Official answers


Rules Questions

1 to 50 of 261 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as FAQ candidate.

Ok, here's what I don't understand. Almost 10 years now and some of these things still don't have an official answer. Can I get some help please?

1.) Perception, versus stealth, versus cover, versus concealment, verus HiPS, versus Magical Traps, versus Abjuration effects, verus dim light, versus sneak attack, versus etc.

Can we get a little faq or addendum to clear up how this works, or does nobody really know?

2) Weapons with the (trip) descriptor.

Do you need them to trip? Can you trip with any weapon? Who knows, everyone should just make something up.

3) Does fire resistance apply to each ray in the scorching ray?

Already with another thread.

4) What is the deal with grapple? How does this actually work?

The specific questions probably require a thread of their own, but since I'm listing golden sacred delicious cows of ignorance which cannot be officially answered, I'll just leave the general thrust of the statement.

5) Spring attack and the 'attack action' (and cleave and vital strike), how do these officially interact, what exactly is an attack action?

Did I forget any?

I'm not looking to restart the endless threads that go on about these things. I'm looking to itemize a list of stuff that we know is a problem. Wouldn't it be nice if there were something like a list of questions that were asked frequently that were collected where these things could be explained? like in a nice little booklet? or possibly an informative video.

also, if anyone has any official answers. . .


Well not Pathfinder but I know WotC came out with the Rules Compendium book right before the closed up shop on 3.5, it contained most the rules of the game in one easy to find/use format, might be worth looking into. Also of note, this book had some pretty neat and funny artwork (check out the Aid Another page for my absolute favorite).

The Exchange

nexusphere wrote:

2) Weapons with the (trip) descriptor.

Do you need them to trip? Can you trip with any weapon? Who knows, everyone should just make something up.

James recently answered in a different thread that you can only trip with a trip weapon or an unarmed attack. He stated that was an "official" response.

nexusphere wrote:
3) Does fire resistance apply to each ray in the scorching ray?

I believe that YES, you apply it to each ray individually.


nexusphere wrote:

Ok, here's what I don't understand. Almost 10 years now and some of these things still don't have an official answer. Can I get some help please?

1.) Perception, versus stealth, versus cover, versus concealment, verus HiPS, versus Magical Traps, versus Abjuration effects, verus dim light, versus sneak attack, versus etc. Can we get a little faq or addendum to clear up how this works, or does nobody really know?

Ten years? All this stuff was addressed in the Rules Compendium, and wasn't ever really confusing to begin with.

Unless you have Hide in Plain Sight, Stealth requires cover or concealment, and is always opposed by Perception. Only a character with Trapfinding can find magical traps. Sneak attack and dim light have nothing to do with any of the above, except that dim lighting conditions grant concealment against characters without darkvision.

All of this is covered in plain language in the Core Rulebook, and on the PSRD.

nexusphere wrote:

2) Weapons with the (trip) descriptor.

Do you need them to trip? Can you trip with any weapon? Who knows, everyone should just make something up.

Yes, you need trip weapons to perform a trip with a weapon. If the Core Rulebook wasn't clear enough, James Jacobs officially addressed this issue recently.

nexusphere wrote:
3) Does fire resistance apply to each ray in the scorching ray?

Yes. This is also clearly addressed in the Core Rulebook. Energy resistance is subtracted from each attack. It's in the first sentence of the 'Energy Resistance' entry.

nexusphere wrote:
4) What is the deal with grapple? How does this actually work?

Again, see your Core Rulebook or take a look at the PSRD. The rules for all the various maneuvers are covered very neatly.

nexusphere wrote:
5) Spring attack and the 'attack action' (and cleave and vital strike), how do these officially interact, what exactly is an attack action?

An attack action is any attack-equivalent action such as an attack roll or a (in many cases) maneuver check. Spring attack is compatible with attack actions (such as vital strike). Cleave is a standard action, and therefore incompatable.

nexusphere wrote:
I'm not looking to restart the endless threads that go on about these things. I'm looking to itemize a list of stuff that we know is a problem.

With respect, none of your questions were problematic and are all easily addressed by a review of the Core Rulebook.


Rake wrote:
Ten years? All this stuff was addressed in the Rules Compendium, and wasn't ever really confusing to begin with.

Oh really?

Rake wrote:
Unless you have Hide in Plain Sight, Stealth requires cover or concealment, and is always opposed by Perception. Only a character with Trapfinding can find magical traps. Sneak attack and dim light have nothing to do with any of the above, except that dim lighting conditions grant concealment against characters without darkvision.

Oh, yes, this is so simple that I still don't know what the DC is to detect an abjuration, nor is it clear in what cases besides 2 abjurations near each other do I get the chance to detect an abjuration. It's not clear what the DC is for any of that, nor what spells count as a 'magical trap'. It's not clear which spells have a visual component, (all? Only those that are explicit about it?), nor is it clear if I can pass through an area while stealthed without cover or concealment. And all of those issues are just off the top of my head. I haven't even really been thinking about using it in play yet.

Also: this isn't covered in the rules compendium.

Rake wrote:
Yes, you need trip weapons to perform a trip with a weapon. If the Core Rulebook wasn't clear enough, James Jacobs officially addressed this issue recently.

Also: this isn't covered in the rules compendium.

Ok, so this isn't in the core rule book. I'm not sure how exactly I was supposed to figure this out.

This board lacks certain functionality, and I had no idea this was clarified, /nor any way for me to find out/. I will grant it's been about a month or so since I've checked the bumped thread about this, but it hasn't been on the list of threads in about that long either. I don't think it's a reasonable expectation to have to catch an errata in passing.

Rake wrote:
nexusphere wrote:
3) Does fire resistance apply to each ray in the scorching ray?
Yes. This is also clearly addressed in the Core Rulebook. Energy resistance is subtracted from each attack. It's in the first sentence of the 'Energy Resistance' entry.

You know if you want to be condescending and continue to not help with the issues, why even bother?

Also: this isn't covered in the rules compendium.

Second: The issue isn't with energy resistance, the issue is with scorching ray and if it counts as a single attack (thus fire resistance applies only once) or if each ray counts as a separate attack.

Rake wrote:
nexusphere wrote:
4) What is the deal with grapple? How does this actually work?
Again, see your Core Rulebook or take a look at the PSRD. The rules for all the various maneuvers are covered very neatly.

I would point out that I'll need to start a separate thread to deal with the issues in this, it would be a longer post then this reply and the post it replies to for me to just ask one question a line.

Also: this isn't covered in the rules compendium
being that grapple has totally changed.

Rake wrote:
nexusphere wrote:
5) Spring attack and the 'attack action' (and cleave and vital strike), how do these officially interact, what exactly is an attack action?
An attack action is any attack-equivalent action such as an attack roll or a (in many cases) maneuver check. Spring attack is compatible with attack actions (such as vital strike). Cleave is a standard action, and therefore incompatable.

Also: this isn't covered in the rules compendium.

Before I address your last point, I should just point out, why direct me to a book and tell me all of my questions are answered in this book when not one of them is?

It's nice that this is the way you are playing spring attack. I'm still not seeing where attack action is defined . I've searched the whole combat chapter and glossary and have not found anywhere where this is defined. I don't know what this *means*. And people can tell me what they think it means, but I didn't start this thread so I could hear how someone house ruled something. Rule 0 isn't what I'm interested in, nor assumptions. This thread is a request for official responses to these queriess.

Out of the five I mentioned, only one has an official answer that is practically unlocateable.

Rake wrote:
With respect, none of your questions were problematic and are all easily addressed by a review of the Core Rulebook.

This is a blatant lie.

You know what's really disappointing about your flippant arrogant, and ignorant response? It's part of the reason everyone is still having to just make up their own minds about how the game works, instead of knowing how basic core pieces of functionality work.

With all due respect, if you're going to offer help, make sure you actually are helping.


it sounds to me like you are just upset that the frequently asked questions section of the website is still being worked on.


northbrb wrote:
it sounds to me like you are just upset that the frequently asked questions section of the website is still being worked on.

No, man, that's ok.

It's just when I've been trying to figure these things out for months, have been posting and reading in threads hundreds of posts long trying to figure this stuff out, and someone comes along and calls all my questions simple, while failing to provide any kind of official ruling or response at all (excepting one case).

It's just a little frustrating. Makes me think that it's a large part of why we don't have the answers yet.

Sovereign Court

Too bad there isn't a "Report" button on these forums. Overly hostile (Rake mentioned the Rules Compendium ONCE, but nexusphere had to "shout" at him 5 times that things weren't in there, when at least one definately IS), flat out calls another poster who was trying to help in a non-snarky manner a liar, gets pissy when it's pointed out that one of his questions has been answered on the same forums he's asking for help in....

jeez, switch to decaf already.


Twowlves wrote:


Too bad there isn't a "Report" button on these forums.

Psst. See that Flag control over by Reply for each message?

Grand Lodge

Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
nexusphere wrote:

...while failing to provide any kind of official ruling or response at all (excepting one case).

It's just a little frustrating. Makes me think that it's a large part of why we don't have the answers yet.

Personally, I don't like official answers. I don't like the designers to clarify rulings down to the nit-noid. As a GM, the more official rulings there are, the less wiggle room I have to rule things the way I want without someone coming back and telling that i can't do that because of paragraph 3 on page 26 of the FAQ document dated May 3, 2004. Or whatever.

Paizo made sure to mention time and again, in Old School fashion, that this is YOUR game. Add, subtract, change, re-tune as you and your group see fit. Mold into what you want it to be and how you want it to work. Don't like the idea that fire resistance applies to each scorching ray individually, change to apply to the spell as a whole instead. "Because James said so" shouldn't be a valid reason to make your game less fun for you*.

-Skeld

* - By all accounts, James is an awesome GM and I'm sure he'd be happy to give advice on how he plays his game. Advice you can take leave, just like any other piece of advice.


Twowlves wrote:
Too bad there isn't a "Report" button on these forums. Overly hostile (Rake mentioned the Rules Compendium ONCE, but nexusphere had to "shout" at him 5 times that things weren't in there, when at least one definately IS),

I own it, I'm not sure which one you're talking about.

Twowlves wrote:
flat out calls another poster who was trying to help in a non-snarky manner a liar, gets pissy when it's pointed out that one of his questions has been answered on the same forums he's asking for help in.... jeez, switch to decaf already.

I'm sorry you feel that way. Being told that all my answers are in a book that doesn't apply to a single question I asked, and the implication that I'm stupid for not being able to find the rules text for stuff that doesn't exist was a little frustrating.

I just have a pet peeve about self-centered arrogant people who like to degenerate those who ask questions without providing any real help.

Perhaps I deserve to be reported for that. I'd still like some help or official answers for my queries.


Skeld wrote:

Personally, I don't like official answers. I don't like the designers to clarify rulings down to the nit-noid. As a GM, the more official rulings there are, the less wiggle room I have to rule things the way I want without someone coming back and telling that i can't do that because of paragraph 3 on page 26 of the FAQ document dated May 3, 2004. Or whatever.

Paizo made sure to mention time and again, in Old School fashion, that this is YOUR game. Add, subtract, change, re-tune as you and your group see fit. Mold into what you want it to be and how you want it to work. Don't like the idea that fire resistance applies to each scorching ray individually, change to apply to the spell as a whole instead. "Because James said so" shouldn't be a valid reason to make your game less fun for you*.

-Skeld

* - By all accounts, James is an awesome GM and I'm sure he'd be happy to give advice on how he plays his game. Advice you can take leave, just like any other piece of advice.

This is fine, however none of it is justification for things that are unclear or a reason to selectively not define things that are covered under the rules (e.g. decide for yourself if you can apply cleave/vital strike to a charge because we just don't say anywhere what 'attack action' is.)

I don't understand the reasoning that because we can change the rules in our own games that means that there doesn't have to be clear rules for the systems that are in the game itself. It's not as if I'm asking them to provide rules for something the game doesn't cover - I'm asking for the rules that are in the game to actually be defined in a clear working manner.
-Campbell
p.s. we are big fans of house rules in our home game. But like we learned in english class, you've got to understand the way the rules work before you can intelligently break them.


Twowlves wrote:

Too bad there isn't a "Report" button on these forums. Overly hostile (Rake mentioned the Rules Compendium ONCE, but nexusphere had to "shout" at him 5 times that things weren't in there, when at least one definately IS), flat out calls another poster who was trying to help in a non-snarky manner a liar, gets pissy when it's pointed out that one of his questions has been answered on the same forums he's asking for help in....

jeez, switch to decaf already.

No offense, but to me at least it seemed like Rake was the one that replied in a really dismissive, rude way in the first place. Admittedly, Nexus kinda went off in response, but I would have been irked too. (Of course, I know Nexus in real life, so I might just be reading his posts and getting the hyperbole and whatnot because I'm used to talking to him in person, where for Rake I just have the flat text to go on.)

As to the issues in his post, they're not nearly as cut and dry as Rake seems to think. For example, on stealth, the question isn't under what conditions one can enter stealth (which is clearly laid out) the question is what conditions you require to maintain stealth (which is most definitely not clearly laid out). For example, while stealthed, can you dart past an open door? Can you move through a well lit area momentarily while guards have their backs turned? These are the sorts of questions that are not covered in the core rulebook. Saying some of this is just up to the DM is fine, in the end everything is up to the DM, but some guidance on the designer's intent would be nice.


First off ten years is bull -- pathfinder has only been out for less than a year. If you want to complain about 3.5 and 3.0 then I suggest doing it to the guys that did it (a.k.a. Wizards of the Coast).

Secondly all your questions are specifically covered in the rulebook already.

Finally I would suggest rudeness is not the way to get what you want -- especially when all your answers can be had by simply reading the rulebook.


Abraham spalding wrote:

First off ten years is bull -- pathfinder has only been out for less than a year. If you want to complain about 3.5 and 3.0 then I suggest doing it to the guys that did it (a.k.a. Wizards of the Coast).

Secondly all your questions are specifically covered in the rulebook already.

Finally I would suggest rudeness is not the way to get what you want -- especially when all your answers can be had by simply reading the rulebook.

No, for the most part, they can't simply be answered by reading the rulebook. Some of them perhaps, but at the very least the Stealth question has spawned a few loooong discussion threads in the past, a pretty clear sign that it is *not* in fact obvious from the RAW.

(Also, while I do find the hypocrisy amusing, being really rude and dismissive while telling someone they should be less rude is perhaps not the best way to get your point across).


Abraham spalding wrote:
First off ten years is bull -- pathfinder has only been out for less than a year. If you want to complain about 3.5 and 3.0 then I suggest doing it to the guys that did it (a.k.a. Wizards of the Coast).

These issues were problems then. Not clearing them up because they were legacy problems means I can ask about it here.

I'm just saying that this has always been confusing and here was an opportunity to clarify some of these things. (not that they didn't clarify many things.)


Regarding Abjuration and Perception checks - There's no clear cut answer for a Perception check, Knowledge (Arcana) seem a better check for noticing Abjuration effects. If you can establish a DC for an abjuration effect or a barely visible energy fluctuation, then I guess you're on the right track.

Regarding Scorching Ray - It's hard for me to conceive that making separate attack and damage rolls that use your BAB and relevant modifiers aren't separate attacks, so I may not be a good one to ask.

Regarding Grapple checks - I think you'll have to be a little more specific. Generally, if your CMB check equals or exceeds the opponent's CMD, the grapple is successful.


nexusphere wrote:


1.) Perception, versus stealth, versus cover, versus concealment, verus HiPS, versus Magical Traps, versus Abjuration effects, verus dim light, versus sneak attack, versus etc.

Can we get a little faq or addendum to clear up how this works, or does nobody really know?

Stealth: Opposed check with whatever penalties/bonuses the GM applies.

Cover : There is no modifier for cover, but cover allows an opposed check stealth vs perception to hide.

Concealment : There is no modifier for concealment, but concealment allows an opposed check of stealth vs perception to hide.

HiPS : Opposed Check vs Stealth (no cover/concealment/etc).

Traps : Perception Check is the DC of the Trap.

Abjuration : Not sure.

Dim Light : No penalty to sight based perception checks, but it does allow a Stealth/Perception opposed check to hide if you are trying to hide.

Sneak Attack : You don't make a perception vs sneak attack, you either know you've been stabbed in a vital spot or you don't.

nexusphere wrote:


2) Weapons with the (trip) descriptor.

Do you need them to trip? Can you trip with any weapon? Who knows, everyone should just make something up.

As stated above, James answered on the board, but to trip you need to use either a trip weapon or an unarmed attack. This is why a standard trip attack without a trip weapon provokes an attack of opportunity. Note that you can make an unarmed attack with arms, hands, legs, forehead, etc. So you can still make a trip attack while wielding a non-trip weapon, but you're using your leg or wing or tail or whatever you have that's free.

nexusphere wrote:


3) Does fire resistance apply to each ray in the scorching ray?

Already with another thread.

The bestiary is the best place to check this one, as resistance is primarily a critter power, and so it does the best job of answering it.

PRD wrote:


Resistance (Ex) A creature with this special quality ignores some damage of the indicated type each time it takes damage of that kind (commonly acid, cold, electricity, or fire). The entry indicates the amount and type of damage ignored.

Notice that it is applied each time the creature with the power takes damage, not each time it is attacked. So a scorching ray that had 3 rays does damage 3 times, and fire resistance would apply against each set of damage rolls.

nexusphere wrote:


4) What is the deal with grapple? How does this actually work?

The specific questions probably require a thread of their own, but since I'm listing golden sacred delicious cows of ignorance which cannot be officially answered, I'll just leave the general thrust of the statement.

I'm afraid I'm not prepared right now to do a full walk through of grapple.

nexusphere wrote:


5) Spring attack and the 'attack action' (and cleave and vital strike), how do these officially interact, what exactly is an attack action?

If I remember correctly, and I might not be, cleave cannot be used with Spring Attack per Jason. Nor can Vital Strike. Power Attack can however.

Not too sure on this one, kind of fuzzy, it's been awhile.

Grand Lodge

Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Brodiggan Gale wrote:
No, for the most part, they can't simply be answered by reading the rulebook. Some of them perhaps, but at the very least the Stealth question has spawned a few loooong discussion threads in the past, a pretty clear sign that it is *not* in fact obvious from the RAW.

Again, personally I don't agree. I think they can get answered by reading the book (for the most part anyway, like the two Stealth examples you gave upthread). I think the loooong discussion get spawned when there is either no consensus, or when folks don't like the answers they get. [Take the displacement v. Sneak Attack thread in which James gave an official answer, the thread continued with even tighter corner-case questions.]

-Skeld

Sovereign Court

nexusphere wrote:
Twowlves wrote:
Too bad there isn't a "Report" button on these forums. Overly hostile (Rake mentioned the Rules Compendium ONCE, but nexusphere had to "shout" at him 5 times that things weren't in there, when at least one definately IS),

I own it, I'm not sure which one you're talking about.

The Pathfinder Core Rulebook /= WotC's 3.5ed Rules Compendium. Right? I couldn't tell if you meant you own the WotC book or not. There were either 2 or 4 pages detailing grapple in there. All of which are moot now that CMB/CMD is here. And I can't really tell what the mystery with the PRPG version is from your original post.

I read Rake's response, and it didn't seem snarky at all. I don't know him, nor really anyone else that posts on these boards, so I have no "filter" to help sway me when it comes to how people mean to come across vs how they actually come across. To me at least.

As for the "Trip with trip weapons", that thread went on for ages, and it was finally answered. I know searching through old forum posts isn't fun or easy, but there were no less than 2 loooong thread about it, and there was another one up here today. So it couldn't have been that hard to miss.

At any rate, Paizo has publicly stated that the errata is coming as soon as they get caught up with their production schedule, and that will be sooner rather than later. So there is hope at least. I mean, look at the "Displacement vs Sneak Attacks" monster thread. I got "officially" told I was wrong, only to be "officially" redeemed by the same guy all in the span of about 12 hours!

As Ring Starr says, "Peace and love, peace and love..."


Robert, mdt, thanks for the replies.

I guess I wasn't being clear. I've read thousands of posts about the above topics. Thousands. I've read the threads. I have a game that runs just fine with our house rules, and has made inferences to cover these problems. I didn't start this thread to just have a bunch of people tell me their unofficial ways they deal with the lack of information over these issues. (It's why I didn't detail the issues with grapple, such as when grapple checks trigger, why it's to my advantage to give myself the grapple condition, grab/rake/evolution vs. monster ability etc.)

They are still undefined problems. I would still like an official statement or explanation about what these rules are supposed to be - how they officially intended to work. I think that's a reasonable expectation.

I ask for this particularly because of these types of responses:
"Not too sure on this one, kind of fuzzy, it's been awhile."
"I'm afraid I'm not prepared right now to do a full walk through of grapple."
"Abjuration : Not sure."
"There's no clear cut answer for a Perception check"

It's a rulebook - it should provide clarity for just these types of questions.

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Twowlves wrote:
At any rate, Paizo has publicly stated that the errata is coming as soon as they get caught up with their production schedule, and that will be sooner rather than later.

I'll take "stay on schedule" over "errata" any day.

-Skeld


Abjurations aren't going to "near" each other!
The DC of a spell is based on 10 + 1/2 the caster's level.
Sometimes race/alignment/heritage factors might be involved advantaging either the spell, the searcher or both with the (absolute value) of the difference going to which ever holds the greater bonus; assuming this question to mean the nonmagical detection of magical effects.

Dark Archive

nexusphere wrote:


3) Does fire resistance apply to each ray in the scorching ray?

Already with another thread.

4) What is the deal with grapple? How does this actually work?

Just to help answer some questions.

Since each ray from a scorching ray requires a ranged touch to hit, I consider each one an attack. Especially since you are not required to target all rays on only one target.

As for the Grapple. I find these to help some..

Flow chart 1 - Attacker starts Grapple

Flow chart 2 - Defender responds on their turn

Flow chart 3 - What the controller of Grapple can do on their turn

I know, not official, but at least helpful. I tip my hat to the good people over at d20pfsrd.com, for making the charts.

I also find that some of the "official" responses are cataloged here.

d20PFsrd.com unofficial FAQ

Scarab Sages

For the people saying that the answers are in the Core rulebook...
please cite page numbers and references. (i.e. page #47 1st column 3rd paragraph.) Otherwise, it's just noise in the crowd and not helping anything.

I'd like an official answer to these and many other questions but I'm with Skeld on "stay on schedule"... I'm rule them however I want in my own games until the official answer shows up.

Grand Lodge

Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
nexusphere wrote:
I've read thousands of posts about the above topics. Thousands.

Instead of reading thousands of posts that basically aren't the official answers you're looking for, you know you can just read James' posts. When you find something you like, you can open the thread and read the context.

And you can do the same things with Jason's posts.

Or Josh's.

Hope that helps.

-Skeld


Happler wrote:

As for the Grapple. I find these to help some..

Flow chart 1 - Attacker starts Grapple

Flow chart 2 - Defender responds on their turn

Flow chart 3 - What the controller of Grapple can do on their turn

I know, not official, but at least helpful. I tip my hat to the good people over at d20pfsrd.com, for making the charts.

Danke, that does help, I do have to say though, from a game design standpoint.. if an action in combat requires flowcharts to resolve... something has gone way wrong. (Although, I can't say the old grapple rules were shining examples of brevity and clarity either)


nexusphere wrote:

Robert, mdt, thanks for the replies.

I guess I wasn't being clear. I've read thousands of posts about the above topics. Thousands. I've read the threads. I have a game that runs just fine with our house rules, and has made inferences to cover these problems. I didn't start this thread to just have a bunch of people tell me their unofficial ways they deal with the lack of information over these issues. (It's why I didn't detail the issues with grapple, such as when grapple checks trigger, why it's to my advantage to give myself the grapple condition, grab/rake/evolution vs. monster ability etc.)

They are still undefined problems. I would still like an official statement or explanation about what these rules are supposed to be - how they officially intended to work. I think that's a reasonable expectation.

I ask for this particularly because of these types of responses:
"Not too sure on this one, kind of fuzzy, it's been awhile."
"I'm afraid I'm not prepared right now to do a full walk through of grapple."
"Abjuration : Not sure."
"There's no clear cut answer for a Perception check"

It's a rulebook - it should provide clarity for just these types of questions.

A) *I* was unable to answer all your questions because *I* was unable to memorize the entire rulebook or do much research. Just because I (or Robert, or anyone else) was unable to answer every question you have out of the gate does not mean the rules are not there. I am sure other people out there have the answers, and can quote rules or FAQ's or errata on the subject.

B) Are there things that could use clarification, god yes. Is it fair to say the system is a fail because it doesn't have every answer for every situation? No. People are human. The system covers 90% of everything with rules, and provides guidelines that can be extrapolated from the rest.
C) No system can answer every possible rule question in the book. If the book had every rule for every possible situation, then you'd basically have a ruleset for the entire universe. It'd probably have it's own gravity field. :)
D) Of your answers that you stated 'had no answer', about 75% were answered in the first 10 posts.

You are welcome to the answers I had though, and anything you think needs more clarification should really be brought up in the Errata thread, so it can get on the list.

Shadow Lodge

nexusphere wrote:
Abraham spalding wrote:
First off ten years is bull -- pathfinder has only been out for less than a year. If you want to complain about 3.5 and 3.0 then I suggest doing it to the guys that did it (a.k.a. Wizards of the Coast).

These issues were problems then. Not clearing them up because they were legacy problems means I can ask about it here.

I'm just saying that this has always been confusing and here was an opportunity to clarify some of these things. (not that they didn't clarify many things.)

Except for the weirdness with stealth which is pretty mostly unchanged from 3.5 these are all things covered in the core book. Paizo staff have better things on their plates than chasing around the boards blessing every single thread with an official answer (one of those being putting out official official answers in the form of errata that's being put into the next print of the core book).

As for the stealth issue, by your own admission you've been dealing with for 10 years; run it the way you have for the last 10 years, obviously it's working. What's the sudden urgency now?


Happler wrote:
As for the Grapple. I find these to help some..

These are awesome (though needing a flowchart for simple rules. . .) but it still leaves me in the dark about the full attack action and grapple. If I grapple someone else I can't cause I'm using a hand to maintain, but if they grapple me and I have rake it's to my advantage to be grappled? Somehow trick people into grappling me? But to grapple myself (with my eidolon actually) is a bad idea, because I'm losing an attack.

Again, I don't want to cloud this thread up with my confusions and how everyone is house-ruling them.

[edit: gah, this is nightmare fast typing grammar errors. clarified in a reply further down]


mdt wrote:
B) Are there things that could use clarification, god yes. Is it fair to say the system is a fail because it doesn't have every answer for every situation? No. People are human. The system covers 90% of everything with rules, and provides guidelines that can be extrapolated from the rest.

I didn't say that the system is a fail. Why are you saying that I did? I agree that it covers 90% of everything - I just don't see that as an excuse for not having clarity about certain things. I don't think I should have to extrapolate over basic feat interactions for example.

mdt wrote:
D) Of your answers that you stated 'had no answer', about 75% were answered in the first 10 posts.

Since I asked for clarity on 5 things, and only one of which has an official answer, then my current percentage is 20% success. (which admittedly, I'm happy with).

I did not ask for house rules, or the way people are doing things. This is the 'rule questions' forums, and I was looking for official information on what these rules are.


0gre wrote:
Except for the weirdness with stealth which is pretty mostly unchanged from 3.5 these are all things covered in the core book.

Easy to say, hard to provide a page number reference.

Shadow Lodge

Happler wrote:

As for the Grapple. I find these to help some..

Flow chart 1 - Attacker starts Grapple

Flow chart 2 - Defender responds on their turn

Flow chart 3 - What the controller of Grapple can do on their turn

I know, not official, but at least helpful. I tip my hat to the good people over at d20pfsrd.com, for making the charts.

Those charts are very nice... but wrong. The chart shows that you have to make a CMD check to make a one handed action which is not true. That whole right hand branch is goofed up.

The Glossary is pretty straight forward on what you can do while grappled.

Shadow Lodge

nexusphere wrote:
0gre wrote:
Except for the weirdness with stealth which is pretty mostly unchanged from 3.5 these are all things covered in the core book.
Easy to say, hard to provide a page number reference.

Seeing as you've asked questions pretty much all over the book I suggest you start at page 1 and read through to the part where there is a character sheet in the back.


On the D20PFSRD site, there is a Pathfinder FAQ section that accumulates some of the 'official' answers that have been provided in some of these threads (providing the author of the ruling and usually linking the source back to its appearance on these boards). It's not all-inclusive, but it may help with some questions.


First, I can't answer any of your questions to your satisfaction because I am in no way official. Therefore, my rule 0 interpretations are of no help.

But consider this: Clarification of rules has been an ongoing problem for this game, and other role-playing games for over 30 years. Maybe there's a reason or reasons we haven't solved it by now. Let me suggest two.

1) Optimism/Pessimism. The optimist assumes that everything is legal unless explicitly forbidden. "I'll do TWF, and both my weapons will be small shields. Where does it say that's illegal?"

The pessimist assumes that only explicitly described things are legal "You can't cast reverse gravity, and then claim +1 for higher ground; you were below the person to begin with, and if they wanted that bonus to apply, they would have noted it in the spell description"

2) Clarity/Readability. Personally, a set of rules that covers every possible combination of actions with precisely clear language will read like the directions to do taxes. "Deduct the first number from the second number when any of the following factors apply, except when certain mitigating circumstances also apply. In the situation ..."

So, my suggestion is to get used to a bit of uncertainty. Read the rules, and do the best you can.


Robert Young wrote:
On the D20PFSRD site, there is a Pathfinder FAQ section that accumulates some of the 'official' answers that have been provided in some of these threads (providing the author of the ruling and usually linking the source back to its appearance on these boards). It's not all-inclusive, but it may help with some questions.

I found it, and would like to say that we're up to 20+10ish% now. :-) I see where attack action is defined and clarified. It does explicitly say that there is no answer or errata yet on the spring attack issue.

As far as reading the book cover to cover, I have. I've also taken part in the threads discussing these issues. You are making the claim that the answers are there Ogre, and you are the one unable to provide a page reference clarifying these things.


rkraus2 wrote:
So, my suggestion is to get used to a bit of uncertainty. Read the rules, and do the best you can.

Yes, and as roleplayers we do this. I've been doing it for years.

This isn't about the play, or what made up rules we go with. Just because I can 'do the best I can' and 'get used to a bit of uncertainty' doesn't make it ok for there not to be clear explanations of core rules systems.


nexusphere wrote:

These are awesome (though needing a flowchart for simple rules. . .) but it still leaves me in the dark about the full attack action and grapple. If I grapple someone else I can't cause I'm using a hand to maintain, but if they grapple me and I have rake it's to my advantage to be grappled? Somehow trick people into grappling me? But to grapple myself (with my eidolon actually) is a bad idea, because I'm losing an attack.

Again, I don't want to cloud this thread up with my confusions and how everyone is house-ruling them.

I'm afraid you're not going to receive the best answers without specific questions. A general grapple question will not engender a specific response.

What about a full attack action and grapple?

What does 'If I grapple someone else I can't cause I'm using a hand to maintain' even mean?

Regarding Rake - yes, it's very handy in a grapple. It's situational, like a Rogue's sneak attack.

Why do you want to grapple yourself?


nexusphere wrote:


mdt wrote:
D) Of your answers that you stated 'had no answer', about 75% were answered in the first 10 posts.

Since I asked for clarity on 5 things, and only one of which has an official answer, then my current percentage is 20% success. (which admittedly, I'm happy with).

I did not ask for house rules, or the way people are doing things. This is the 'rule questions' forums, and I was looking for official information on what these rules are.

You asked five questions, but several of them were 10 part questions. You got partial answers to them, and official answers on at least 2 full questions from me.

Question 1 : Perception.

Those are directly from the rules. I even looked up the concealment/cover/etc entries to check for perception. They don't affect perception, it specifically lists what does have perception modifiers (Full Darkness applies a -4 to perception for sight based tests). Since Full Darkness has perception modifiers, and nothing else does, then nothing else has modifiers. That's in the rules. So, that's 80% of Question 1.

Question 2 : Trip Weapons

You were given (by 3 people no less) the official answer from James, and one person linked to it. So that's a fully answered question.

Question 3 : Resistance

I gave you the rule per the Bestiary, even quoted it for you. So that's a fully answered question.

Unless your definition of answer is : Something I agree with.

If that's your definition, then sorry, you'll never get your answers. :)

If your definition is : The rule in the book, or an official answer from PF staff.

Then you have 2.8 of 5 questions just from me. That's close to 60% right there. And the Grapple charts are pretty much 90% of the answer to 'What is grapple and how does it work'. Honestly, if you want answers to your questions that are 100% you are going to have to ask detailed questions, not stuff like 'What all is there in the world that is green?'.


mdt wrote:

Question 1 : Perception. Those are directly from the rules. I even looked up the concealment/cover/etc entries to check for perception. They don't affect perception, it specifically lists what does have perception modifiers (Full Darkness applies a -4 to perception for sight based tests). Since Full Darkness has perception modifiers, and nothing else does, then nothing else has modifiers. That's in the rules. So, that's 80% of Question 1.

Ok, let me try to explain this.

Can you use stealth to cover open ground? What is the DC to perceive an abjuration effect? What counts as a magical trap? Does darkvision affect a supernatural ability like HiPS? There are lots of people quoting and cross quoting rules about these things, but very little actual explanation about how they are suppose to work.

As for your list, When is it that stealth can be used? Can you hide without cover or concealment and under what conditions? You yourself claim you're unsure about abjurations, and my question wasn't about 'traps' but what counts as a magical trap. The interactions between dim light/darkness/darkvision/stealth/and concealment are still unclear. When does this incredibly convoluted series of interactions allow a rouge to use sneak attack.

I working hard on not letting all the arrogance and ignorance cause me to say - I guess it's ok that these things aren't clearly covered by the rules. It's great that many people think it's ok to just not have rules for large sections of the game. I don't, and your failure to understand what isn't covered isn't my problem.

mdt wrote:
Question 2 : Trip Weapons

Answered in a poorly referenced place.

mdt wrote:

Question 3 : Resistance

I gave you the rule per the Bestiary, even quoted it for you. So that's a fully answered question.
Unless your definition of answer is : Something I agree with.
If that's your definition, then sorry, you'll never get your answers. :) If your definition is : The rule in the book, or an official answer from PF staff.

Yeah, I looked there, and in the core rulebook. Nowhere does it say whether scorching ray is considered one attack or three.

mdt wrote:
Then you have 2.8 of 5 questions just from me. That's close to 60% right there. And the Grapple charts are pretty much 90% of the answer to 'What is grapple and how does it work'. Honestly, if you want answers to your questions that are 100% you are going to have to ask detailed questions, not stuff like 'What all is there in the world that is green?'.

Just because you say you have the answer, when it's clear you don't even understand what the issues are in the question, doesn't mean my question is answered. It doesn't have anything to do with 'if I agree with it'. It has to do with it doesn't exist.


Robert Young wrote:

I'm afraid you're not going to receive the best answers without specific questions. A general grapple question will not engender a specific response.

What about a full attack action and grapple?

What does 'If I grapple someone else I can't cause I'm using a hand to maintain' even mean?

Regarding Rake - yes, it's very handy in a grapple. It's situational, like a Rogue's sneak attack.

Why do you want to grapple yourself?

heh. I'm sorry.

let me clarify.

If I grapple an opponent I can't full attack with claw claw bite, because I'm using a bite to maintain. I can full attack if I use a full attack action, but don't get the rake, because I have no standard action I have to end the grapple. To start a grapple myself is a bad idea, because I've got the grappled condition, along with a poorly defined 'thing' of 'using a claw/hand/whatever to maintain the grapple' outside of the grappled condition. So it's really to my advantage to cause or trick an opponent to grapple me? Or to grapple and then lose a grapple and hope the opponent maintains it?

It doesn't seem like rake works with grapple (I mean, if I get claw claw bite, why rake, cause it will just be bite+grapple check +claw claw, since I can't maintain the grapple and full attack on the same round.)

These are just a few questions I have about grapple. There are more complex ones.

Shadow Lodge

The core rulebook doesn't say whether three arrows in a round are one attack or three either. Maybe the fact that you make three separate attack and damage rolls is the give away?


0gre wrote:
The core rulebook doesn't say whether three arrows in a round are one attack or three either. Maybe the fact that you make three separate attack and damage rolls is the give away?

That's one point of view. Another is that the ray is one damage source, so fire resistance only applies once. The issue is that it's not clearly specified anywhere. I know I can just make a judgment call. I have an expectation that the rules should be pretty clear on how fire resistance works against a spell.

Shadow Lodge

nexusphere wrote:
0gre wrote:
The core rulebook doesn't say whether three arrows in a round are one attack or three either. Maybe the fact that you make three separate attack and damage rolls is the give away?
That's one point of view. Another is that the ray is one damage source, so fire resistance only applies once. The issue is that it's not clearly specified anywhere. I know I can just make a judgment call. I have an expectation that the rules should be pretty clear on how fire resistance works against a spell.

This reminds me of that class where I had to write instructions on how to make a peanut butter sandwich. You have to assume the reader has a certain base understanding or it gets ridiculous. Expecting Paizo to bring the game down to the "How do I put peanut butter on bread" level is just silly. It is particularly silly since the game works equally well either way you rule it.


nexusphere wrote:


Ok, let me try to explain this.

If you'd explained your questions first, it would help you get better answers. I'll answer the ones I can below, with references.

nexusphere wrote:


Can you use stealth to cover open ground?
Stealth wrote:


If people are observing you using any of their senses (but typically sight), you can't use Stealth. Against most creatures, finding cover or concealment allows you to use Stealth. If your observers are momentarily distracted (such as by a Bluff check), you can attempt to use Stealth. While the others turn their attention from you, you can attempt a Stealth check if you can get to an unobserved place of some kind. This check, however, is made at a –10 penalty because you have to move fast.

If you are being observed, no, you cannot use stealth to cover open ground. If you don't have a distraction, you can't cover open ground from cover to cover because you are automatically scene as soon as you step out of cover if you step into open ground. If you can cause a distraction, you can stealth over open ground if you end in an unobserved place (which means a place that grants concealment or cover). This is per the rule statement above.

Before you ask, why do you automatically see someone in the open, under Perception the DC to notice a person in the open is 0, which means no perception check is needed unless other modifiers raise it to 1 or more.

nexusphere wrote:


What counts as a magical trap?

If the type is Magical. When looking at a trap description, it will have a type. A magical trap has a perception to notice of 25 + spell level, and requires Craft Wondrous Item. A mechanical trap has a type of Mechanical and requires Craft (Trapmaking) to make. This is all in the Environment section of the rules under TRAPS. The sample traps all include the type, either Magical or Mechanical. No offense, but this is pretty basic stuff and clearly spelled out in the rules.

nexusphere wrote:


When is it that stealth can be used? Can you hide without cover or concealment and under what conditions?

This is right in the rules under stealth.

As I put in above in the stealth quote. By the skill description, you can only use stealth when you are unobserved, or have concealment or cover. The only rule I know of that allows you to hide if you don't have cover or concealment and are being observed is if you have Hide in Plain Sight and are within 10 feet of a shadow.

nexusphere wrote:


You yourself claim you're unsure about abjurations, and my question wasn't about 'traps' but what counts as a magical trap.

You didn't ask that, you asked 'Perception vs traps', not 'what counts as a magical trap', please read your question 1.

I have, however, answered this question above.

nexusphere wrote:


I working hard on not letting all the arrogance and ignorance cause me to say - I guess it's ok that these things aren't clearly covered by the rules. It's great that many people think it's ok to just not have rules for large sections of the game. I don't, and your failure to understand what isn't covered isn't my problem.

You are being rather arrogant yourself, and my failure to understand your questions is your problem, especially when as pointed out above, you didn't actually ask the question you are complaining was not answered. And in other places, did not ask a detailed question.

mdt wrote:
Question 2 : Trip Weapons

Answered in a poorly referenced place.

mdt wrote:

Question 3 : Resistance

I gave you the rule per the Bestiary, even quoted it for you. So that's a fully answered question.

Yeah, I looked there, and in the core rulebook. Nowhere does it say whether scorching ray is considered one attack or three.

It is irrelevant whether the scorching ray is one attack or three. It could be 50 attacks and it wouldn't matter. It could be no attack and still not matter. The power resistance, as I said and pointed out, has nothing to do with attacks. Resistance applies when you take damage, not when you are attacked. If you have fire resistance 10, and walk through a bonfire, you are not being attacked by the bonfire, you are taking damage from the bonfire. You take damage every round in whatever amount the DM decides. If he decides it's 1d6, then you are immune to the bonfire, because each time it damages you, your resistance nullifies the first 10 points of damage.

With a scorching ray, if it's one attack that hits 3 times or 3 attacks that hit 1 time each, they still do 3 different damage rolls. That means each time you roll damage dice, you apply the resistance.

Scorch as 1 attack and 3 rays vs fire resistance 10: AC = 10, To-Hit Roll = 12, all 3 rays hit. Each is 3d6. First ray does 3+4+4 = 11. Target takes 11 - 10 = 1 hp. Second ray does 3+2+1 = 6. Target takes 6 - 10 = 0 hp. Third ray does 6+6+6=18. Target takes 18 - 10 = 8 hps. Target takes 9 hp total from the attack.

Scorch as 3 attacks and 1 rays per attack vs fire resistance 10: AC = 10, To-Hit Roll = 12, first ray hits. To-Hit = 9, second ray misses. To-Hit Roll = 20, possible crit. Crit confirmation = 15, crit confirmed for Ray three. Each is 3d6. First ray does 3+4+4 = 11. Target takes 11 - 10 = 1 hp. Third ray does 6+6+6=18, doubled to 36 due to crit. Target takes 36 - 10 = 26 hps. Target takes 27 hp total from the attack.

Notice that it doesn't matter how you handle the spell, the resistance is applied each time the target takes damage, not each time it's attacked.


nexusphere wrote:
0gre wrote:
The core rulebook doesn't say whether three arrows in a round are one attack or three either. Maybe the fact that you make three separate attack and damage rolls is the give away?
That's one point of view. Another is that the ray is one damage source, so fire resistance only applies once. The issue is that it's not clearly specified anywhere. I know I can just make a judgment call. I have an expectation that the rules should be pretty clear on how fire resistance works against a spell.

Oh for goodness sakes.

SCORCHING RAY wrote:


You blast your enemies with a searing beam of fire. You may fire one ray, plus one additional ray for every four levels beyond 3rd (to a maximum of three rays at 11th level). Each ray requires a ranged touch attack to hit and deals 4d6 points of fire damage. The rays may be fired at the same or different targets, but all rays must be aimed at targets within 30 feet of each other and fired simultaneously.

There is nothing in there that even remotely hints at it being one damage source.

You may fire one ray, plus one additional ray, for every four levels beyond 3rd (to a maximum of 3 rays). You get 1, 2, or 3 rays. Very straight forward.

Each ray requires a ranged touch attack to hit. Again, very straight forward, three attack rolls.

Each ray requires a ranged touch attack to hit and does 4d6 points of fire damage. Each ray does 4d6 points of fire damage. Not 'each ray combines to do 4d6'. Each individual ray does 4d6 points of fire damage. If you hit with all 3, that is 3 4d6 damage rolls. Each time you do fire damage, the target get's fire resistance.


nexusphere wrote:

If I grapple an opponent I can't full attack with claw claw bite, because I'm using a bite to maintain. I can full attack if I use a full attack action, but don't get the rake, because I have no standard action I have to end the grapple. To start a grapple myself is a bad idea, because I've got the grappled condition, along with a poorly defined 'thing' of 'using a claw/hand/whatever to maintain the grapple' outside of the grappled condition. So it's really to my advantage to cause or trick an opponent to grapple me? Or to grapple and then lose a grapple and hope the opponent maintains it?

It doesn't seem like rake works with grapple (I mean, if I get claw claw bite, why rake, cause it will just be bite+grapple check +claw claw, since I can't maintain the grapple and full attack on the same round.)

These are just a few questions I have about grapple. There are more complex ones.

Okay. You should use the grapple combat maneuver against opponents that will suffer from the grappled condition more than you will. The best example I can give you is the spellcaster. Casting spells while grappled is extremely difficult (assuming a CR appropriate opponent). Additionally, you may still damage, move, pin, or even tie up your opponent. This is all situational, but can be just what is needed at times.

Rake is tremendous in a grapple. The grapple restricts your opponent, you can still damage your opponent like all normal grapplers and, in addition, get your rake (claw) attacks. That's good stuff and will usually approximate a full attack (watch out for those dire tigers!).


mdt wrote:
nexusphere wrote:
0gre wrote:
The core rulebook doesn't say whether three arrows in a round are one attack or three either. Maybe the fact that you make three separate attack and damage rolls is the give away?
That's one point of view. Another is that the ray is one damage source, so fire resistance only applies once. The issue is that it's not clearly specified anywhere. I know I can just make a judgment call. I have an expectation that the rules should be pretty clear on how fire resistance works against a spell.
Oh for goodness sakes.

This is exactly the point. It's not that I can't make a judgment call. It's that these things are undefined and I *have* to make a judgment call. It doesn't say if it's one source or three - my DM for instance, rules the other way, because that's how it makes sense to him.

I don't want to try to have to figure out how a core defined thing makes sense to me. Spring attack is undefined as to what it can be used with. Scorching ray is undefined as to being one source or three. Stealth and if once you are stealthed and you move out of cover or concealment, whether or not you maintain stealth is undefined. (along with a dozen or so other interactions and corner cases that /keep coming up in our game/. The perception check to notice an abjuration (or if an abjuration like forbiddance or desecrate is a magical trap) is undefined. Which attacks you can use, as well as what the purpose or intent of grapple is at best very unclear, at worst undefined. (specifically it seems like rake is supposed to simulate a full attack while maintain a grapple in response to robert's post - is this what is intended? Not extra attacks from the rake? What's with the added condition of 'who maintains the grapple'? That's very confusing.) As I said, there are other things that are unclear in this core system of grappling.

We have responses in our home game for all of these. I was just wondering what the official answers to these questions were. (seriously, a FAQ or walkthough on stealth/stealth interactions and grapple would be awesomesauce) I think that these questions being answered definitively is a reasonable expectation. Clearly you don't care, so why tell me that there's an answer when there is not?


Abraham spalding wrote:
First off ten years is bull -- pathfinder has only been out for less than a year. If you want to complain about 3.5 and 3.0 then I suggest doing it to the guys that did it (a.k.a. Wizards of the Coast).

Right.....

85% of the Pathfinder Core Rulebook (and 95% of the Combat chapter) is literally cut/paste from the SRD. That's the WotC SRD. As Paizo has taken it upon themselves to "keep 3.5 alive", and they included many of these rules verbatim, then they "did it" too.

1 to 50 of 261 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Rules Questions / Official answers All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.