If flavor text doesn't matter...

[Ravingdork]

...then surely you wouldn't mind if my ghoul got satiated by using Consume Flesh on an earth elemental, or a fire wisp? /rhetorical

What other game elements clearly break down in a bad way or clearly deviate from developer intent when descriptive elements are ignored?

If you want to share how things can fall apart when putting too much focus on descriptive rules, go right on ahead, but please create a separate thread for it.

[Theaitetos]

Acrobat/Celebrity/Dandy/Gladiator would have an awesome feat in Costume Change which allows you to remove your enemy's armor:

Quote:

You can remove any armor as a 3-action Interact activity.

:D

[graystone]

Ravingdork wrote:

...then surely you wouldn't mind if my ghoul got satiated by using Consume Flesh on an earth elemental, or a fire wisp? /rhetorical

I don't see anything breaking here: you have to have a corpse that you can eat. Elementals tend to not leave corpses or have inedible ones [like it's made out of large rocks]. So, the DM would let you know if a killed creature qualifies. So, no I don't mind if a DM allows elemental creatures work with it. As far as intent, they list a requirement for raw meat in the curse so IMO they would have done the same for Consume Flesh if that was required from a corpse. ;)

[PossibleCabbage]

Theaitetos wrote:

Acrobat/Celebrity/Dandy/Gladiator would have an awesome feat in Costume Change which allows you to remove your enemy's armor:

Quote:

You can remove any armor as a 3-action Interact activity.

:D

You could have killed Gorum a lot more easily I guess. It says any armor, it doesn't specify "armor you can touch."

[Finoan]

Most of the 'but it's RAW' troll rulings would fall into this.

My favorite example: You aren't able to hit a ghost with a +1 Striking Ghost Touch Greatsword because the attack roll of Strike is still a Strength-based check and nothing in Ghost Touch mechanically removes the immunity to Strength-based checks in the Incorporeal trait - and the Incorporeal trait is lopsided. The Incorporeal creature has the additional rule that it can use Ghost Touch items to use Strength-based checks, but corporeal creatures do not.

[Ravingdork]

Finoan wrote:

Most of the 'but it's RAW' troll rulings would fall into this.

And I really thought we'd be seeing more of them by now.

[Ajaxius]

The big, glaring one is Elixir of Life.

Elixir of Life wrote:

Elixirs of life accelerate a living creature's natural healing processes and immune system.

Flavor text dictates that Elixirs of Life do not affect undead PC's. If that quote was not there, or if you say "flavor text is not rules text!" then undead PC's could use elixirs of life, and my Blood Lords party with an alchemist would be much happier :)

[graystone]

I know I always force my player monks to only use kick unarmed attacks when using Flying Kick and Fist attacks when using Elemental Fist and One-inch Punch. I wouldn't want to ignore flavor text cuz it would NEVER lead me wrong... What kind of madness would ensue if they could punch with a flying kick! :P

[eachtoxicwolf]

Ajaxius wrote:

The big, glaring one is Elixir of Life.

Elixir of Life wrote:

Elixirs of life accelerate a living creature's natural healing processes and immune system.

Flavor text dictates that Elixirs of Life do not affect undead PC's. If that quote was not there, or if you say "flavor text is not rules text!" then undead PC's could use elixirs of life, and my Blood Lords party with an alchemist would be much happier :)

I'm salty about elixir of life because with the overview, it looks like you can use it for healing undead because no vitality tag. The fact that flavour text and a buried in FAQ answer make it incompatible with undead healing will annoy any people wanting to use it, especially in Pathfinder Society where certain stuff is much more limited

[Tridus]

Well, people were infamously claiming "You can't act" was flavour text in Stunned not too long ago...

Its hard to remember the cases of this because the argument is often used to try to rules lawyer something that shouldn't work by dismissing the part of the rule that says it shouldn't work. A current one I've seen argued lately is witches getting their familiars killed and then trying to argue that this basically doesn't impact them at all.

[Perpdepog]

graystone wrote:

I know I always force my player monks to only use kick unarmed attacks when using Flying Kick and Fist attacks when using Elemental Fist and One-inch Punch. I wouldn't want to ignore flavor text cuz it would NEVER lead me wrong... What kind of madness would ensue if they could punch with a flying kick! :P

As my PF1E monk would say, "What is the fist, but the foot of the arm?"