Pathfinder Is Still Bad

[Rawbeard]

I for one, am totally puzzled by the people who apparently think it is possible to not be a member of your own alliance. An ally is a member of an alliance. Your allies are members of your alliance. How could you possibly not be your own ally? It doesn't make any fucking sense.

-Username17

You are the mysterious stranger, too cool for school, a loner by desing. Like Wolverine, member of every team ever. Might also be a hipster thing. "Yeah, being part of my alliance is way mainstream, pass"

[Nebuchadnezzar]

Speaking of hidden changes, Eldritch Knight and Mystic Theurge can be entered a lot earlier now. Here's the ruling:

http://paizo.com/paizo/faq/v5748nruor1fm#v5748eaic9qow

So you can go Fighter 1/Scryer Wizard 1/Eldritch Knight +. This is actually a positive change, but if you read the ruling it doesn't appear that it was intentional.

I'm curious as to how to do this with MT, just in case I ever need to shit on a PF game. I don't know if "Able to cast 2nd-level divine spells and 2nd-level arcane spells" allows higher than 2nd level effects to count in their half-assed system. Assuming that it does, it looks like wizard1(teleportation/scryer/controller/manipulator) / Cleric 1(exploration/trickery/deception) /X1 would work. Those were the only schools/domains that explicitly listed an effect available at 1st level as being like another spell. I didn't notice any applicable ACFs or Archetypes, but waning interest made it a pretty cursory examination.

[Dean]

When you get to this level of linguistic bullshit separate from game terminology

It's not bullshit though. It's the common sense definition of that word in the language that word is written in. Because ally is never used to mean oneself in common english it is reasonable to assume it wouldn't mean that in your game's terminology. It is perfectly acceptable to correct that assumption and say that for the purposes of Koumei's Heartbreaker you count as your own ally but you would need to make that distinction because as Cyberzombie says that is not the usual useage of that word.

[Koumei]

Actually, I think it might depend on which word came first. If Ally derives from Alliance, then yes, any member of an alliance is an ally, so actually you are your own ally as you are a member of your alliance. If Alliance derives from Ally, then probably not, because an alliance would be "the thing formed by you and your allies".

It's still clearly best to just have all of your characters be from Britain, circa 1945.

[Dean]

It doesn't really matter which word derives from which. It's about the common sense definitions of the word actually being used. If a spell said "Everyone in your alliance gains +4 to saves" then we would talk about the word alliance which seems more sensibly to include the caster of the spell. Ally definitely CAN be defined as including you too, that's not a question, but just assuming people would automatically interpret it that way goes against the common useage of the word.

[Fuchs]

Escape Route (Teamwork)
You have trained to watch your allies' backs, covering them as they make tactical withdraws.

Benefit: An ally who also has this feat provokes no attacks of opportunity for moving through squares adjacent to you or within your space.

If they meant the feat to apply to yourself, then the text makes no sense whatsever. The benefits mentioned only apply to someone who "also has this feat" - someone who would not need you to avoid AoOs if he counted as his own ally.

[Rawbeard]

I am not sure you understand this feat.

[Username17]

Escape Route is simply a terribly written feat no matter what. If it doesn't apply to yourself, the feat is worthless beyond belief or understanding, since it costs multiple feats on multiple characters and almost never comes up as it is difficult to even construct a scenario where you would want to move through those particular squares and would be in melee threat while doing so and you couldn't accomplish roughly the same thing with a 5' step. If it does apply to yourself, then all the ranting about teamwork is pointless, because anyone who qualifies to use your squares also makes their own.

Either way, there's no possible world where the feat is well written, so I don't see it as much of an argument for anything.

It's the common sense definition of that word in the language that word is written in. Because ally is never used to mean oneself in common english it is reasonable to assume it wouldn't mean that in your game's terminology.

That's not true. When you talk about "the allies", you're one of them. The word "ally" always includes you, but when used as a singular it implies that you are talking about someone else. But you still always are your own ally, because your allies are everyone on your own team, which naturally always includes you.

When you say "the allies are invading Albania", there is no implication that you aren't invading Albania. Yes, if you were personally doing something, it would be very weird (though technically correct) to say "one of my allies is doing this thing", but that's because there isn't normally any reason to say it that way, not because you aren't your own ally. It's way weirder to claim that you're not your own ally, especially in the "us vs. them" mindset of D&D.

Or to put it another way: there are only three types of creatures: enemies, allies, and neutral parties. Which category is least linguistically weird for you to be a member of?

-Username17

[DSMatticus]

That's not true. When you talk about "the allies", you're one of them. The word "ally" always includes you, but when used as a singular it implies that you are talking about someone else.

You are not going to find a major/relevant dictionary that thinks you can be your own ally. It's not a membership boolean. You are not an ally because you are part of an alliance, you are an ally to another because you are in the same alliance. It is a word that takes two to tango. The Allies, in the few circumstances where it is appropriate to use that terminology at all, refers to a specific group that happens to use that title. John Hanson is a member of The Hanson Brothers, but that doesn't make him his own brother.

there are only three types of creatures: enemies, allies, and neutral parties.

You're begging the question. If we assume that enemies, allies, and neutral parties are only three types of creatures, then we have already assumed that allies includes you. If we refuse to assume that allies includes you, then your premise about enemies, allies, and neutral parties being the only three types of creatuers is obviously not true: you've already listed three types and there exists at least one creature outside of all of them. You tried to set up a "positive towards you"/"neutral towards you"/"antagonistic towards you" sort of thing that would cover the full spectrum of how people might feel about you (solid), assumed that you would be positive towards yourself (solid), and then assumed that ally meant only "positive towards you" (not solid, that's exactly the definition of ally you set out to prove).

P.S. Escape Route is a shitty feat and that has nothing to do with anything. It's an example of a feat that is not supposed to include 'you' in 'your allies,' for whatever that's worth.

P.P.S yes, you can obviously declare "your allies" to mean whatever you want for your game. Language police won't show up and beat you with dictionaries. I'd probably go with "your allies" to include you unless noted otherwise as short hand, and put it in the glossary of terms defining it as such, but doing the opposite is equally as valid.

[Username17]

You are not going to find a major/relevant dictionary that thinks you can be your own ally.

Oh for fuck's sake, let me google that for you.

That sentence is a normal English phrase. It has a completely natural and understood meaning, because it's a normal use of the fucking word.

-Username17

[Red_Rob]

That sentence is a normal English phrase. It has a completely natural and understood meaning, because it's a normal use of the fucking word.

I'm sure you could get a lot of google hits for "you are your own worst enemy", that doesn't really prove anything.

To me, enemy and ally are both meaningless terms without reference to another external entity. Enemy or ally of what? That alone suggests that a particular creature cannot be their own ally or enemy as it becomes a circular reference.

Of course, in a game you can have the terms mean whatever you want as long as you define them beforehand. But at first blush I would lean away from "ally" referencing the acting party.

On a side note does this mean that RAI the Marshall gives himself all his own bonuses?

[Username17]

I'm sure you could get a lot of google hits for "you are your own worst enemy", that doesn't really prove anything.

Yes it does. It proves that it is linguistically possible to be your own enemy. Which is good, because under 4th edition rules you are.

On a side note does this mean that RAI the Marshall gives himself all his own bonuses?

Yes. Because "no self buffs" is shitty design.

-Username17

[Kaelik]

On a side note does this mean that RAI the Marshall gives himself all his own bonuses?

No, it means that RAW the Marshal gives himself all his own bonuses.

[ScottS]

Escape Route is simply a terribly written feat no matter what. If it doesn't apply to yourself, the feat is worthless beyond belief or understanding, since it costs multiple feats on multiple characters

PF teamwork feats are pretty terrible for exactly that reason (although I have seen one or two cases of people talking about taking them). I don't know how they've evolved in PF over time, but they're essentially class features now. There are classes (e.g. inquisitor) that not only get them as bonus feats, but also have "pretend that your allies have the same teamwork feats as you do, for purposes of using them on yourself" spelled out as a separate feature.

When you say "the allies are invading Albania", there is no implication that you aren't invading Albania.

I don't really want to engage in this argument at all, but "Your allies are invading Albania" has the strong implication of "not you". (just thought it was funny)

[virgil]

http://www.d20pfsrd.com/bestiary/monste ... very-young

Huh, just noticed this. They got rid of the cooldown on a dragon's breath weapon.

[hogarth]

http://www.d20pfsrd.com/bestiary/monste ... very-young

Huh, just noticed this. They got rid of the cooldown on a dragon's breath weapon.

Nope. They just put it in the general dragon rules in the Bestiary:

Breath Weapon (Su): Using a breath weapon is a standard action. A dragon can use its breath weapon once every 1d4 rounds, even if it possesses more than one breath weapon. A breath weapon always starts at an intersection adjacent to the dragon and extends in a direction of the dragon's choice. Breath weapons come in two shapes, lines and cones, whose areas vary with the dragon's size. If a breath weapon deals damage, those caught in the area can attempt Reflex saves to take half damage. The save DC against a breath weapon is 10 + 1/2 dragon's HD + dragon's Con modifier. Saves against various breath weapons use the same DC; the type of saving throw is noted in the variety descriptions. A dragon can use its breath weapon when it is grappling or being grappled.

There are things that got dropped from 3.5 to Pathfinder (like the ability to damage swarms with flaming swords, for instance), but that's not one of them.

[Cyberzombie]

When you get to this level of linguistic bullshit separate from game terminology, you may as well say your character is from the British military of 1945, therefore is in fact one of The Allies, and very much definitely an ally, always. Thus people who quibble about English language (and not game definitions) can shut up and let you benefit from your own effects.

Ally and enemy are bullshit loaded words anyway, and should be avoided as mechanical terms in an RPG. It starts all kinds of fights about if the effect can see through a doppelganger's disguise, or at what point the doppelganger is considered an enemy if he plans to cut your throat as you sleep.

From a design standpoint, why bother with all that bullshit when you can simply have a selective targeting spell. That solves all your problems without getting into the semantics arguments of ally/enemy. Everyone knows what: up to 8 targets of your choice means.

[virgil]

But, why take it out of the stat block itself, requiring either system mastery or longer time of use to flip back to the dragon section to know this fact?

[hogarth]

But, why take it out of the stat block itself, requiring either system mastery or longer time of use to flip back to the dragon section to know this fact?

There's literally a zillion things in a dragon stat block that require you to look them up. What's one more?

Presumably the idea is that you can get smaller stat blocks by only spelling out the information that differs from one dragon to another (e.g. the range of a dragon's frightful presence varies, but the fact that it panics creatures with 4 or less hit dice doesn't). But, as you note, compact stat blocks are somewhat useless when you just have to manually expand them again.

[Kaelik]

Also by moving it, they secretly nerfed Dragons in a way that most people will never notice or play with, thus further compounding the bullshit that is playing Pathfinder.

[jadagul]

The fight about the meaning of the word "ally" is obviously silly in English; in some contexts you're included and in some you're not. ("All your allies have declared war; when will you?")

What's not silly is Voss's original point, which is that if "ally" is going to be a game term, you need to pick one at the beginning and stick to it. 4e actually did this. The results were poorly thought out, but at least they're consistent and you can figure out what the rules actually say. The ruling "you count as "one of your allies" except when you don't, and we're not going to tell you when that is" is really, really bad.

[DSMatticus]

You are not going to find a major/relevant dictionary that thinks you can be your own ally.

Oh for fuck's sake, let me google that for you.

That sentence is a normal English phrase. It has a completely natural and understood meaning, because it's a normal use of the fucking word.

-Username17

Yeah, that is not compelling at all. When someone says "pot, meet kettle," they are not suggesting that it is "linguistically possible" for a human being to be a pot or a kettle. You cannot use idioms and memes (especially not empty self-improvement BS) to make a point. So instead of trying to dig up cute phrases to lmgtfy so you can smugface as though you'd done anything other than herped urp derp, how about you spend that time googling real definitions of the word?

a state formally cooperating with another for a military or other purpose, typically by treaty.

a country that supports and helps another country in a war
a person or group that gives help to another person or group

a person, group, or nation that is associated with another or others for some common cause or purpose

The verbs are the same. The etymology of ally is 'to bind to'. You are always an ally to something else that is not you (another). If you are claiming that your allies includes you, you are claiming that you can be an ally to yourself, and that is simply not consistent with the definition of 'ally' or 'another'.

Seriously, why is this so difficult? It's not a prescriptive statement about what the abilities should do or what terminology you should use, and your desire to try and carve out a linguistic justification for including yourself in the set of your allies is both stupidly wrong and unnecessary. Voss came down with a case of stick-up-butt-itis of the English nazi substrain and got upset that including you didn't make linguistic sense, and telling him 'shut up nobody cares' is totally appropriate. Instead, we ended up with a brief competition to see who could say the stupidest thing. I personally feel the medal goes to Kaelik for "blah blah blah language because game balance oh fuck that's a non-sequitur but what if you have a shitty editor" and "there are never abilities that would work on your allies but not you okay that's one but clearly that one should say 'your allies but not you' okay that's two but that one sucks".

[Kaelik]

I personally feel the medal goes to Kaelik for "blah blah blah language because game balance oh fuck that's a non-sequitur but what if you have a shitty editor" and "there are never abilities that would work on your allies but not you okay that's one but clearly that one should say 'your allies but not you' okay that's two but that one sucks".

Umm... What? Can you read?

1) I never said anything about game balance, or language except to say that it doesn't matter, and both times I said the ability is not actually better in any way excluding the person who has it, even if you want to file the second complaint under sucks, the first complaint I literally said that it shouldn't exclude you.

[DSMatticus]

I'm not really going to get into it (edit: except then I do, fuck. THIS IS IT, I SWEAR). I watched this discussion, and the unblinking determination with which you stepped out onto limbs that couldn't possibly support the weight of your bullshit on a tree soaked in gasoline carrying a match with a tornado full of sharks bearing down on you was... just downright terrifying. But the fact that you managed to start bitching about people not getting their aura bonuses in your first response to Voss is kind of... telling. That doesn't factor into the linguistic argument. It is not relevant. It cannot be made relevant. People getting their aura bonuses is completely and 100% compatible with everything Voss said. You can quibble about whether the non-sequitur starts with the aura bonuses or the contentious claim that no ability can exist which should exclude the user, but none of these really affect the debate on what the correct terminology should be (it doesn't matter either way, pick one and go with it) or whether or not they should undertake a massive editing project (they shouldn't that's dumb).

You can't get where you got without missing an exit.

[Kaelik]

But the fact that you managed to start bitching about people not getting their aura bonuses in your first response to Voss is kind of... telling.

Yes, it is telling of the fact that whether or not you arbitrarily declare that the baseline could only ever be that allies doesn't include you means that you are more likely to make mistakes that deprive people of bonuses than give them ones they shouldn't have.

Since one of those is a problem and the other is not, it makes perfect sense to declare the default to be the one with no problems.