Reading Outwit Edge, I realized the sentence about Deception, Intimidation and Stealth bonus is badly spelled out: "You gain a +2 circumstance bonus to Deception checks, Intimidation checks, Stealth checks, and any checks to Recall Knowledge about the prey"
It looks like you get the bonus against anyone, not just your prey. It's certainly not RAI, but it's RAW to me.
What do you think?
Usually you get a +2 circumstance bonus from cover anyway with Stealth, and you're probably only Intimidating your Hunted Prey. So it mostly doesn't matter.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yes, they did miss 'against the prey'. I also missed that they missed that.
I don't think that typos change even RAW though. At least when it's obvious they are typos. Ok, that's probably more a lapse than a typo? Still it's the same conclusion.
Of course a typo changes RAW :D
It doesn't change RAI, but it changes RAW.And so you get to the same conclusion, this bonus works against everything.
Usually you get a +2 circumstance bonus from cover anyway with Stealth, and you're probably only Intimidating your Hunted Prey. So it mostly doesn't matter.
A +2 bonus to Stealth means a +2 bonus to Initiative with Avoid Notice (that doesn't benefit from cover). Also, I don't see why you would be only Intimidating your Prey. It's actually quite the opposite as you will certainly be attacking a target that is not your prey (to keep the bonus to AC) and as such Demoralize it.
Anyway, it greatly changes the benefit of the Edge at low level (as Masterful Hunter bonus strictly works against your prey).| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The RAI is clear.
The RAW is ambiguous at best, and the majority of people will interpret it to the RAI intuitively.
Interpreting the bonus to Deception checks, Intimidation checks, and Stealth checks as being applicable at all times and against any target once Hunt Prey is active on anything is 1) too good to be true, and 2) not really in line with the first sentence of the Edge benefit "You are talented at outwitting and evading your prey."
No, that is not just flavor text.
The RAI is clear.
The RAW is ambiguous at best, and the majority of people will interpret it to the RAI intuitively.
Interpreting the bonus to Deception checks, Intimidation checks, and Stealth checks as being applicable at all times and against any target once Hunt Prey is active on anything is 1) too good to be true, and 2) not really in line with the first sentence of the Edge benefit "You are talented at outwitting and evading your prey."
No, that is not just flavor text.
The RAW is not really ambiguous. It's against RAI but not ambiguous.
And the flavor text is not in contradiction with the RAW as you also have bonuses against your prey.I'm fully aware it's against RAI, but around tables like PFS ones where RAW is applied strictly it is the actual meaning of the rule.
PFS GMs GM's are empowered to use their discretion in the face of: "Unclear rules, or situations or player actions not covered by the rules." They are no robots bound to individual player interpretation of "RAW." In fact, you'll find no such phrasing in any PFS guidance for PF2.
Indeed! Despite all the people telling me that snares cannot be recovered after being armed (but not triggered) on these forums, I have yet to meet a Society GM who didn't let me recover my snares.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
PFS GMs GM's are empowered to use their discretion in the face of: "Unclear rules, or situations or player actions not covered by the rules." They are no robots bound to individual player interpretation of "RAW." In fact, you'll find no such phrasing in any PFS guidance for PF2.Indeed! Despite all the people telling me that snares cannot be recovered after being armed (but not triggered) on these forums, I have yet to meet a Society GM who didn't let me recover my snares.
Well if deployed snares COULD be recovered, Recycled Cogwheel would be a dead feat, so I'd have to agree with others "on these forums". It could be more a case of those PFS DM's doing what they think is reasonable instead of a measured interpretation of "RAW" or taking a 'deep dive' into the exact wording to determine ambiguity. Snares aren't the most popular options after all so not every DM has the rules for them down pat.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm fully aware it's against RAI, but around tables like PFS ones where RAW is applied strictly it is the actual meaning of the rule.PFS GMs GM's are empowered to use their discretion in the face of: "Unclear rules, or situations or player actions not covered by the rules." They are no robots bound to individual player interpretation of "RAW." In fact, you'll find no such phrasing in any PFS guidance for PF2.
If you came to me with this argument I would kindly tell you you're mistaken and move on with the game based on the fact that it doesn't make sense in the context of any other hunt prey or ranger edge ability. It's too good to be true and the simplest interpretation is that the language is a little weird.
You could, if you so chose, contest that ruling even as you've admitted your reading almost certainly isn't intended, and I'd just refer you up to another Venture officer who is probably going to agree that your reading doesn't make sense in the context of every other hunt prey ability.
To each their own, but I know a lot of PFS GMs who would apply RAW to the strictest unless there is an actual issue. As a PFS GM, I stick to RAW (and ask the players if I ever want to diverge from it) not because RAW is perfect but because starting an argument on the application of the rules is the perfect way to ruin a game.
And I far prefer a GM who sticks to RAW when I sit at a PFS table than a GM who houserules the game because they feel the need to right some wrongs.| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Reading Outwit Edge, I realized the sentence about Deception, Intimidation and Stealth bonus is badly spelled out: "You gain a +2 circumstance bonus to Deception checks, Intimidation checks, Stealth checks, and any checks to Recall Knowledge about the prey"
It looks like you get the bonus against anyone, not just your prey. It's certainly not RAI, but it's RAW to me.
What do you think?
It just looks like sloppy use of punctuation, and poor sentence structure to me. The interpretation you are talking about might be something you can extract from looking at that phrase in isolation. But you haven't even quoted the full sentence.
You are talented at outwitting and evading your prey. You gain a +2 circumstance bonus to Deception checks, Intimidation checks, Stealth checks, and any checks to Recall Knowledge about the prey, and a +1 circumstance bonus to AC against your prey’s attacks.
Masterful Hunter Upgrade
Level 17
Your mastery of skills allows you to overwhelm your prey. If you have master proficiency in Deception, Intimidation, Stealth, or the skill you use to Recall Knowledge about your prey, increase the circumstance bonus against the prey with that skill from +2 to +4. If you have master proficiency with your armor, increase the circumstance bonus to AC against the prey from +1 to +2.
In context it is fine. The bonuses are only against the prey. This is just natural language. Yes it might get a fail from a high school English teacher as being not clear. But in the broader context it is acceptable natural English, and is clear.
I'm fully aware it's against RAI, but around tables like PFS ones where RAW is applied strictly it is the actual meaning of the rule.PFS GMs GM's are empowered to use their discretion in the face of: "Unclear rules, or situations or player actions not covered by the rules." They are no robots bound to individual player interpretation of "RAW." In fact, you'll find no such phrasing in any PFS guidance for PF2.
If you came to me with this argument I would kindly tell you you're mistaken and move on with the game based on the fact that it doesn't make sense in the context of any other hunt prey or ranger edge ability. It's too good to be true and the simplest interpretation is that the language is a little weird.
You could, if you so chose, contest that ruling even as you've admitted your reading almost certainly isn't intended, and I'd just refer you up to another Venture officer who is probably going to agree that your reading doesn't make sense in the context of every other hunt prey ability.
To each their own, but I know a lot of PFS GMs who would apply RAW to the strictest unless there is an actual issue. As a PFS GM, I stick to RAW (and ask the players if I ever want to diverge from it) not because RAW is perfect but because starting an argument on the application of the rules is the perfect way to ruin a game.
And I far prefer a GM who sticks to RAW when I sit at a PFS table than a GM who houserules the game because they feel the need to right some wrongs.
There's some loaded phrasing there. Someone running the game to their best understanding of how it's supposed to work is not the same as someone houseruling the game.
Someone running the game to their best understanding of how it's supposed to work is not the same as someone houseruling the game.
You and I have different ideas of houseruling then: For me it's when a DM rules different from RAW, even if it's for what they think is RAI. This would include clarifying an ambiguous rule, as you're picking one rule interpretation for your house game and that's the definition of a houserule [a ruling specific for your house game]. The guidance on ambiguous rules, IMO, is just giving the DM permission to houserule anything they find problematic.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Houseruling is "Ok, we understand the system works like X. I'm going to change it to work like Y, which I think will be better."
It's a pretty important distinction in that context if talking about PFS, because people just picking up and changing the rules to their liking is not allowed in that campaign, but running the game to their best understanding of how it's already supposed to work (whether or not that disagrees with any lawyering attempts) is how the whole thing works.
If you consider even choosing an interpretation of an ambiguous rule to be houseruling, then how would running the game and not houseruling even be possible?
Houseruling is "Ok, we understand the system works like X. I'm going to change it to work like Y, which I think will be better."
It's a pretty important distinction in that context if talking about PFS, because people just picking up and changing the rules to their liking is not allowed in that campaign, but running the game to their best understanding of how it's already supposed to work (whether or not that disagrees with any lawyering attempts) is how the whole thing works.
This is a situation where the RAI is pretty clear, especially within the context of the entire ability, but the actual RAW is ambiguous as the RAW is worded poorly. IMO this would fall under PFS DM's using their discretion with "Unclear rules, or situations or player actions not covered by the rules" to houserule what they think the RAI is. IMO ANYTHING that requires DM fiat/discretion is a houserule by definition as you're doing something differently from what the rules actually say. Houserule isn't a dirty word.
If you consider even choosing an interpretation of an ambiguous rule to be houseruling, then how would running the game and not houseruling even be possible?
In PF2? That's impossible to do as Dm fiat is baked into a large part of the rules and other parts are just left incomplete or missing. These require you and the DM to go over these parts of the game to get on the same page. For instance, applying four more ability boosts to your character’s ability scores at 5th level is RAW while determining how to attack an object with an axe is a houserule as would be what is "useful" information for a recall check.
There's some loaded phrasing there. Someone running the game to their best understanding of how it's supposed to work is not the same as someone houseruling the game.I'm fully aware it's against RAI, but around tables like PFS ones where RAW is applied strictly it is the actual meaning of the rule.PFS GMs GM's are empowered to use their discretion in the face of: "Unclear rules, or situations or player actions not covered by the rules." They are no robots bound to individual player interpretation of "RAW." In fact, you'll find no such phrasing in any PFS guidance for PF2.
If you came to me with this argument I would kindly tell you you're mistaken and move on with the game based on the fact that it doesn't make sense in the context of any other hunt prey or ranger edge ability. It's too good to be true and the simplest interpretation is that the language is a little weird.
You could, if you so chose, contest that ruling even as you've admitted your reading almost certainly isn't intended, and I'd just refer you up to another Venture officer who is probably going to agree that your reading doesn't make sense in the context of every other hunt prey ability.
To each their own, but I know a lot of PFS GMs who would apply RAW to the strictest unless there is an actual issue. As a PFS GM, I stick to RAW (and ask the players if I ever want to diverge from it) not because RAW is perfect but because starting an argument on the application of the rules is the perfect way to ruin a game.
And I far prefer a GM who sticks to RAW when I sit at a PFS table than a GM who houserules the game because they feel the need to right some wrongs.
The sentence in itself is perfectly clear, it's just obviously wrong. It's not "running the game to their best understanding" but "correcting the game". It definitely falls under the houserule tag.
And it's a slippery slope in a PFS game, a bit too much zeal or a lack of judgment (from you or one of your players) and you end up with a situation.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think the sentence under hunt prey itself makes it pretty clear that the default assumption of anything prey related is that you are making a check against your prey.
When you focus your attention on a single foe, you become unstoppable in your pursuit. You gain the Hunt Prey action.
This is incredibly reinforced within the outwit Edge itself and clearly defined as being against your prey in the very first sentence:
You are talented at outwitting and evading your prey.
With the context of that first sentence, it would be a deliberate misreading of the rules to think that the following sentence could somehow contradict that without being explicit in allowing the bonuses to apply to other targets.
Now, I can understand the argument that trying to deceive your prey in the context of your prey being in a group might necessitate having that bonus apply to a check that includes more targets than just your prey, and as a GM, I would probably allow those bonuses to apply to stealth checks, deception checks and intimidation checks that are against multiple targets that include the prey (so like group coercion, create a distraction, etc.) in which case reading the sentence as: +2 circumstance bonus to deception checks about the prey, +2 circumstance bonus to intimidation checks about the prey, +2 circumstance bonus to stealth checks about the prey, and a +2 circumstance bonus to any recall knowledge checks about the prey, while not Standard English, is pretty clearly how the comma usage in the sentence is meant to be read.
So I would probably give the Outwit ranger +2 to these checks if they were about the prey, even if they were not targeting the prey as well, but they would need to have a specific hunted prey in mind as they describe what they are doing with these checks.
Honestly this feels like it could have awkwardly been the intention all along with the language because having stealth, intimidation and deception bonuses only against your prey is only valuable in an incredibly limited combat context, whereas the outwit ranger should be good at tracking down and flushing out that prey even when they are not talking directly to the prey.
reading the sentence as: +2 circumstance bonus to deception checks about the prey, +2 circumstance bonus to intimidation checks about the prey, +2 circumstance bonus to stealth checks about the prey, and a +2 circumstance bonus to any recall knowledge checks about the prey
I quite like your interpretation. First, it combines RAW and RAI. And second it's quite logical as having a bonus to Stealth but only against one guard when there are 3 is plain useless.
I'll apply that from now on as a GM and certainly ask the GM to apply that when I'll play my Outwit Ranger.| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
The sentence in itself is perfectly clear, it's just obviously wrong. It's not "running the game to their best understanding" but "correcting the game". It definitely falls under the houserule tag.
And it's a slippery slope in a PFS game, a bit too...
The rule in English is that you are allowed to drop commas if the sentence in unambiguous.
There is also a convention to drop repetition when it is clear. The repetition being against your prey.
Now English isn't one language and it changes with time. There are acknowledged differences in these conventions.
They have totally stuffed that up here. In the 4 sentences I quoted above. The second sentence does not limit the bonus to Deception, Intimidation, and Stealth check to the prey. We agree. The fourth sentence does, but that can be interpreted as only the increased bonus.
However they have covered their backs by repeating the restrictions to the prey in the first and third sentences. You can't take one sentence out of its broader context. It is perfectly legitimate for adjacent sentences to modify the meaning of a sentence. Especially when trying to convey complex information.
Your reading of RAW here is a distortion.
There is also a convention to drop repetition when it is clear. The repetition being against your prey.
It's written "about your prey" not against your prey. That's why (outside Unicore reading) we don't repeat it as "Intimidation checks about your prey" is just confusing.
However they have covered their backs by repeating the restrictions to the prey in the first and third sentences.
There's no such restrictions in the first sentence (and only 2 sentences). RAW reading gives a bonus to AC (evading you prey) and to Recall Knowledge checks against your prey (outwitting your prey). Nothing in the first sentence limits the bonuses to your prey and as such there's no contradiction between the first and second sentence.
The contradiction comes at another level: It contradicts the way the other Edges work. If the other Edges were giving general bonuses and also specific bonuses against your prey, then RAW would be the proper reading.Your reading of RAW here is a distortion.
If you have to use another ability (in your case Masterful Hunter Upgrade and other Edges) to correct a perfectly clear sentence, you are not following RAW. Because nothing says that Masterful Hunter Upgrade is righter. It can be Masterful Hunter Upgrade that needs to drop the "against your prey". So you also use the other Edges to determine that Masterful Hunter Upgrade should be the correct reading.
That has a name: RAI.