The increase by 1 is the base Jousting trait. If we are suggesting that the Jousting trait isn't an increase in damage, but the Horse Support Benefit is, then they would technically stack anyway, since both are separate sources of increased damage. But them both being the same type of damage bonus, which is fundamentally an increase, disproves that. It's the sole reason why they tried (and failed) to implement that clause in the first place. As such, it makes sense to treat Jousting as an "increase by 1 (per dice)" and Horse Support Benefit as "increase by 2 (per dice)", which is why I disagreed with that sentiment; because an "increase by" value is already supplied. It's simply changed to a different (incorrect) number.The horse Support benefit says, specifically, "Increase the trait's damage bonus by 2 per die instead." "The trait" as in the jousting weapon trait, mentioned in the previous clause. You are increasing the weapon trait's damage by 2 per die, not the damage of your Strikes. They are both increases, but if you would apply them both to the same attack, the horse Support benefit becomes an increase to an increase, not an increase to the damage.
That still sounds like a substitution because of the word "instead," and actually creates an instance where "by" and "to" are interchangeable.
Just as well, increasing the damage of the trait instead of the strikes, when the trait applies to the strikes anyway, sounds needlessly convoluted and superfluous to bring up as a distinction to make, because it changes nothing to the end result, which is that the bonus applies to the strike.
Speaking of superfluous, if that's really how the ability is intended to work, then the word "instead" is equally pointless and simply shouldn't be printed in the clause, especially since a substitution to a specific value doesn't need to be done when an addition to an already established value is both simpler and also prone to less confusion.
Which is what I have been stating all along; remove the word, or change the set value for the substitution to match.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Speaking of superfluous, if that's really how the ability is intended to work, then the word "instead" is equally pointless and simply shouldn't be printed in the clause, especially since a substitution to a specific value doesn't need to be done when an addition to an already established value is both simpler and also prone to less confusion.
I don't think it makes the word instead pointless? The full wording of the support benefit in question is this:
Your horse adds momentum to your charge. Until the start of your next turn, if you moved at least 10 feet on the action before your attack, add a circumstance bonus to damage to that attack equal to twice the number of damage dice. If your weapon already has the jousting weapon trait, increase the trait’s damage bonus by 2 per die instead.
Which is to say, the support benefit does two things:
1: Adds a circumstance bonus to damage when you attack after moving 10 feet2: Increases the damage bonus of the jousting trait
Under the interpretation "increase the trait's damage bonus by 2 per die" can only refer to increasing the damage of the jousting trait, because otherwise there's no increase to happen, the "instead" is still clarifying things - without it, you'd do both 1 and 2 from the above list simultaneously, but "instead" says to only apply #2. Ultimately, 2 would provide a larger circumstance bonus than 1, and so you'd end up with the same maths, but using "instead" removes the need to double check what sort of damage boost jousting is, and removes any possible confusion for people who aren't as experienced. That still seems pretty useful.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm not following this discussion as I find it rather tedious so this is NOT supporting any particular interpretation.
But if you start arguing grammar then you've already lost. It doesn't matter at all what some former English teacher thinks something means after very carefully parsing the grammar. There is no reason to believe that the author was correct in their grammar and even less reason to believe that the reader is going to correctly analyze the grammar.
Parsing words this carefully is just a waste of time. And boring to boot. If you have to argue grammar at this length then the text is ambiguous. Note that and move on
That is too harsh.
Some people will always misread even simple statements.
However the fact that there is uncertainty, means that here the rules are bady written.
Speaking of superfluous, if that's really how the ability is intended to work, then the word "instead" is equally pointless and simply shouldn't be printed in the clause, especially since a substitution to a specific value doesn't need to be done when an addition to an already established value is both simpler and also prone to less confusion.I don't think it makes the word instead pointless? The full wording of the support benefit in question is this:
Your horse adds momentum to your charge. Until the start of your next turn, if you moved at least 10 feet on the action before your attack, add a circumstance bonus to damage to that attack equal to twice the number of damage dice. If your weapon already has the jousting weapon trait, increase the trait’s damage bonus by 2 per die instead.Which is to say, the support benefit does two things:
1: Adds a circumstance bonus to damage when you attack after moving 10 feet
2: Increases the damage bonus of the jousting trait
Under the interpretation "increase the trait's damage bonus by 2 per die" can only refer to increasing the damage of the jousting trait, because otherwise there's no increase to happen, the "instead" is still clarifying things - without it, you'd do both 1 and 2 from the above list simultaneously, but "instead" says to only apply #2. Ultimately, 2 would provide a larger circumstance bonus than 1, and so you'd end up with the same maths, but using "instead" removes the need to double check what sort of damage boost jousting is, and removes any possible confusion for people who aren't as experienced. That still seems pretty useful.
I'm confused as to what your initial point here is. I imagine I'm not reading things right, but if it is what I think it is, then I believe the sentence structure already tells us that the Jousting clause only applies to the second point because it's limited specifically to the second sentence. Nothing else in the entire entry overwrites or changes the requirements (spelled out as part of #1) of either benefit between themselves (both are from your prior action from attacking), so suggesting it has to be in place to ensure that it applies only to #2 is a non-sequitur in that case. Please correct me if I didn't gauge your point correctly.
I'm also unsure if you're suggesting that it should be 2 damage per dice or 3 damage per dice from your explanation, since how you come to those values does matter, and is entirely the focus of the debate here. If you rule it's 2 damage per dice with everything included, then it means you accept the word "instead" being a substitution for the entire thing, which I argue is the correct one because it's otherwise pointless to include the word. If you rule it's 3 damage per dice, then it means you don't accept the word "instead" being a substitution until after you resolve increasing the bonus per dice by 2, at which point there is no reason to have a substitution word because you're modifying an existing value to reach the desired conclusion, which is simpler to do, not replacing it with a different one via non-modification, which doesn't add up if the intent is 3 damage per dice as the end result.
Lastly, while having things explained in a description for convenience is nice (such as what they do for Flurry of Blows, which I feel is overly redundant), it should be done in a way that doesn't create other forms of confusion in other rules. Having pointless words on a page, or words that can be interchanged or otherwise overruled by other word placement, and potentially creating a separate interpretation as a result, just to help new players out, isn't a valid excuse for poor conveying of intended functionality. Especially if I have a newbie wanting to play "some dude with a lance on horseback," and me (inadvertently) telling him the incorrect ruling.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
at which point there is no reason to have a substitution word
You have a substitution word because you're substituting one effect (Applying a circumstance bonus to damage when you move) for another effect (increasing the damage bonus from Jousting by 2).
You're doing the second one instead of the first one. No contradiction. No nonfunctional ability.
at which point there is no reason to have a substitution wordYou have a substitution word because you're substituting one effect (Applying a circumstance bonus to damage when you move) for another effect (increasing the damage bonus from Jousting by 2).
You're doing the second one instead of the first one. No contradiction. No nonfunctional ability.
Does nobody read and compare effects? Both already add a circumstance bonus to damage when you move. It's not like the Horse Support Benefit supersedes or changes the requirements set forth by the Jousting trait in a worse manner to warrant a substitution to the value. Simply putting in an addition to an already established value already does the same thing with less confusion and grammatical error involved. Which is why I am saying there is no reason for a substitution word involved; because it doesn't do anything that the previous wording doesn't already do by itself, other than create a potential interpretation that's incorrect.
For a game that's meant to be designed simply, this is quite a dumb, inconsistent way to convey a specific intention.
Does nobody read and compare effects? Both already add a circumstance bonus to damage when you move. It's not like the Horse Support Benefit supersedes or changes the requirements set forth by the Jousting trait in a worse manner to warrant a substitution to the value. Simply putting in an addition to an already established value already does the same thing with less confusion and grammatical error involved. Which is why I am saying there is no reason for a substitution word involved; because it doesn't do anything that the previous wording doesn't already do by itself, other than create a potential interpretation that's incorrect.
For a game that's meant to be designed simply, this is quite a dumb, inconsistent way to convey a specific intention.
Actually, that's not true. The jousting benefit only applies to weapon attacks with the lance. The horse support benefit applies to all manner of attacks vs AC (ranged attacks, spell attacks, etc.)
So let us consider the following case: It's my turn. On my first action, I order the horse to support and move. It moves at least 10 feet. The horse support effect is triggered, and affects my next attack.
- If I am not carrying a lance, and attack (ranged, spell, or otherwise), I get a +2. This is the standard mount benefit.
- If I am carrying a lance, and use said lance, I get +3 - the lance bonus of 1 is increased by 2, for 3.
- If I am carrying a lance in one hand, and use the other hand to make some sort of attack vs AC (ranged, spell, or otherwise) I get nothing. My mount benefit boosted my lance effect instead of offering its standard boost.
There's your instead.
...and if you're wrong, and basically everyone on the thread is telling you that your wrong, then maybe it's not that the rules are inherently confusing. Maybe it's you. That's okay, though. It's okay to be wrong sometimes... even on the internet. I'm certainly wrong sometimes. Being able to accept that is a really useful life skill that I encourage you to practice.
Does nobody read and compare effects? Both already add a circumstance bonus to damage when you move. It's not like the Horse Support Benefit supersedes or changes the requirements set forth by the Jousting trait in a worse manner to warrant a substitution to the value. Simply putting in an addition to an already established value already does the same thing with less confusion and grammatical error involved. Which is why I am saying there is no reason for a substitution word involved; because it doesn't do anything that the previous wording doesn't already do by itself, other than create a potential interpretation that's incorrect.
For a game that's meant to be designed simply, this is quite a dumb, inconsistent way to convey a specific intention.
Actually, that's not true. The jousting benefit only applies to weapon attacks with the lance. The horse support benefit applies to all manner of attacks vs AC (ranged attacks, spell attacks, etc.)
So let us consider the following case: It's my turn. On my first action, I order the horse to support and move. It moves at least 10 feet. The horse support effect is triggered, and affects my next attack.
- If I am not carrying a lance, and attack (ranged, spell, or otherwise), I get a +2. This is the standard mount benefit.
- If I am carrying a lance, and use said lance, I get +3 - the lance bonus of 1 is increased by 2, for 3.
- If I am carrying a lance in one hand, and use the other hand to make some sort of attack vs AC (ranged, spell, or otherwise) I get nothing. My mount benefit boosted my lance effect instead of offering its standard boost.
There's your instead.
...and if you're wrong, and basically everyone on the thread is telling you that your wrong, then maybe it's not that the rules are inherently confusing. Maybe it's you. That's okay, though. It's okay to be wrong sometimes... even on the internet. I'm certainly wrong sometimes. Being able to accept...
If you had a javelin in one hand to throw, it would still get the +2 because your weapon being used to attack doesn't have the jousting trait, and nothing says the bonus has to go to a weapon that isn't being used to attack. It also makes no sense for a weapon not involved with a strike taking all the benefit, so using the same arguments that you use to refute mine while not also applying them to yours makes that stance hypocritical.
All that statement did was reinforce my point of simply removing the word "instead" to not have to deal with those shenanigans that no sane GM would put up with. Which I have been saying since my first post. Thanks for proving my point the whole time.
So really, by all means, keep saying that I am wrong. Because every post here only further reinforces my stance. The arguments are practically circular and we won't come to an agreement anytime soon without a change in the RAW.
All that statement did was reinforce my point of simply removing the word "instead" to not have to deal with those shenanigans that no sane GM would put up with. Which I have been saying since my first post. Thanks for proving my point the whole time.
That's not true, though.
- Your first post was saying that spells and ranged weapons shouldn't work with this, and made incorrect statements about physics.- your second post... suggested a wording change that would make your first post correct?
- Your third post doubled down on your first post, while also somehow trying to argue that there was no such thing as a professional javelin thrower (specifically, that it was not possible to make a living via that skill), and that the Horse Support could only apply to melee weapons in spite of it being unrealistic because... jousting did basically the same thing, but only showed up on a melee weapon?
- Your fourth post continued to defend your position that it was not possible to be a professional javelin thrower... and something about the lasso, where you seem to assert that the ability to guide your horse without using your hands is not important unless you have an ability that allows you to move and strike in the same action? It's in this one that we first get the assertion that the horse assist doubles (rather than triples) the effect of jousting - something you mention as an aside while attempting to defend your other point.
- Your fifth post actually said nothing incorrect.
- It's your sixth post where you start actively arguing with the rules, and saying, in effect "these clauses mean nothing, so we should ignore them, and that means that *this* is true.
- Your seventh post, you go back to making assertions about how professional javelin throwers are. Incidentally, I really had meant "professional" rather than "skilled". Specifically, people who make their living at something can be expected to study what does and does not work in their field, because it results in actual money in their pocket. By extension, if the professionals are all acting in a given way, it's near-guaranteed that there's a reason for it. If all fo the people who make a sizable percentage of their yearly take-home pay throwing javelins are using a bit of a run-up, then you can be pretty sure that the run-up is helping in some fashion.
- It's your eighth post where you start talking about "instead", and how removing it might cause things to make more sense... and even there you were saying it as an argument that it meant that you were correct on the 2x vs 3x thing, because 3x wouldn't make sense with the "instead" there.
/************/
That said? On further consideration, you are correct on the matter of throwing a javelin while wielding a lance in the other hand. I was wrong there. Thank you.
I had actually misremembered the difference that it causes - it's more edge-case, but it's still there. In particular, the Joust bonus is only to "the number of damage dice for the weapon". The Horse benefit applies to damage dice in general. Thus, if you have some means to add damage dice to the attack that are not weapon damage dice (possibly by means of a special attack or an buff cast by one of your allies) then making that attack with a sword gives you the bonus to all available dice. Doing it with a lance does not.
Now, do I think this was intentional? No I do not. I think that it's RAW but I suspect that it is not RAI. The more important point, though, is that however much you may wish to complain about the "instead", the argument on your side requires you to ignore a great many more words. After all, the horse *already* offers +2 per die. If it were as you describe it, then the jousting trait would not be offering any benefits at all - doubling its effect would behave identically to just letting the horse support do its thing. You could literally remove the entire last sentence of that paragraph, and the effect would be the same... and it would also mean that cavaliers riding their companions got even less benefit from lances than standard fighters riding a normal horse, because their companion bonus would effectively overwrite the jousting bonus.
All that statement did was reinforce my point of simply removing the word "instead" to not have to deal with those shenanigans that no sane GM would put up with. Which I have been saying since my first post. Thanks for proving my point the whole time.That's not true, though.
- Your first post was saying that spells and ranged weapons shouldn't work with this, and made incorrect statements about physics.
- your second post... suggested a wording change that would make your first post correct?
- Your third post doubled down on your first post, while also somehow trying to argue that there was no such thing as a professional javelin thrower (specifically, that it was not possible to make a living via that skill), and that the Horse Support could only apply to melee weapons in spite of it being unrealistic because... jousting did basically the same thing, but only showed up on a melee weapon?
- Your fourth post continued to defend your position that it was not possible to be a professional javelin thrower... and something about the lasso, where you seem to assert that the ability to guide your horse without using your hands is not important unless you have an ability that allows you to move and strike in the same action? It's in this one that we first get the assertion that the horse assist doubles (rather than triples) the effect of jousting - something you mention as an aside while attempting to defend your other point.
- Your fifth post actually said nothing incorrect.
- It's your sixth post where you start actively arguing with the rules, and saying, in effect "these clauses mean nothing, so we should ignore them, and that means that *this* is true.
- Your seventh post, you go back to making assertions about how professional javelin throwers are. Incidentally, I really had meant "professional" rather than "skilled". Specifically, people who make their living at something can be expected to study what does and does not work in their field,...
Okay fine, I suppose I should have been more clear and stated that it would be the first post in response to the clause being irrelevant, since the original argument essentially died out or was agreed that it wasn't intended to function with spells (at least). But a few other clarifications:
-The second post was simply an errata proposal to remove the potential spell shenanigans with the suggested word implementation, which is obviously not intended (nor makes sense, since that means high damage dice spells, like Searing Light, now have a ridiculous modifier bonus on top of their insane amount of damage dice against certain enemies, or persistent effects would constantly benefit from that damage bonus), and that it's stupid easy to implement, making not errata-ing due to difficulty in doing so not an excuse.
-The third post provided an example of people who are widely considered at the peak of their skill (Olympic Athletes), but aren't professional by textbook definition (unless they are being paid by an outside organization, government, corporation, etc. to participate; but this is neither known or assumed to be true), simply because participating in the Olympics doesn't earn income reliably and sustainably, which is essentially what being a professional is by textbook definition. If there are javelin throwers that do get paid by a company, organization, etc. to do their job, then sure, they are professionals. But that also means their skills and capability are equally irrelevant and inconsequential to being a professional. After all, if College athletes don't get paid to play, then they aren't professional either, even if they are skilled enough to become professionals.
-The fourth post admits that you don't need free hands to guide a horse via the lasso part (because cowboys), but that even if you didn't need hands to guide a horse, you couldn't both guide the horse (via command) and Strike (or perform some other activity) simultaneously due to lack of mechanics/abilities doing so, making the claim true and agreeable, but ultimately pointless to propose in the end.
-The seventh post essentially refers back to the third post and goes more in-depth, since it seemed that my initial explanation wasn't enough. In essence, there are plenty of dandies that can be considered professional, simply because they get paid by a corporation to do a job, even if they are actually bad at their job. Compared to, say, a capable friend who does a job for you free of charge after retiring from a company, who is no longer a professional, but is still probably more skilled than the actual professional mentioned prior. It's not some outlandish concept, and is actually a pretty common trope that plays out in real life. Why pay some dandy to do a subpar job when you can have your more skilled friend do it pro bono? I mean, sure, it's a good assumption that people who get paid to do something know what they are doing and won't make the mistakes a non-professional does. But it's not a guarantee. And the definition supports that concept fully. Thus, it doesn't track with me to treat it as if that is always the case, or to make them synonymous with other irrelevant words.
That being said, the concept of a Javelin functioning better with a run-up (not unlike the Jousting trait) would make the weapon both historically accurate to its function, while also giving them a nice niche to fill (which is one powerful running throw). I'm now curious why Paizo didn't do that.