Confusing Wording. Need Help

[SangoProduction]

Archetype: Sadist
http://www.d20pfsrd.com/psionics-unleashed/classes/vitalist/archetypes/dreamscarred-press/sadist

Empowered in Pain: "The member targeted by this damage ... may attempt a Will save (DC 10 + 1/2 the sadist’s class level + the vitalist’s Wisdom modifier) to negate the effect, but doing so means the power is not empowered and psionic focus is still expended."

Question: What is "doing so" supposed to refer to? Attempting the will save at all? Or is the sentence supposed to make clear that "the effect" is the empowering, and by negating the effect means the power is not empowered, even though psionic focus is still expended?

[Hunter Noventa]

Archetype: Sadist
http://www.d20pfsrd.com/psionics-unleashed/classes/vitalist/archetypes/dreamscarred-press/sadist

Empowered in Pain: "The member targeted by this damage ... may attempt a Will save (DC 10 + 1/2 the sadist’s class level + the vitalist’s Wisdom modifier) to negate the effect, but doing so means the power is not empowered and psionic focus is still expended."

Question: What is "doing so" supposed to refer to? Attempting the will save at all? Or is the sentence supposed to make clear that "the effect" is the empowering, and by negating the effect means the power is not empowered, even though psionic focus is still expended?

Given that it says 'may attempt a will save', I could only assume that doing so is attempting the will save. So to get the effect, you have to waive your will save, from the sound of it.

[SangoProduction]

Making a succesful Will save means the power is not empowered and psionic focus is still expended.

Attempting is not enough. If it was, there would be no need for a will save in the first place.

Playing devil's advocate, though I think the archetype is meh to weak, even if it is Inza's interpretation (the interpretation I personally choose to take).

There is a damage portion to this effect. Attempting the Will save is not neccesarily negating the damage, but might, by RAW, negate the benefits, and burn the psionic focus.

[Calthropstu]

Given that it says 'may attempt a will save', I could only assume that doing so is attempting the will save. So to get the effect, you have to waive your will save, from the sound of it.


Making a succesful Will save means the power is not empowered and psionic focus is still expended.

Attempting is not enough. If it was, there would be no need for a will save in the first place.

RAW, hunter looks correct. Inza looks correct RAI.
However, given the whole "collective" thing is in most cases willing participation only, I would personally go with hunter. The very act of attempting the will save would interrupt the flow of energy supposed to be gained from the ability.

[Calthropstu]

Because he will take the damage if he fails. The empower will not function regardless. "May attempt a will save but doing so causes the empower to fail" means if he attempts the act of taking the will save causes this. The proper way to word it your way would be "May attempt a will save to negate the damage but the spell will not be empowered." It's a subtle nuance but very definite.

[Psyren]

Inza is correct - "Doing so" means succeeding, not attempting. The phrase "but doing so" is referring to clause immediately preceding it - i.e. "negating the effect."


As for the Sadist itself - its true potential is designed around the mechanic of forcing bad guys into your collective (via Unwilling Participant.) You are supposed to be doing that routinely, and using them to power your other class features (also routinely). Thus they will always be attempting that save, and you will only get the free power boost from EIP if they fail. This is also why Sadist and Life Leech are compatible and combo so well together, because that archetype also wants you using UwP a lot (and in fact, gives it to you for free.)

But in a pinch (or for less scrupulous sadists), the wording also allows you to inflict this pain on an ally/minion instead to more effectively heal the others (or yourself). In other words, you can target a non-enemy creature in your collective with this and they can voluntarily fail their save (or in the case of a minion/thrall, you can order them to do so) to guarantee that you get the bonus.

Basically the wording means that if you've forced someone into your collective unwillingly, you don't automatically get free empowers from them, they get a chance to deny you the extra power (and save themselves from the associated damage.)

[Calthropstu]

Inza is correct - "Doing so" means succeeding, not attempting. The phrase "but doing so" is referring to clause immediately preceding it - i.e. "negating the effect."


As for the Sadist itself - its true potential is designed around the mechanic of forcing bad guys into your collective (via Unwilling Participant.) You are supposed to be doing that routinely, and using them to power your other class features (also routinely). Thus they will always be attempting that save, and you will only get the free power boost from EIP if they fail. This is also why Sadist and Life Leech are compatible and combo so well together, because that archetype also wants you using UwP a lot (and in fact, gives it to you for free.)

But in a pinch (or for less scrupulous sadists), the wording also allows you to inflict this pain on an ally/minion instead to more effectively heal the others (or yourself). In other words, you can target a non-enemy creature in your collective with this and they can voluntarily fail their save (or in the case of a minion/thrall, you can order them to do so) to guarantee that you get the bonus.

Basically the wording means that if you've forced someone into your collective unwillingly, you don't automatically get free empowers from them, they get a chance to deny you the extra power (and save themselves from the associated damage.)

That is certainly RAI, but not RAW. The wording is a bit wonky, but the action referred to is attempting, not making. So "doing so" (unintentionally) refers to the action "attempting" because of how english works. It's silly, yes but english is a rather silly language.

[Psyren]

That is certainly RAI, but not RAW. The wording is a bit wonky, but the action referred to is attempting, not making. So "doing so" (unintentionally) refers to the action "attempting" because of how english works. It's silly, yes but english is a rather silly language.

There is not one single interpretation of English in many cases, and certainly not here.

Mine is that "doing so" refers to "negate the effect." That is a valid reading, so you can't claim that it is not RAW.

[daryen]

The phrasing is ambiguous, and so can be read either way. However, if something can be read in two ways, and only one makes any sense, go with the one that makes sense.

[Psyren]

The phrasing is ambiguous, and so can be read either way. However, if something can be read in two ways, and only one makes any sense, go with the one that makes sense.

Simple rule, isn't it?

[Calthropstu]

Could you explain why "doing so" does not refer to "negate" but to "attempt"?
As in, how does English work here?

I'm not a native speaker, so I'm curious what you mean exactly. The examples I can find online with this same sentence structure are saying the exact opposite of what you are saying.

"May attempt" is an action, "a saving throw to negate the damage" is not. Doing so refers to an action. Psyren is wrong that this can be read two ways, although the intent is quite clear: the pain is the source of the empowerment, negating the pain negates the benefit.

[Psyren]

Psyren is wrong that this can be read two ways,

He's really not.

[Calthropstu]

He's really not.

Well, I suppose you can read it the wrong way if you want. But the correct way is to apply the doing so to the action taken by the intended victim rather than the passive portion of the sentence.
The victim is doing something: attempting a saving throw to negate the damage. That entire portion is, of itself, the action. That's what the victim does. Yes, it's poor wording, yes the intent is clear, but the intent and the wording are off.
I did like your point about the whole forced inclusion. I had forgotten about the forced inclusion so yes, an unsuccessful save should allow the empower.

[Psyren]

Well, I suppose you can read it the wrong way if you want.

That's not what ambiguity means.

[Calthropstu]

That's not what ambiguity means.

Ambiguious is when the meaning is unclear. The meaning is quite clear, as is the intent. My point is the two do not match.
As for op's question, go with the intent. The victim gets the saving throw, if he fails he takes damage and the ability is empowered.

[Psyren]

Ambiguious is when the meaning is unclear. The meaning is quite clear, as is the intent. My point is the two do not match.

I know what your point is, but you're wrong. It is unclear because it could be validly read either way.

[Calthropstu]

I know what your point is, but you're wrong. It is unclear because it could be validly read either way.

Eh, at this point continuing the argument is pointless unless we can get an English professor in here. So we disagree and move on... ultimately we both have the same advice for the op so it's all good.

[Doctor Awkward]

The member targeted by this damage cannot be the recipient of the healing and may attempt a Will save to negate the effect, but doing so means the power is not empowered and psionic focus is still expended.

Calthropsu is correct with his reading of this sentence. Structured as it is, the subject is the member targeted by the damage, and the predicate is the expended psionic focus and "not empowered" power. The verb "doing so" refers to the action of attempting a save.

This is a horribly constructed piece of text. In order to achieve the obvious intent, it needs to be written as "The member targeted by this damage cannot be the recipient of the healing and may attempt a Will save to negate the effect, but succeeding on this save means the power is not empowered and psionic focus is still expended."

[Psyren]

Calthropsu is correct with his reading of this sentence. Structured as it is, the subject is the member targeted by the damage, and the predicate is the expended psionic focus and "not empowered" power. The verb "doing so" refers to the action of attempting a save.

"You may attempt to cross this bridge, but doing so means you won't have enough gas to make it back and will need to wait for a pickup."

Both the attempt and the crossing are valid interpretations of "doing so." One makes more sense (since I can "attempt to cross" merely by driving an inch and stopping, whereas going all the way is much more likely to result in the proposed scenario), and that happens to be the one I'm going with (following daryen's simple rule) but both are valid.

[Doctor Awkward]

"You may attempt to cross this bridge, but doing so means you won't have enough gas to make it back and will need to wait for a pickup."

Both the attempt and the crossing are valid interpretations of "doing so." One makes more sense (since I can "attempt to cross" merely by driving an inch and stopping, whereas going all the way is much more likely to result in the proposed scenario), and that happens to be the one I'm going with (following daryen's simple rule) but both are valid.


That's not quite the same as what we are dealing with here.

A better example would be.

"Hey we're out of beer!"
"Well you may go to the store to purchase more beer, but doing so will cause you miss the opening kick-off."

As with the original. "going to the store to purchase beer" is the compound verb, just like "attempting a save to negate the effect."

And as in the original. the sentence is unclear as to whether just going to the store will cause you to miss the kick-off or if you also have to purchase beer while you are there. The intent is obvious, but the actual structure is still terrible and imprecise for what is supposed to be a set of instructions.

[daryen]

"May attempt" is an action, "a saving throw to negate the damage" is not. Doing so refers to an action. Psyren is wrong that this can be read two ways, although the intent is quite clear: the pain is the source of the empowerment, negating the pain negates the benefit.
There are two actions: "may attempt" and "negating the damage". The "doing so" could refer to either action. It is ambiguous, because there is nothing to indicate which of the two actions the "doing so" is trying to refer to.

(One could argue that in English, the default is to always associate with the last item that can be modified. Since the last action stated is "negate the damage", that should be what the association is. However, that rule is so loose and so commonly violated, it isn't really much of a rule.)

But, again, anytime you are reading a rule that is not clear or is ambiguous, if one reading makes sense and works and the other reading is stupid, doesn't make sense, or is broken, then just use the one that makes sense.

[Calthropstu]

There are two actions: "may attempt" and "negating the damage". The "doing so" could refer to either action. It is ambiguous, because there is nothing to indicate which of the two actions the "doing so" is trying to refer to.

(One could argue that in English, the default is to always associate with the last item that can be modified. Since the last action stated is "negate the damage", that should be what the association is. However, that rule is so loose and so commonly violated, it isn't really much of a rule.)

But, again, anytime you are reading a rule that is not clear or is ambiguous, if one reading makes sense and works and the other reading is stupid, doesn't make sense, or is broken, then just use the one that makes sense.

Negating the damage is not an action in this context as it is a part of the action taking place. It is an effect, not an action, passive not active.

[daryen]

Whichever. At least we all seem to agree what is supposed to happen, and that it was horribly written ...

[Psyren]

And as in the original. the sentence is unclear as to whether just going to the store will cause you to miss the kick-off or if you also have to purchase beer while you are there. The intent is obvious, but the actual structure is still terrible and imprecise for what is supposed to be a set of instructions.

Frankly, I couldn't care less about the "precision." My point was that you can read it in such a way that both applications of "doing so" are valid. There are a great many laws and rules that can be read in multiple ways, which is why we have judges and DMs.