| 15 people marked this as FAQ candidate. 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Before---Vesk are always considered armed. They can deal 1d3 lethal damage with unarmed strikes and the attack doesn’t count as archaic. Vesk gain a unique weapon specialization with their natural weapons at 3rd level, allowing them to add 1–1/2 × their character level to their damage rolls for their natural weapons (instead of just adding their character level, as usual).
After ---Vesk can attack with a special unarmed strike that deals lethal damage, doesn’t count as archaic, and threatens squares. Vesk gain a special version of the Weapon Specialization feat with this unarmed strike at 3rd level, allowing them to add 1–1/2 × their character level to their damage rolls for this unarmed strike (instead of just adding their character
level, as usual).
I'm seeing some of the rules folks say that the usage of the word "this" unarmed strike changes the previous FAQs regarding the interaction of natural weapons and shields. Is this an intentional change or are people reading too much into it?
*headdesk*
angles the desk to get nefreets beak out of the way.
Fixing things is gonna break things. Or at least thats what I say when i do home repair
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I mean, it makes some sense. A vesk being good at beating the tar out of people with their bony ridges and tail would not necessarily translate to pounding someone with a shield. The vesk's unarmed attack still benefits from effects that modify unarmed strikes.
The errata for the Qi Adept's Plasma Blast specifically makes it a special ranged unarmed attack that gets 1.5xlevel specialization, so it seems to track.
I mean, it makes some sense. A vesk being good at beating the tar out of people with their bony ridges and tail would not necessarily translate to pounding someone with a shield. The vesk's unarmed attack still benefits from effects that modify unarmed strikes.
.
It does. But from a gameist perspective if you're making shields better than teeth for unarmed strike you want to give the teeth people something so that teeth mean something.
From a rules perspective, we already asked paizo "hey what happens when you have big sharp pointy teeth and a solar shield" and they told us that you were in fact better with the shield because of your big sharp pointy teeth. That didn't make any more sense 2 months ago, but its the ruling they gave us.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It does. But from a gameist perspective if you're making shields better than teeth for unarmed strike you want to give the teeth people something so that teeth mean something.From a rules perspective, we already asked paizo "hey what happens when you have big sharp pointy teeth and a solar shield" and they told us that you were in fact better with the shield because of your big sharp pointy teeth. That didn't make any more sense 2 months ago, but its the ruling they gave us.
Not saying it isn't a complication that will screw up a bunch of builds, just that I can see why they did it. Shields have uses other than bonking, and the solar shield solarian is already remarkably great.
Teeth will always mean something; you don't really NEED a shield except for defense, armor upgrades, fusions, and bull rushes. Wait all that sounds pretty good for an unarmed striker, even if they aren't using Shield Bonk.
Not saying it isn't a complication that will screw up a bunch of builds, just that I can see why they did it. Shields have uses other than bonking, and the solar shield solarian is already remarkably great.
I don't know IF they did it or if they just used the word they thought felt right and people are reading too much into it.
Option 1) they changed their mind on a 3 month old deliberate FAQ ruling or
2) people are reading waaaay too much into one word.
2 happens a LOT on the rules forums. 1's a little odd.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In a vacuum,I might not have thought much about the one word.
It's specifically the context of the FAQ answer (quoted below for reference) about the shields that makes me think this was actually intended to change things.
Do bonuses granted to unarmed strikes by a class, species, or other ability apply to the unarmed strike granted by the solarian's solar shield solar manifestation (page 84)?
Yes; abilities that apply to all of a character’s unarmed strikes (such as the Improved Unarmed Strike feat) do apply to the unarmed strike granted by solar shield.
With the way that question was answered as background, I can't come up with any purpose in making the effort to change that wording except for taking Natural Weapons out of the category of abiities that they stated work with solar shields in that FAQ.
Changing that certainly can mess up how some characters work. Outside of some particularly egregious cheese that I noticed is possible with solar shieldfairly soon after COM came out, I don't think the change would be needed. I thought with the referenced FAQ it was confirmed that allowing that to work was confirmed from on high, but the best sense I can make of this errata and FAQ combination is that the deal has been altered.
Hopefully people will mash the FAQ button.
With the way that question was answered as background, I can't come up with any purpose in making the effort to change that wording except for taking Natural Weapons out of the category of abiities that they stated work with solar shields in that FAQ.
So you're saying we asked if natural weapons worked with solarion shields, and paizo said yes they do , then left the faq in place with that wording that said yes under the old natural weapons wording, and then changed the natural weapon wording to deliberately get a no answer instead?
OR since vesk are deliberately ignoring saying what the heck you're attacking with, "these unarmed attacks" was just the simplest way to say "big sharp pointy teeth"
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The FAQ still applies. "abilities that apply to all of a character’s unarmed strikes (such as the Improved Unarmed Strike feat) do apply to the unarmed strike granted by solar shield."
It doesn't call out vesk punchy, specifically, just IUS. Vesk punchy apparently no longer applies to all strikes. Before the change in text, which definitely feels deliberate to me, vesk punchy applied to all unarmed attacks.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
*headdesk*angles the desk to get nefreets beak out of the way.
Fixing things is gonna break things. Or at least thats what I say when i do home repair
That wasn't directed at you. It was directed at Paizo's consistently terrible ability to define Unarmed Strikes across editions.
The FAQ still applies. "abilities that apply to all of a character’s unarmed strikes (such as the Improved Unarmed Strike feat) do apply to the unarmed strike granted by solar shield."
It doesn't call out vesk punchy, specifically, just IUS. Vesk punchy apparently no longer applies to all strikes. Before the change in text, which definitely feels deliberate to me, vesk punchy applied to all unarmed attacks.
as the big pictures go it would be a deliberate fake out. Two months ago they specifically said vesk with a shield get 1.5 x level, then instead of changing their FAQ they slipped the plinko chip over so that it would be 1x level, but you had to look realy close to find it?
Also if they don't mean natural weapons when they say a species ability in the faq, what WOULD they mean? It would be a null set now but vesk punches definitely applied when the FAQ was made.
Also if they don't mean natural weapons when they say a species ability in the faq, what WOULD they mean? It would be a null set now but vesk punches definitely applied when the FAQ was made.
Only one I can think of offhand is Suli.
http://www.aonsrd.com/Races.aspx?ItemName=Suli
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Also if they don't mean natural weapons when they say a species ability in the faq, what WOULD they mean? It would be a null set now but vesk punches definitely applied when the FAQ was made.
I think they made it pretty clear what they were aiming at:
Yes; abilities that apply to all of a character’s unarmed strikes (such as the Improved Unarmed Strike feat) do apply to the unarmed strike granted by solar shield.
---
Stepping back and looking at probable intent;
When the CRB was released the writers must have been in a euphoric state where they thought they'd solved PF1 unarmed strike shenanigans at long last. Instead of players putting on mammoth helms and curbstomping boots and rings with rat fangs and whatnot to stack as many natural attacks as possible, Starfinder just told you that you could do a single attack or full attack, regardless of your number of sharp appendages.
So a lot of the complicated stuff wasn't needed anymore - an unarmed strike was an unarmed strike was an unarmed strike.
Then after a while cracks started to appear. We get newer races like Nuar that specify just what kind of type of damage their natural attack does. We get shields that use unarmed strikes and - bizarrely - stack with natural weapon specialties for vesk. And we get a couple of twists and turns around the ring of fangs to make it clear that you can't use that with a shield (before the ring is banned).
For several years people have been asking for better explanations of unarmed strikes, and whether maybe they should be disentangled a bit because it rather goes against the Starfinder design that you should be playing a particular race to play a particular class, and shields doing more damage if you have horns was dumb.
So now that's finally happened.
Also if they don't mean natural weapons when they say a species ability in the faq, what WOULD they mean? It would be a null set now but vesk punches definitely applied when the FAQ was made.I think they made it pretty clear what they were aiming at:
Yes; abilities that apply to all of a character’s unarmed strikes (such as the Improved Unarmed Strike feat) do apply to the unarmed strike granted by solar shield.
Its really annoying that i can't copy the the question being answered there so sorry if i miss a comma but...
Do bonuses granted to unarmed strikes by a class, species, or other ability apply to the unarmed strike granted by the solarion's solar shield solar manifestation?
What species ability are they talking about? Especially since this was asked specifically for critters with natural weapons.
Us: "Hey, does a vesk do more damage with with a solar shield
Paizo -Yes-
So now that's finally happened.
Has it? Because changing a design decision you made a few months ago shouldn't come about because of a subtle word change in a different section. There are lots of other reasons the wording might have wound up the way it did. I don't think plotting to have an answer flip flop via a rube goldberg contration is nearly as likely as people here reading too much into one word
|
|
I don't think they changed the decision they took a few months back. I think even back then they were planning this, because AFAIK this is in both the new printing of the paperback and the hardcover, which were probably already being physically produced at that moment.
Rather, I think this is an example of their communication strategy of "we don't discuss future errata, you'll find out in the next printing" about which I have little good to say.
I don't think they changed the decision they took a few months back. I think even back then they were planning this, because AFAIK this is in both the new printing of the paperback and the hardcover, which were probably already being physically produced at that moment.
Rather, I think this is an example of their communication strategy of "we don't discuss future errata, you'll find out in the next printing" about which I have little good to say.
I can't think of a good reason not to say no if that's the case.
I can think of a lot of examples where people misread one word in a rules interaction and the raw as read deviated a lot from the rai.
... allowing them to add 1–1/2 × their character level to their damage rolls for this unarmed strike ...
I'm a bit lost on this since I can't find where this rules text change is actually printed. I don't see it in the Starfinder Core Rulebook Errata, which is where I would expect it to be.
Original text of the CRB says
... allowing them to add 1-1/2 x their character level to their damage rolls for their natural weapons ...
So under either of those rules text entries, it wouldn't apply to Solarian Shield (per the FAQ ruling) since it doesn't apply to all unarmed strike attacks that the Vesk is making. A Solarian Shield is not a natural weapon, nor is it 'this unarmed strike' when talking about Vesk claws.
Maybe I am missing something. Or forgetting something. I do vaguely remember some debate on here about a character only having one unarmed strike attack and so anything that modifies an unarmed strike must be modifying that same unarmed strike. I don't remember if that was official rules or just a popular interpretation of people on the forums.
Do bonuses granted to unarmed strikes by a class, species, or other ability apply to the unarmed strike granted by the solarion's solar shield solar manifestation?What species ability are they talking about? Especially since this was asked specifically for critters with natural weapons.
Even if there are currently zero 'species' that give a bonus to all unarmed strike attacks, that doesn't mean that printing it in the FAQ ruling isn't a good idea. That means that they wouldn't have to update the FAQ ruling or create an additional one to account for a new race with a new ability that does apply to all unarmed strike attacks.
It's future proofing.
Also, like, did people not see the Suli thing I posted?
Even if there are currently zero 'species' that give a bonus to all unarmed strike attacks, that doesn't mean that printing it in the FAQ ruling isn't a good idea. That means that they wouldn't have to update the FAQ ruling or create an additional one to account for a new race with a new ability that does apply to all unarmed strike attacks.
The faq was in response to a very specific question
So thats not future proofing. That was yes to question number 3.
Even if there are currently zero 'species' that give a bonus to all unarmed strike attacks, that doesn't mean that printing it in the FAQ ruling isn't a good idea. That means that they wouldn't have to update the FAQ ruling or create an additional one to account for a new race with a new ability that does apply to all unarmed strike attacks.
The faq was in response to a very specific question
So thats not future proofing. That was yes to question number 3.
They updated the FAQ in response to the questions, in such a way that meant one thing then, and means a different thing after the core book errata.
Joe never said, "vesk punchy applies to solar shield." He made the statement that all modifiers that apply to all unarmed attacks also apply to solar shield. That field of potential racial bonuses has simply narrowed significantly with the new version.
But hey, Sulis can still make half of their shield damage an energy type.
Joe never said, "vesk punchy applies to solar shield."
Lets not go we've always been at war with east asia here.
What you're proposing is that he answered for a hypothetical, obscure, or non existent ability while making it seem like he was answering for the common ability that people were trying to use with the shield, right now, that was being asked about. Without ever saying one way or another if vesk and other natural weapon wielders got any benefit from it.
(If a sign in the bar says "No purple dragons" that doesn't actually say that blue dragons are allowed)
That field of potential racial bonuses has simply narrowed significantly with the new version.
Did it?
People around here really get hung up on the exact words used in the rules, no matter how many times it gets shown that the exact words don't matter nearly as much as the idea. Whether shields work with vesk tail qwon do is a design decision yes or no, not something that drops out of a slight word change that could have been made for any number of reasons.
The wording seems super deliberate to me, BNW. "This attack" is... pretty specific. It's basically the same fix they did for Qi Blast.
But, yeah, clarification wouldn't be bad. FAQ'd.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I really like the direction that they took by changing the Vesk natural weapon wording. These kinds of features should be granting a specific unique unarmed strike, and anything that stacks with it should get specific verbiage to say it can. That way a PC can get different unarmed strike options that have different cool riders and effects, without tons of stacking making any individual attack too good.
Vesk unarmed scaling working with solar shields was always very unintuitive, and anything that removes that interaction has my support.
FAQ'd anyway, since its not clear if that was definitely their intention.
|
Ok, so if I understand the change and the conversation correct the issue is that after the change the "special weapon specialization" only count for a vesks natural claw attacks, but before the wording allowed an interpretation that let the specialization count for any natural attack (e.g. if you get one via an item/ability/spell).
I'm not a native English speaker, but I got some training as a (computer) game designer.
From this point of view: Even if the wording allowed for this interpretation, the spirit of the rule was never meant like this (and I never played it like this at my table). The weapon spec. mention was in the same paragraph like the "natural weapons" ability, so it is related to this. If it would be a general "natural weapon spec." it would have been a racial ability of it's own and not written in a sub-sentence.
Ok, so if I understand the change and the conversation correct the issue is that after the change the "special weapon specialization" only count for a vesks natural claw attacks, but before the wording allowed an interpretation that let the specialization count for any natural attack (e.g. if you get one via an item/ability/spell).
And that interpretation was confirmed by an FAQ. So it definitely was the spirit of the rules.
Its a bad idea to try to impose how you think things should be written on someone elses writing. Whatever people think should be done for clarity just isn't done. I don't know why people keep expecting it.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
The FAQ cuts both ways. It used to confirm the old version, now it confirms the new, different version.
Since they wrote the FAQ when the new CRB printing was probably already being physically made, I think they had the new version in mind when they wrote the FAQ. There'd been hints and crumbs that the designers never really wanted claw/shield stacking to be a thing but that it was a legacy issue that they were planning to clear up with errata at some point - and now they have.
Of course that leaves you feeling yanked around by a misleading FAQ that sets you on one path for a couple of months and then suddenly takes the ground from under your feet later on. But that fits with the general tendency of the designers not to care too much about what kind of upheaval they create in organized play.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The FAQ cuts both ways. It used to confirm the old version, now it confirms the new, different version.
Since they wrote the FAQ when the new CRB printing was probably already being physically made, I think they had the new version in mind when they wrote the FAQ. There'd been hints and crumbs that the designers never really wanted claw/shield stacking to be a thing but that it was a legacy issue that they were planning to clear up with errata at some point - and now they have.
Of course that leaves you feeling yanked around by a misleading FAQ that sets you on one path for a couple of months and then suddenly takes the ground from under your feet later on. But that fits with the general tendency of the designers not to care too much about what kind of upheaval they create in organized play.
OR some writer or editor just said this or these sounded better or used less words or fit the space to avoid going onto the next page and used that without considering the entire intricate watch of paizos rules. THAT would be entirely in line with past experience. Yanking people around on purpose.. not so much.
|
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
If they wanted to fit the text on the same page all they had to do was change absolutely nothing.
Likewise, if they didn't want to change anything they could have just not changed anything.
Instead, you have a combination of FAQ and errata that neatly blocks off something that was previously considered something of an exploit.
This wasn't an accident.
I did wonder if the wording change was made for formatting purposes, since I saw at least one point where that happened in the soldier entry (under Armor Storm as I recall). I couldn't see any page layout adjustment with this change, though.
Likewise, if they didn't want to change anything they could have just not changed anything.
Thats a definite no. A change in wording for clarity does not automatically mean a change in rules. They were definitely going for clarifications on a few points and showing the underpinnings for unarmed strikes/natural weapons (the lack of which meant a lot of rules kerfufles over the new stuff).
For example, armed was changed to threatens squares. Same rule, different wording. (Dracomicrons pet peeve). In the move to pathfinder the whole armed unarmed attacks section of combat was left out, leaving some people wondering what armed meant or to erroneously declare it to be fluff.
a unique weapon specialization---- to---> a special version of the Weapon Specialization feat (i guess because other creatures have it now?)
That they MUST have had a particular FAQ in mind when doing the rewrite... there's no evidence of that. The shield isn't any more exploiting now than it was a few months ago.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
For example, armed was changed to threatens squares. Same rule, different wording. (Dracomicrons pet peeve).
At last, victory!
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Personally, I already felt wronged after working with several posters in this thread to get the Ring of Fangs clarified, only to then have it banned and rebuilds forbidden.
That was my first major sting with SFS, and I'm reminded of it every time I look at my Scenario Tracker and see that character number crossed out.
Now, Unarmed Strikes are effectively nerfed for everyone, Society or not, because if you were relying on your race's ability to change your unarmed strikes to lethal, or non-archaic, or some other trait that the original FAQ allowed, you now just lost that ability.
So I amend my previous *headdesk* comment. It's not just that Paizo is consistently terrible at defining Unarmed Strikes, they also universally dislike players using them.
I will point out that Improved Unarmed Strikes has also been edited.
Improved Unarmed Strike (Combat)
You have trained to make your unarmed strikes lethal and strike with kicks, head-butts, and similar attacks.Benefit: Your unarmed strike damage increases to 1d6 at 4th level, 2d6 at 8th level, 3d6 at 12th level, 5d6 at 15th level, and 7d6 at 20th level. Your unarmed strikes don’t count as archaic and can deal lethal damage. You threaten squares within your natural reach with your unarmed strikes even when you do not have a hand free for an unarmed strike. If you are immobilized, entangled, or unable to use both legs (or whatever appendages you have in place of legs, where appropriate), you lose the ability to make unarmed strikes without your hands. When making an unarmed strike without your hands, you can’t use such attacks for combat maneuvers or similar abilities—only to deal damage.
Normal: You don’t threaten any squares with unarmed strikes, and you must have a hand free to make an unarmed strike.
In the "how does this affect characters?" question, I think the list is a little shorter than "nerfed for everyone". I see Natural Weapons not working with shield bashes, pistol whips, or Qi Blasts (though if you've got Qi blasts, you may have 1.5 level spec anyway from Aesthetic Warrior). What other things are specific unarmed attacks and therefore not compatible with Natural Weapons if this wasn't all some kind of mistake? I'm sure something is missing from that list.
Now, Unarmed Strikes are effectively nerfed for everyone, Society or not, because if you were relying on your race's ability to change your unarmed strikes to lethal, or non-archaic, or some other trait that the original FAQ allowed, you now just lost that ability.
So I amend my previous *headdesk* comment. It's not just that Paizo is consistently terrible at defining Unarmed Strikes, they also universally dislike players using them.
Thats a lot to read into what might be an incidental word choice. Lets see if its the case first.
Starfinder Lead Designer
|
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
Hi, folks.
TL;DR: The Character Operations Manual FAQ applies as written. And yes, that does mean a change for interactions with things like vesk's natural weapons, whose wording we changed deliberately with the Core Rulebook errata.
I definitely understand why this might feel like a bait and switch—I apologize for that.
This errata process has been a long and winding road traversing multiple years and products, and my hope is that the road ahead will be much smoother.
I thank you for your attention to detail, your questions, and your understanding.
I definitely understand why this might feel like a bait and switch—I apologize for that.This errata process has been a long and winding road traversing multiple years and products, and my hope is that the road ahead will be much smoother.
Definitely feeling baited and switched here. The FAQ with the shields said yes when it should have said "No, a species ability has to apply to all of a creatures unarmed attacks and the most common species ability only applies to their sharp pointy teeth/horns/whatever". Even as someone that championed the sharp pointy teeth interpretation the yes then no answers are very whiplashy.
Most of my annoyance comes from how much rockier this is going to make future errata and clarifications. People are going to pick apart the clarifications (past and present) looking for a similar subtle wording and if the inordinate amount of time on the rules forum has shown me anything (beside hair loss), its that the rules break when you dissect them.(this is why lawyers get paid so much money)
So we're back to not knowing what works with what.(or at least I am)
Can you increase the dice of your sharp pointy teeth with the improved unarmed strike feat? Or are your natural weapons stuck not interacting with anything?
Does a creature with natural weapons and the Aesthetic warrior still add the block, grapple, and stun weapon special properties to their unarmed strikes?
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
The new wording means that abilities/features that apply generally to unarmed strikes (like the newly reworded Improved Unarmed Strike feat) apply to all unarmed strikes. And abilities that improve specific unarmed strikes only apply to those unarmed strikes. Which I think is GREAT, and totally how it should have worked since the beginning. I'm really happy that Joe took the time to make this change to the "bedrock" of PC natural attacks, as it were. Unfortunately, books between the CRB's original printing and now were mostly referencing the old wording whenever they talked about natural weapons on PCs.
This would be a great time to add an FAQ/Errata of every individual feature or ability that used the old "Vesk Natural Weapons" wording so that there's no confusion about how they're supposed to work. (Contingent on Joe's workload, of course :>)
Aesthetic Warrior's last line is now misleading because the vesk natural attack racial trait no longer allows you to add 1.5xlevel to unarmed attack rolls generally, but instead is granting you a specific natural attack. This is prime territory for an errata or FAQ. For reference, Aesthetic Warrior's last line is:
If you can already add 1-1/2 your character level to your unarmed attack rolls (such as due to the vesk natural attack racial trait), you instead can add the block, grapple, and stun weapon special properties to your unarmed strikes.
People with only access to the new CRB printing and AONSRD after it gets updated will be totally confused by this wording.
Thinking about this a bit more, a revised Aesthetic Warrior last line could be:
"If you have any unarmed strikes that already add 1-1/2 your character level to their damage rolls (such as those granted by the vesk natural attack racial trait), this feature instead adds the block, grapple and stun weapon special properties to those unarmed strikes."
Though maybe there's a snappier, cleaner, clearer way to word it.
-----
In any case, even if we don't get a FAQ/errata for Aesthetic Warrior, I think the intention of that feature is pretty clear. The last line is intended to give you something nice if you're already getting 1.5xlevel to an attack, so that the class feature doesn't feel useless.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I just realized that this finally gives the "stun" part of Aesthetic Warrior some use. Before, vesk could just do lethal or nonlethal damage at will. Now their special unarmed attack is always lethal... unless you set your tail to stun as an Aesthetic Warrior.
The change in improved unarmed strike also seems to mess up unarmed fighters taking raw lethality?
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The change in improved unarmed strike also seems to mess up unarmed fighters taking raw lethality?
Somewhat, I guess - unarmed strikes in the CRB were kinda messed up and attempts to straighten them out will have ripple effects on things in other books that had been intended as patches.
On the plus side, operatives with Death Strike and Improved Unarmed Strike are now actually able to damage undead and robots and you know, kill people with their death strike.
I didn't realize until your post that Vesk can no longer choose to deal nonlethal damage with their unarmed strike.
Before, it was "They can deal lethal". Now, it's "that deals lethal damage".
More upset. Vesk were typically the best option for subduing enemies without killing them.
I dunno, it always seemed weird that you could use your claws/bite non lethally in the first place.
I dunno, it always seemed weird that you could use your claws/bite non lethally in the first place.
*tailthwack*
I mean a dogs might be non lethal from all the fur padding but i could see a lizards punching instead of whip cracking.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Maybe the answer, and perhaps the desired outcome on the part of the developers, is for people to *stop doing that*?
Well, the more you have to do that to get the right answer (as they did in this case) the more you encourage and justify people doing that.