Paizo Top Nav Branding
  • Hello, Guest! |
  • Sign In |
  • My Account |
  • Shopping Cart |
  • Help/FAQ
About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game
Pathfinder Society

Pathfinder Beginner Box

Pathfinder Adventure Card Game

Pathfinder Comics

Pathfinder Legends

The FAQ That Time Forgot

Tuesday, September 11, 2012

Every once and a while I like to take a break from my current design challenges to tackle some frequently asked questions from our files. We've got some bigger issues to tackle soon, but these are a start.

Ultimate Combat seems to imply that the Totem Warrior archetype (from the Advanced Player's Guide) allows you to take more than one type of totem rage powers. Is this an erratum for the Totem Warrior archetype?

No, the line in Ultimate Combat is in error. We will get that fixed in the next printing. Until then, the restriction on only taking totem rage powers from one group remains in place.

When you cast a spell that allows you to make a ranged touch attack, such as scorching ray, and an enemy is within reach, do you provoke two attacks of opportunity?

Yes, you provoke two attacks of opportunity, one for casting the spell and one for making a ranged attack, since these are two separate events. As a note, since all of the rays are fired simultaneously (in the case of scorching ray), you would only provoke one attack of opportunity for making the ranged attack, even if you fired more than one ray.

The Greater Trip feat allows you to take an attack of opportunity against a foe that you trip. The Vicious Stomp feat allows you to take an attack of opportunity against a foe that falls prone adjacent to you. If you have both these feats and trip a foe, do you get to make two attacks of opportunity (assuming that you can)?

Yes, the two triggering acts are similar here but they are different. One occurs when you trip a foe. The other occurs when a foe falls prone. It requires a large number of feats to accomplish, but you can really pile on the attacks with this combination.

Does the ring of continuation (Ultimate Equipment, page 168) allow you to cast time stop with a duration of 24 hours?

This item has had some unintended consequences and needs a fix. Change the second sentence of the description to read as follows: "Whenever the wearer of the ring casts a spell with a range of personal and a duration of 10 minutes per level or greater, that spell remains in effect for 24 hours or until the wearer casts another spell with a range of personal (whichever comes first)."

Charm person makes a humanoid "friendly" to you, as per the rules found in the Diplomacy skill, but it also allows you to issue orders to the target, making an opposed Charisma check to convince the target to do something that it would not normally do. How does that work?

The charm person spell (and charm monster by extension) makes the target your friend. It will treat you kindly (although maybe not your allies) and will generally help you as long as your interests align. This is mostly in the purview of the GM. If you ask the creature to do something that it would not normally do (in relation to your friendship), that is when the opposed Charisma check comes into play. For example, if you use charm person to befriend an orc, the orc might share his grog with you and talk with you about the upcoming raid on a nearby settlement. If you asked him to help you fight some skeletons, he might very well lend a hand. If you asked him to help you till a field, however, you might need to make that check to convince him to do it.

That about wraps it up for this week. Keep those questions coming.

Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer

More Paizo Blog.
Tags: Frequently Asked Questions Pathfinder Roleplaying Game
101 to 150 of 202 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>

A question on tripping and greater trip (in regards to the v. stomp ruling):

If a successful trip is a different opportunity from the opponent falls prone (rather than a potentially overlapping one), then I wonder: can I attempt to trip on the AOO from a successful greater trip?

Again if success in the trip is, say, winning the opposed roll, and unrelated to causing the opponent to fall prone, then one can 'successfully' trip prone foes or those 'tripped but not yet prone' (should the later exist).

This seems wrong offhand, and easily leading to generating a large number of AOOs in a given round.

Could you explain how being successfully tripped differs from falling prone? Certainly there are cases when one happens when the other doesn't, but how are these separate opportunities when they do overlap?

And are we to allow a series of greater trips as long as DEX and combat reflexes hold out?

Likewise, on the AOO generated from 'being tripped' is the victim considered to be prone for this, or are they in the process of falling?

-James


2 people marked this as FAQ candidate.

Question on Paladin using scrolls at levels 1-3. I've seen this brought up before. Reading the requirements for scroll use, level 1 Paladin meets the requirements:

1. Scroll is Divine.
2. Scroll is on the spell list.
3. Paladin has the necessary ability modifier.

The bases for most objections is this section:

"If the user meets all the requirements noted above, and her caster level is at least equal to the spell's caster level, she can automatically activate the spell without a check. If she meets all three requirements but her own caster level is lower than the scroll spell's caster level, then she has to make a caster level check (DC = scroll's caster level + 1) to cast the spell successfully. If she fails, she must make a DC 5 Wisdom check to avoid a mishap (see Scroll Mishaps)."

Most people assume not having a caster level precludes a caster level check and this indirectly prevents a Paladin from using a scroll at Level 1. However, that's not stated or implied in RAW. In fact, one can just as easily argue that RAI results in a level 1-3 Paladin having an effective caster level of 0 when it comes to making the check. As an analogy, you need a waterskin to store water, if you don't have one, then the amount of water you have is 0 for any equation that is based on the amount of water you are carrying.

The critical issue here is that it would have been trivial for both WotC or Paizo to simply say you must have a CL=1 or greater to use a scroll. But that specifically was not done. Based on the stated requirements, it would appear that the authors intended for Paladins to be able to use scrolls at level 1.

Granted, maybe the authors really did want to preclude LVL 1 Paladins from using scrolls...but RAW doesn't seem to preclude it without an making an assumption that's never stated.


I think they are basically the same, but due to the wording of the abilities one triggers on the success of the trip, and the other triggers once you back touches the ground.

Osirion

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

At level 4, as a Paladin, are you CL1? or CL4? Caster levels in Pathfinder are "Your levels in a spellcasting class". A paladin is a spellcasting class. At level 4 it is CL 4. Therefore at level 1 it is CL1.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

Stratagemini wrote:
At level 4, as a Paladin, are you CL1? or CL4? Caster levels in Pathfinder are "Your levels in a spellcasting class". A paladin is a spellcasting class. At level 4 it is CL 4. Therefore at level 1 it is CL1.
The Core rules on Paladins, right where you'd expect this info to be, wrote:
Through 3rd level, a paladin has no caster level. At 4th level and higher, her caster level is equal to her paladin level – 3.

This also answers the scroll question: the paladin doesn't have a CL of 0, she simply has no CL at all.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Jiggy wrote:
Stratagemini wrote:
At level 4, as a Paladin, are you CL1? or CL4? Caster levels in Pathfinder are "Your levels in a spellcasting class". A paladin is a spellcasting class. At level 4 it is CL 4. Therefore at level 1 it is CL1.
The Core rules on Paladins, right where you'd expect this info to be, wrote:
Through 3rd level, a paladin has no caster level. At 4th level and higher, her caster level is equal to her paladin level – 3.
This also answers the scroll question: the paladin doesn't have a CL of 0, she simply has no CL at all.

And since she doesn't have a caster level (not even 0!), then I suppose the question is highly similar to asking if a mindless undead with - Int can make Intelligence checks.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Maps, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Tripping is not falling prone.

Tripping is a deliberate action.

To fall prone is a result.

Cause VS effect.

Adjective VS verb.

Totally different things.


Jiggy wrote:
Stratagemini wrote:
At level 4, as a Paladin, are you CL1? or CL4? Caster levels in Pathfinder are "Your levels in a spellcasting class". A paladin is a spellcasting class. At level 4 it is CL 4. Therefore at level 1 it is CL1.
The Core rules on Paladins, right where you'd expect this info to be, wrote:
Through 3rd level, a paladin has no caster level. At 4th level and higher, her caster level is equal to her paladin level – 3.
This also answers the scroll question: the paladin doesn't have a CL of 0, she simply has no CL at all.

The question is whether one can infer an effective caster level of zero _for this function_. There's nothing in the rules I have seen which precludes this. In fact, there is a Rules of the Game archive where Skip Williams says says exactly that under the Spell Completion portion: the "effective" caster level is zero.

For years, people have chosen to interpret not having a caster level as precluding scroll use. But the rules don't say that. Every stated requirement is met.

Andoran

Pathfinder Comics Subscriber; Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Card Game, Companion, Modules, Pawns, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
N N 959 wrote:
For years, people have chosen to interpret not having a caster level as precluding scroll use. But the rules don't say that. Every stated requirement is met.

So my Int 13 fighter can use a scroll of enlarge person? Good to know!


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Everyone knows that Paladins can't use scrolls. You need to be able to read the scroll and they have their heads too far up their rear ends, and it's dark in there, them being the "radiant light of heaven" or not.

Duh.


Shisumo wrote:
N N 959 wrote:
For years, people have chosen to interpret not having a caster level as precluding scroll use. But the rules don't say that. Every stated requirement is met.

So my Int 13 fighter can use a scroll of enlarge person? Good to know!

Is that spell on his "spell list"?


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

In seriousness, I wouldn't mind hearing a dev comment on this, although it is...extremely esoteric.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

N N 959 wrote:
The question is whether one can infer an effective caster level of zero _for this function_. There's nothing in the rules I have seen which precludes this.

The only rules text regarding a 1st-level paladin's CL is the passage stating she doesn't have one at all. To contradict that for any purpose is not "inferring" anything, it's making things up and then saying "but the rules don't say I can't".

If the only place the rules mention it is to say it doesn't exist, then it doesn't exist. You don't get to make up situations where suddenly that rule doesn't apply.

Quote:
For years, people have chosen to interpret not having a caster level as precluding scroll use. But the rules don't say that. Every stated requirement is met.

Is it?

Rules on scrolls wrote:
If she meets all three requirements but her own caster level is lower than the scroll spell's caster level

A non-existent number can't be lower than anything.

Since a 1st-level paladin doesn't have a CL, she doesn't meet the "at least the scroll's CL" situation and therefore can't activate it without a check. She also doesn't fit into the "CL is less than the scroll's CL" category, and therefore can't make a CL check to activate it.

Since no other option other than UMD is given for scroll activation, it's case closed.


N N 959 wrote:
Jiggy wrote:
Stratagemini wrote:
At level 4, as a Paladin, are you CL1? or CL4? Caster levels in Pathfinder are "Your levels in a spellcasting class". A paladin is a spellcasting class. At level 4 it is CL 4. Therefore at level 1 it is CL1.
The Core rules on Paladins, right where you'd expect this info to be, wrote:
Through 3rd level, a paladin has no caster level. At 4th level and higher, her caster level is equal to her paladin level – 3.
This also answers the scroll question: the paladin doesn't have a CL of 0, she simply has no CL at all.

The question is whether one can infer an effective caster level of zero _for this function_. There's nothing in the rules I have seen which precludes this. In fact, there is a Rules of the Game archive where Skip Williams says says exactly that under the Spell Completion portion: the "effective" caster level is zero.

For years, people have chosen to interpret not having a caster level as precluding scroll use. But the rules don't say that. Every stated requirement is met.

The differientiates between a 0 and -. "-" means the subject is nonexistent in game terms, and it common that until you have a caster level of 1 that you don't have a caster level at all. If the paladin or ranger is a special case then a rules or dev quote should be provided.

"No caster level" seems to fall more line with non-existent than "0".


Cheapy wrote:
In seriousness, I wouldn't mind hearing a dev comment on this, although it is...extremely esoteric.

The thing with something like this is that it's like proving the Earth is round when everyone insist its flat. There's been probably a decade of people who have inserted a caster level requirement into scroll use where none exists.

I did a search on the forums for this and I found one person who came to the same conclusion I did and all get was the same response ad nauseum: "no caster level is not a caster level of 0."

Really? Where does it say that? No where. In fact, if someone does not have any of an item, they are mathematically considered to have zero. The caster level check is an OOC check and there's no precedent not to infer the effective level is zero for the check.


"A non-existent number can't be lower than anything."

That's a disanalogy.

1. There is no requirement to have a caster level.

2. The lack of a caster level means something is not present. It does not mean it is undefined. If an amount of something is not present, mathematically, it is zero when factored into an equation.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

Hey everybody, want to know why it takes so long to get one of these FAQ posts to come along and clear up legitimate issues?


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Actually, in PFRPG, 0 is not the same as null.

You can see that proof here, namely these lines:

Quote:
A character with an Intelligence score of 0 is comatose. Some creatures do not possess an Intelligence score. Their modifier is +0 for any Intelligence-based skills or checks.

Mindless creatures aren't comatose, so there's a difference between Int 0 and Int -.

Although I guess that does answer my mindless undead question, hmm.

I wonder if the "modifier is +0 for any Intelligence-based skills or checks" is a general statement, which would mean despite not having an Intelligence score or in this case caster level, they would still be use scrolls?

I noticed that Wisdom doesn't have that text saying they get +0. Dex doesn't either, but that one is kind of obvious. You need to move to do Dex checks...

Andoran

Pathfinder Comics Subscriber; Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Card Game, Companion, Modules, Pawns, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
N N 959 wrote:
1. There is no requirement to have a caster level.

If you have no caster level, you are not a caster. That is, in fact, what having a caster level means. Having a "caster level" is equivalent to having levels in a spellcasting class. A paladin with 1-3 levels has no levels in a casting class, and thus cannot cast spells any more than a fighter can. In fact, the PRD specifically says "This is the case even for a character who can't actually cast spells, such as a 3rd-level paladin."

N N 959 wrote:
2. The lack of a caster level means something is not present. It does not mean it is undefined. If an amount of something is not present, mathematically, it is zero when factored into an equation.

Do you actually know what happens when you put an undefined variable into an equation? I'll give you a hint: it's not treated as a zero.


Hey Shisu,

You didn't answer my question of whether Enlarge Person was on your 13 INT Fighter's spell list?

1. Caster level is not a requirement to use scroll. So whether having caster levels is necessary to be a spell caster is irrelevant for whether or not you can use a scroll. Here, let me repeat the requirement to use scrolls and you tell me where it says you have to be able to cast spells or "be a spell caster"

"To have any chance of activating a scroll spell, the scroll user must meet the following requirements.

The spell must be of the correct type (arcane or divine). Arcane spellcasters (wizards, sorcerers, and bards) can only use scrolls containing arcane spells, and divine spellcasters (clerics, druids, paladins, and rangers) can only use scrolls containing divine spells. (The type of scroll a character creates is also determined by his class.)
The user must have the spell on her class list.
The user must have the requisite ability score."

2. Where does it say the caster level is "undefined?" Here's a hint. That's a word people have inserted to describe what they think it means when you don't have a caster level. The question is whether one can have an effective caster level for using scrolls. Show me where it say you can't?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

I think people are getting too worked up over flimsy pieces of magical paper.


Quote:
Some creatures do not possess an Intelligence score. Their modifier is +0 for any Intelligence-based skills or checks.

Thank you. This pretty much nails it. A creature without an intelligence score is treated as having a modifier of 0.

Ergo, a creature without caster levels can be treated as having a 0.

The effective modifier is 0 in both cases.

Thanks for providing that Cheapy.

Andoran

Pathfinder Comics Subscriber; Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Card Game, Companion, Modules, Pawns, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

If I may quote your quote...

Quote:
Arcane spellcasters (wizards, sorcerers, and bards) can only use scrolls containing arcane spells, and divine spellcasters (clerics, druids, paladins, and rangers) can only use scrolls containing divine spells.

A paladin of between 1st and 3rd level is not a spellcaster, and thus cannot use scrolls.

As for the fighter, sure! It's on the list of his nonexistent wizard levels. Easy! What's that? He's not allowed to use his nonexistent wizard levels? Why not? He has exactly as many levels in that casting class as the 1st-3rd level paladin does in her casting class.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Post on this topic is here.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
N N 959 wrote:
Quote:
Some creatures do not possess an Intelligence score. Their modifier is +0 for any Intelligence-based skills or checks.

Thank you. This pretty much nails it. A creature without an intelligence score is treated as having a modifier of 0.

Ergo, a creature without caster levels can be treated as having a 0.

The effective modifier is 0 in both cases.

Thanks for providing that Cheapy.

Still looking for that connection in the rules, as that doesn't hold true for all ability scores as I noted :)


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Paizo Superscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Deluxe Comics Subscriber
Cheapy wrote:
I think people are getting too worked up over flimsy pieces of magical paper.

It makes a change from hearing about monks.


N N 959 wrote:
Quote:
Some creatures do not possess an Intelligence score. Their modifier is +0 for any Intelligence-based skills or checks.

Thank you. This pretty much nails it. A creature without an intelligence score is treated as having a modifier of 0.

Ergo, a creature without caster levels can be treated as having a 0.

The effective modifier is 0 in both cases.

Thanks for providing that Cheapy.

That is incorrect. An as example if you look at the paladin's spellcasting chart he gets a 0 at some points, and a - at others. The "-" means he has no spellcasting ability concerning a certain spell level. The "0" which is an actual number has value.

Using set notation 0 and nothing also are not the same thing. So by PF rules and the mathematical rules you are incorrect.


Shisumo wrote:

If I may quote your quote...

Quote:
Arcane spellcasters (wizards, sorcerers, and bards) can only use scrolls containing arcane spells, and divine spellcasters (clerics, druids, paladins, and rangers) can only use scrolls containing divine spells.

A paladin of between 1st and 3rd level is not a spellcaster, and thus cannot use scrolls.

As for the fighter, sure! It's on the list of his nonexistent wizard levels. Easy! What's that? He's not allowed to use his nonexistent wizard levels? Why not? He has exactly as many levels in that casting class as the 1st-3rd level paladin does in her casting class.

Sorry, that's not tantamount to "you have to be able to cast spells or be considered a spell caster." Now, you can convince yourself that it is, and that's on you.

Paladins have a spell list, proven by the fact that they can use Wands at level 1.

So once again, do you have Enlarge person on you "Fighter's" spell list? The answer is no. Your 13 Fighter doesn't have a spell list so that's what preclude him from using scrolls


wraithstrike wrote:
N N 959 wrote:
Quote:
Some creatures do not possess an Intelligence score. Their modifier is +0 for any Intelligence-based skills or checks.

Thank you. This pretty much nails it. A creature without an intelligence score is treated as having a modifier of 0.

Ergo, a creature without caster levels can be treated as having a 0.

The effective modifier is 0 in both cases.

Thanks for providing that Cheapy.

That is incorrect. An as example if you look at the paladin's spellcasting chart he gets a 0 at some points, and a - at others. The "-" means he has no spellcasting ability concerning a certain spell level. The "0" which is an actual number has value.

Using set notation 0 and nothing also are not the same thing. So by PF rules and the mathematical rules you are incorrect.

Another disanalogy. The "0" is a place holder to indicate that the class can cast spells and is entitled to their bonus spells only. They could have used the letter Z and it would have the same functional effect.

Alternatively, they could have used zeros throughout and use the same superscript notation to indicate when bonus spells were allowed.


N N 959 wrote:
Shisumo wrote:

If I may quote your quote...

Quote:
Arcane spellcasters (wizards, sorcerers, and bards) can only use scrolls containing arcane spells, and divine spellcasters (clerics, druids, paladins, and rangers) can only use scrolls containing divine spells.

A paladin of between 1st and 3rd level is not a spellcaster, and thus cannot use scrolls.

As for the fighter, sure! It's on the list of his nonexistent wizard levels. Easy! What's that? He's not allowed to use his nonexistent wizard levels? Why not? He has exactly as many levels in that casting class as the 1st-3rd level paladin does in her casting class.

Sorry, that's not tantamount to "you have to be able to cast spells or be considered a spell caster." Now, you can convince yourself that it is, and that's on you.

Paladins have a spell list, proven by the fact that they can use Wands at level 1.

So once again, do you have Enlarge person on you "Fighter's" spell list? The answer is no. Your 13 Fighter doesn't have a spell list so that's what preclude him from using scrolls

That is a rules exception listed specifically for spell trigger magic items. If it was an actual caster level it not need a stated exception.


N N 959 wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
N N 959 wrote:
Quote:
Some creatures do not possess an Intelligence score. Their modifier is +0 for any Intelligence-based skills or checks.

Thank you. This pretty much nails it. A creature without an intelligence score is treated as having a modifier of 0.

Ergo, a creature without caster levels can be treated as having a 0.

The effective modifier is 0 in both cases.

Thanks for providing that Cheapy.

That is incorrect. An as example if you look at the paladin's spellcasting chart he gets a 0 at some points, and a - at others. The "-" means he has no spellcasting ability concerning a certain spell level. The "0" which is an actual number has value.

Using set notation 0 and nothing also are not the same thing. So by PF rules and the mathematical rules you are incorrect.

Another disanalogy. The "0" is a place holder to indicate that the class can cast spells and is entitled to their bonus spells only. They could have used the letter Z and it would have the same functional effect.

It means that "0" and "nothing" in PF don't work the same, which is what you were arguing against. If they don't work the same then they are not the same.

The fact that 0 is holding a place for something still puts it above nothing. With the "-" you don't even have a potential access to "something".


I'm going to drop this debate and leave you all with one thought. If they wanted to preclude Paladins/Rangers and any other class that gets delayed spells, they could have easily required a person have a Caster Level of 1. Would it have bankrupted WotC or Paize to add:

4. You must have a caster level of at least 1.

No. If the intention were to require a caster level of 1, it would have been stated.

The only reason to write the requirement as such would be to enable Paladins/Rangers/etc to use scrolls before they were able to cast spells.

Pinning the argument on insisting that not having a caster level means you can't make the caster check because not having a level means the number is "undefined: is ....grasping at straws.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Deleted the thread since no one was using it.

N, please don't make this your personal crusade. We come to the FAQs to learn how the game works first and foremost. I certainly hope that's the goal of everyone and getting so involved with it such that it's your crusade is not conducive to that.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Respectfully, I think the FAQ on ranged touch attacks may be in error. I didn't participate in the thread on the subject so I don't know what was discussed, but it seems off to me. Here is what the PRD says from the combat "cast a spell" section:

Quote:
Ranged Touch Spells in Combat: Some spells allow you to make a ranged touch attack as part of the casting of the spell. These attacks are made as part of the spell and do not require a separate action. Ranged touch attacks provoke an attack of opportunity...

Making a ranged touch attack is a single action (whatever action the spell requires to cast). The attack is made as a part of casting the spell. The last line "Ranged touch attacks provoke an attack of opportunity" is, in my opinion, only there to clarify that they do provoke, but only once. Obviously casting a spell in melee provokes. Obviously making a ranged attack in melee provokes. However, if as a ranged touch attack doing these two things together "do not require a separate action" then they should not provoke as if they were two actions.


N N 959 wrote:

I'm going to drop this debate and leave you all with one thought. If they wanted to preclude Paladins/Rangers and any other class that gets delayed spells, they could have easily required a person have a Caster Level of 1. Would it have bankrupted WotC or Paize to add:

4. You must have a caster level of at least 1.

No. If the intention were to require a caster level of 1, it would have been stated.

The only reason to write the requirement as such would be to enable Paladins/Rangers/etc to use scrolls before they were able to cast spells.

Pinning the argument on insisting that not having a caster level means you can't make the caster check because not having a level means the number is "undefined: is ....grasping at straws.

I can't help it if you can't comprehend having no caster level is not the same as 0 specifically when the game and math don't use "0" and "nothing" in the same way.

Quote:
Through 3rd level, a paladin has no caster level. At 4th level and higher, her caster level is equal to her paladin level – 3.

No caster level is not the same as 0 caster levels. Just like having your dex score drain to "0" is not the same a dex score of "-". Now if you have proof that "no...." is 0 for a paladin because it is an exception then find proof.

As an example of my proof.

Undead wrote:
No Constitution score. Undead use their Charisma score in place of their Constitution score when calculating hit points, Fortitude saves, and any special ability that relies on Constitution(such as when calculating a breath weapon’s DC).

That gets you a "-"

Quote:
When Table: Paladin indicates that the paladin gets 0 spells per day of a given spell level, she gains only the bonus spells she would be entitled to based on her Charisma score for that spell level.[/b]

Getting 0 is once again stating value which backs my statement that 0 has value in the game. If they wanted a paladin to have a caster level of 0 it would have been stated.

In short it has been demonstrated that 0 has value, and "-" or verbiage saying you have "no [caster level, ability score X,]" means no value.

<takes a bow, and walks off the stage.>


Hudax wrote:

Respectfully, I think the FAQ on ranged touch attacks may be in error. I didn't participate in the thread on the subject so I don't know what was discussed, but it seems off to me. Here is what the PRD says from the combat "cast a spell" section:

Quote:
Ranged Touch Spells in Combat: Some spells allow you to make a ranged touch attack as part of the casting of the spell. These attacks are made as part of the spell and do not require a separate action. Ranged touch attacks provoke an attack of opportunity...

Making a ranged touch attack is a single action (whatever action the spell requires to cast). The attack is made as a part of casting the spell. The last line "Ranged touch attacks provoke an attack of opportunity" is, in my opinion, only there to clarify that they do provoke, but only once. Obviously casting a spell in melee provokes. Obviously making a ranged attack in melee provokes. However, if as a ranged touch attack doing these two things together "do not require a separate action" then they should not provoke as if they were two actions.

There is no rule saying one action can only provoke once with the exception of leaving multiple threatened squares from one creature.

As an example if you make a charge attack you can provoke for leaving a threatening square and for making a trip attack in place of the melee attack. That gives you one action, but 2 chances to provoke.

In short you don't provoke per action. You provoke per act. A spell using a ranged touch attack is only one action, but it is composed of more than one provoking act.

Shadow Lodge

Pathfinder Comics Subscriber; Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Card Game, Cards, Companion, Maps, Pawns, Roleplaying Game, Tales Subscriber
wraithstrike wrote:
I think they are basically the same, but due to the wording of the abilities one triggers on the success of the trip, and the other triggers once your back touches the ground.

If you fall prone, your back doesn't touch the ground :-)

(well, not unless you fall very hard).
Pathfinder doesn't know about falling supine, though.


I think that N N 959 made a reasonable request for an FAQ and everybody should just leave it at that.

Everyone responding... You are not the devs. You do not make FAQs. He can ask, and the devs can decide to answer or not. Arguing that he is "OMG so Wrong!" does not help.

Personally I can see it going either way and would be interested in what the devs have to say.

On the ranged touch attack spell add me to the list of people that don't like the ruling. I will not run it that way in my games. I do think that the "Ranged Touch Spells in Combat" rules support this position fairly well.

In any case I look forward to seeing more FAQs in the future!

Taldor

Is there somewhere that all the FAQs about the game are stored? Can I download a complete list of these? If not, why not? Thanks.
-Pax


Pathfinder Maps, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

@Pax,
Take a look in the upper right corner of the website, see the link called HELP/FAQ ? They are all there.

Paizo Employee Lead Designer

9 people marked this as a favorite.

Hey there folks,

Just to be clear, I am not going to be answering additional FAQ questions in this thread, as this is not the place for it. Start a new thread please...

However

Since this one has turned into a big discussion, I will say this.

Until a Paladin hits 4th level, he is not considered a spellcaster. He does not yet have the class feature that defines him as such. You cannot infer his caster level backwards because he has not yet gained the feature that gives him a caster level. He has no caster level, not 0, none. Hence, he cannot use scrolls until he reaches 4th.

Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing


Jason Bulmahn wrote:

Hey there folks,

Just to be clear, I am not going to be answering additional FAQ questions in this thread, as this is not the place for it. Start a new thread please...

However

Since this one has turned into a big discussion, I will say this.

Until a Paladin hits 4th level, he is not considered a spellcaster. He does not yet have the class feature that defines him as such. You cannot infer his caster level backwards because he has not yet gained the feature that gives him a caster level. He has no caster level, not 0, none. Hence, he cannot use scrolls until he reaches 4th.

Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing

Thanks.

PS:Sorry about not using your link Cheapy.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Maps, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Jason Bulmahn wrote:

Hey there folks,

Just to be clear, I am not going to be answering additional FAQ questions in this thread, as this is not the place for it. Start a new thread please...

However

Since this one has turned into a big discussion, I will say this.
<snip>
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing

Hey guys! Great news! If we want FAQs faster, we just need to make big long complicated arguments in the FAQ threads! Then the Dev's come out of the woodwork and answer them!

/tongueincheek

:)


Pax Veritas wrote:

Is there somewhere that all the FAQs about the game are stored? Can I download a complete list of these? If not, why not? Thanks.

-Pax

There is no FAQ document that I know of. It would have to be something that was handled by one of us at the moment.

Shadow Lodge

Pathfinder Comics Subscriber; Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Card Game, Cards, Companion, Maps, Pawns, Roleplaying Game, Tales Subscriber
Lord Twig wrote:
On the ranged touch attack spell add me to the list of people that don't like the ruling.

I don't like it, either. The "one action, one AoO" position was at least cut-and-dried. Now, though, the camel's nose is under the tent wall, and I'm sure we're going to see arguments for three, four, .... different attacks of opportunity as any provoking action is sliced-and-diced into an ever-increasing number of 'events'. That way madness lies.


Lord Twig wrote:

I think that N N 959 made a reasonable request for an FAQ and everybody should just leave it at that.

Everyone responding... You are not the devs. You do not make FAQs. He can ask, and the devs can decide to answer or not. Arguing that he is "OMG so Wrong!" does not help.

Personally I can see it going either way and would be interested in what the devs have to say.

On the ranged touch attack spell add me to the list of people that don't like the ruling. I will not run it that way in my games. I do think that the "Ranged Touch Spells in Combat" rules support this position fairly well.

In any case I look forward to seeing more FAQs in the future!

I don't need to be a dev to know how a rule works, and arguing that no casters levels equals caster levels is somewhat silly.

OK. I will be quiet now. Any further response, other than a link to a new thread, will be made in another thread.


EDIT: Want to thank Jason for taking the time to respond to my question and apologize if I failed to post it in the right place.

Who has more caster levels, a 1st level Wizard or a 1st level Paladin?

The answer proves that based on the type of evaluation we are doing, one can assign an effective value of zero.

I have one manufacturing site and am building a second to be completed mid-year. When I put together a spreadsheet, the second plant has a bunch of "-" because the site "doesn't have any manufacturing capacity at all." Guess what Excel converts that to? Zero.

Quote:
Until a Paladin hits 4th level, he is not considered a spellcaster. He does not yet have the class feature that defines him as such. You cannot infer his caster level backwards because he has not yet gained the feature that gives him a caster level. He has no caster level, not 0, none. Hence, he cannot use scrolls until he reaches 4th.

Jason, have you seen Skip Williams Rules of the Game archive on using Magic Items? He says that for classes that don't have class levels, their effective caster level is 0.

You have to ask yourself if the intent is to preclude Paladins, why would you require the reader to interpret a statement in another section of the book to determine whether they can cast a scroll? Your're essentially arguing that the authors want you to determine that not having any caster levels means that one cannot use zero int it's place because ...why?

Occam's Razor. The simplest explanation is that effective caster level is zero in this context, just as it is for my plant that doesn't exist. The requirements for casting scrolls do not say you have to be able to cast spells and they explicitly include Ranger and Paladins on the list of those who can use Divine Scrolls. It doesn't say they have to be 4th level, it doesn't say they have to have a caster level of 1.


N N 959 wrote:
The thing with something like this is that it's like proving the Earth is round when everyone insist its flat. There's been probably a decade of people who have inserted a caster level requirement into scroll use where none exists.
N N 959 wrote:

1. Caster level is not a requirement to use scroll. So whether having caster levels is necessary to be a spell caster is irrelevant for whether or not you can use a scroll. Here, let me repeat the requirement to use scrolls and you tell me where it says you have to be able to cast spells or "be a spell caster"

"To have any chance of activating a scroll spell, the scroll user must meet the following requirements.

The spell must be of the correct type (arcane or divine). Arcane spellcasters (wizards, sorcerers, and bards) can only use scrolls containing arcane spells, and divine spellcasters (clerics, druids, paladins, and rangers) can only use scrolls containing divine spells. (The type of scroll a character creates is also determined by his class.)
The user must have the spell on her class list.
The user must have the requisite ability score."

You're... kidding, right? The very next paragraph after the section you pasted, CRB p490 or right here under activation it very clearly and explicitly lays out how and when the caster level requirements and checks come in to play.

The relevant text.:
If the user meets all the requirements noted above, and her caster level is at least equal to the spell's caster level, she can automatically activate the spell without a check. If she meets all three requirements but her own caster level is lower than the scroll spell's caster level, then she has to make a caster level check (DC = scroll's caster level + 1) to cast the spell successfully. If she fails, she must make a DC 5 Wisdom check to avoid a scroll mishap. A natural roll of 1 always fails, whatever the modifiers. Activating a scroll is a standard action (or the spell's casting time, whichever is longer) and it provokes attacks of opportunity exactly as casting a spell does. If the caster level check fails but no mishap occurs, the scroll is not expended.


Reading comprehension is an issue here. You'll note that there is no specific requirement that you have a caster level of 1 right?

If you can tell me who has more caster levels, a Wizard or Fighter, then you can evaluate someone without the ability to cast spells as having zero caster levels.

It's pretty straight forward. Insisting that one can't use an effective caster level of zero is what's convoluted.

Andoran

Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber
Jason Bulmahn wrote:

Hey there folks,

Just to be clear, I am not going to be answering additional FAQ questions in this thread, as this is not the place for it. Start a new thread please...

However

Since this one has turned into a big discussion, I will say this.

Until a Paladin hits 4th level, he is not considered a spellcaster. He does not yet have the class feature that defines him as such. You cannot infer his caster level backwards because he has not yet gained the feature that gives him a caster level. He has no caster level, not 0, none. Hence, he cannot use scrolls until he reaches 4th.

Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing

Why can he use wands but not scrolls?

101 to 150 of 202 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>
Paizo / Messageboards / Paizo Publishing / Pathfinder® / Pathfinder RPG / General Discussion / Paizo Blog: The FAQ That Time Forgot All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.

©2002–2014 Paizo Inc.®. Need help? Email customer.service@paizo.com or call 425-250-0800 during our business hours: Monday–Friday, 10 AM–5 PM Pacific Time. View our privacy policy. Paizo Inc., Paizo, the Paizo golem logo, Pathfinder, the Pathfinder logo, Pathfinder Society, GameMastery, and Planet Stories are registered trademarks of Paizo Inc., and Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pathfinder Adventure Card Game, Pathfinder Player Companion, Pathfinder Modules, Pathfinder Tales, Pathfinder Battles, Pathfinder Online, PaizoCon, RPG Superstar, The Golem's Got It, Titanic Games, the Titanic logo, and the Planet Stories planet logo are trademarks of Paizo Inc. Dungeons & Dragons, Dragon, Dungeon, and Polyhedron are registered trademarks of Wizards of the Coast, Inc., a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc., and have been used by Paizo Inc. under license. Most product names are trademarks owned or used under license by the companies that publish those products; use of such names without mention of trademark status should not be construed as a challenge to such status.