluff should have its own section in the spell list, similar to how monster stat blocks have a separate section for Description/Ecology.
Maybe if it was listed somewhere in italic text, something like this:
1. The spell description is unclear, because at one point it says "all enemies" and at another it says "all creatures."
2. It would be really helpful to have official word on what the intended interpretation is.
3. Arguing is best kept to one thread, preferably the other one.
Right?
#1 It could be much better worded but I think the conclusion is clear on the current way it works.
#2 I'd prefer to see some errata vs some 'official' word in some thread.
#3 Why? What are we to do in this thread if we aren't debating? I could see the staff wanting to merge threads but I don't know that one thread of the other should be abandoned.
I don't want the flavour text to go away.
I think flavour and fluff should have its own section in the spell list, similar to how monster stat blocks have a separate section for Description/Ecology.
Maybe if it was listed somewhere in italic text, something like this:
It could work if they JUST used italic text for flavor but if it was it's own line, it cuts into page count by making every entry take up an additional line.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
#1 It could be much better worded but I think the conclusion is clear on the current way it works.It clearly isn't, because there are two threads discussing it to the tune of 70 + 100 posts.
I thing it's more over what was intended which isn't something we can answer. What we can do if figure out how it works as currently written. There are several ways to see it but they all end up with it hitting all creatures. For instance, you say "because at one point it says "all enemies" and at another it says "all creatures": this doesn't matter as the game has a default when you don't know what the target is. "A spell that has an area but no targets listed usually affects all creatures in the area indiscriminately."
If there is a way to see/read the rules in a way that it hits only enemies, I haven't seen it.
#1 It could be much better worded but I think the conclusion is clear on the current way it works.It clearly isn't, because there are two threads discussing it to the tune of 70 + 100 posts.
I categorically disagree here. As graystone mentioned there is room for clarity to be added to the spell. But as I read it there really isn't any other way to run the spell as currently written.
Consider that you could say the same thing about a fireball, that you conjure a ball of fire to burn your enemies. Would that mean that any allies caught in the blast were immune?
I see Synaptic Pulse as being a "dumb fire" kind of spell, meant to be used offensively against your enemies, but leaving allies and bystanders just as vulnerable to the effects of the spell as they would be against a fireball, or really any other area effect weapon.
What matters is the mechanics of the spell, and those are very clear. If an area spell has no target parameter, it targets everything in it's area indiscriminately unless the spell itself states otherwise. Synaptic Pulse does nothing of the sort.
Compare to Divine Decree which also targets indiscriminately exactly as Synaptic Pulse does, but clearly states who is and is not affected within the spell itself and to what degree. Synaptic Pulse simply makes no exception for allies or even the caster to be honest.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I agree with Squiggit. It is TOTALLY clear what this spell does.
If there is a way to see/read the rules in a way that it hits only enemies, I haven't seen it.
...as I read it there really isn't any other way to run the spell as currently written.
For what it's worth, I'm pretty sure that both readings are compatible with the standard semantic analysis of sentences like these. But both readings are a bit strained, explaining why these two sentences seem to be in tension.
You emit a pulsating mental blast that penetrates the minds of all enemies in the area. Each creature in the area must attempt a Will save.
This is similar to the fact that, e.g., according to the standard semantic analysis, "I have three children" is true if you have four children (because you just stated that you have three children, you didn't say that you had only three children).
So, for example, if you say "I have three children", it generates the strong implicature that you have only three children, because if you had four you could have just as easily said "I have four children", which would be strictly more informative.
Likewise, if you say "You emit a pulsating mental blast that penetrates the minds of all enemies in the area", it generates the strong implicature that your blast doesn't effect all creatures, because if it did you could have just as easily said "You emit a pulsating mental blast that penetrates the minds of all creatures in the area".
For example, suppose your roommate tells you "I saw Smith taking some beer from the fridge", and you open the fridge and find it empty. You might truly say "Smith took all the beer!" But you don't mean all the beer -- there's beer in the store, and in other apartments, and so on, that Smith didn't take. Rather, your using a restricted quantifier, where "all" is restricted to things in the fridge. And the conversational context (e.g., the previous sentence flagging that it's the beer in the fridge that's under discussion) makes this clear.
Likewise, in the spell description, "each creature" employs the quantifier "each". And given the conversational context (e.g., the prior sentence flagging that it's enemies that are the salient targets), one can take the conversational context to be indicating that the quantifier "each" is being restricted to one's enemies.
For another example, consider the following hypothetical spell:
"You release a burst of holy light, making any evil creature within 60 feet dazzled for 1 minute. Moreover, choose up to three creatures who have harmed you or your allies. Each creature in the area must attempt a Will save."
It's clear that the "each creature" here is a restricted quantifier, ranging over the creatures you chose.
TLDR: Both readings seem possible, but neither reading is very natural.
Neither reading is required to come to a conclusion: if you think they are strained then ignore them. "A spell that has an area but no targets listed usually affects all creatures in the area indiscriminately." A solution is there if you think the targets are in question.
On Why the "it effects enemies only" reading is possible: I don't see it as valid as there is no way to make it of more importance than the second line. If you can't clearly override one line or the other, you're left with unknown targets and the game lets us know what to do in those situations. That's why I say "If there is a way to see/read the rules in a way that it hits only enemies, I haven't seen it" because of this. I've seen nothing to make it possible to ignore the second line and that's what's required to make it a valid read for 'enemies only'.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
On Why the "it effects enemies only" reading is possible: I don't see it as valid as there is no way to make it of more importance than the second line. If you can't clearly override one line or the other, you're left with unknown targets and the game lets us know what to do in those situations.
On the "it effects enemies only" reading, the first line isn't more important than the second. And there's no "overriding" going on. The first line just picks out the domain that the quantifier in the second line is ranging over.
Consider: "You would not believe how much beer I saw Smith taking from the fridge. He took all of it!"
The first line isn't more important than the second. Nor is the first line somehow "overriding" the second. The first line just serves to flag the domain of the quantifier "all" in the second line. (Namely, the domain of things in the fridge.)
Likewise, in the example: "You release a burst of holy light, making any evil creature within 60 feet dazzled for 1 minute. Moreover, choose up to three creatures who have harmed you or your allies. Each creature in the area must attempt a Will save."
The second line isn't more important than the third. Nor is the second line somehow "overriding" the third. The second line just serves to flag the domain of the quantifier "each" in the third line. (Namely, the up-to-three creatures you chose who have harmed you or your allies.)
And likewise (on this reading) for: "You emit a pulsating mental blast that penetrates the minds of all enemies in the area. Each creature in the area must attempt a Will save."
The first line isn't more important than the second. Nor is the first line somehow "overriding" the second. The first line just serves to flag the domain of the quantifier "each" in the second line. (Namely, the domain of enemies in the area.)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
On Why the "it effects enemies only" reading is possible: I don't see it as valid as there is no way to make it of more importance than the second line. If you can't clearly override one line or the other, you're left with unknown targets and the game lets us know what to do in those situations.On the "it effects enemies only" reading, the first line isn't more important than the second. And there's no "overriding" going on. The first line just picks out the domain that the quantifier in the second line is ranging over.
Consider: "You would not believe how much beer I saw Smith taking from the fridge. He took all of it!"
The first line isn't more important than the second. Nor is the first line somehow "overriding" the second. The first line just serves to flag the domain of the quantifier "all" in the second line. (Namely, the domain of things in the fridge.)
Likewise, in the example: "You release a burst of holy light, making any evil creature within 60 feet dazzled for 1 minute. Moreover, choose up to three creatures who have harmed you or your allies. Each creature in the area must attempt a Will save."
The second line isn't more important than the third. Nor is the second line somehow "overriding" the third. The second line just serves to flag the domain of the quantifier "each" in the third line. (Namely, the up-to-three creatures you chose who have harmed you or your allies.)
And likewise (on this reading) for: "You emit a pulsating mental blast that penetrates the minds of all enemies in the area. Each creature in the area must attempt a Will save."
The first line isn't more important than the second. Nor is the first line somehow "overriding" the second. The first line just serves to flag the domain of the quantifier "each" in the second line. (Namely, the domain of enemies in the area.)
Your hypothetical spell would have an even worse issue, as it would basically have an entire line of rules text that did nothing. I can see what you are going for, but that spell would need to be worded as such:
"You release a burst of holy light, making any evil creature within 60 feet dazzled for 1 minute. Up to three target creatures in the area that have damaged you or your allies in the past (duration) must attempt a Will save."
Your beer example isn't comparable. If the spell said "those creatures", it would be comparable. Nobody would say "Smith took all of the Caronas from the fridge. He took all the beers.", unless Carona was the only beer you had, in which case it would be redundant.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The first line isn't more important than the second. And there's no "overriding" going on.
Then it makes things incredible easy: Since you can't pick one over the other, the target is unknown since you can't pick which is 'more' correct' and the game has a rule for that. "A spell that has an area but no targets listed usually affects all creatures in the area indiscriminately."
Again, the only way to say the spell affects only enemies IS to decide that the first line is more important than the second and overwrites it. Anything else gets you to all creatures.
Even taking quantifiers into effect, doesn't make sense: take your beer example: it's not equivalent. It's like someone saying "he took all the Corona. Look, all the beer is gone!' One is a subset of the other. If the second sentence is to refer to the first, then creatures isn't needed: there is NO reason not to say enemies again as creatures as enemies are hostile creatures. Qualifiers generally go from less to more specific not the other way around. 'You emit a pulsating mental blast that penetrates the minds of all creatures in the area. Each enemy in the area must attempt a Will save' makes more sense if you're arguing about qualifiers.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
@Aratorin: I'm not sure we're actually disagreeing about anything.
First, let me make sure we're clear on the dialectic. Several people said they couldn't even see how there were two consistent readings of the Synaptic Pulse spell. Some were skeptical that there was a consistent "enemies and allies" reading (pauljathome), some were skeptical that there was a consistent "enemies only" reading (graystone and beowulf99), and several people seemed skeptical that there was any consistent reading at all (taking the first and second sentences of the spell description to conflict).
I tried to make it clear that there are, in fact, two consistent readings. But both consistent readings involve violating standard conversational norms, and so aren't very natural, explaining why so many have felt that the two sentences are in tension.
Your hypothetical spell would have an even worse issue, as it would basically have an entire line of rules text that did nothing. I can see what you are going for, but that spell would need to be worded as such:
"You release a burst of holy light, making any evil creature within 60 feet dazzled for 1 minute. Up to three target creatures in the area that have damaged you or your allies in the past (duration) must attempt a Will save."
Graystone seemed to think that the "enemies only" reading wasn't tenable because it assumed that the first sentence of the spell description was more important than, or overrided, the second. I was just giving examples of typical quantifier restrictions to make it clear that, on the proposed restricted-quantifier reading, nothing like that is going on.
Your beer example isn't comparable. If the spell said "those creatures", it would be comparable. Nobody would say "Smith took all of the Caronas from the fridge. He took all the beers.", unless Carona was the only beer you had, in which case it would be redundant.
Exactly right. This is the reason why I noted (in my first post, above) that the "enemies only" reading was strained. It's a consistent reading, but it would require understanding the speaker to be violating standard conversational norms. Unfortunately, this doesn't settle things because the consistent "enemies and allies" reading violates standard conversational norms as well.
Your example is actually a nice analogy. No matter what, it would be odd for you to say: "Smith took all of the Coronas from the fridge. He took all the beers." If you only had Coronas, then the second sentence would be redundant. If you had both Coronas and Heinekens, then the first sentence would be redundant (and misleading, though strictly true). But on any reading, the utterance would violate conversational norms.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
On Why the "it effects enemies only" reading is possible: I don't see it as valid as there is no way to make it of more importance than the second line. If you can't clearly override one line or the other, you're left with unknown targets and the game lets us know what to do in those situations.On the "it effects enemies only" reading, the first line isn't more important than the second. And there's no "overriding" going on. The first line just picks out the domain that the quantifier in the second line is ranging over.
This "enemies only" reading violates the Paizo style norms. Domain references in spells are explicit and would not use the phrase "each creature".
violate conversational norms.
Important to note that the book is not written in general conversational style, but in RPG conversational style. Spells are mostly written beginning in GM dramatic tone, and then switch to precise rules tone. Do not neglect the norms present and established in the book itself.