Paizo Top Nav Branding
  • Hello, Guest! |
  • Sign In |
  • My Account |
  • Shopping Cart |
  • Help/FAQ
About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ
The Green Faith

Andrew Christian's page

Goblin Squad Member. RPG Superstar 2013 Dedicated Voter. Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Card Game, Companion, Roleplaying Game Subscriber. FullStarFullStarFullStarFullStarFullStar Venture-Captain, Minnesota—St. Paul. 2,449 posts (6,502 including aliases). 3 reviews. 1 list. No wishlists. 18 Pathfinder Society characters. 1 alias.


RSS

1 to 50 of 2,449 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
Sovereign Court Dedicated Voter 2013

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

As John Francis said, there is no precedence for being able to threaten but not attack a square.

The very definition of threaten is that you threaten all squares into which you can attack. So by RAW, you can attack into every square you threaten. Its the inverse of the rule that must be true for the rule to be true.

What you, Silbeg, are proposing is that the FAQ is making two instead of one change to the rules, despite it only explicitly making one change.

Isn't it simpler to assume the rules work exactly as they always have except for the one explicit change?

Sovereign Court Dedicated Voter 2013

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

If you threaten, you can attack.

Sovereign Court Dedicated Voter 2013

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

I'm seeing a lot of arbitrarily high DCs. I'm sure this is from a player perspective as its annoying to spend 30k on an item with a DC laughable to any villain that will face a PC that could afford 30k.

I can't bring myself to vote for those items unless significantly better than the other item.

Sovereign Court ***** Venture-Captain, Minnesota—St. Paul , Dedicated Voter 2013

GM Lamplighter wrote:
I used to be that way, but then I met him face-to-face. Amazing how that tones down the disagreements. (Speaking of which... how long until PaizoCon again? )

Yup. Text doesn't allow you to see tone or body language. And as such it can make you seem like an jerk. Add in the tone and body language, and it often reverses that opinion.

Sovereign Court ***** Venture-Captain, Minnesota—St. Paul , Dedicated Voter 2013

E. Quint wrote:
Muser wrote:

** spoiler omitted **

** spoiler omitted **

** spoiler omitted **

Spoiler:
It would have been better to use the wish to bring in a Ghaele Azata or a Trumpet Archon. Both have Heal on their spell list. Then the next round use Monster Summoning IX to summon the other one. I really wanted to run this on hard mode so I could bring in both the good aligned outsiders to really give it to the players.

Additionally, a widened wall of stone would have given him like 60 squares, so he could have literally built a maze for the players to get through and sent his good aligned summons in the other side.

Sovereign Court ***** Venture-Captain, Minnesota—St. Paul , Dedicated Voter 2013

Strict interpretation of the rules say:

1) no
2) no
3) Yes
3a) Yes as long as you choose the "wait for pregen level" option.

I would be inclined to feel 2c is within the spirit of the rule.

Sovereign Court ***** Venture-Captain, Minnesota—St. Paul , Dedicated Voter 2013

A disease that's ingoing, though, needs resolution. You can't assume the save will be made.

Sovereign Court Dedicated Voter 2013

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Card Game, Companion, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Jeff Merola wrote:

The FAQ you referenced is about an ability that specifically named slings, not an item that has a developer quote saying "this works differently."

Also, I need to find it, but I'm pretty sure Mark or another recently stated that FAQs do exactly what they say they do, and nothing more.

Edit: Found it!

Mark Seifter wrote:
A FAQ has the scope that the FAQ says it has. In this case, the scope is incorporeality and counting as magic, no more, but also no less.

You still have to look at precedent when there is something ambiguous.

If its ambiguous, you look at how they ruled other similar things, and use that to help inform you on how you will adjudicate this thing.

In this case, precedent of FAQs is not consistent with SKR's clarification from 2010.

Sovereign Court Dedicated Voter 2013

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Card Game, Companion, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Jeff Merola wrote:
Andrew Christian wrote:
Jeff Merola wrote:
Andrew Christian wrote:


In all fairness, that was a post in 2010. Later FAQ's and clarifications are inconsistent with this clarification based on the language present.
What later FAQ's and clarifications? The only thing I'm aware of is the fact that the clarification wasn't included in the reprint, which isn't the same thing.

Later FAQs and clarifications on other issues that use similar language.

This rules set does not allow you to consider a single rule in a vacuum. You have to look at the entire thing in context with itself.

So you have to consider later FAQs and clarifications on similar subjects and how they made the ruling and why.

Can you please quote the FAQs and clarifications made on other things that somehow directly counter a previous developer quote on this specific issue?

I discussed them upthread already.

Sovereign Court Dedicated Voter 2013

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Card Game, Companion, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Jeff Merola wrote:
Andrew Christian wrote:


In all fairness, that was a post in 2010. Later FAQ's and clarifications are inconsistent with this clarification based on the language present.
What later FAQ's and clarifications? The only thing I'm aware of is the fact that the clarification wasn't included in the reprint, which isn't the same thing.

Later FAQs and clarifications on other issues that use similar language.

This rules set does not allow you to consider a single rule in a vacuum. You have to look at the entire thing in context with itself.

So you have to consider later FAQs and clarifications on similar subjects and how they made the ruling and why.

Sovereign Court Dedicated Voter 2013

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Card Game, Companion, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Jason Wu wrote:
Andrew Christian wrote:

That is not necessarily the consensus.

I do not see anywhere that would lead one to believe that the Scorpion Whip is anything but exactly what its stat block says it is. I don't see any language that says what you say it says Jason.

I'm going off by what SK Reynolds said when the book came out:

"A scorpion whip uses the same rules as the whip in the PFRPG Core Rulebook, except (1) it deals lethal damage, even to creatures with armor bonuses, and (2) the stats in the table."

Even without that, though, as pointed out by folks above, the item entry describes it as a whip, and then goes on to enumerate the differences between it and a normal whip.

-j

In all fairness, that was a post in 2010. Later FAQ's and clarifications are inconsistent with this clarification based on the language present.

Sovereign Court Dedicated Voter 2013

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

@DraK: the snarky answer would be: it has the stats that is has in AA, and you need to own AA to use it, so look it up. But I understand what you mean.

@Andrew: it's in the text in AA;

AA wrote:

Scorpion Whip: This whip has a series of razor-sharp blades and fangs inset along its tip. It deals lethal damage, even to creatures with armor bonuses. If you are proficient with whips, you can use a scorpion whip.

It says "this whip". Then it points out that it deviates from normal whips with regard specifically to damage. That text would be completely unnecessary if it wasn't otherwise like a normal whip.

But when you read about a Bastard Sword, when it says, "this sword" it isn't referring to all swords.

The FAQ about the various sling feats, racial abilities and traits not working with a Halfling Sling Staff, also seem to indicate that if it doesn't specifically say "sling" and only "sling" then it doesn't work either.

So this language is certainly not indicative of what you are saying it is, because of the precedence of past clarifications on similar situations.

Sovereign Court Dedicated Voter 2013

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Card Game, Companion, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Ascalaphus wrote:

Yes, that's pretty much it. And 1d4, rather than 1d2.

---

You can read it in different ways, but this is a reasonable, good-faith reading of it. It answers all the rule-questions and results in a weapon that's a viable option.

Basically, scorpion whips are to whips as composite bows are to normal bows. You apply the same feats and weapon proficiencies, but there are some specific mechanical differences. The only differences are those explicitly called out.

So then, for other than RP reasons, why would anyone ever, buy a standard whip?

Sovereign Court ***** Venture-Captain, Minnesota—St. Paul , Dedicated Voter 2013

Welcome!

Sovereign Court Dedicated Voter 2013

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

That is not necessarily the consensus.

I do not see anywhere that would lead one to believe that the Scorpion Whip is anything but exactly what its stat block says it is. I don't see any language that says what you say it says Jason.

Sovereign Court ***** Venture-Captain, Minnesota—St. Paul , Dedicated Voter 2013

Its a pet peeve of mine when people pronounce Tortilla like Gorilla, Vanilla, and Godzilla.

However, I have both heard and prouncouned Morilla both as Tortilla and Gorilla, but never Goreeella or Fred.

Sovereign Court ***** Venture-Captain, Minnesota—St. Paul , Dedicated Voter 2013

That's a horrible Haiku.

5/7/5

Sovereign Court ***** Venture-Captain, Minnesota—St. Paul , Dedicated Voter 2013

Silbeg wrote:

There is no kill like overkill!

Wait, there is no such thing as overkill. There is only "Open Fire!" and "Reload!"

Isn't overkill what you do when a commoner gets lippy?

Sovereign Court ***** Venture-Captain, Minnesota—St. Paul , Dedicated Voter 2013

Possibly more excitement than anyone can handle! More info as it becomes available!

Sovereign Court ***** Venture-Captain, Minnesota—St. Paul , Dedicated Voter 2013

Welcome!

Sovereign Court ***** Venture-Captain, Minnesota—St. Paul , Dedicated Voter 2013

Congrats!

Sovereign Court ***** Venture-Captain, Minnesota—St. Paul , Dedicated Voter 2013

Awesome job!

Sovereign Court ***** Venture-Captain, Minnesota—St. Paul , Dedicated Voter 2013

congrats!

Sovereign Court ***** Venture-Captain, Minnesota—St. Paul , Dedicated Voter 2013

I'm very excited as I just sent off our convention support request.

Sovereign Court ***** Venture-Captain, Minnesota—St. Paul , Dedicated Voter 2013

3 people marked this as a favorite.
ZomB wrote:
Andrew Christian wrote:
It is generally bad practice to complain about the scenario you are running. A GM's job is to help his players have a good time. Do you really think that the GM is doing that job if they are complaining about the scenario they are running?

That is clearly a different point to the one I was responding to.

However you do raise a contributing factor. If a GM has signed up to run something that is not yet released and then finds they don't like it but are committed to run it. Then they can either run it as best they can (and their lack of enthusiasm likely comes through) or they can drop it and let several people down, or if the option is available run something else which likely lets someone down. Either way they are likely to not do that again in a hurry and the GM pool is impacted.

Not everyone is gifted at hiding their true feelings about something while they are running a scenario. I'm not always gifted at it either.

But I am always reminded of something:

One time at Gen Con 2013, I was running a scenario I really didn't like, 4 times or so. And I put as much effort as I could into making it fun for the players rather than worrying about my own feelings. I found that as the players smiled, laughed, and engaged with not only the story, but my portrayal of the NPCs and my silly voices, that I had fun too.

And one of the players even commented that it was the most fun they'd had in PFS, ever. And this was from a multi-year veteran.

The anecdote is not to toot my own horn, but rather a very personal experience I wanted to share that is poignant and germane to this topic. I was dreading running that scenario 4 times. And it turned out that my effort to hide my feelings and work extra hard to make it fun, turned out an exceptional experience for not only the players, but for myself as well.

Now I don't mind running that scenario anymore. I actually enjoy it.

Sovereign Court ***** Venture-Captain, Minnesota—St. Paul , Dedicated Voter 2013

ZomB wrote:
trollbill wrote:

Which begs the question, "How much of this is self-inflicted?"

If we, as GMs & coordinators tell our players we don't like the theme of the latest season and will not support it, why would we expect them to turn out for it?

What do you suggest the coordinators and GMs who don't like it do?

I suspect it is the PC killing reputation of the first 2 scenarios and the tech overdose in one month that has done the damage. It should rebound some, if it becomes clear that was a blip.

A small percentage of GMs have reduced their running or now wont sign up to run new scenarios before they are released (and vetted for quality and/or unwanted elements). So the GM pool is impacted, and latest scenario running is impacted. In locations where the GMs affected are one of a small number of GMs that's going to have a disproportionate effect on the local scene.

It is generally bad practice to complain about the scenario you are running. A GM's job is to help his players have a good time. Do you really think that the GM is doing that job if they are complaining about the scenario they are running?

Sovereign Court ***** Venture-Captain, Minnesota—St. Paul , Dedicated Voter 2013

Senko wrote:
Andrew Christian wrote:
Senko wrote:
Andrew Christian wrote:

I find it really odd that a group of role players are so concerned over cash that they refuse to have their character wear their affiliation badge over 250gp.

Just really odd.

Again not refusing we have our affiliation badges we just had other more useful purchases at these lower levels than the basic wayfinder. If it was one of the higher quality ones (multiple slots, other abilities) or i actually had ioun stones I'd have got one. So far however healing potions, scrolls, saving up to improve my Ac over 12 take priority than an alternative way to produce light or special effects that require additional purchases.
Your characters actually don't have their affiliation badges if they don't have a way finder.
Really? I wasn't the one who pulled out a badge and was actually looking for information on them with no luck so if you could point me to the rules on them I'd appreciate it.

The writeup for the wayfinder is in the Guide to Organized Play.

Its common knowledge that wayfinders are a Pathfinder's affiliation badge. There doesn't have to be a written rule for this as its largely fluff.

By 3rd level, if you cannot or won't afford a wayfinder for 250gp, then that really is the fault of the player, not the scenario for requiring a wayfinder.

Sovereign Court ***** Venture-Captain, Minnesota—St. Paul , Dedicated Voter 2013

I agree Dragnmoon, but later comments seemed to make that seem not to be true.

Sovereign Court ***** Venture-Captain, Minnesota—St. Paul , Dedicated Voter 2013

John Compton wrote:
Dragnmoon wrote:

Few questions John on the Seeker Arc Option:

** spoiler omitted **

** spoiler omitted **

Jeff Merola wrote:
I also have a question about the Seeker Arc option. If you GM it and apply all the sheets to the same character, do you get the fourth sheet even if your character is too high a level to actually play it via the Seeker Arc option (such as if they'd already played the previous Seeker Arc)? I want to say no, since it doesn't seem like you could get it if you actually played such a character, but the language seems to suggest that you do.

The flavor of the option certainly lends itself toward applying credit only to a 12th-level character (or someone of a level appropriate to play using the Seeker Arc option), but there's nothing in the text that prohibits it.

** spoiler omitted **

I don't have any problem with it.

One final clarification question:

If you play this in Seeker Mode, is it intended that the level 12 character play it as level 12 from start to finish? Or as you assign the chronicles you level up as normal for receiving a chronicle?

Sovereign Court ***** Venture-Captain, Minnesota—St. Paul , Dedicated Voter 2013

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Senko wrote:
Andrew Christian wrote:

I find it really odd that a group of role players are so concerned over cash that they refuse to have their character wear their affiliation badge over 250gp.

Just really odd.

Again not refusing we have our affiliation badges we just had other more useful purchases at these lower levels than the basic wayfinder. If it was one of the higher quality ones (multiple slots, other abilities) or i actually had ioun stones I'd have got one. So far however healing potions, scrolls, saving up to improve my Ac over 12 take priority than an alternative way to produce light or special effects that require additional purchases.

Your characters actually don't have their affiliation badges if they don't have a way finder.

Sovereign Court ***** Venture-Captain, Minnesota—St. Paul , Dedicated Voter 2013

I find it really odd that a group of role players are so concerned over cash that they refuse to have their character wear their affiliation badge over 250gp.

Just really odd.

Sovereign Court ***** Venture-Captain, Minnesota—St. Paul , Dedicated Voter 2013

awesome job Andrew, welcome!

Sovereign Court ***** Venture-Captain, Minnesota—St. Paul , Dedicated Voter 2013

1 person marked this as a favorite.

awesome job!

Sovereign Court ***** Venture-Captain, Minnesota—St. Paul , Dedicated Voter 2013

It may seem arbitrary, but there are traits that have height as a prerequisite.

Sovereign Court ***** Venture-Captain, Minnesota—St. Paul , Dedicated Voter 2013

Congrats to you!

Sovereign Court ***** Venture-Captain, Minnesota—St. Paul , Dedicated Voter 2013

Avatar-1 wrote:

Can I clarify what a few of you are saying - this is for those of you who say drawing scrolls from a SLWS does provoke:

Does drawing the scroll from a SLWS provoke, and casting from it provoke again?

It seems to me that the scroll is being unfurled twice?

Does drawing a scroll from a SLWS provoke in the same way it provokes from drawing it from a backpack? That doesn't make sense to me.

Drawing a scroll provokes.

Reading a scroll provokes.

It doesn't matter from where you draw, the provocation still happens.

A normal usage of a scroll can provoke twice in every instance that you use a scroll, except when you have an item or ability that negates one or both of the potential provocations.

Sovereign Court Dedicated Voter 2013

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

It may not make much actual sense on a 3D scale, but every medium-sized creature takes up a 5' cube. Yes, even the nearly 7' tall half-orcs only take up a 5' cube in height.

If he's occupying the 5' cube directly underground, then you have a couple questions to ask yourself:

1) Do the rules support being able to target along a line that is directly on the line of cover? Yes. Ranged rules allow this.

2) Is there any reason that a creature with Earth Glide couldn't just sit inside the ground if they wanted? No.

3) So what rule should I use to adjudicate this? Well there isn't one specifically for earth glide, but incorporeal creatures can also sit inside the ground or walls. So it does make some common sense to co-opt that ruling.

That being said, you could also rule that as long as you are earth gliding, you are either in the ground, or you are not. So none of this incorporeality stuff where you get to peak out and attack.

Sovereign Court ***** Venture-Captain, Minnesota—St. Paul , Dedicated Voter 2013

Steven Schopmeyer wrote:

I usually respond to questions of 'why am I being sent on this mission' with 'because you are the agent we have available. If you know of an alternate better suited to this mission, you have five minutes to fetch him'.

I'm not sure it is supported in the guide however.

Yeah, I always kinda looked at the Pathfinder Society as having a few agents available at any given time to any lodge. And often its six pathfinders that happen to be there when the VC has a mission he needs to assign.

I really don't see it as the VC having 79 pathfinders to choose from and then for some dumb reason choosing the 6 most disfunctional as a team.

The reality of organized play makes this seem different. But just because we have a player base of 60,000 or more with many characters per player, doesn't mean that there are 240,000 to 480,000 pathfinders hanging out at every lodge waiting for an assignment.

Sovereign Court ***** Venture-Captain, Minnesota—St. Paul , Dedicated Voter 2013

pauljathome wrote:
GM Lamplighter wrote:

Well, the V-C probably assumes that every Pathfinder has a certain baseline of skills.

While a lot of Venture Captains arguably ARE that incompetent hopefully most of them realize that ACTUAL pathfinders are very, very often fairly specialized characters and at least TRY to match skill sets with the mission.

Just because the players choose to make campaign-inappropriate characters doesn't make the Venture-Captains incompetent. It may appear to be so sometimes because of the nature of organized play and the penchant for a lot of players to ignore some of what the campaign is about in an effort to build whatever kind of character they want.

That being said, I do not fully support what GM Lamplighter is saying, because there are simply some classes where it would be very difficult to have all the "baseline" of skills due to having only 2 skill points per level. And to be viable at their chosen profession, they can't spend more than 5 points on Intelligence or Charisma (and likely not both.) And in many cases those skills are not class skills for that class.

Sovereign Court ***** Venture-Captain, Minnesota—St. Paul , Dedicated Voter 2013

wellsmv wrote:

Benefit: The abilities of your animal companion or familiar are calculated as though your class were 4 levels higher, to a maximum effective druid level equal to your character level.

Special: You may select this feat more than once. The effects do not stack. Each time you take the feat, it applies to a different animal companion or familiar.

it will never go higher than your character lvl...

That's boon companion right?

Sovereign Court ***** Venture-Captain, Minnesota—St. Paul , Dedicated Voter 2013

You'll need to post the wording of the Ancestral Ally boon.

Sovereign Court ***** Venture-Captain, Minnesota—St. Paul , Dedicated Voter 2013

rknop wrote:

<i>To me, the rules in Pathfinder (may be true for all of 3rd edition--I never played any of it) are too complex. That combined with the enormous number of classes, races, etc. make it intimidating to GM.</i>

It's all of 3e, really. It's a pretty rules-heavy game and pretty fiddily in lots of places.

The bottom line is, the rules system was never intended to be run as strictly RAW. There is no way that the rules can cover every situation, and indeed I think Gygax once said that the GM is meant to interpret things as best fit their game. Thus Rule Zero.

In this case, running a campaign that's strictly RAW causes lots of those fiddly bits to become highlighted and exacerbated.

But its ok, because as long as our social contract with one another includes the GM trying to be fair and use common sense and the players not trying to eke every last ounce of power out of the gray areas of the rules, then we shouldn't have to worry too much about whether some obscure rule is being used 100% correctly or not.

Sovereign Court ***** Venture-Captain, Minnesota—St. Paul , Dedicated Voter 2013

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Jiggy wrote:
Andrew Christian wrote:
For the wrist sheath, saying nothing about provocation would have been more appropriate than saying "as normal" if no provocation was the intent.

Wait... you think I'm saying the intent was no provocation? That's not what I'm saying at all.

I'm saying that "provokes as normal" means "provokes in the same circumstances in which it would normally provoke".

So popping a scroll or potion would provoke, but not a wand or dagger. Just like normal.

Because the provocation is "as normal".

Just like how casting an unmodified spell provokes but casting a quickened or defensive spell doesn't, and Eschew Materials doesn't change that distinction: because the provocation is "as normal".

Just like how performing a reposition provokes from the target of the maneuver but not from other enemies and not at all if you have the feat, and the Repositioning weapon ability doesn't change that distinction: because the provocation is "as normal".

Normally, drawing a potion or scroll provokes while drawing a dagger or wand does not. The sheath leaves this alone.

It's not that the sheath doesn't provoke, it's that it sometimes provokes, depending on whether retrieving the contents would normally provoke or not.

So I am definitely NOT saying that "provokes as normal" somehow means "doesn't provoke". I'm saying that "provokes as normal" means "doesn't change the determination of whether retrieving a given item provokes".

Does that make more sense?

Yes! And I am now inclined to agree with you.

Sovereign Court ***** Venture-Captain, Minnesota—St. Paul , Dedicated Voter 2013

I'm not saying certain language always means X. I'm reading each instance in context with itself. Each of the instances you state, the language used makes sense as a clarification.

The use if "as normal" does nothing to further clarify the use of the wrist sheath. If you aren't changing something about the action being used, then no clarification is necessary.

In your examples, the actions are changed significantly enough that clarification is necessary.

For the wrist sheath, saying nothing about provocation would have been more appropriate than saying "as normal" if no provocation was the intent. As is, saying the word provooke, assuming the intent was no provocation "as normal", has caused mass wrong interpretation.

Sovereign Court ***** Venture-Captain, Minnesota—St. Paul , Dedicated Voter 2013

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Jiggy wrote:
Andrew Christian wrote:
Jiggy wrote:
Andrew Christian wrote:
I allow scrolls (if wild west card cheaters could use a spring loaded wrist sheath on a playing card, then a scroll with hardened leather or rods shouldnt be an issue.)

Yay, someone who gets it! :D

I think too many people picture ancient, flaking-apart parchment like you'd see in a movie where Indiana Jones discovers an X,000-year-old scroll in a dusty old library, instead of the fresh, high-quality, deliberately-reinforced, made-for-adventuring scrolls described in the rules.

Quote:
I do not allow potions. The sprind driven force not breaking the glass vial strains my credulity just a bit.

What if I declare that all my potions and oils are in steel vials instead of glass ones?

Core Rulebook, Equipment chapter wrote:
Vial: A vial is made out of glass or steel and holds 1 ounce of liquid.
;)
Well there ya go. I suppose steel would not break.
On the other hand, the Magic Items chapter says the default containers for potions are glass or ceramic, and gives the hardness and HP for them based on that. So maybe you should only allow them in the SLWS if the PC paid their 1gp per vial separately to get their 10-hardness potions! ;D

Blarg! Stop arguing with yourself! You just changed my mind twice in as many minutes!

Sovereign Court ***** Venture-Captain, Minnesota—St. Paul , Dedicated Voter 2013

Pink Dragon wrote:
Andrew Christian wrote:


Let's put this in perspective though.

Drawing from your boot or belt does not provoke because you sent doing anything to distract yourself. Often we see in movies, TV and other fiction that the act of drawing is indeed part of combat. I believe the only reason the wrist sheath provokes, is the intent of the item is that it hides the sheathed item under your clothing. So you literally have to reach up your sleeve to get the item out. If that isn't how you are wearing it, then don't buy one, and just define your items as creatively sheathed on your body. You wouldn't get the benefits of the wrist sheath though.

The spring loaded version changes the action economy. It might make sense that this would not provoke. Until you think about a spring driven, sharp object being thrust into your hand. I don't know about you, but that might distract me a bit so I make sure I don't stab myself.

Table 8-2 on page 183 of the Core Rule Book states that drawing a hidden weapon is a standard action that doesn't provoke an attack of opportunity. The wrist sheath speeds that up to a move action. The spring-loaded wrist sheath speeds that up to a swift action. But the "normal" rule is that drawing a hidden weapon does not provoke.

I really appreciate you doing all that research. Definitely good info to know.

However I have issue with applying it strictly to this argument.

There would be no reason to redundantly mention provoking or not, if it indeed worked as "normal." I can see reaffirming that it did not provoke by saying so explicitly.

So, either the author did not know the rules well enough to understand his needless redundancy, and the developer did not catch it, or the wording is simply imprecise.

I choose to believe its imprecise wording. The fact the wording is there at all should be evident that the intention was using a wrist sheath provokes.

Sovereign Court ***** Venture-Captain, Minnesota—St. Paul , Dedicated Voter 2013

Jiggy wrote:
Andrew Christian wrote:
I allow scrolls (if wild west card cheaters could use a spring loaded wrist sheath on a playing card, then a scroll with hardened leather or rods shouldnt be an issue.)

Yay, someone who gets it! :D

I think too many people picture ancient, flaking-apart parchment like you'd see in a movie where Indiana Jones discovers an X,000-year-old scroll in a dusty old library, instead of the fresh, high-quality, deliberately-reinforced, made-for-adventuring scrolls described in the rules.

Quote:
I do not allow potions. The sprind driven force not breaking the glass vial strains my credulity just a bit.

What if I declare that all my potions and oils are in steel vials instead of glass ones?

Core Rulebook, Equipment chapter wrote:
Vial: A vial is made out of glass or steel and holds 1 ounce of liquid.
;)

Well there ya go. I suppose steel would not break.

Sovereign Court ***** Venture-Captain, Minnesota—St. Paul , Dedicated Voter 2013

I allow scrolls (if wild west card cheaters could use a spring loaded wrist sheath on a playing card, then a scroll with hardened leather or rods shouldnt be an issue.)

I do not allow potions. The sprind driven force not breaking the glass vial strains my credulity just a bit.

Sovereign Court ***** Venture-Captain, Minnesota—St. Paul , Dedicated Voter 2013

The Fox wrote:

I am also of the belief that the SLWS does not provoke, and that is the ruling I go with when I am GMing. It would be weird if drawing a dagger from your boot as a move action did not provoke, but drawing a dagger from a SLWS as a swift action did provoke.

I used to be on the fence about whether one can put a scroll into a SLWS. This thread has firmly convinced me to allow it.

Let's put this in perspective though.

Drawing from your boot or belt does not provoke because you sent doing anything to distract yourself. Often we see in movies, TV and other fiction that the act of drawing is indeed part of combat. I believe the only reason the wrist sheath provokes, is the intent of the item is that it hides the sheathed item under your clothing. So you literally have to reach up your sleeve to get the item out. If that isn't how you are wearing it, then don't buy one, and just define your items as creatively sheathed on your body. You wouldn't get the benefits of the wrist sheath though.

The spring loaded version changes the action economy. It might make sense that this would not provoke. Until you think about a spring driven, sharp object being thrust into your hand. I don't know about you, but that might distract me a bit so I make sure I don't stab myself.

Sovereign Court ***** Venture-Captain, Minnesota—St. Paul , Dedicated Voter 2013

The Fox wrote:
Hrothskar wrote:
Yes, but if I as a GM have a question about wording, or want you to read how it works if you don't have it, then you are harming the tables enjoyment as a whole. Bring the resource for items you have is a core tennant of PFS.
Andrew, I seriously don't think you would ask for a resource just to grief a player over an item that you don't like. Am I right?

As always, the intent of both the player and GM, and the circumstances should inform every decision. There is no hard and fast rule when it comes to fair and common sense. I try to follow both.

1 to 50 of 2,449 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

©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.