I don't think that rule means what you think it means - rules we never learn

[(Un)Inspired]

Are there any rules in the game that you always thought existed but later learned were all in you head?

For me, I always thought that if a Bard was trained in Perform:String they'd have to get out their harp and play it to inspire courage. I recently realized that while they do need a certain number of perform ranks, they don't actually need to be playing the harp to use the ability.

Another rule I always thought existed was that rogues could hide in combat to get Sneak a Attack on their foes. I can't find a single place where this is true however.

Has this sort of thing happened to any of you?

[Pex]

Haste spell giving +1 to initiative.

[Zanos]

Another rule I always thought existed was that rogues could hide in combat to get Sneak a Attack on their foes. I can't find a single place where this is true however.
If you have total concealment against someone(such as not being able to see them), you lose dexterity to AC, and a rogue can therefore sneak attack you.

It's difficult to hide in combat though, because being observed in any fashion prevents it.

For simplicity i always ran animal companions as being controlled by the player of the class pretty much however they wanted; I didn't learn until recently that you actually do need tricks to control them.

[(Un)Inspired]

If you have total concealment against someone(such as not being able to see them), you lose dexterity to AC, and a rogue can therefore sneak attack you.


Can you quote the place in the rules where this is stated ?

[Zanos]

...Huh. Apparently if you're invisible, or your target is blind, they do lose dexterity to AC, but it doesn't apply if your target can't see due to stealth?

[(Un)Inspired]

...Huh. Apparently if you're invisible, or your target is blind, they do lose dexterity to AC, but it doesn't apply if your target can't see due to stealth?

That was my reaction too. I have this suspicion that I've filled D&D with a bunch of rules like this that don't actually exist.

The Haste one is good. I always forget to modify initiatives in combat once they've been rolled unless someone is holding or something.

[Doc_Maynot]

Rules Compendium (Page 92): "If you’re successfully hidden with respect to another creature, that creature is flat-footed with respect to you. That creature treats you as if you were invisible"

[(Un)Inspired]

Rules Compendium (Page 92): "If you’re successfully hidden with respect to another creature, that creature is flat-footed with respect to you. That creature treats you as if you were invisible"

That's not pathfinder

[Doc_Maynot]

That's not pathfinder

Oh crap, didn't notice the title. Sorry... I'll just go now.

[(Un)Inspired]

Oh crap, didn't notice the title. Sorry... I'll just go now.

No worries! That ruling is actually the reason I put pathfinder in the title. I play both 3.5 and pathfinder and it's astonishing how many gaping holes pathfinder inherited wholesale without trying to patch.

Even ones like this the WotC later printed fixes for themselves.

[Sayt]

...Huh. Apparently if you're invisible, or your target is blind, they do lose dexterity to AC, but it doesn't apply if your target can't see due to stealth?

Huh?
(http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/skills/stealth.html) Here is the second sentence of the Stealth check:


Creatures that fail to beat your Stealth check are not aware of you and treat you as if you had total concealment

[(Un)Inspired]

Huh?
(http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/skills/stealth.html) Here is the second sentence of the Stealth check:

Total concealment doesn't make an enemy flat footed.

[Abd al-Azrad]

How did the Grapple rules end up more complicated after the PF revisions?

In 3.5, IIRC you made opposed Grapple checks or Escape Artist checks. I seem to remember one could cast Verbal spells and activate Command Word items. One could attack with Light weapons at a -4 penalty.

In PF, there's these swinging +5 bonuses, Verbal spells are impossible, and there's a weird two-page flowchart on the SRD explaining one's round-by-round options. Makes me want to walk around with a Freedom of Movement constantly, just to avoid dealing with the game mechanic.

[atemu1234]

Grappling; I always thought it was more complex. Like how to build a car.

[felinoel]

No worries! That ruling is actually the reason I put pathfinder in the title. I play both 3.5 and pathfinder and it's astonishing how many gaping holes pathfinder inherited wholesale without trying to patch.

Even ones like this the WotC later printed fixes for themselves.
If you're only going to take Pathfinder rules then prepare to continue being surprised about that a lot and often.

[EisenKreutzer]

Total concealment doesn't make an enemy flat footed.

Thats true, but Sneak Attack doesn't require the opponent to be Flat-footed, merely to be denied his Dex to AC. And according to the Core book:


Sometimes you can’t use your Dexterity bonus (if you
have one). If you can’t react to a blow, you can’t use your
Dexterity bonus to AC. If you don’t have a Dexterity bonus,
your AC does not change.

And since your opponent can't react to you because you successfully used Stealth, he is denied his Dex to AC.

[(Un)Inspired]

Thats true, but Sneak Attack doesn't require the opponent to be Flat-footed, merely to be denied his Dex to AC. And according to the Core book:



And since your opponent can't react to you because you successfully used Stealth, he is denied his Dex to AC.

Where does it say that that stealth prevents an enemy from being able to react to you?

[Doc_Maynot]

Where does it say that that stealth prevents an enemy from being able to react to you?

"You can't execute an attack of opportunity against an opponent with total concealment, even if you know what square or squares the opponent occupies." Is all I found with a cursory glance.

[EisenKreutzer]

Where does it say that that stealth prevents an enemy from being able to react to you?

It's implied, unfortunately. Jason Bulmahn makes a clarification here (http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2pt9j&page=2?Stealth-Errata#64):

Creatures are denied their Dexterity bonus to AC "if they cannot react to a blow" (CR pg 179 under AC). It was our intent that if you are unaware of a threat, you cannot react to a blow. I think we probably should have spelled this out a wee bit clearer, but space in the Stealth description was extraordinarily tight and ever word was at a premium. That said, I think these changes clear up the situation immensely (compared to where they were.. which was nebulous at best).

[(Un)Inspired]

It's implied, unfortunately. Jason Bulmahn makes a clarification here (http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2pt9j&page=2?Stealth-Errata#64):

Ya, as I said, it's not actually a rule.

[EisenKreutzer]

Ya, as I said, it's not actually a rule.

It is clearly and undoubtedly the Rules As Intended, which should be the goal every player and GM strive for.

[(Un)Inspired]

It is clearly and undoubtedly the Rules As Intended, which should be the goal every player and GM strive for.

How can you be certain that RAI is the goal that every dm and player should strive for?

I always let rogues I dm for SA from stealth but that doesn't change the fact that there isn't a rule for it.

Beyond that I'm not sure how you can arrive at the conclusion that Rules As Intended is the absolute good.

[torrasque666]

Beyond that I'm not sure how you can arrive at the conclusion that Rules As Intended is the absolute good.
They're certainly better than the convoluted mess that is RAW. And considering that the quote was provided by one of the guys who made the game you could and probably damn well should, consider it either Errata or FAQ, which for Pathfinder are basically one and the same.

[EisenKreutzer]

How can you be certain that RAI is the goal that every dm and player should strive for?

I always let rogues I dm for SA from stealth but that doesn't change the fact that there isn't a rule for it.

Beyond that I'm not sure how you can arrive at the conclusion that Rules As Intended is the absolute good.

RAI is the only way to play this game or any other game. RAW is simply a poor way of interpreting the rules, because it allows typos, errors and poor wording to dictate the way we play. If you are looking at a sentence which has been poorly written, and you understand what the author intended the rule to do but by a strict RAW interpretation it does something else, and you go for RAW, then you are actively working against the mechanics of the game.

Strict RAW interpretation is bad for the game because you are choosing not to interpret the rules as all. It opens the door to all kinds of abuse of the rules, and justifies it by saying that it's following the rules, when in fact it is subverting the rules, undermining them and ignoring the obvious intention of the writers.

[(Un)Inspired]

They're certainly better than the convoluted mess that is RAW. And considering that the quote was provided by one of the guys who made the game you could and probably damn well should, consider it either Errata or FAQ, which for Pathfinder are basically one and the same.

I'm not sure I agree with you that RAI is automatically better than RAW in every instance but even if that were true that doesn't support the claim that RAi should always be a player and DM's goal.

Beyond that, when I buy a book I'd like all the chapters to be included in it. That's great that one of the authors talks about what he wishes he included. It doesn't, however, actually make it a rule.


RAI is the only way to play this game or any other game..

Wait, what? RAI is the only way to play a game? Any game? That seems like a difficult point to defend.

[EisenKreutzer]

I'm not sure I agree with you that RAI is automatically better than RAW in every instance but even if that were true that doesn't support the claim that RAi should always be a player and DM's goal.

Beyond that, when I buy a book I'd like all the chapters to be included in it. That's great that one of the authors talks about what he wishes he included. It doesn't, however, actually make it a rule.



Wait, what? RAI is the only way to play a game? Any game? That seems like a difficult point to defend.

When interpreting a rule, the goal should always be to get as close to RAI as possible.

At our table we have a sort of procedure which has developed over time (one of our GMs is a law student):

When a rules question is encountered, we first consult the actual text. If that fails to provide a satisfactory ruling, we consult any available errata. If there is still conflict, we search the web for comments and clarifications by the authors on forums, blogs and message boards. If there are none, we look at similiar rulings made at other gaming tables. Only if all these avenues fail do we make our own unique ruling on the matter, using RAW but sticking as close to RAI as we can reasonably come.

In my opinion (and I'm just a guy with an internet connection) this process is the optimal way of determining rules interpretations and, and the golden standard is RAI. Of course we're human, and RAI always leaves some things uncertain. But as the writers clearly had intentions when writing the rules, and since those intentions can often be understood from reading the rules even when RAW makes the rules function differently than intended, it clearly follows that the game should be played by RAI.

[(Un)Inspired]

When interpreting a rule, the goal should always be to get as close to RAI as possible.

At our table we have a sort of procedure which has developed over time (one of our GMs is a law student):

When a rules question is encountered, we first consult the actual text. If that fails to provide a satisfactory ruling, we consult any available errata. If there is still conflict, we search the web for comments and clarifications by the authors on forums, blogs and message boards. If there are none, we look at similiar rulings made at other gaming tables. Only if all these avenues fail do we make our own unique ruling on the matter, using RAW but sticking as close to RAI as we can reasonably come.

In my opinion (and I'm just a guy with an internet connection) this process is the optimal way of determining rules interpretations and, and the golden standard is RAI. Of course we're human, and RAI always leaves some things uncertain. But as the writers clearly had intentions when writing the rules, and since those intentions can often be understood from reading the rules even when RAW makes the rules function differently than intended, it clearly follows that the game should be played by RAI.

But what makes these RAI interpretations the best way to use the rules? You say that RAI is the gold standard for interpreting rules. Why is this? What make's RAI the best method? You say that writer's clearly had intentions when writting the rules; what makes the writer's intention's better than anyone else's?

How does one even understand true intent in most cases?

Even if you could make an argument for RAI being the best way to interpret the rules, you still haven't explained your claim that it's the only way one can play a game.

[EisenKreutzer]

But what makes these RAI interpretations the best way to use the rules? You say that RAI is the gold standard for interpreting rules. Why is this? What make's RAI the best method? You say that writer's clearly had intentions when writting the rules; what makes the writer's intention's better than anyone else's?

How does one even understand true intent in most cases?

Even if you could make an argument for RAI being the best way to interpret the rules, you still haven't explained your claim that it's the only way one can play a game.

Ok, I admit that that comment was hyperbolic. I was trying to make a point, and I guess I shouldn't have been quite as dismissive as I came off. Mea culpa.

As for RAI being the best way of interpreting the rules, I don't see how that isn't obvious. It's the same as with interpreting any rule, law or similiar. A judge needs to interpret the laws by his own judgement, and legal rulings based on technicalities are by their nature weaker than rulings based on the intent of the law.

Similiarly, the intention of the rules in Pathfinder should clearly be the measuring stick every rule is measured against. Only by following the intention of the rules are you actually following the rules. Interpreting by RAW is subverting the rules, like using loopholes and technicalities in a law. It really is abusing the rules.

[georgie_leech]

Ok, I admit that that comment was hyperbolic. I was trying to make a point, and I guess I shouldn't have been quite as dismissive as I came off. Mea culpa.

As for RAI being the best way of interpreting the rules, I don't see how that isn't obvious. It's the same as with interpreting any rule, law or similiar. A judge needs to interpret the laws by his own judgement, and legal rulings based on technicalities are by their nature weaker than rulings based on the intent of the law.

Similiarly, the intention of the rules in Pathfinder should clearly be the measuring stick every rule is measured against. Only by following the intention of the rules are you actually following the rules. Interpreting by RAW is subverting the rules, like using loopholes and technicalities in a law. It really is abusing the rules.

I could get behind this if it was more clear that there was a cohesive design philosophy behind the various rules. Sacred Geometry (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/feats/general-feats/sacred-geometry), for instance, seems like a really weird feat. I wouldn't allow it in my games, because it's a heinous violation of Grod's Law. (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=17613518&postcount=102) In other words, I respond to the excessive power boost and annoying mechanic by disallowing it. What would playing it with RAI look like? Would doing so somehow improve my games in some way? How?

[(Un)Inspired]

Ok, I admit that that comment was hyperbolic. I was trying to make a point, and I guess I shouldn't have been quite as dismissive as I came off. Mea culpa.

As for RAI being the best way of interpreting the rules, I don't see how that isn't obvious. It's the same as with interpreting any rule, law or similiar. A judge needs to interpret the laws by his own judgement, and legal rulings based on technicalities are by their nature weaker than rulings based on the intent of the law.

Similiarly, the intention of the rules in Pathfinder should clearly be the measuring stick every rule is measured against. Only by following the intention of the rules are you actually following the rules. Interpreting by RAW is subverting the rules, like using loopholes and technicalities in a law. It really is abusing the rules.

Pardon me If I'm coming off as rude and/or a broken record.

The point that I'm having difficulty understanding is the idea that a writer's interpretation of a rule is automatically the best possible interpretation. Let's look at a hypothetical example:

The creator of Jenga says that when he originally created the game he intended it to be a drinking go. He wasn't able to be explicit with what he wrote but he intended for players to take a shot every time they successfully pulled a block. Just because this was the writer's intent, it's clearly not always the best way to play the game. Doesn't this show that a writer's intent is not an absolute when it comes to deciding how to play a game?

[torrasque666]

The creator of Jenga says that when he originally created the game he intended it to be a drinking go. He wasn't able to be explicit with what he wrote but he intended for players to take a shot every time they successfully pulled a block. Just because this was the writer's intent, it's clearly not always the best way to play the game. Doesn't this show that a writer's intent is not an absolute when it comes to deciding how to play a game?
are you kidding? that sounds awesome. totally doing that from now on. thanks.

[EisenKreutzer]

I could get behind this if it was more clear that there was a cohesive design philosophy behind the various rules. Sacred Geometry (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/feats/general-feats/sacred-geometry), for instance, seems like a really weird feat. I wouldn't allow it in my games, because it's a heinous violation of Grod's Law. (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=17613518&postcount=102) In other words, I respond to the excessive power boost and annoying mechanic by disallowing it. What would playing it with RAI look like? Would doing so somehow improve my games in some way? How?

Any table should of course allow and disallow feats, classes, races and other elements by it's own judgement.

What I'm talking about are solving problematic situations that arise when interpreting the rules literally by looking at the rules and asking yourself "what did the designer intend here?" In almost all cases, the intent behind the rule should be obvious. Of course the designer of the drowning rules didn't intend for the rules to be usable for reviving the dying. Thats preposterous, and everyone who hears about that particular RAW interpretations agrees that that shouldn't be the case. But by RAW it is.

And thats the main problem. Going by RAW creates more problems than it solves, and that is because RAW interpretations are actually exploitation of weak rules.

It's very simple. The game was created with intentions for how it was going to work. These intentions are in almost all cases easy to understand. WHen following RAI, you arrive at the gameplay experience the designers ment for you to have.

Now, everyone is of course entitled to play the game however they want, but by following RAI you will have a smoother, more enjoyable experience because it is a superior way of interpreting rules. Not just the rules of Pathfinder, but rules in general. Just because a sign on a lawn "don't walk on the lawn" doesn't mean you are free to run on the lawn. Going by RAW is running on the lawn.

[(Un)Inspired]

Any table should of course allow and disallow feats, classes, races and other elements by it's own judgement.

What I'm talking about are solving problematic situations that arise when interpreting the rules literally by looking at the rules and asking yourself "what did the designer intend here?" In almost all cases, the intent behind the rule should be obvious. Of course the designer of the drowning rules didn't intend for the rules to be usable for reviving the dying. Thats preposterous, and everyone who hears about that particular RAW interpretations agrees that that shouldn't be the case. But by RAW it is.

And thats the main problem. Going by RAW creates more problems than it solves, and that is because RAW interpretations are actually exploitation of weak rules.

It's very simple. The game was created with intentions for how it was going to work. These intentions are in almost all cases easy to understand. WHen following RAI, you arrive at the gameplay experience the designers ment for you to have.

Now, everyone is of course entitled to play the game however they want, but by following RAI you will have a smoother, more enjoyable experience because it is a superior way of interpreting rules. Not just the rules of Pathfinder, but rules in general. Just because a sign on a lawn "don't walk on the lawn" doesn't mean you are free to run on the lawn. Going by RAW is running on the lawn.

But what guarantees us that the writer's interpretation of their own rules will lead us to, as you say, "a smoother, more enjoyable experience..."?

[EisenKreutzer]

Pardon me If I'm coming off as rude and/or a broken record.

The point that I'm having difficulty understanding is the idea that a writer's interpretation of a rule is automatically the best possible interpretation. Let's look at a hypothetical example:

The creator of Jenga says that when he originally created the game he intended it to be a drinking go. He wasn't able to be explicit with what he wrote but he intended for players to take a shot every time they successfully pulled a block. Just because this was the writer's intent, it's clearly not always the best way to play the game. Doesn't this show that a writer's intent is not an absolute when it comes to deciding how to play a game?

Thats not what I'm talking about, though.

Your example is an entire rule being added because the creator meant to have it there. Thats not a case of rules interpretation, thats a rules expansion.

What I'm talking about are interpreting rules that are actually there, but written in such a way that problems arise if they are followed by simply interpreting them by RAW.
By that I mean looking at whats written and going "well, the rules are written in this way, so thats how we will follow them."
When in reality the best method of interpreting them is going "these rules are clearly made to work in X fashion, but they've been worded ambiguously so they actually work like Y. We're going by X, because it's clear thats what the writer intended."

This Stealth example is actually perfect. The rules imply that a successful Stealth check makes your opponent unaware of you, thus denying his Dex bonus to AC, but it's never actually stated explicitly.
By strict RAW, the buck stops there. Rolling Stealth does not help your Sneak Attack.

But we can see that this is what was intended by the way the rules imply it, and we even have a quote from the creator of the game telling us that this was indeed the intent. WHat do we gain by following RAW as opposed to RAI in this example?

[EisenKreutzer]

But what guarantees us that the writer's interpretation of their own rules will lead us to, as you say, "a smoother, more enjoyable experience..."?

Well, there are never any guarantees. But RAW leads to it's own plethora of gameplay problems, and I maintain that the problems RAI leads to are smaller and less disturbing to gameplay than RAW and it's shenannigans.

[(Un)Inspired]

Well, there are never any guarantees. But RAW leads to it's own plethora of gameplay problems, and I maintain that the problems RAI leads to are smaller and less disturbing to gameplay than RAW and it's shenannigans.

But RAW and RAI aren't the only ways to interpret a rule. What makes RAI better thanany individual person's ability to interpret how a rule should work?

This is a separate issue but I don't tend to look at what the paizo writers post online. This seems to be true for most players. A writer giving us unofficial errata that isn't undated into new printings of the book doesn't seem like it's enough.

[EisenKreutzer]

But RAW and RAI aren't the only ways to interpret a rule. What makes RAI better thanany individual person's ability to interpret how a rule should work?

This is a separate issue but I don't tend to look at what the paizo writers post online. This seems to be true for most players. A writer giving us unofficial errata that isn't undated into new printings of the book doesn't seem like it's enough.

It's better because it creates consistency, something RAW does not.

I think an explanation by one of the developers of the game about how a rule was intended to work is much stronger than my own judgement on the matter. Especially if a RAW interpretation would produce a result that clearly isn't what was intended.

[(Un)Inspired]

It's better because it creates consistency, something RAW does not.

I think an explanation by one of the developers of the game about how a rule was intended to work is much stronger than my own judgement on the matter. Especially if a RAW interpretation would produce a result that clearly isn't what was intended.

Aren't the writer's of a game just a fallible as its players? These games aren't written by single authors. They are written by teams. How can RAI lead us to consistency when different writers have different intentions? Could you elaborate on the type of consistency that you think following RAI will create?

What makes the judgment of a game's writer stronger than your judgment and what do you mean by stronger in this instance?

[jjcrpntr]

How did the Grapple rules end up more complicated after the PF revisions?

In 3.5, IIRC you made opposed Grapple checks or Escape Artist checks. I seem to remember one could cast Verbal spells and activate Command Word items. One could attack with Light weapons at a -4 penalty.

In PF, there's these swinging +5 bonuses, Verbal spells are impossible, and there's a weird two-page flowchart on the SRD explaining one's round-by-round options. Makes me want to walk around with a Freedom of Movement constantly, just to avoid dealing with the game mechanic.

That's why my players never do anything other than break grapple on their turn. Which is fun for me if I have one PC that's annoying. Chain grapple!

[nedz]

Aren't the writer's of a game just a fallible as its players? These games aren't written by single authors. They are written by teams. How can RAI lead us to consistency when different writers have different intentions? Could you elaborate on the type of consistency that you think following RAI will create?

What makes the judgment of a game's writer stronger than your judgment and what do you mean by stronger in this instance?

this, also it can be hard to determine RAI if the RAW is sufficiently dysfunctional.

Lets just take a random PF dysfunction: Brawler-Exemplar Archetypes grants teamwork feats gained from Martial Flexibility. Martial Flexibility can't grant Teamwork feats. What was the writer's intent here ?

Or another: Summon Good Monster grants Diehard to Summoned Monsters, who can never benefit from this because they go pop at zero HP. What was the RAI here ?

Furthermore: I hold that the DM and the Group's rules interpretations are more important than those of the writers, even if their intentions were fully known. The writer's have no interest in the game at hand.

[EisenKreutzer]

You both have strong arguments, but I'm afraid I won't budge on the RAI vs. RAW issue. I'm not really interested in arguing this further, since it boils down to how I think about games and game design.

I feel that following the intention of the writers of the game makes for abetter, more consistent experience. Both of you, however, have compelling arguments, and I aknowledge that. I remain unconvinced, but I'm perfectly happy with giving in and admitting that though I feel strongly about this issue I am unable to come up with replies that are as strong and convincing as you need them to be. Maybe I'll return to this thread later when I've had time to think, or start a new thread on RAW vs. RAI later on.

It's been good discussing with you though!

[Nibbens]

You both have strong arguments, but I'm afraid I won't budge on the RAI vs. RAW issue. I'm not really interested in arguing this further, since it boils down to how I think about games and game design.

I feel that following the intention of the writers of the game makes for abetter, more consistent experience. Both of you, however, have compelling arguments, and I aknowledge that. I remain unconvinced, but I'm perfectly happy with giving in and admitting that though I feel strongly about this issue I am unable to come up with replies that are as strong and convincing as you need them to be. Maybe I'll return to this thread later when I've had time to think, or start a new thread on RAW vs. RAI later on.

It's been good discussing with you though!

I wish all discussions ended this way. The world/forums would be a lot nicer. LOL.

For the longest time my group didn't know that a flaming longsword had to be at minimum a +1 flaming longsword. I was thunderstruck when I realized that for five years of playing that their bought magic weapons and armor never had even the minimum +1 bonus to support those additional enchantments... FIVE YEARS! I should have looked at their character sheets closer whenever they were given a lump of cash and told to go crazy. lol.

[nedz]

You both have strong arguments, but I'm afraid I won't budge on the RAI vs. RAW issue. I'm not really interested in arguing this further, since it boils down to how I think about games and game design.

I feel that following the intention of the writers of the game makes for abetter, more consistent experience. Both of you, however, have compelling arguments, and I aknowledge that. I remain unconvinced, but I'm perfectly happy with giving in and admitting that though I feel strongly about this issue I am unable to come up with replies that are as strong and convincing as you need them to be. Maybe I'll return to this thread later when I've had time to think, or start a new thread on RAW vs. RAI later on.

It's been good discussing with you though!

Well the only right way to play this game is your own way — so there's no right or wrong here really.

Ironically: your position is in full accord with my last point.

[Mjollnir075]

For the longest time my group didn't know that a flaming longsword had to be at minimum a +1 flaming longsword. I was thunderstruck when I realized that for five years of playing that their bought magic weapons and armor never had even the minimum +1 bonus to support those additional enchantments... FIVE YEARS! I should have looked at their character sheets closer whenever they were given a lump of cash and told to go crazy. lol.

Man, my first few years of playing (before being refulated to perma-dm it seems) the DM had these rules all messed up. We, like you, didn't play with the "Need at least +1" rule, but we took it a step further. Instead of enhancements growing more expensive, he played it as "All +1 enchantments, such as Frost or Shocking, cost 2000g. So for 10k gold, you could stack five +1 enchantments. This always lead my characters to have a Keen Frost Flaming Shocking Acid Sword by around level 6 or 7, depending on how the wealth was flowing.

Man, what a slap in the face it was when I started getting my own books and really reading the rules..

[Sayt]

Total concealment doesn't make an enemy flat footed.

I...wow, you're right.

The Armour Class section and Dexterity ability section does stipulate that "If you can't react to a blow, you can't use your Dexterity bonus to AC."

So while it's not hardcoded into total concealment, it seems logical that you can't react to a blow you're not aware of. which doesn't mean the rules are clearcut, but there's certainly room for argument with a reasonable GM.

[EisenKreutzer]

I...wow, you're right.

The Armour Class section and Dexterity ability section does stipulate that "If you can't react to a blow, you can't use your Dexterity bonus to AC."

So while it's not hardcoded into total concealment, it seems logical that you can't react to a blow you're not aware of. which doesn't mean the rules are clearcut, but there's certainly room for argument with a reasonable GM.

This was my argument. It is heavily implied by the wording of the rules that a Stealth check can deny an opponent Dex to AC, which in turn sets up a Sneak Attack. It's just not explicitly written, which causes a problem if you interpret the rules strictly by RAW.

[Raven777]

Anyway, transitivity (basic logic building blocks, because essentially, rules are verbose math) still applies. If A->B AND B->C THEN A->C. If a rogue being concealed deprives its target of its Dex to AC AND being deigned its Dex to AC makes the target a valid sneak attack target THEN being a rogue being concealed from its target allows it to sneak attack.

[(Un)Inspired]

I agree that total concealment should allow for sneak attacks... It's just that according to the rules it doesn't so the transitive property doesn't really apply here

[EisenKreutzer]

I agree that total concealment should allow for sneak attacks... It's just that according to the rules it doesn't so the transitive property doesn't really apply here

The issue isn't with concealment and/or being flat footed. The issue is that making a Stealth check makes and opponent not notice you (if you beat his Spot check), and not having noticed you he is unable to see your attack coming. Not being able to see an attack coming is listed in the book as a way of being denied Dex to AC, and Sneak Attack only requires that the enemy is denied Dex to AC, not that they be flat footed.

Being flat footed is just one of the ways to lose Dex to AC.

[(Un)Inspired]

The issue isn't with concealment and/or being flat footed. The issue is that making a Stealth check makes and opponent not notice you (if you beat his Spot check), and not having noticed you he is unable to see your attack coming. Not being able to see an attack coming is listed in the book as a way of being denied Dex to AC, and Sneak Attack only requires that the enemy is denied Dex to AC, not that they be flat footed.

Being flat footed is just one of the ways to lose Dex to AC.

Well you're totally right about the flat footed front. That's my mistake. I don't, however, see anywhere in the rules that says not being able to see you opponent means you can't react to his blow. I may just being missing where it says that however.

[GoodbyeSoberDay]

To be able to "react to a blow" is not a defined game term/phrase (in PF), and therefore what qualifies is up to the DM to determine. The Air Bud method, where the rules must explicitly disagree with your interpretation to refute you, is not RAW; it's merely a (highly problematic) way to interpret holes in the rules. In reality, RAW by itself simply does not provide an answer to this question, so we must look elsewhere.

Rules As Intended by the Great and Mighty Authors, Paragons of Consistent Game Design, is one way of getting there. I actually hate this way with a passion, even if I want to play Jenga As Intended. I prefer to consider the rules as implied by the rest of the text, whether or not that implication was intended by the authors. That way you can stick to the text and be as close to RAW as possible.

With that in mind, we've pretty much established that there is no textual support explicitly saying that being hidden from your enemy makes him unable to react. There is implied support, since (1) it actually is harder to react to someone who you can't find, and (2) Invisibility provides a reasonable comparison. Is there textual support explicitly saying the opposite of this interpretation? Is there a reasonable argument which would suggest the opposite of this interpretation? If not I see no reason to default to the opposite.

[(Un)Inspired]

To be able to "react to a blow" is not a defined game term/phrase (in PF), and therefore what qualifies is up to the DM to determine. The Air Bud method, where the rules must explicitly disagree with your interpretation to refute you, is not RAW; it's merely a (highly problematic) way to interpret holes in the rules. In reality, RAW by itself simply does not provide an answer to this question, so we must look elsewhere.

Rules As Intended by the Great and Mighty Authors, Paragons of Consistent Game Design, is one way of getting there. I actually hate this way with a passion, even if I want to play Jenga As Intended. I prefer to consider the rules as implied by the rest of the text, whether or not that implication was intended by the authors. That way you can stick to the text and be as close to RAW as possible.

With that in mind, we've pretty much established that there is no textual support explicitly saying that being hidden from your enemy makes him unable to react. There is implied support, since (1) it actually is harder to react to someone who you can't find, and (2) Invisibility provides a reasonable comparison. Is there textual support explicitly saying the opposite of this interpretation? Is there a reasonable argument which would suggest the opposite of this interpretation? If not I see no reason to default to the opposite.

Seems Reasonable. As I said, I let SA happen from stealth I was just surprised that it wasn't actually a rule.

I think that there's a chance that RAI might be something one should follow. I'm not sure though and I'm not will to do it just on faith.

[atemu1234]

are you kidding? that sounds awesome. totally doing that from now on. thanks.

Especially when you play with children! Fun for the whole family!

[Ssalarn]

For simplicity i always ran animal companions as being controlled by the player of the class pretty much however they wanted; I didn't learn until recently that you actually do need tricks to control them.



Mounted combat and animal companions are basically the epicenter of players making up or assuming rules that don't exist. Think Ride checks mean you don't Handle Animal? Guess again!

Have you ever really dove into the mess that is an animal companion? Here's a few of the most commonly overlooked or unknowingly house-ruled items:

Animal companions have their own initiative. Almost everyone I've ever met houserules this away because of the difficulties it creates with things like Handle Animal checks and players wanting the animal to delay until their turn so they can buff it.

It is impossible per RAW for a character without an animal companion to ever perform a mounted charge. Charging is an attack, commanding an animal to attack requires a Handle Animal check, which is a move action, and per the most recent FAQ both the rider and the mount have to spend a charge action to perform a "mounted charge", i.e. that thing what makes your lance deal double (or triple with Spirited Charge) damage.

Celestial Servant's Spell resistance blocks your spells too! Unlike the spell resistance evolution for the Summoner's eidolon, there's no exception for the animal companion's master getting to bypass his SR built into this ability. And since there's no Handle Animal trick to tell it to lower its SR, you have to Push as a full round action (standard if it's an animal companion) so that it can take its standard action to lower its SR so you can buff/heal it.

Speaking of spell resistance, how about the fact that you have to spend a standard action every round you want to lower and keep your spell resistance lowered? I see that one get missed a lot too.

[(Un)Inspired]

Mounted combat and animal companions are basically the epicenter of players making up or assuming rules that don't exist. Think Ride checks mean you don't Handle Animal? Guess again!

Have you ever really dove into the mess that is an animal companion? Here's a few of the most commonly overlooked or unknowingly house-ruled items:

Animal companions have their own initiative. Almost everyone I've ever met houserules this away because of the difficulties it creates with things like Handle Animal checks and players wanting the animal to delay until their turn so they can buff it.

It is impossible per RAW for a character without an animal companion to ever perform a mounted charge. Charging is an attack, commanding an animal to attack requires a Handle Animal check, which is a move action, and per the most recent FAQ both the rider and the mount have to spend a charge action to perform a "mounted charge", i.e. that thing what makes your lance deal double (or triple with Spirited Charge) damage.

Celestial Servant's Spell resistance blocks your spells too! Unlike the spell resistance evolution for the Summoner's eidolon, there's no exception for the animal companion's master getting to bypass his SR built into this ability. And since there's no Handle Animal trick to tell it to lower its SR, you have to Push as a full round action (standard if it's an animal companion) so that it can take its standard action to lower its SR so you can buff/heal it.

Speaking of spell resistance, how about the fact that you have to spend a standard action every round you want to lower and keep your spell resistance lowered? I see that one get missed a lot too.

Ugh I never knew animal companions were such a nexus for unpleasant rules.

I always knew about the SR thing though. Just another reason in combat healing sucks.

[StoneCipher]

Seems Reasonable. As I said, I let SA happen from stealth I was just surprised that it wasn't actually a rule.

I think that there's a chance that RAI might be something one should follow. I'm not sure though and I'm not will to do it just on faith.

I think the better way to put it is that, in reference to playing the game, RAI is the correct way to play. D&D is immensely open ended and house rule adjustments, removals, and additions based on table preference are all ways to adjust the playing experience to fit what those specific players feel is the best way to play. Fact is, there is no best way to play, universally. However, you cannot deny that RAI is the correct way to play. You can debate on if some questionable RAW is written as intended. But if you have an ultimate answer, such as the game designer telling you how the RAI is, then there is no other alternative than to say that the RAI is the most correct way to play.

Not that anyone who makes their own rule adjustments is wrong for doing so and should be cast into a lake of lava without their ring of fire resistance 1.

[(Un)Inspired]

I think the better way to put it is that, in reference to playing the game, RAI is the correct way to play. D&D is immensely open ended and house rule adjustments, removals, and additions based on table preference are all ways to adjust the playing experience to fit what those specific players feel is the best way to play. Fact is, there is no best way to play, universally. However, you cannot deny that RAI is the correct way to play. You can debate on if some questionable RAW is written as intended. But if you have an ultimate answer, such as the game designer telling you how the RAI is, then there is no other alternative than to say that the RAI is the most correct way to play.

Not that anyone who makes their own rule adjustments is wrong for doing so and should be cast into a lake of lava without their ring of fire resistance 1.

What does it mean for something to be correct in this instance?

[StoneCipher]

What does it mean for something to be correct in this instance?

In reference to the game design, RAI is correct in every instance. Whether you agree or not with the balance of the rule is a separate matter, but the game designer's words and intentions are correct for a 100% by-the-book approach.

So, RAI is synonymous with correct in this case, but not necessarily synonymous with best.

[(Un)Inspired]

In reference to the game design, RAI is correct in every instance. Whether you agree or not with the balance of the rule is a separate matter, but the game designer's words and intentions are correct for a 100% by-the-book approach.

So, RAI is synonymous with correct in this case, but not necessarily synonymous with best.

How to we know that the correct interpretation is following RAI. What lets us know that "RAI is correct in every instance?"

You say that designers words and intension are correct for a 100% by-the-book approach but often a designers words and intentions are at odds.

I still don't understand what you mean by correct.

[StoneCipher]

How to we know that the correct interpretation is following RAI. What lets us know that "RAI is correct in every instance?"

You say that designers words and intension are correct for a 100% by-the-book approach but often a designers words and intentions are at odds.

I still don't understand what you mean by correct.

RAW is RAW, RAI is RAI. Agreeably, sometimes they disagree, but the designers do their best to update and clarify what is intended. RAW can sometimes be incorrect, but RAI is the designer's intent and is not something that is subject to correction unless they decide to change it themselves. You cannot tell the designer that they are doing their game wrong. It's their game and they will do it how they like. Therefore, their version is the most correct version of the game. Period.

To make clear, when I say RAI, I use it as a collective term that defines rules that are either explicitly redefined or clarified by WotC staff to work in a certain way. That or rules written poorly, but the intent behind the rule is overwhelmingly clear. Such as the stealth and sneak attack issue. OF COURSE the designers would allow a rogue to sneak attack when hidden.

However, for the players and GMs to define RAI themselves, could be erroneous in nature. We do not know the game designer's intent behind every written word. The fact remains though that what the writers intended is what the writers intended. As we know, they fail to make their intentions clear in some cases, but that doesn't detract from their authority on all rules. If they decide to revise PF and say "there is no more Rogue class," anyone using the rogue class from that point on would not be playing 100% correct to the book.

[(Un)Inspired]

RAW is RAW, RAI is RAI. Agreeably, sometimes they disagree, but the designers do their best to update and clarify what is intended. RAW can sometimes be incorrect, but RAI is the designer's intent and is not something that is subject to correction unless they decide to change it themselves. You cannot tell the designer that they are doing their game wrong. It's their game and they will do it how they like. Therefore, their version is the most correct version of the game. Period.

To make clear, when I say RAI, I use it as a collective term that defines rules that are either explicitly redefined or clarified by WotC staff to work in a certain way. That or rules written poorly, but the intent behind the rule is overwhelmingly clear. Such as the stealth and sneak attack issue. OF COURSE the designers would allow a rogue to sneak attack when hidden.

However, for the players and GMs to define RAI themselves, could be erroneous in nature. We do not know the game designer's intent behind every written word. The fact remains though that what the writers intended is what the writers intended. As we know, they fail to make their intentions clear in some cases, but that doesn't detract from their authority on all rules. If they decide to revise PF and say "there is no more Rogue class," anyone using the rogue class from that point on would not be playing 100% correct to the book.

We do we have to accept the creators intent as the correct interpretation?

You say, "it's their game and they what they like." What makes this correct? Why is following the rules as the creators intended to them to be the correct way? What is the nature of this word "correct" that you use?

Once you define what correctness is I want to know how it follows that the best way to interpret the rules is this "correct " way.

You keep speaking of RAW and RAI as if they were our only choices. Even if I reject your statement that RAI is the best way to play. I don't have to choose RAW.

[StoneCipher]

We do we have to accept the creators intent as the correct interpretation?

You say, "it's their game and they what they like." What makes this correct? Why is following the rules as the creators intended to them to be the correct way? What is the nature of this word "correct" that you use?

Once you define what correctness is I want to know how it follows that the best way to interpret the rules is this "correct " way.

You keep speaking of RAW and RAI as if they were our only choices. Even if I reject your statement that RAI is the best way to play. I don't have to choose RAW.

I never said RAI was the best way to play, I even said it wasn't necessarily the best way to play.

WotC are the creators of D&D content and that's what makes them correct in reference to D&D content. There is no other entity that can trump them when it comes to what they say is correct in reference to D&D content.

That's like saying you don't like the NBA rules, or that they don't make sense, so they are incorrect. The rules are the rules and until they are changed by the creators of said rules, they are correct. I don't know what else to tell you. The creator is always correct with respect to what they create even if it seems incorrect to you.

Plain and simple, when it comes to D&D content, what WotC publishes is law. It's your choice to play the game how you feel is best, but it doesn't make it more correct. It just makes it better in your opinion. Nothing wrong with that.

[(Un)Inspired]

I never said RAI was the best way to play, I even said it wasn't necessarily the best way to play.

WotC are the creators of D&D content and that's what makes them correct in reference to D&D content. There is no other entity that can trump them when it comes to what they say is correct in reference to D&D content.

That's like saying you don't like the NBA rules, or that they don't make sense, so they are incorrect. The rules are the rules and until they are changed by the creators of said rules, they are correct. I don't know what else to tell you. The creator is always correct with respect to what they create even if it seems incorrect to you.

Plain and simple, when it comes to D&D content, what WotC publishes is law. It's your choice to play the game how you feel is best, but it doesn't make it more correct. It just makes it better in your opinion. Nothing wrong with that.

Ahhh you're right about the RAI being better claim. My mistake.

I still don't understand what the connection is between being a creator and being correct.

In your NBA example I'm not saying that I dislike the rules. I'm looking at a rule that applies to NBA players and questioning what makes the way that the NBA enforces the rules it's written the correct way to enforce said rules.

What is it that makes a creators interpretation of something they wrote the correct interpretation. What is this thing "correctness"?

[Sith_Happens]

As for RAI being the best way of interpreting the rules, I don't see how that isn't obvious.

To name one of many reasons, the writers of Complete Adventurer intended Skirmish to not work while mounted.


For the longest time my group didn't know that a flaming longsword had to be at minimum a +1 flaming longsword. I was thunderstruck when I realized that for five years of playing that their bought magic weapons and armor never had even the minimum +1 bonus to support those additional enchantments... FIVE YEARS! I should have looked at their character sheets closer whenever they were given a lump of cash and told to go crazy. lol.

My 3.5 group is the opposite, we knew about that rule and immediately got rid of it for being a pointless tax. Fun fact: Martial Discipline for 2000 gp is awesome.

[Ssalarn]

To name one of many reasons, the writers of Complete Adventurer intended Skirmish to not work while mounted.


To add to that, I've seen several FAQs from Paizo where the clarification of intent meant that the rules were even more broken or disjointed than they'd seemed previously (mounted combat), or where the design team's ultimate ruling was actually different than the intent expressed by the author who'd originally written the mechanics (Titan Mauler, Sohei, and others).

Basically, stated intent is a good way to rule if it coincides with your group dynamics and nothing contradicts it, but don't let it tie you down or anything. To reference the statement of intent that started this back and forth - Jason Buhlman's quote that was linked in explaining the intent of the Stealth rules was (I'm fairly certain) referencing the Blog Post that was released around the same time which was meant to be an official rules clarification for Stealth that was too complex to fit in a simple FAQ. I've actually been begging them to do the same thing for mounted combat for some time now.

[Nightraiderx]

Tashlatora requires monk levels in order to progress the monk-like class features. :smallsigh: