https://2e.aonprd.com/Feats.aspx?ID=392
Your shots become nimble and deadly. While you’re in this stance, your ranged Strikes don’t trigger Attacks of Opportunity or other reactions that are triggered by a ranged attack. If you have Attack of Opportunity, you can use it with a loaded ranged weapon you’re wielding. The triggering creature must be within 5 feet of you for you to do so.
Deadly what dice?
Mistaken use of keyword?
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Barring editing mistakes, keywords should always be Capitalized - it becomes deadly, the word, not Deadly, the trait.
Yeah, looks like it's not the deadly trait, but just a description.
The actual effect is your attacks don't provoke and you can make AoO with (loaded) ranged weapons, something you can't normally do.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
terrible name and description for the stance for sure.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Keywords are always capitalized.
From page 17 of the CRB:
Throughout this rulebook, you will see formatting standards that might look a bit unusual at first. Specifically, the game’s rules are set apart in this text using specialized capitalization and italicization. These standards are in place to make this book rules elements easier to recognize.
The names of specific statistics, skills, feats, actions, and some other mechanical elements in Pathfinder are capitalized. This way, when you see the statement “a Strike targets Armor Class,” you know that both Strike and Armor Class are referring to rules.
If a word or a phrase is italicized, it is describing a spell or a magic item. This way, when you see the statement “the door is sealed by lock,” you know that in this case the word denotes the lock spell, rather than a physical item.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yes the capitalization is helpful. But always is a bit of an overstatement. They don't even get it right in the weapons table. p281 to 283 of the CRB.
They do not capitalize weapon traits, and certainly not consistently. Look at the table itself.
Example: "Fatal: The fatal trait includes a die size. "
You can not use the capitalization argument here with any credibility.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Keywords are always capitalized.
They SHOULD be.
Cobra Stance [Advanced Player's Guide pg. 128]: "These deal 1d4 poison damage; are in the brawling group; and have the agile, deadly d10, finesse, nonlethal, poison, and unarmed traits." Take note of 7 examples, that I bolded, in a single sentence that shows Keywords uncapitalized.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I mean, both examples above also clarify that they are traits... probably better to use another example of them not being clear.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, both "your unarmed strikes are Forceful" and "your unarmed strikes gain the forceful trait" seem to be saying the same thing with equal clarity. But "your unarmed strikes are forceful..." has no rules weight.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, both "your unarmed strikes are Forceful" and "your unarmed strikes gain the forceful trait" seem to be saying the same thing with equal clarity. But "your unarmed strikes are forceful..." has no rules weight.
No I can't get behind that as a statement of logic. Allowing one exception and not the other is not reasonable. If they really want capitilization to mean something then they need to go through and fix it up. There are plenty of other words in the English language that they could have used.
|
Knowing that Paizo editing is nor perfect, sometimes we just have to make our best guess and assumptions based on similar listings. I think the capitalization is a reasonable expectation, with the understanding that occasionally, it'll be wrong. If you always take a black and white position with the rules as written, you'll probably be wrong as often as you are right.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think the biggest problem here is the name and description are so far out of line with what the feat does. "Mobile Shot" on a feat that does nothing to alter your mobility. "Your shots become more deadly" on a feat that does nothing to directly alter the quality of your shots at all.
It's no wonder some people might be confused about what the feat is supposed to do, because it's incredibly misleading.
Designer
|
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, both "your unarmed strikes are Forceful" and "your unarmed strikes gain the forceful trait" seem to be saying the same thing with equal clarity. But "your unarmed strikes are forceful..." has no rules weight.
That's actually not the case. The things that are capitalized are primarily skills, feats, and other things you do or actively manage; you Strike an enemy, you use Intimidation to Demoralize, you carry 8 Bulk, you spend a Focus Point from your focus pool, you Aid an ally, you use Reactive Shield to Shield Block.
Traits, spells, ability names, critical specializations, class names, and other static "buckets" aren't capitalized in running text; your claws are deadly d8 and in the brawling group, the fighter falls prone, the rogue is confused, you Cast a magic missile Spell (note that the activity in that last one is "Cast a Spell" the thing you do when you cast any particular spell).
There is a rhyme and reason to it, and part of the reason every game term isn't capitalized is because in a dense block of rules-heavy running text iT MaKeS tHe TeXt LOok lIKe YoU'Re MocKInG SoMeoNe On THe InTERnET.
There's a strong argument to be made that this bit of descriptive text just shouldn't have used the word "deadly", given that the context does not make it clear that this is a "casual" deadly instead of a rules-bearing deadly.
|
Designer
|
| 14 people marked this as a favorite. |
It's a pretty straightforward metric.
Is it a question or needed clarification for which the answer does not require a team consultation? Then I'll probably try and answer it. I am obviously motivated to help people play the game I make.
Will my intervention in the discussion improve its tone or direction? Then I'll probably try to intervene, unless doing so has a notable chance of instead stirring things up without actually improving anything. As this involves some guesswork and you never know what on the internet is actually a ticking time bomb, sometimes I get this one wrong.
Is it someone else's baby? I'm probably not going to comment on a Lost Omens discussion unless it happens to be something I wrote or did the design pass on and even then not without getting clearance from the dual-faceted development being that is Eluis Lozran.
Is it a subject in which I am interested? I've been a member of this community for the better part of a decade and generally enjoy interacting with people, so as long as I have the bandwidth and my joining the conversation is unlikely to cause a negative fuss, I may hop in.
Will my intervention in the conversation bias its data or direction in a way that could ultimately be harmful to the product? Designers gotta eat and if I don't have anything helpful to contribute, I'm generally not going to stir the pot just for kicks. Occasionally, and particularly during playtests, there's conversations that have no right answer and all getting involved would do is derail a discussion to no benefit for anyone. In the worst case scenario it might even bias the data in a way that's ultimately bad for the product. So I, personally, find it prudent to pick and choose what I stick my head into and try to make sure that when I do dive in it makes things better and not worse.
This particular conversation happened to involve a thing where there was a way for me to help provide some clarity without needing to consult a team and it seemed fairly unbomblike, so here we are.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I've always wondered why the purely descriptive text can't be offset in the layout with italics or something to make it clear what is and isn't intended to be functional.
I mean, that's the same issue as "always capitalize traits". What happens when it's accidentally not italicized? Or when something that shouldn't be is?
There's no perfect method.
But for what it's worth, assuming their isn't a significant cost associated with it, I think italicizing or otherwise formatting text to set it apart is a good approach.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I've always wondered why the purely descriptive text can't be offset in the layout with italics or something to make it clear what is and isn't intended to be functional.
Space is one issue there, especially in the context of formatting to separate descriptive text from mechanical text, but there is also the issue that 4e and MtG really suffered from in that no one even then reads the descriptive text when they are skimming through the book and mechanically, that becomes a problem if the game assumes that some level of decision making, for both the player and the GM, is supposed to rest on the spell, feat, item, etc, doing what it feels like it is supposed to do. Single target touch range 1 verbal action 2d6 fire damage vs basic reflex save Spell could get a mechanical designation of STT1V 2d6 FvBR and thus take up very little space, present all relevant information and be a lot more economical, but what place does It have in the world? I like that PF2 occupies a space where form and function are a little more stuck together even though it sometimes requires a little more discussion. Even if it leads tables to create their own unintended rules, if it makes the mechanics work for the collective story of that group, I think the result is preferable to players starting to see feats and powers as just pure mechanical blocks. It is a tricky space to navigate in game design for sure. I think it is still more of an art than a science.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
@Michael Sayre
Thank you for you comments and clarification. Developers are appreciated even if the community doesn't always show it.