PATHFINDER: Collective Debate

[kalos72]

So instead of debating on the Dreamscarred thread...


No, You're simply interpreting too much into the word itself, maybe too into the (Network) state. It is not some kind of shared WLAN with the main class being the hub, should you have multiple Collective capable classes, they each will add their own "layer" or "webbed approach".

There is ZERO mention, either way, of more than one class in a Collective with Collective abilities and trying to use them in a Collective its a member of.

Florian - You are telling me I am wrong but where is the written ruling that a Collective ability ONLY WORKS if you are the one who initiated the Collective? "His/hers" is NOT a ruling but a label...

If we want to argue INTENT, thats one thing but the RAW simply doesnt cover this scenario specifically is what I am saying.

[kalos72]

Here you go...

Why can you use a power through a Collective if it has the Network descriptor but NOT a Collective ability?

[TiaC]

So instead of debating on the Dreamscarred thread...



There is ZERO mention, either way, of more than one class in a Collective with Collective abilities and trying to use them in a Collective its a member of.

Florian - You are telling me I am wrong but where is the written ruling that a Collective ability ONLY WORKS if you are the one who initiated the Collective? "His/hers" is NOT a ruling but a label...

If we want to argue INTENT, thats one thing but the RAW simply doesnt cover this scenario specifically is what I am saying.

Abilities say what they do, they don't say what they don't do. The divine spellcasting ability doesn't say that your god won't just fix all your problems for you, it just says what the ability allows you to do. There's nothing that says that humans don't have a bite attack, there's just an absence of anything saying they do.

You have had many many people tell you that it doesn't work like that, including developers from the company that published it. You have refused to accept any answer anyone gives you. Play how you want, it's your table, but it's pretty clear that you have already decided and don't want to change your mind. So, I don't see this thread going anywhere productive.

[kalos72]

Who from Dreamscarred replied? I didnt see that one...

[Elricaltovilla]

I would be one of said developers. Was that not made apparent earlier?

[TiaC]

Both Elricaltovilla and Lord_Gareth write for Dreamscarred press.

[Lord_Gareth]

Both Elricaltovilla and Lord_Gareth write for Dreamscarred press.

I also wrote the referenced novel.

[kalos72]

No it wasn't, my apologies.

But dont you think limiting the Collective to powers that YOU initiate when you can just Network any power you want and make it work, limits the Collectives usefulness?

[Elricaltovilla]

No it wasn't, my apologies.

But dont you think limiting the Collective to powers that YOU initiate when you can just Network any power you want and make it work, limits the Collectives usefulness?

No, it doesn't. Nesting collectives still allows you to communicate near instantaneously all through your army, something literally impossible even today. That level of coordination and information control is the greatest strength a military force can hope for.

There are a lot of tricks that can be done, but because you've persisted in denying the correct information people have been telling you, it's been exceptionally difficult to give you any meaningful advice.

[Rhedyn]

I think you are making a lot of good points, but at the end of the day this incomplete reasoning can only allow me to conclude that you are wrong.

Please clarify yourself.

[kalos72]

Well, knowing you guys are designers I feel like a bit of an ass. But... :)

I will always so say I LOVE the Dreamscarred works, it gave my game new life and I appreciate all the hard work those fine people have committed to a great a product.

IMHO, nothing I have asked is wrong as in there is a RAW line that counters my question and I have never said anyone ELSE is wrong, I have simply countered. Someone telling me it doesnt work that way but not being able to provide a RAW reference isn't exactly compelling if you are looking for the creative solution.

There is NO rule written in any book that I have found that says multiple Collective classes cant use their own Collective abilities within the same Collective. ALL the abilities are worded coming from the specific class description you are reading at the time.

I understand that YOU as a developer of the product have an insight to the intention of the ability, but I see a loophole to exploit with no RAW that counters it. Maybe thats my own downfall here...

We all know there are MANY spells/powers that have been used in undefined, unintended ways to come up with currently accepted solutions.

But since I appear to be making no headway AND making myself look like an ass to the community. so I will let it go. I am surprised that debate has been looked at here with such animosity lately... in my eyes debate is always a good thing.



Can an admin lock this thread pls?

[Florian]

kalos, and this is where your totally and absolutely wrong. The whole d20 framework is based on a permissive model, meaning "nope until explicit yes is given", so it is a total waste of space to explicitly forbid something, because that means it must normally be allowed, which is simply not the case. You don't have to look for tapping into a Collective being disallowed, when the whole game design is such the it must be explicitly allowed in the first place.

[kalos72]

Sorry but maybe thats the problem. I dont play a straight Pathfinder/Dreamscarred press game. I play a mix of everything in a FR somewhat 3.5ish world. We allow most everything but started back when Forgotten Realms was new....

Many many smarter people here have found creative ways to use spells/powers that were never in the description. I BELIEVE its always been thought of as "if it doesnt explicitly say it can't, maybe it can" more so then "if its not explicitly allowed, its not."

Perhaps thats a d20 change in perception...IDK.

[Andor13]

Sorry but maybe thats the problem. I dont play a straight Pathfinder/Dreamscarred press game. I play a mix of everything in a FR somewhat 3.5ish world. We allow most everything but started back when Forgotten Realms was new....

Many many smarter people here have found creative ways to use spells/powers that were never in the description. I BELIEVE its always been thought of as "if it doesnt explicitly say it can't, maybe it can" more so then "if its not explicitly allowed, its not."

Perhaps thats a d20 change in perception...IDK.

It's really a 3.X thing. In earlier D&D it was clear that the rules didn't even attempt to model the whole of reality. So everything not spelled out in the rules was basically negotiated at the table with the GM. 3.X was, by far, the most "simulationist" edition of D&D. Since everything was so spelled out and codified there was a general shift in perception that everything you could do was in the rules already. And then this got worse as the edition went on and every corner case action that a GM might have let you get away with wound up being codified in, and locked behind, a feat or obscure class ability.

4e shifted everything to a generic stunt system, IIRC. And 5e is back to the "negotiate with the GM" model.

In this particular case, you have a slightly unclear ability, but when you have the actual devs telling you that's not how it works, there is no real point to trying to argue. Now, as they keep telling you, you can run it however you want, but it is a house rule. Hell, it's a house rule that only touches three classes, so pretty minor as such things go. Even if the didn't comment it's pretty clearly in "Squint hard and maybe you can see it" territory which is always a DM call anyway.

[kalos72]

Agreed Andor.

All this argument would have been solved if I had thought of simply having both Collective capable players, create their own Collectives and including the other. Then both have their own Collective, they could use whatever abilities they wanted on each other. There is no limit, again in RAW, to the number of Collectives you can be a part of.

Sad it took me to figure that out after days of arguing with folks and getting insulted...all I was looking for was a creative solution to an unclear ability.

/done