In this case, I don’t think that the plain language even produces the result that Finoan is putting forth, but even if it did, that would be an absurd result, so I think it’d be pretty reasonable to disregard it.
I am legitimately confused by this idea.
The way that I present the rules for Alchemist's Versatile Vials and Quick Alchemy is how I am reading it. I'm not trolling here - I have a different alias for that.
I listed out here what that interpretation results in.
The Alchemist has 6 or so Versatile Vials that they can use per battle. They can be crafted into consumables with Quick Alchemy, or crafted into Versatile Vial bombs with Quick Alchemy, or crafted into Field Vials with Quick Alchemy. All for 1 action each. And then the bombs can be thrown or the consumables used.
How is that idea so crazy that it is stated as being 'absurd'?
Even if the Alchemist player decides to quick bomber two bombs per round, that is still three rounds that they are bombing with before they even touch their daily Advanced Alchemy items.
If you think characters aren't allowed to jump off cliffs then don't jump. Step, Stride, Teleport, whatever.
Though if you're suggesting characters can't voluntarily move themselves off a cliff then again that's some broader problems with the rules around sheer drops and falling (hence my initial request) and not really a problem with glide.
Well, you should be allowed to jump off a cliff if you want to. But you can't land in midair. There are no rules saying that you can. You have to resolve the 'jumping off a cliff' action (whichever action you want to use to represent that) before you use any other actions.
So by RAW, you go splat before you can Glide. Either that or you are jumping off of a 500+ foot high cliff.
Or you are using Glide while on the ground before you jump off the cliff so that you can hang in the air at the end of your turn.
Yes, it makes no sense to run the game this way.
That is why it needs errata.
|
In this case, I don’t think that the plain language even produces the result that Finoan is putting forth, but even if it did, that would be an absurd result, so I think it’d be pretty reasonable to disregard it.I am legitimately confused by this idea.
The way that I present the rules for Alchemist's Versatile Vials and Quick Alchemy is how I am reading it. I'm not trolling here - I have a different alias for that.
I listed out here what that interpretation results in.
The Alchemist has 6 or so Versatile Vials that they can use per battle. They can be crafted into consumables with Quick Alchemy, or crafted into Versatile Vial bombs with Quick Alchemy, or crafted into Field Vials with Quick Alchemy. All for 1 action each. And then the bombs can be thrown or the consumables used.
How is that idea so crazy that it is stated as being 'absurd'?
Even if the Alchemist player decides to quick bomber two bombs per round, that is still three rounds that they are bombing with before they even touch their daily Advanced Alchemy items.
So I learned about this rule today because we had someone playing the pregen Alchemist in a newish PFS scenario were we had 3 back-to-back combats with explicitly no time to rest in-between. (There was a "reviving wind" which healed everyone to full health after the 2nd combat, but no ability to take 10 mins)
The alchemist went through all 6 of his versatile vials in the first 2 combats, and I thought he was SOL for the last combat, but then this rule was pointed out, where he could could make a versatile vial for 1 action and convert it into a bomb for a 2nd action. So he went from being able to throw 2 bombs a round (since MAP on the 3rd made it stupid to throw 3) to throwing 1 bomb per round, which seemed totally reasonable.
As someone who had literally never looked at the Alchemist rules before today and thought making versatile vials out of thin air sounded stupid, I gotta say that interpretation seemed pretty straightforward once I actually looked at it. It may not be the clearest, but it is what it says.
(I hate alchemists. They are my least favorite class by far. Has nothing to do with the mechanics and everything to do with the vibe. Grumble grumble.)
a newish PFS scenario were we had 3 back-to-back combats with explicitly no time to rest in-between.
Out of curiosity, what did your focus point casters do?
|
|
a newish PFS scenario were we had 3 back-to-back combats with explicitly no time to rest in-between.Out of curiosity, what did your focus point casters do?
We were also given 1 focus point, but our only focus spells were Lay on Hands (not necessary in the last fight) and Lingering Performance (never succeeded on the Perform check) so they were moot.
The math comparison would be more that -2 + 3 = 1Those sentences are very much equal.Nah man, you can't tell me 3 - 2 = 1 is the same as 2 - 3 = 1. Because that's basically what you're saying right now.
It's not, though. You're trying to argue that both sentences are the same, but they aren't. Let's look at the sentences again:
-You can use money to either get cake or get stale bread
-You can either use money to get cake or get stale bread
The word 'either' is what sets up the binary choice. In the first sentence, our choices are:
1. Get cake (with money).
2. Get stale bread (with money).
Regardless of what choice we go with, we spend money for it, thus the binary becomes what it is we spend our money on.
In the second sentence, our choices are:
1. Get cake with money.
2. Get stale bread.
With this, only one of the choices requires money to acquire. The other choice does not, thus changing the binary to "spend money for X versus save money by getting Y instead," something completely different from the previous set of choices.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
All this talk about versatile vials seems familiar.
Alchemist being confusing and needing errata is just tradition at this point.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The math comparison would be more that -2 + 3 = 1Those sentences are very much equal.Nah man, you can't tell me 3 - 2 = 1 is the same as 2 - 3 = 1. Because that's basically what you're saying right now.It's not, though. You're trying to argue that both sentences are the same, but they aren't. Let's look at the sentences again:
-You can use money to either get cake or get stale bread
-You can either use money to get cake or get stale breadThe word 'either' is what sets up the binary choice. In the first sentence, our choices are:
1. Get cake (with money).
2. Get stale bread (with money).Regardless of what choice we go with, we spend money for it, thus the binary becomes what it is we spend our money on.
In the second sentence, our choices are:
1. Get cake with money.
2. Get stale bread.With this, only one of the choices requires money to acquire. The other choice does not, thus changing the binary to "spend money for X versus save money by getting Y instead," something completely different from the previous set of choices.
It doesn't definitively mean either; it's just vague, because it's reasonable to omit repeated words. "You can either use money to get cake or [use money to] get stale bread" is a perfectly reasonable reading. You're not in Logic 101 translating sentences into propositional logic. This is messy, contextual, natural language.
Besides, neither of those is the most common way of expressing that you would pay for both ("you can use money to get either cake or stale bread") or only one ("you can [either] get stale bread, or use money to get cake.").
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Class DC needs to be cleared up.
That being said, I fear that this thread here is already derailed too much into detailed discussion of individual topics to have any value as a quick "please fix this, Paizo" list.
Seriously though, if you spot something here that you think is worth discussing in more detail, please make a separate thread in Rules discussions.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
It’a not the biggest, but Frog Barbarian’s Tongue strike should be a 1d6 like the other agile secondaries of its kind now that it can’t get reach.
I do think it’d be nice if they errated Animal Form and its peers to make it abundantly clear RAW that you lose all speeds not listed in your form while polymorphed. I’ve seen the Foundry team argue (and program in) that you don’t, so clearly spelling it out directly is needed.
The math comparison would be more that -2 + 3 = 1Those sentences are very much equal.Nah man, you can't tell me 3 - 2 = 1 is the same as 2 - 3 = 1. Because that's basically what you're saying right now.It's not, though. You're trying to argue that both sentences are the same, but they aren't. Let's look at the sentences again:
-You can use money to either get cake or get stale bread
-You can either use money to get cake or get stale breadThe word 'either' is what sets up the binary choice. In the first sentence, our choices are:
1. Get cake (with money).
2. Get stale bread (with money).Regardless of what choice we go with, we spend money for it, thus the binary becomes what it is we spend our money on.
In the second sentence, our choices are:
1. Get cake with money.
2. Get stale bread.With this, only one of the choices requires money to acquire. The other choice does not, thus changing the binary to "spend money for X versus save money by getting Y instead," something completely different from the previous set of choices.
It doesn't definitively mean either; it's just vague, because it's reasonable to omit repeated words. "You can either use money to get cake or [use money to] get stale bread" is a perfectly reasonable reading. You're not in Logic 101 translating sentences into propositional logic. This is messy, contextual, natural language.
Besides, neither of those is the most common way of expressing that you would pay for both ("you can use money to get either cake or stale bread") or only one ("you can [either] get stale bread, or use money to get cake.").
Yes, it does, and it's not vague at all. If I can easily and concisely explain the differences between them, they aren't any of these descriptors you are giving them, because if they were, then it wouldn't be possible to draw different conclusions by simply changing the places at which words are placed. Hence why I initially implemented the math argument; just because you believe both equations should equal 1 (or more accurately, you want the equations to equal 1) doesn't mean that they're correct when you decide to change numbers around, nor does it mean they are even the same equation if they just so happen to work out.
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
How is that idea so crazy that it is stated as being 'absurd'?
Maybe your position has moved. You earlier wrote:
] The Versatile Vials can be used as a bomb directly, but have no action cost for creation - only for drawing them and Strike - and the Versatile Vials are said to be stored with your alchemical toolkit, so it seems like they have no draw cost. But then you can optionally use Quick Alchemy to turn a Versatile Vial into a bomb: a Quick Vial bomb that has no stats listed anywhere. Not sure why anyone would want to spend the action on that when they could just throw the Versatile Vial itself.
Alternatively, if the Versatile Vial is not to be used as a bomb directly, why would anyone want to turn a Versatile Vial into a cheap bomb using Quick Alchemy when Quick Alchemy could instead turn the Versatile Vial into a regular bomb for the same action and reagent cost?
The “cheap bomb using Quick Alchemy” option is one that was just added, and your reading is that it gives no benefit. That seems absurd to me, that the devs would intentionally devote both design time and page space to an option that gives no benefit.
The alternate reading I keep seeing, that “cheap bomb using Quick Alchemy” gives a lower-quality bomb at no Versatile Vial cost seems less absurd to me because it offers a meaningful choice.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yes, it does, and it's not vague at all. If I can easily and concisely explain the differences between them, they aren't any of these descriptors you are giving them, because if they were, then it wouldn't be possible to draw different conclusions by simply changing the places at which words are placed. Hence why I initially implemented the math argument; just because you believe both equations should equal 1 (or more accurately, you want the equations to equal 1) doesn't mean that they're correct when you decide to change numbers around, nor does it mean they are even the same equation if they just so happen to work out.
English is not a fragile language that always changes meaning when words are placed slightly out of order or things are omitted. The syntax of English is far uglier, far less rigid, and far more easily bent and broken than you are giving it credit for. I don't think people misunderstand the meaning of "there ain't no way imma do that" as "I'll do that," despite the double negative. Everyone knows what Yoda is saying despite him putting every sentence out of its typical order. And people commonly omit or abbreviate parts of sentences, which does indeed sometimes leave meanings vague.
Also, either/or isn't always exclusive or. For example, "either Jo or I would be happy to play cards with you" doesn't necessarily mean the speaker refuses to play cards if Jo plays. It's just emphasizing that each individual would be willing to play. They could be willing to play a 3 player game and the statement would remain true.
Again, real English does not have a rigid syntax like math or logic and does not expect every sentence to have one clear and unambiguous meaning.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yes, it does, and it's not vague at all. If I can easily and concisely explain the differences between them, they aren't any of these descriptors you are giving them, because if they were, then it wouldn't be possible to draw different conclusions by simply changing the places at which words are placed. Hence why I initially implemented the math argument; just because you believe both equations should equal 1 (or more accurately, you want the equations to equal 1) doesn't mean that they're correct when you decide to change numbers around, nor does it mean they are even the same equation if they just so happen to work out.English is not a fragile language that always changes meaning when words are placed slightly out of order or things are omitted. The syntax of English is far uglier, far less rigid, and far more easily bent and broken than you are giving it credit for. I don't think people misunderstand the meaning of "there ain't no way imma do that" as "I'll do that," despite the double negative. Everyone knows what Yoda is saying despite him putting every sentence out of its typical order. And people commonly omit or abbreviate parts of sentences, which does indeed sometimes leave meanings vague.
Also, either/or isn't always exclusive or. For example, "either Jo or I would be happy to play cards with you" doesn't necessarily mean the speaker refuses to play cards if Jo plays. It's just emphasizing that each individual would be willing to play. They could be willing to play a 3 player game and the statement would remain true.
Again, real English does not have a rigid syntax like math or logic and does not expect every sentence to have one clear and unambiguous meaning.
Yes, but technical documents, including rules for TTRPGs, can and should be written unambiguously. Write the fluff as informally as you'd like, but the crunch should be tight without room for interpretation.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yes, but technical documents, including rules for TTRPGs, can and should be written unambiguously. Write the fluff as informally as you'd like, but the crunch should be tight without room for interpretation.
Completely clear rules that no one will misunderstand is a pipe dream. Someone will always argue about things that other people consider settled and obvious from context, like if Thaum mirror implement can also be a shield.
With that caveat, I am inclined to agree you should try to get as close to the ideal as you can. Unfortunately, reality stands in the way. A whole lot of source materials need to come in under a given page count... so you take what you can get.
Yes, but technical documents, including rules for TTRPGs, can and should be written unambiguously. Write the fluff as informally as you'd like, but the crunch should be tight without room for interpretation.Completely clear rules that no one will misunderstand is a pipe dream. Someone will always argue about things that other people consider settled and obvious from context, like if Thaum mirror implement can also be a shield.
With that caveat, I am inclined to agree you should try to get as close to the ideal as you can. Unfortunately, reality stands in the way. A whole lot of source materials need to come in under a given page count... so you take what you can get.
This. These are also not legal documents or nuclear reactor specs, so developers are not going to write to that level of precision, nor is it likely that most game designers and editors can write to that level of precision at a reasonable pace while also maintaining text that is pleasant to read. RPG writing relies on the good faith and broad understanding of the vast majority of readers, and (literally) cannot afford to try to counter every twist and turn of language that can be devised.
Yes, but technical documents, including rules for TTRPGs, can and should be written unambiguously. Write the fluff as informally as you'd like, but the crunch should be tight without room for interpretation.Completely clear rules that no one will misunderstand is a pipe dream. Someone will always argue about things that other people consider settled and obvious from context, like if Thaum mirror implement can also be a shield.
With that caveat, I am inclined to agree you should try to get as close to the ideal as you can. Unfortunately, reality stands in the way. A whole lot of source materials need to come in under a given page count... so you take what you can get.
I don't buy that any modern RPG publisher should worry about page count as a limiting factor. Physical books are a nice physical token to display as a curio, but for character building and actual play online resources and dedicated character builders are simply more useful. There's a reason WotC is moving to D&D Beyond and most indie games are PDF first with limited-run or print-on-demand physical copies available for those who want them. Even hidebound companies like Gamesworkshop are embracing digital rules in the face of the challenges of selling printed media at a good margin.
If they wished Paizo could move to a more modern and flexible distribution method with physical books being abridged versions of the complete rules which can be accessed digitally. The future of TTRPGS is digital with purpose-built tabletop simulators, character builders, and a robust digital ecosystem serving as the backbone of these new TTRPG paradigms. It is Paizo's greatest failing that they refuse to accept that today every company must be a tech company in addition to whatever else they might wish to be.
Yes, it does, and it's not vague at all. If I can easily and concisely explain the differences between them, they aren't any of these descriptors you are giving them, because if they were, then it wouldn't be possible to draw different conclusions by simply changing the places at which words are placed. Hence why I initially implemented the math argument; just because you believe both equations should equal 1 (or more accurately, you want the equations to equal 1) doesn't mean that they're correct when you decide to change numbers around, nor does it mean they are even the same equation if they just so happen to work out.English is not a fragile language that always changes meaning when words are placed slightly out of order or things are omitted. The syntax of English is far uglier, far less rigid, and far more easily bent and broken than you are giving it credit for. I don't think people misunderstand the meaning of "there ain't no way imma do that" as "I'll do that," despite the double negative. Everyone knows what Yoda is saying despite him putting every sentence out of its typical order. And people commonly omit or abbreviate parts of sentences, which does indeed sometimes leave meanings vague.
Also, either/or isn't always exclusive or. For example, "either Jo or I would be happy to play cards with you" doesn't necessarily mean the speaker refuses to play cards if Jo plays. It's just emphasizing that each individual would be willing to play. They could be willing to play a 3 player game and the statement would remain true.
Again, real English does not have a rigid syntax like math or logic and does not expect every sentence to have one clear and unambiguous meaning.
I disagree, because you can very easily change the meaning of a sentence by misspelling a word, omitting a word, or changing the order of words in a sentence. This is why auto-correct was invented. "I want some dessert," versus "I want some desert," has two completely different outcomes for the speaker's desire, and it's only because of both context and intent between statements that we've come to the conclusion which word was meant to be used. Just because common speakers have gotten used to the slang and understanding the dialect behind it as a result of context and intent doesn't make it any more correct to say it as such from a technical standpoint, which is ultimately what's being scrutinized here, since the original complaint is that they are technically the same sentence, and it's quite clear they are not, especially because they don't convey the same meaning.
Again, I disagree, because you can convey that same intent without the word 'either' in the sentence. Why put in a word if it's not going to mean anything in the dialogue you are conveying, while simultaneously potentially risking having another unintended meaning? "Jo or I would be happy to play cards with you," does not contain a binary choice by omitting the word 'either,' making it the superior phrasing if the intent is that it is possible for the 'you' in this sentence to play cards with 2 other people instead of just 1 other person.
That depends on the context and intent. Plenty of people use literary tools to create things like double entendres, where you can use the same word to mean two different things due to words having multiple definitions, or using synonyms, where two different words mean the same thing, but often times these are creative choices done for entertainment purposes, of which is irrelevant when the intent is to discuss technicalities of sentence structure.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
English is heavily contextual. "They walk dogs" can mean 1 person or 50 people walk dogs. "You raise your shield" could imply "you lift the shield above your head" or "you bring your shield back from the dead" or "you add your shield to the betting pool" or "you nurture your shield as they grow into adulthood" and taken as the "Raise a Shield" action does not state whether you pay the action cost.
You can directly throw/use it for Field Benefits the Versatile Vial for 1 action but that costs you the Versatile Vial.
You can make a Quick Vial from thin air to use as a bomb/Field Vial but that requires 1 action.Making a Quick Vial isn't make from thin air. You make them from a Versatile Vial. Everything in Quick Alchemy costs you a Versatile Vial - it says so in the first paragraph.
So your choices are:
1) Directly throw a Versatile Vial for 1 action that costs you the Versatile Vial.
2) Make a Quick Vial to use as a bomb/Field vial but that costs 1 action and a Versatile Vial, and then you can throw it for 1 more action.
And why would you ever make a Versatile/Quick Vial bomb using option 2 if you could use option 1 instead?
The quick bomber feat is pretty much the reason.
For people without the quick bomber feat and you just need a 1 action default thing you can toss a versitile vial which expends one use of them.
If you have quick bomber feat you can quick alchemy and toss as one action so you an use a versitile vial turn it into any other bomb you know and toss it for one VV or you can quick alchemy and make a disposable free versitile vial bomb for one action.
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
English is not a fragile language that always changes meaning when words are placed slightly out of order or things are omitted.
In Uni I majored in Computer Science. In 3rd year I took a Linguistics course as an elective.
I had previously taken a course in Computer Languages and in that I had learned some technical vocabulary.
My entire notes for a 1 1/2 hour Linguistics Course consisted of
"English is a Context Sensitive Language".
That means something specific in Computer Linguistics theory and so that note really did encapsulate all of the 1 1/2 hour lecture.
But the meaning should be pretty clear. English is inherently ambiguous.
There is a reason that Lawyers get paid huge amounts to make contracts that are absolutely 100% clear. And then a different lawyer gets paid huge amounts of money to find a different 100% clear meaning to those words. And those 100% clear contracts still go to court where the court sometimes decide between 2 different meanings that are each 100% clear.
ENGLISH IS AN AMBIGUOUS LANGUAGE.
"Those battling dragons should always mind their flanks." could be:
"The beings who fight dragons should mind their own flanks."
"The beings who fight dragons should mind the flanks of dragons."
"The dragons over there who are battling should mind their own flanks."
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Time flies like an arrow, fruit flies like a banana.
Okay, to be clear, there is more than enough context to comfortably indicate Finoan's "both Q-Alch options consume a VV" is incorrect,
but!
the addition of the implied missing text would remove that possible mis-reading outright, and absolutely is a high-priority errata change.
Requirements: You're either holding or wearing an alchemist's toolkit and you have a free hand.
You can either use up a versatile vial to make another alchemical consumable at a moment's notice or create an especially short-lived versatile vial. Any effect created by an item made with Quick Alchemy that would have a duration longer than 10 minutes lasts for 10 minutes instead.
--Create Consumable: You expend one of your versatile vials to create a single alchemical consumable item of your level or lower that's in your formula book. You don't have to spend the normal monetary cost in alchemical raw materials or need to attempt a Crafting check. This item has the infused trait, but it remains potent only until the start of your next turn. (As normal, you need only one formula for an item to create any level of that item.)
--Quick Vial: You create a versatile vial that can be used only as a bomb or for the versatile vial option from your research field (it can't be used to create a consumable, for example). This item has the infused trait, but it remains potent only until the end of your current turn.
You can either use up a versatile vial to make another alchemical consumable at a moment's notice or [you can] create an especially short-lived versatile vial.
Someone went for shortening the length over bulletproofing the text, and reading it from Finoan's angle, I absolutely agree that it needs to be changed.
It is genuinely/technically ambiguous without the repetition of "you can," though I agree it is 100% certain that RaI the idea behind Quick Vial is to be the unlimited cantrip style option for Alchemists, and that performing it does not consume a VV. It is nonsense to rule that you can consume a VV to then make another VV that has additional limitations but 0 additional function.
Much of the jank with the wording of Quick Alchemy comes from it now being compatible w/ the new Quick Bomber, as this split two-option Quick Alchemy has both of them create compatible bombs for the feat. Which could have been handled much better if rewritten from scratch.
But as this only has the scope of an errata change, adding back that little "you can" phrase would be my suggested fix.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
English is heavily contextual.
On this, we agree. But it's not a justification for ignoring clearly intentional wording of a statement to validate their response.
Time flies like an arrow, fruit flies like a banana.
noooo. So close.
"...fruit flies like a banana."
Okay, to be clear, there is more than enough context to comfortably indicate Finoan's "both Q-Alch options consume a VV" is incorrect,
but!
the addition of the implied missing text would remove that possible mis-reading outright, and absolutely is a high-priority errata change.
Requirements: You're either holding or wearing an alchemist's toolkit and you have a free hand.
You can either use up a versatile vial to make another alchemical consumable at a moment's notice or create an especially short-lived versatile vial. Any effect created by an item made with Quick Alchemy that would have a duration longer than 10 minutes lasts for 10 minutes instead.
--Create Consumable: You expend one of your versatile vials to create a single alchemical consumable item of your level or lower that's in your formula book. You don't have to spend the normal monetary cost in alchemical raw materials or need to attempt a Crafting check. This item has the infused trait, but it remains potent only until the start of your next turn. (As normal, you need only one formula for an item to create any level of that item.)
--Quick Vial: You create a versatile vial that can be used only as a bomb or for the versatile vial option from your research field (it can't be used to create a consumable, for example). This item has the infused trait, but it remains potent only until the end of your current turn.
You can either use up a versatile vial to make another alchemical consumable at a moment's notice or [you can] create an especially short-lived versatile vial.Someone went for shortening the length over bulletproofing the text, and reading it from Finoan's angle, I absolutely agree that it needs to be changed.
It is genuinely/technically ambiguous without the repetition of "you can," though I agree it is 100% certain that RaI the idea behind Quick Vial is to be the unlimited cantrip style option for Alchemists, and that performing it does not consume a VV. It is...
I would agree it is not a function issue but the wording is dense and easy to misunderstand. I think the short lived bomb only versatile vial
had a different name. Call it a quick bomb or something different so it is more immediately obvious it is a different thing.| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
... I think the short lived bomb only versatile vial
had a different name. Call it a quick bomb or something different so it is more immediately obvious it is a different thing.
They really should have had two different terms à la "Versatile Vials" (for the limited, regenerating, resource that can be made into any consumable) and Field Vials (which are utterly free but limited in scope by field discoveries).
|
| 9 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't buy that any modern RPG publisher should worry about page count as a limiting factor.
Even if you're selling PDF only, you still want to make sure you are keeping things tight. People don't want to have to manage long documents. Page limits help with that.
There's a reason WotC is moving to D&D Beyond
To sell microtransactions, and to force everyone to have to purchase the material.
| 11 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm really surprised by how many people are trying to move mountains to validate the idea that half of quick alchemy doing nothing at all is a legitimate and sound interpretation of the rules. "English is a contextual language" yeah, and in context one of these interpretations is clearly absurd and incorrect.
Genuinely wild.
Do you all hate alchemists that much?
I'm actually more confused about the Alchemist mechanics in the Remaster than the Premaster, and no matter how much I re-read it, the mechanics confuse me.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So below average for this forum.
ENGLISH IS AN AMBIGUOUS LANGUAGE.
Rubbish. It can be ambiguous. It's up to the writer to be clear.
But the stuff we are talking about as problematic is high school level English, or just simple mistakes or omissions.|
|
| 10 people marked this as a favorite. |
ENGLISH IS AN AMBIGUOUS LANGUAGE.
My degree is in Linguistics, so just to be clear, *all* natural languages contain ambiguity.
In fact, it is impossible to be 100% unambiguous when using natural language.
Not difficult. Impossible. And the more complexity you introduce in order to improve clarity, the more vectors for ambiguity you introduce.
The goal should always be to reduce ambiguity as much as possible, while being aware that perfection is unobtainable.
Mystic Kineticist
Errata those rules to include Blasts and Impulses... or add feats that treat those as Strikes and Spells, respectively.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My degree is in Linguistics, so just to be clear, *all* natural languages contain ambiguity.
In fact, it is impossible to be 100% unambiguous when using natural language.
Not difficult. Impossible. And the more complexity you introduce in order to improve clarity, the more vectors for ambiguity you introduce.
The goal should always be to reduce ambiguity as much as possible, while being aware that perfection is unobtainable.
Yeah. And to add onto this, being vague is quite efficient compared to being excessively precise. Telling someone that a banana is ripe gets across almost all of the important information in a lot shorter space, than, say trying to describe exactly what step inbetween completely green and completely brown the banana is. What's important is I know it's good to eat and will taste good.
The same goes for rules. There is a point of diminishing returns. In spite of the issues we have had and will have in the future, PF2E is /usually/ clear, and the playerbase is large enough there's already discussion on most of the obvious questions you could have. I have tried to run systems where we'd have to stop for intractable rules questions on almost every round in our first combats, even after we thought we'd all read over and understood the rules. PF2E has real rules issues in spots (have fun running the Disappearance spell, for example), and its excessive keywording makes a barrier that's hard for a new player to break. But it's still orders of magnitude better than my experience trying several other systems.
|
|
My degree is in Linguistics, so just to be clear, *all* natural languages contain ambiguity.
In fact, it is impossible to be 100% unambiguous when using natural language.
Not difficult. Impossible. And the more complexity you introduce in order to improve clarity, the more vectors for ambiguity you introduce.
The goal should always be to reduce ambiguity as much as possible, while being aware that perfection is unobtainable.
Yeah. And to add onto this, being vague is quite efficient compared to being excessively precise. Telling someone that a banana is ripe gets across almost all of the important information in a lot shorter space, than, say trying to describe exactly what step inbetween completely green and completely brown the banana is. What's important is I know it's good to eat and will taste good.
The same goes for rules. There is a point of diminishing returns. In spite of the issues we have had and will have in the future, PF2E is /usually/ clear, and the playerbase is large enough there's already discussion on most of the obvious questions you could have. I have tried to run systems where we'd have to stop for intractable rules questions on almost every round in our first combats, even after we thought we'd all read over and understood the rules. PF2E has real rules issues in spots (have fun running the Disappearance spell, for example), and its excessive keywording makes a barrier that's hard for a new player to break. But it's still orders of magnitude better than my experience trying several other systems.
Am I missing something with disappearance? It just looks like you can't find the target with any sense, but you can deduce someone is there via Seeking as you detect something that lets you deduce someone is there.
Even if you're selling PDF only, you still want to make sure you are keeping things tight. People don't want to have to manage long documents. Page limits help with that.
Nobody is suggesting they completely ignore brevity, but it often gets suggested here that a lot of the issues with PF2 come from cutting content to fit page counts. PF2 could be a better game if adding 5 pages to a book rather than cutting for page space was on the table.
To sell microtransactions, and to force everyone to have to purchase the material.
It's a sound way to run a business. There's a reason both WotC and GW are embracing it.
Also, if you're broke you can still find all the new material for free if you're so inclined.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah. And to add onto this, being vague is quite efficient compared to being excessively precise. Telling someone that a banana is ripe gets across almost all of the important information in a lot shorter space, than, say trying to describe exactly what step inbetween completely green and completely brown the banana is. What's important is I know it's good to eat and will taste good.
When you're a produce distributor you'll be well served to let customers know more precisely the state of the product you have on hand. When writing and RPG one should likewise be precise in how rules are presented.
There is a point of diminishing returns. In spite of the issues we have had and will have in the future, PF2E is /usually/ clear, and the playerbase is large enough there's already discussion on most of the obvious questions you could have.
If the default was to be slightly more technical in their writing and if editing was given more time to cook I think we could see vast improvements. PF2 is an otherwise tight game marked by Paizo's flaws in layout, editing, and the ability to rapidly errata their products.
I find Paizo's work often ends up in an uncanny valley where it isn't messy enough to have a Palladium-like charm but lacks the polish that larger players in the market can afford.
I personally would love to see a clarification on the duration of the Grandeur cause reaction for the Champion.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Am I missing something with disappearance? It just looks like you can't find the target with any sense, but you can deduce someone is there via Seeking as you detect something that lets you deduce someone is there.
In terms of RAW issues: invisible is (only implicitly, as it's in the "flavor text spot" in the keyword) defined in terms of sight. Being "invisible" to all senses is a bit odd in that regard. The detection rules are also all written assuming sight is a primary sense and the way you detect creatures. This is minor, though. It's kind of obvious what to do about that.
The weird questions come up when you're forced to deal with the ramifications of the flavor, which the spell text unhelpfully leaves wide open with descriptions of things like "gaps in the sound spectrum." Let's say a caster with Disappearance on them uses an ability or spell with the linguistic trait, like command. Does the spell fail to work entirely, because the target can't hear them? Heck, forget about enemies. Can they directly communicate with any of their /teammates/ at all? Can the caster be even heard if they want to be heard? If they can, how? Does the sound seem to come from everywhere and nowhere? Can you do it, but become hidden instead of undetected?
It's kind of a mess. The senses and detection rules aren't really made with this sort of ability in mind. You're kind of left to parse this stuff yourself... and players WILL ask about it.
Just a small reminder that Blasts are Impulses. A lot of people seem to forget that. But this can muddy wordings in possible solutions for the mythic problem.Mystic Kineticist
Errata those rules to include Blasts and Impulses... or add feats that treat those as Strikes and Spells, respectively.
Still need rectification due to how a Kineticist simply cannot use mythic rules...
|
|
Am I missing something with disappearance? It just looks like you can't find the target with any sense, but you can deduce someone is there via Seeking as you detect something that lets you deduce someone is there.In terms of RAW issues: invisible is (only implicitly, as it's in the "flavor text spot" in the keyword) defined in terms of sight. Being "invisible" to all senses is a bit odd in that regard. The detection rules are also all written assuming sight is a primary sense and the way you detect creatures. This is minor, though. It's kind of obvious what to do about that.
The weird questions come up when you're forced to deal with the ramifications of the flavor, which the spell text unhelpfully leaves wide open with descriptions of things like "gaps in the sound spectrum." Let's say a caster with Disappearance on them uses an ability or spell with the linguistic trait, like command. Does the spell fail to work entirely, because the target can't hear them? Heck, forget about enemies. Can they directly communicate with any of their /teammates/ at all? Can the caster be even heard if they want to be heard? If they can, how? Does the sound seem to come from everywhere and nowhere? Can you do it, but become hidden instead of undetected?
It's kind of a mess. The senses and detection rules aren't really made with this sort of ability in mind. You're kind of left to parse this stuff yourself... and players WILL ask about it.
That makes sense. The problem is what it doesn't say, not what it does say.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Battle Forms
needs more of an Overhaul but an errata could clear up and fix some of the issues with it.
ENGLISH IS AN AMBIGUOUS LANGUAGE.My degree is in Linguistics, so just to be clear, *all* natural languages contain ambiguity.
In fact, it is impossible to be 100% unambiguous when using natural language.
Not difficult. Impossible. And the more complexity you introduce in order to improve clarity, the more vectors for ambiguity you introduce.
The goal should always be to reduce ambiguity as much as possible, while being aware that perfection is unobtainable.
True in a technical sense because language always invovles context. But in practice misleading, false, and a bad argument. It sounds good, but has as much validity as Zeno's paradoxes.
The rules I've been complaining about have simple logical errors in them. Fix those then we can worry about the edge cases.