|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
They really, really, should not be that sneaky and persnickity about two increibly similar things working very differently. It encourages rampant rules lawyering.
Mark Seifter wrote:
Benefit: When wielding a scimitar with one hand, you can use your Dexterity modifier instead of your Strength modifier on melee attack and damage rolls. You treat the scimitar as a one-handed piercing weapon for all feats and class abilities that require such a weapon (such as a duelist’s precise strike ability). The scimitar must be for a creature of your size. You cannot use this feat if you are carrying a weapon or shield in your off hand.
It has wording against shields being in the off hand, which the errata says bucklers are not. The buckler being in the off hand for one feat but not in the off hand for another is headache inducing. I can't decide if I've had too many shots or not nearly enough...
The rules actually working like this sometimes are why people try really weird rules arguments...
Scott Wilhelm wrote:
Every time i think i found one the rules discussion brings it up...
For my part, I am not saying that in principle RAW can only ever say one thing or even that it can ever only say one thing. I am saying rather that a certain interpretation of RAW is legal, and therefore, players have the right to build characters based on that, and GMs may, and perhaps even must, enforce the rules that way.
Rules adjudication is the DMs job, not the players. DMs have no obligation to accept whatever interpretation a player can come up with Players are infamous for coming up with logic twisting, rules lawyering arguments that "prove" that their overpowered concept works.
Players have an obligation to either ask a DM how these things work, or to avoid these areas all together. If you go for a gray area you should expect no as a default.
Beating the dm over the head with the rules takes a rock solid argument going directly out of the book, and even then is something you hold back for important rules. Its not for an argument like this thats well passed questionable.
I hope you have added or will add your voice to ours with a click on the FAQ button.
Much like the jump a pit question i will not. This seems to be leaning pretty heavily towards a consensus.
Michael Brock wrote:
*headscratch* They changed from the last time the character was played until now.
"Its complicated, therefore we can't know anything" is the deniers argument. "Its complicated, but here's why we're pretty sure why the planet is going to warm up, on average, even if a few locations are going to get colder" is reality.
Of course, if you predict a colder london, then the skeptics are shouting. "LONDON WILL GET COLDER! GLOBAL WARMING IS A FRAUD"
GM Lamplighter wrote:
Necromancer: Hey, Pally, help me shake down that orphan and donate their pocket change to the societies resurrection fund.
Paladin: NO! *disintegrates*
There is no rule to prevent jerkish behavior. More rules give jerks more tools.
Cayden Cailean's "tastes great" " less filling" schism has also spilled much precious liquid into the sands.
Lawful types tend to confuse law with good.
Orfamay Quest wrote:
Theres a lot of problems with that.
RAW its all the squares, not any one square.
You would also be able to gain a +4 cover bonus simply by saying "i shift a littleback and to the left so he has to attack me through the horse"
You could avoid attacks entirely by hiding on the far side of your horse from someone with a standard melee weapon: since the person can't enter the square with your horse they can't swing at you, at all.
You could do the above by playing "press your luck" no wammies no wammies... by "blinking" to any square as your opponent moved around you... all while firmly seated in your saddle.
Lets you use reach weapons at melee and adjacent, something pathfinder tries to avoid.
It answers them.
Yes yes and yes
. Can a Large sized creature attack at the 10' diagonal square?
10-Foot Reach and Diagonals: I’m confused about reach and diagonals. I heard somewhere online that you don’t threaten the second diagonal with a 10-foot reach but that you somehow get an attack of opportunity when opponents move out of that square, but the Rules Reference Cards show that you do threaten the second diagonal. Which one is correct?
The cards are correct. As an exception to the way that diagonals normally work, a creature with 10 feet of reach threatens the second diagonal. These changes will be reflected in the next errata.
That FAQ makes it an exception for all reach, not just medium critter with blade on a stick.
2. Can a Medium creature with a reach weapon attack the 10' diagonal square?
Yes (see faq)
3. If the Medium creature is riding a large creature and wielding a reach weapon can he attack the 10' diagonal square? If so, why?
Eyup. See above.
We're now up to the entire society. Unless you've never healed an andoran?
It would require a warning from the DM first. And then wouldn't stop the check.
"Who are you killing?
"Possible evil act. Who are you killing?
"Some random guy?
"Evil act, who are you killing?
"Bonesaw Puppykicker? Apparently its a contract from druids local 704...
"There we go. 10 gold.
32% of climate studies claim a human cause does NOT mean that the other 68% are letting humans off the hook. There are dozens of other things the studies could be about from determining what the change was (from ice cores, tree rings, silt deposits, pollen counts...), to determining the effects of the change (at x degrees we lose New orleans, at Y degrees we lose new york) What you need to find for this argument is what percentage of studies say that humans are NOT responsible for climate change. THAT would make an argument.
Ok, I dig that you occupy all of the squares of your mount. That still doesn't answer where your attack originates from.
It does actually. An attacker can chose any corner to originate the attack from so the answer becomes
1) It originates from whatever corner you want BUT...
2) That doesn't matter because what corner the attack originates from is irrelevant to whether or not a creature is adjacent, because adjacent is a property of the creature not the origin of the attack.
If you do have to declare what square you are attacking from how do AoOs that you may provoke work?
What corner you're attacking from is irrelevant: if something threatens your horse and you draw the aoo they're threatening you.
As for the question about reach with animal companions when they hit large size (I don't think we are talking about just the Axe Beak anymore) has there been on thread on this yet? Any Dev posts I'm not aware of? Should we start a thread on that too and get it FAQ'd?
That might be more FAQable.
Not mine, but it was pretty hard to beat.
It was a dark matter campaign (modern conspiracy). The party was trying to stop some thugs from stealing something from a train. Some aliens were in a cloaked ship right next to it trying to do the same thing.
The party's swashbucklery olympic fencer kinda sorta sees the cloaked ship. He jumps off the moving train, onto.. well, nothing , makes a 30ish acrobatics check to walk along a surface he can't see, and then crits the mook with the sub machine gun.
One of the aliens inside actually popped the window to clap.
Joe Ducey wrote:
Thats way more loopholey than you want to try to build a PFS character around.
Mark Stratton wrote:
You know, if you read these boards long enough, you'll find that many people, now and then, violate the "don't be a jerk" rule. It happens, and I think it's just the nature of being able to post behind the computer screen (instead of confronting someone face to face.) ...
and then you meet them face to face and they're the same....
*ow ow ow ow*