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

Gauss's page

Goblin Squad Member. Pathfinder Society Member. 7,360 posts (7,368 including aliases). No reviews. 1 list. No wishlists. 1 Pathfinder Society character. 1 alias.


1 to 50 of 537 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I think I understand your problem. Are you new to 3.x? Started with Pathfinder? You seem to believe that every word is carefully chosen to have rules applicability.

Guess what? This is a very very messed up system as far as language is concerned. Some of the Devs have even stated it.

It was built back in 3.0 upon the bones of 2nd edition, rebuilt in 3.5, rebuilt again in Pathfinder. There is so many language artifacts in this game that it often doesn't have any sort of internal consistency if you adhere to the letter of the rules like you are trying to.

Back to the rules, yes, concentration only applies if something bad happens to you.

But the thing you are missing is that Pathfinder specifically changed concentration from being a catchall skill that could be used for 'anything that needed concentration' to 'casting or maintaining a spell, spell-like ability, or certain magic items such as spell-completion'. They specifically changed it from a skill that affected anything that might have anything even remotely to do with concentrating to something that only applies to casting and maintaining spells or spell like things.

So we ask:
Is this a case of casting a spell? No
Is this a case of maintaining a spell? No
Is this a spell-like ability? No
Is this a magic item requiring concentration? No
Is there any reference anywhere in the spell that states it is subject to the concentration rules other than the incidental inclusion of the word concentrate? No

Since the answer is all no, this is either a case of a "rule" (your position) with no rules to govern it OR "language" (my position) that does not have any rules to govern it (because it is not rule specific).


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Call Lightning has no requirement to maintain the spell, you cannot lose it.

CRB p252 Call Lightning wrote:
Duration 1 min./level

No concentration in the duration so it does not require "concentration to maintain the spell".

CRB p216 Duration types wrote:

Concentration: The spell lasts as long as you concentrate on it. Concentrating to maintain a spell is a standard action that does not provoke attacks of opportunity. Anything that could break your concentration when casting a spell can also break your concentration while you’re maintaining one, causing the spell to end. See concentration on page 206.

You can’t cast a spell while concentrating on another one. Some spells last for a short time after you cease concentrating.

Since Call Lightning does not have a duration of "concentration" the Concentration rule (quoted above) does not apply.

Summary: Calling a bolt cannot be disrupted or lost.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

You can download the changes here.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Aaron "Lawful G" Beal,

Thank you for seeing things from my point of view. I understand that such a disclaimer would have to be carefully phrased.

After some thinking, I believe that the disclaimer probably doesn't need the 'user error' statement so long as it contains the 'not a substitute for the rulebooks' and the 'not a Paizo product' statements.

With those two statements it should be much easier to show people their user errors because the regularly occurring situation seems to be that when there is a user error then it almost always leads to the 'not a substitute for the rulebook' argument which then regularly leads to the 'not a Paizo product' argument.

Without the last two arguments it should be a relatively simple matter to ask them to check for user error or even to show them the user error.

You mentioned that you have already done something similar at conventions.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Hmm, I am NOT blaming the tool. I have gone out of the way to NOT blame the tool. Even 3 of 4 points made by Nefreet do not blame the tool.

What I am asking for is the company to make it crystal clear to the users of the tool that that the tool is subject to user error, not a substitute for the rules, and not in any way a Paizo product.

Somehow, some way, these things have become prevalent enough where I have had repeated arguments with multiple users.

One more time: all I want is a statement from Hero Lab stating, in black and white, these things. One I can point to whenever an argument about a rule pops up and people try to point to Hero Lab as a rules source.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Nefreet and I on the same page..I think that was one of the signs of the apocalypse. :)


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Aaron "Lawful G" Beal wrote:
Nefreet wrote:

1) Rules atrophy

HeroLab is a crutch. Why bother to learn how your character works when the program does it for you? I have watched over the last few years as once great rules gurus have devolved into "because HeroLab says so". This isn't anecdotal forum experience, these are real people I game with. The example I often use is the 12th level Bull Rush specialist who kept applying a miscellaneous -4 penalty to his CMB. When I looked it over I realized HeroLab was applying his Power Attack penalty. Not something that'd be happening if he just went off his character sheet.

Forgive me, but this seems sorta elitist and dismissive, it reminds me of people in Call of Duty who are like "Git gud n00b". You say it's a crutch, I say it is a convienance which makes the game more accessible to newcomers and veterans alike. With pathfinder a system with so many rules and their interactions, it can be quite intimidating, and anything we can do to make it less so is too the good. As for veteran gamers relying on it, I see that as a testament to the quality of our program and how often it is correct. Of course there will always be areas where we have a bug, but I'm proud to say more often than not, we're right.

Also, as an untyped penalty to attacks power attack it would apply to CMB rolls in any round where you used it. It sounds like the person you were talking too was leaving his power attack on all the time, instead of only when he needed it, which is an error on the user's part, not the program's.

You missed the point of his post. He is stating that users do not bother to check their numbers and learn the rules because they think Hero Lab is an infallible rules source and won't let them do anything against the rules. Hero Lab is not being used as an extra tool, it is being used as the ONLY rules source thinking that it won't let them do something against the rules.

Solution: Make huge disclaimer when they open (and/or purchase) the program that it is not a substitute for the rules, is not a Paizo product, and that user errors make cause errors in the character sheet.

Aaron "Lawful G" Beal wrote:
Nefreet wrote:

2) Rules arguments

This tends to happen more at Conventions (but not in this last year, as I don't allow HeroLab at my PFS tables) but the rate of rules arguments during a session is greater when people are tabbing through HeroLab. This relates to Rules Atrophy. When people have a number in front of them, on their screen, and I'm telling them that's wrong, they're more likely to argue the point and eat up game time. They feel empowered by the "evidence" in front of them. It takes away the authority of being GM. By simply not allowing HeroLab at the table I eliminate that unneeded stress.
Again, this empowerment is a positive in my book. Perhaps you're always correct when you try to set your players straight, but every DM is not you. I get many many bug reports from players and DMs that think HL is doing something wrong, only for me to point them at a rule they had forgotten. Every DM is not always right and the program can help point that out to their players. In my opinion, GM authority is less of a concern than everyone understanding the rules by which they play. If the GM doesn't like the way the official rules go, they are free to negotiate with their players how things will work at their table (although not in PFS, obviously) but the player has to be made aware of the deviation first.

Again, this is not about empowerment, and again you are missing the point.

The point here is that the players believe Hero Lab is the rules source and that Hero Lab is 100% without fail accurate. As a result they argue with the GM pointing to HERO LAB as the source and not the RULE BOOK as the source. Even when the GM points to the RULE BOOK the Hero Lab user argues that Hero Lab is a Paizo product and therefore must be right.

Again, the problem is the perception of your user base.

The reality is that Hero Lab is not a Paizo product and is only as accurate as the user using it. User errors can make anything inaccurate.

Solution: Make huge disclaimer when they open (and/or purchase) the program that it is not a substitute for the rules, is not a Paizo product, and that user errors make cause errors in the character sheet.

Aaron "Lawful G" Beal wrote:
Nefreet wrote:

3) Time killer

The game that made me finally put my foot down involved a Mystic Theurge who spent more time tabbing through HeroLab than he actually spent doing his turns (and during a fast paced PFS Special). He had so many circumstantial modifiers that he'd have to edit or whatever during game that I just kept telling him he'd have to delay until he figured out what he was doing. In regular play I still see this happen. Players waste their turns tabbing this or that while others get frustrated at the slowdown. Being indecisive is already a prevalent problem. Adding clicking and scrolling to that is too much.

One, it sounds like he might have not been used to the character or used to using HL, if navigating around to click on things truly took him so long.

Two, it could have had something to do with the fact that Mystic Theurge is a class we can't support very well in HL. He may have been employing a variety of workarounds that could prove clunkier than usual.

Three, I think keeping his character accurate and taking advantage of whatever bonuses he should be getting is important enough to give him and others a break on the time pressure.

I have little comment on this, this is more of a program issue that I can understand as a work in progress.

Aaron "Lawful G" Beal wrote:
Nefreet wrote:

4) "I own HeroLab"

This literally happened today. A player stated she'd spent $150 on HeroLab packages and wanted to bring a new character to game next week. With the aid of my VC we diplomatically tried to tell her HeroLab wasn't Paizo, and that she'd have to own the sources she was planning on using. But it's not a discussion that usually goes well. You know that look people give you when they're clearly not believing what you're telling them? Yeah. That's the sort of look these players all share. It creates tension and usually means they're completely turned off to PFS. It creates an enemy rather than an ally.
I don't think we've ever implied that Hero Lab was owned or operated by paizo, or that it was a replacement for owning the required sources for PFS. In fact, our Character Creation Stations at the various Cons we attend all have signs saying "you still need the legal source handy". I do know that we can't control how people react to you explaining that to them. Sorry that you're in a difficult position here, but I feel laying the blame at the feet of our product is unfair.

And this is the heart of the matter, you take no responsibility for how your user base is using your product.

Instead of saying, 'Yup, how our users are claiming that Hero Lab is 100% accurate or a rules source or even a Paizo product is an issue, and that is a problem we will address.', you instead deflect the blame onto the user base.

The problem with that is, this is not an isolated incident. I've heard it from many Hero Lab users, not just one. In most cases it takes hours of argument across multiple gaming sessions with each user to prove why Hero Lab is not 100% accurate (usually due to user error) before they get it.

Solution: Again, the simplest solution is a big banner disclaimer when they open the program. Then at least those of us that try to refute that Hero Lab is not a Paizo product would have something to point to.

PLEASE, educate your user base. It should not be the GMs job to educate your user base as to the limitations of your program (user error, not a substitute for a rules source, not a Paizo product).


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Very excellent summary Nefreet!


1 person marked this as a favorite.

After. However, you do not start out at middle age or older. The ages you start out at are on CRB p169.

Now, many people might try to game the system by getting extra age bonuses but then you have to explain why you have not had any kind of career (even an NPC class of Commoner) until you are middle age.

Frankly, any GM should immediately tell you no.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Aranna, Snowblind, it may not be a rigid body but it has a specific external volume that is larger than the internal volume you are trying to put it in. It is not about fitting it through the opening.

To put it another way, you can fit an empty burlap potato sack through the opening in your pants pocket but there is no way you are putting the entire thing in there.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

The line that allows you to use feats specifically calls out using them for DCs, nothing else. So, no. However, it wouldn't be an unreasonable houserule imo.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I don't have to imagine it, I just have to look up the rules. The rules state that a rider on a mount occupies the entire mounts space.

Going with your large example, if a rider is on an huge creature, where is the rider? The rider is in all 27 (3x3x3) cubes, even the mount's feet!
Does that make any kind of realistic sense? Nope! But those are the rules.

Reach is not determined by space, you are conflating the two. You have a small creature occupying a medium, large, huge, or whatever, space. That does not change the small creature's reach (5' or 10' with a reach weapon).

Summary: the rules clearly state that the rider occupies the same space as the mount.
The rules do not state that the rider can choose where he is located on the mount or where he can attack from.
You are trying to add a level of detail to the game which the rules do not support. That level of detail may make sense, but it is not part of the existing rules.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Lune, lets change tack a moment, can an Ogre, using a Longspear, attack any square adjacent to him? Nope.

Same thing here, a Halfling using a Longspear while mounted on a Horse cannot attack any square adjacent to the Halfling/Horse.

The Halfling is considered to take up the same space as the Horse, which is also the same space as an Ogre.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Positive and Negative energy are not "energy" attacks in the same way that the classic energy types (Acid, Cold, Electricity, Fire, and Sonic) are and do not usually do damage to objects for the same reason that they do not do damage to Constructs. There is usually an 'alive or undead' clause in there.

In 3.5 there was actually term definitions that supported this. Pathfinder did not bother to define many terms and that has created many problems.
For example, there are abilities that allow you to convert energy types and some people think that should include positive and negative "energy".

Regarding Kaiju, you'll notice it does not say "acid energy" or "cold energy" but it does say "negative energy".

"Negative Energy" is not one of the 5 types of energy, it is a name.

Edit: here are a couple of quotes from 3.5

3.5 PHB p308 wrote:
energy damage: Damage caused by one of five types of energy (not counting positive and negative energy): acid, cold, electricity, fire, and sonic.
3.5 PHB p310 wrote:
negative energy: A black, crackling energy that originates on the Negative Material Plane. In general, negative energy heals undead creatures and hurts the living.

The CRB does not have a basic word defintion section and as a result these questions repeatedly come up. Heck, people even argue over whether "character" and "creature" are interchangable (some people think they are not). Back in 3.5 the glossary stated they were and without these basic definitions there is a lot of confusion and debate that shouldn't happen.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I edited my post as you were posting and removed the location element. I updated it to include the text from 3.5 which explained it better than Pathfinder does.

Also, I provided another rationale, the observation rationale. Detect Magic does not allow you to observe the spell effect, it only lets you see the aura.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Yes, you are misinterpreting it.

Please note that it doing this does not require Detect Magic.
Would it make sense that you can simply walk up to someone and identify every spell that is on their person, even the non-observable ones (such as Polymorph), just by looking at them?
Nope. You need to be able to see the effects of the spell. You cannot do that with Polymorph without being able to observe it.

Polymorph has specific ways to detect it and this is not one of them.

Method 1: opposed Perception check vs Disguise+10 check.
Method 2: True Seeing or similar spell.

In one respect, this is another casualty of Pathfinder trying to shorten things without explaining them. In 3.5 it had this wording:

3.5 PHB p82 wrote:
20 + spell level Identify a spell that’s already in place and in effect. You must be able to see or detect the effects of the spell. No action required. No retry.

Detect Magic tells you that there is an aura, but you are still not seeing or detecting the effects of the spell. For that you need the above mentioned Perception check or True Seeing.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

To add to what the others are saying, lets assume for a moment you can select a power you do not have.

You gain uses in a power that, you still do not have. Put another way, the uses in an ability you don't have don't do anything for you because you still don't have the ability.

Its like wearing a magic item that adds uses per day to a power. It does not grant you the power.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Diego, subtype IS a type. I showed that earlier. Subtype is part of the type rules.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

karnos, this is a case of specific overriding general.

General: prepared spells must be prepared with the metamagic feat.
Specific: metamagic rods are used at the time of casting and grant you the use of the feat when you cast the spell.

Pathfinder is full of specific vs general "contradictions".

However, if you want to ignore how everyone has understood this to work for the last 5 years (pathfinder) or 10 years (3.5+PF) then that is up to you.

Of course, you can ignore the entirety of the history of Pathfinder (ie: 3.5) and if that is the case you are in trouble. There are A LOT of Pathfinder rules that are not defined or poorly defined unless you look at 3.5 rules.

Example: What is "energy"? If you look just at Pathfinder a case for Positive and Negative "energy" being "energy" (and thus subject to effects that affect energy) could be made.
However, if you look at 3.5 it is well defined that energy is the traditional 4 elements + sonic and does not include Positive and Negative energy despite the name.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Since d20pfsrd is not an official rules source here you go: PRD (official rules source). You can also find this on pages 178-179 of the CRB.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
CRB p185 wrote:
Holding the Charge: If you don’t discharge the spell in the round when you cast the spell, you can hold the charge indefinitely. You can continue to make touch attacks round after round. If you touch anything or anyone while holding a charge, even unintentionally, the spell discharges. If you cast another spell, the touch spell dissipates. You can touch one friend as a standard action or up to six friends as a full-round action. Alternatively, you may make a normal unarmed attack (or an attack with a natural weapon) while holding a charge. In this case, you aren’t considered armed and you provoke attacks of opportunity as normal for the attack. If your unarmed attack or natural weapon attack normally doesn’t provoke attacks of opportunity, neither does this attack. If the attack hits, you deal normal damage for your unarmed attack or natural weapon and the spell discharges. If the attack misses, you are still holding the charge.
CRB p216 wrote:
Touch Spells and Holding the Charge: In most cases, if you don’t discharge a touch spell on the round you cast it, you can hold the charge (postpone the discharge of the spell) indefinitely. You can make touch attacks round after round until the spell is discharged. If you cast another spell, the touch spell dissipates.

Two different sections state that do not lose the held charge until you discharge it with a successful hit. Note: you can also lose the held charge if you touch something else (like a door) or by casting a new spell.

The Magus changes this in two ways: One, you can touch your weapon without discharging the spell. Two, you can channel a touch spell through your weapon in a regular attack. The Magus did not change that you keep the held charge until you successfully hit.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

ARG Statblock (page 202) does not list them as having Darkvision.
ARG Racebuilder (page 245) does list them as having Darkvision (for free as part of paying for being a Native Outsider). It then lists them as paying for Low-light vision.
Bestiary 3 (page 258) lists Suli as only having Low-Light vision (in violation of the basic rules for Native Outsiders).

This appears to be a case where the ARG is trying to fit the Bestiary and they should have offered a points refund for the Suli or at least not charged for Low-Light Vision.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

It doesn't matter how many actions the person provoking takes, moving out of more than one square counts as only one opportunity per round.

CRB p180 wrote:
Moving out of more than one square threatened by the same opponent in the same round doesn’t count as more than one opportunity for that opponent. All these attacks are at your full normal attack bonus.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

First, not a rules question. Flagging to be moved.

Second, watching that video there are several things to note.
1) We do not see a comparison between how they do those same actions in and out of armor so we have no idea how much the armor is actually hindering them.

2) Several of those actions (such as the jumping up and kicking feet together) appear quite ungainly in armor.
Assuming that the person performing the maneuvers was proficient in the maneuver it appears to have been much more difficult in armor.

3) We have no idea how much people have practiced in that armor to do those things.
That could be akin to the fighter's class ability Armor Training, the trait Armor Expert, and/or having Masterwork armor.
Alternately, it could be akin to having many ranks in the skill.

4) We did not see them try to scale a wall without a ladder using either a rope or freeclimb (climb skill), walk a thin ledge (acrobatics skill), or swim in a lake/river (swim skill).

So, that video can neither support nor contradict a -6 penalty as it provides insufficient evidence but the person performing those maneuvers certainly did appear to be ungainly.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

This really falls under common sense more than strict RAW. If you cannot use a feat because you have lost the prerequisite you cannot count as an ally who possesses the feat.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

In which Pathfinder book is the class on makeup (Rouge) published? I must've missed that one. :D


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Get a Ring of Eloquence. It specifically works while polymorphed into forms that cannot speak (and, it is cheaper).


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Everything you have stated is correct.

You can also halve the crafting time by increasing the DC by 5.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Then it needs to be enchanted as a weapon and not as a shield. If it is enchanted as a shield they cannot then use the shield enchantment as a weapon enchantment if they are already doing that with the other shield (due to only one shield slot).

So yes, you can save half the money on one shield but not the other.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

And here is your FAQ

FAQ wrote:

Mithral armor: What exactly does it mean when it says mithral armor is counted as one category lighter for “other limitations?”

This means that mithral armor allows its wearer to use it when her own class features or special abilities demand her to wear lighter armor; in other words, the character wearing the armor is less limited. For example, a bard can cast spells in mithral breastplate without arcane spell failure, a barbarian can use her fast movement in mithral fullplate, a ranger can use his combat style in mithral fullplate, brawlers, swashbucklers, and gunslingers can keep their nimble bonus in mithral breastplate, rogues keep evasion in mithral breastplate, a brawler can flurry in mithral breastplate, characters without Endurance can sleep in mithral breastplate without becoming fatigued, and so on. It does not change the armor’s actual category, which means that you can still store a creature one size category larger in a hosteling mithral fullplate, and you can’t enhance a mithral breastplate with special abilities that require it to be light armor, like brawling (though you could enhance it with special abilities that require it to be medium armor), and so on.

Short answer, yes. Mithral Breastplate is Light Armor for the purpose of Nimble.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

1. No, because you do not have a clear straight line path.

CRB p198 wrote:
You must have a clear path toward the opponent, and nothing can hinder your movement (such as difficult terrain or obstacles). You must move to the closest space from which you can attack the opponent. If this space is occupied or otherwise blocked, you can’t charge. If any line from your starting space to the ending space passes through a square that blocks movement, slows movement, or contains a creature (even an ally), you can’t charge.

2. Yes, you can charge while you are flying.

3. If you are on a mount you occupy the entire mount's space. You are not above the mount.

CRB p202 wrote:
For simplicity, assume that you share your mount’s space during combat.

So, since you occupy the entire space you can be struck from below if they can strike your mount. The Ranger can attack the rider of the Roc provided he can attack the Roc.

4. No, pinpointing only tells you where a creature is, it does not allow you to ignore miss chance.

Bestiary p305 wrote:

Tremorsense (Ex) A creature with tremorsense is

sensitive to vibrations in the ground and can automatically pinpoint the location of anything that is in contact with the ground. Aquatic creatures with tremorsense can also sense the location of creatures moving through water. The ability’s range is specified in the creature’s descriptive text.

5. I think you have Throw Rider backwards. A snake would be a mount, it is not a rider. The mount (the snake) throws the rider (presumably a humanoid). The humanoid is not immune to trip.

6. Yes, it is an attack roll.

7. Charge/Run: Only if you do not reduce your speed. If your movement is hampered you cannot charge or Run.
Withdraw does not have a restriction against hampered movement.
Note: I assume you are referencing Acrobatics to prevent an AoO as there is no 'tumble' skill in Pathfinder.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

deadboy,

Did you read the entire FAQ? The entire question it is asking is who is charging. It states that both are charging.

This was to shut down the very loophole that you are still trying to claim.
People were claiming that the mount can charge while the rider does not and thus the rider can still perform other actions while benefiting from the charge.
The above posted FAQ shut this down.

Really, you are quite late to this one, as it was already asked, answered, and the dead horse beaten to death again.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

This comes up quite a bit on the boards. As written, the mounted combat rules do not work as intended. That has been clear for quite a long time.

Even the phrases: "You must move at least 10 feet (2 squares) and may move up to double your speed directly toward the designated opponent." and "You must move to the closest space from which you can attack the opponent." (CRB p198 Charge rules) cause problems with Mounted Combat (specifically Ride-By Attack).

Many people read those phrases (separately or combined) to be that you draw a line from your square to the opponents square and move along that line. The problem is, that prevents ride by attack as you cannot move through your opponent afterwards.

Then there is the issue stemming from the rules not taking into account a rider and mount with different reach.
As written, if the mount and the rider have attacks with different reach then only one of them can make an attack when charging.

A Blog or FAQ on all of the mounted combat issues has been needed for quite some time.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Question for those who believe that the multiplier applies to all cost, do you also believe it applies to the Masterwork cost?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Every time someone brings up economics in relation to Pathfinder it makes me laugh.

What should happen when adventurers dump thousands of "lost gold" into a region?
The regions economy should tank as rampant inflation happens (this actually happened in history when spaniards brought back gold ships from the new world).

Is rampant inflation represented? Nope, equipment does not suddenly cost more coin because adventurers keep dumping gold into a region that didn't have it previously.

Is the buying and selling of magic items even remotely accurate according to economics? Nope, prices are static and do not fluctuate. While some GMs may vary this depending on diplomacy the starting point is always the same.

Is half a dozen other elements of economics represented? Nope

Gold is a metric of the game, nothing more, nothing less. We dress it up when roleplaying but that is a thin veneer. If you look too hard at it the veneer becomes see through.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Orfamay Quest, I was not wrong to inform someone of the rules. The guidelines are still rules. Again, the Devs have stated this.

If you choose to think of guidelines as 'not rules' that is up to you. However, they are clearly laid out as rules in rules books. Do they have the same force as other rules? Not necessarily. But they do not have to be to still be rules.

Heck, even the definition of "guideline" is "a rule that tells you how something should be done".

So, I am not wrong in any way shape or form. Guidelines are indeed rules.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

RedDogMT, your own quote states otherwise, "or just wait until some time later in the round and act then, thus fixing your new initiative count at that point."

You can either specify a number or just wait. So yes, you can just end the delay as a response to something, although you will go after that something (rather than before as in the case of a readied action).

Byakko is absolutely correct. The concept that you lose your turn is an outdated concept, you are delaying it, even if you delay it until your next action would have come up.

The problem with the concept of losing it is some GMs will say 'well, round 1 is done, you have lost your turn' when that is not how delay works.

Example:
starting initiative order:
"Start of round"
Player 1
Player 2
Enemy 2
Enemy 3
Player 3
Enemy 1
"End of round"

Player 3 decides to delay.
The "lose your turn" GM will state that if he does not act before the "end of the round" then he loses his action. This is absolutely, utterly, wrong.

The correct procedure is that Player 3 is delaying until he chooses to act or his normal initiative comes up. He can choose to act after Enemy 1, after Player 1, after Player 2, etc.

CRB p203 wrote:

Initiative Consequences of Delaying: Your initiative result becomes the count on which you took the delayed action. If you come to your next action and have not yet performed an action, you don’t get to take a delayed action (though you can delay again).

If you take a delayed action in the next round, before your regular turn comes up, your initiative count rises to that new point in the order of battle, and you do not get your regular action that round.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

No erasing required, use a magnet board.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Avatar-1,

The Sash of the War Champion "doesn't work" folks state that because you traded out Armor Training 2 it is lost and any increase in the level of Armor Training is meaningless (ie: you cannot ever advance Armor Training). The higher effects effectively never exist for you.

The Sash of the War Champion "does work" folks (I am one) state that the loss of Armor Training 2 is a loss of advancement of Armor Training and not a change of the class ability Armor Training.
Because Armor Training is never altered (only advancement lost) then if you can get that advancement from elsewhere (such as the Sash of the War Champion) then it works.

Taken from one perspective, Armor Training 2 could be interpreted as a class feature, but the problem with that perspective is that it is not written up as a class feature. It has no text under "Class Features".

As strict RAW (which nobody uses) Armor Training 2 doesn't even exist because it is only on a table with no corresponding text under "Class Features". Note: I am saying that nobody uses this interpretation because it is nonsensical even if it is RAW (people keep missing this point, I am emphasizing it).

Armor Training 2 clearly does mean *something* and we all assume that Armor Training 2 means the level 7 increase of Armor Training. But that is where our understanding diverges.

Either it is a class feature (which it isn't written up as) or it is an advancement of a class feature like every other class feature that advances (such as Sneak Attack and Channel Energy).
Other class features that advance can be artificially advanced regardless of whether you trade out specific increases or not unless there is specific text to the contrary.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Rub-Eta, what wording, to you, would mean it is a restriction?
It is not a suggestion, it is a clear 'this is how you may use this' rule.

It is unfortunate, it would be nice if you could use the touch during a move but, that is not how it is worded. They probably worded it this way specifically to avoid 'touch and run' tactics.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

First question, yes, usually. Example provided..no.

Normally this rule applies (allowing you to take a free action during another action):

CRB p182 wrote:
Free Action: Free actions consume a very small amount of time and effort. You can perform one or more free actions while taking another action normally. However, there are reasonable limits on what you can really do for free, as decided by the GM.

However, there is a specific rule regarding touch spells that overrides the free action rule:

CRB p185 wrote:
Touch Spells in Combat: Many spells have a range of touch. To use these spells, you cast the spell and then touch the subject. In the same round that you cast the spell, you may also touch (or attempt to touch) as a free action. You may take your move before casting the spell, after touching the target, or between casting the spell and touching the target. You can automatically touch one friend or use the spell on yourself, but to touch an opponent, you must succeed on an attack roll.

Because of the bolded line you cannot touch a target while moving.

Your options are:
Move, Cast, Touch
Cast, Move, Touch
Cast, Touch, Move

You cannot cast, move, touch, continue moving.

Of course, there are ways around this (Quick Runner's Shirt for example).


1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. 1 person marked this as a favorite.

There seems to be some confusion as to what the Armor Training ability states:

CRB p55 wrote:

Armor Training (Ex): Starting at 3rd level, a fighter

learns to be more maneuverable while wearing armor. Whenever he is wearing armor, he reduces the armor check penalty by 1 (to a minimum of 0) and increases the maximum Dexterity bonus allowed by his armor by 1. Every four levels thereafter (7th, 11th, and 15th), these bonuses increase by +1 each time, to a maximum –4 reduction of the armor check penalty and a +4 increase of the maximum Dexterity bonus allowed.

In addition, a fighter can also move at his normal speed while wearing medium armor. At 7th level, a fighter can move at his normal speed while wearing heavy armor.

1) Does the Dragoon have Armor Training? Yes

2) Does the Dragoon advance his Armor Training ability at level 7? No, his Armor Training (by level) is arrested at level 3.
3) Does the magic item Sash of the War Champion advance the Armor Training ability 4 levels? Yes

Result: A (minimum 3) Dragoon with Sash of the War Champion, by the Armor Training ability, counts as having level 7 Armor Training with a 2 pt reduction in ACP, +2 Max Dex, and can move full speed in Heavy Armor. This is what the magic item does.

This is really not difficult, yes he traded out ADVANCEMENT in the ability, he has not lost it. Since he has not lost it if he found alternate means to advance then he can do so.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Ok, once again (because this keeps coming up), the rules for load does not have ANYTHING to do with the rules for what kind of barding fliers can wear.

People keep assuming that the rules for Barding (a subset of Armor) apply to Armor and thus to light loads. They dont because they are a subset of the Armor rules.

If Barding the barding rules regarding flight applied to Armor then a Solar would not be able to fly (which a Solar is clearly doing in it's statblock).

Thus, Barding is a subset of the Armor rules.

In short, you can be medium or heavy loaded and wear Medium or Heavy Armor and still fly. You cannot wear Medium or Heavy barding (a subset of armor) and still fly.

Bonus history comparison:
3.5 stated that anything over a light load prevented a flying mount from flying (DMG p204-205). This statement was removed from Pathfinder.
3.5 also stated that while fliers are limited to light loads medium armor does not in itself constitute a medium load (Monster Manual 1 p312). No such statement exists in Pathfinder because the light load rule was removed.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
CRB p106 Spellcraft wrote:
Learning a spell from a spellbook takes 1 hour per level of the spell (0-level spells take 30 minutes).
CRB p106 Spellcraft wrote:
If you fail to learn a spell from a spellbook or scroll, you must wait at least 1 week before you can try again.
CRB p106 Spellcraft wrote:
Learn a spell from a spellbook or scroll 15 + spell level
CRB p219 Adding Spells to a Wizard's Spellbook wrote:

No matter what the spell’s source, the wizard must first decipher the magical writing (see Arcane Magical Writings). Next, he must spend 1 hour studying the spell. At the end of the hour, he must make a Spellcraft check (DC 15 + spell’s level). A wizard who has specialized in a school of spells gains a +2 bonus on the Spellcraft check if the new spell is from his specialty school. If the check succeeds, the wizard understands the spell and can copy it into his spellbook (see Writing a New Spell into a Spellbook). The process leaves a spellbook that was copied from unharmed, but a spell successfully copied from a magic scroll disappears from the parchment.

If the check fails, the wizard cannot understand or copy the spell. He cannot attempt to learn or copy that spell again until one week has passed. If the spell was from a scroll, a failed Spellcraft check does not cause the spell to vanish.
CRB p219 Writing a New Spell into a Spellbook wrote:
Once a wizard understands a new spell, he can record it into his spellbook.

So, where does that leave us? The only general rules for learning a spell are from a spell that is written.

There are no general rules for learning a spell that is not from a written source.

Then we have that the Replacing and Copying Spellbooks section directly references that you use the procedure for learning a spell.

Do you have anything in the Replacing and Copying Spellbooks section that provides an exception? Anything at all?

The rules are clear, you cannot write a spell down until you learn it.
Without a stated exception to the contrary, you cannot learn it unless you have a written source to study.

This really seems like a case of 'starting with and ending in mind and trying to make the rules fit'. This is appears to be an attempt to sidestep the normal process of learning a spell.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

It seems pretty clear to me, Breath of Life was intended to bring you back to life if you died from hit point damage.

It is not intended to bring you back from everything else. Is a FAQ even necessary?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Human Fighter, I don't see how the RAI of an over glorified cure spell is EVER intended to bring someone back from what amounts to a death effect (without the moniker "death effect").

Breath of Life is clearly intended to bring you back from hp damage and hp damage alone.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Human Fighter wrote:
I haven't read this all, but got called out on my thread accusing me of making two threads and that it wouldn't change the rules. I was at the table, and the paladin 2/ sorcerer 8 with 15 or 12 str (I forget) str fully min/maxed Jasper Williams who is obviously totally op as hell detected evil, then detected magic in this scenario mentioned above on some brass stone door stuff, and detected nothing causing his curiosity to open the door. Somehow this sprung a surprise round after the door had opened, which I would think he'd see the thing(s), but surprise round. Either both shadows where in this 5ft square, or the one inside surprised, and the other decided to 5ft out and surprise. Greater shadows, and an 8 then 7 were rolled, and we have a collapsed Jasper. From that point it was like, "what is the answer to no save awful" because flat footed touch double suppose shadow bros. isn't something we've experienced.

Ok, having a hard time separating everything in this wall of text. Please use bullet point style writing. :)

First, Paladin2/Sorcerer8...check
Second, Strength 12 or 15...check
Third, Detect Evil...this should have revealed evil on the other side of the door. Shadows are absolutely evil.
Did the GM state there was evil?
Fourth, Detect Magic, this would come up with nothing, Greater Shadows do not (normally) radiate magic.
Fifth, were the shadows within the wall?
Unless the shadows were inside the walls (or adjacent to the door), there should have been no surprise round (surprise only happens if some are aware but others are not).
Sixth, (extra question) did the shadows attack from INSIDE the wall?
If that is the case they should have had a 50% miss chance.

If 3 is no then there might be an appeal to be had. Detect Evil will reveal the number, strength, and direction of auras even through a 1 inch thick metal door. Unless specified otherwise doors should not be greater than this normally.

If 5 is no then a surprise round might not have been the correct GM call.
In order for there to have been a surprise round the Shadows must have been aware of the PCs while some (or all) of the PCs were not aware of the Shadows.

If 6 is a yes and the GM did not roll miss chance then there may be an appeal to be had.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

This is a classic example of reading a FAQ out of context. The context of this FAQ was to indicate that you can use two weapons for regular iteratives without going the TWF route. Ie, you can +6 with one weapon and +1 with the second weapon.

It then went on to clarify that you could not go +6/+6 with one weapon and +1/+1 with the second weapon when using TWF.

FAQs only answer the question being asked. The question is:

FAQ wrote:
Multiple Weapons, Extra Attacks, and Two-Weapon Fighting: If I have extra attacks from a high BAB, can I make attacks with different weapons and not incur a two-weapon fighting penalty?

The question the OP is asking is (summarized):

What order do I have to make my TWF attacks in? Do I have to go +6/+6/+1/+1 (ie: Primary +6, Secondary +6, Primary +1, Secondary +1) or can I use a different order?

This is an entirely different question and one that the Devs DID NOT ANSWER in the FAQ.
Their post did not reflect an answer on this, they were not checking for accuracy against this concept and they have stated that a FAQ only answers the question asked.

In short, all those using the FAQ as evidence cannot do so. It in no way answers the OP's question and is not evidence that secondary attacks can be taken after the primary attacks because the Devs were not answering that question.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

So rather than debating this topic...AGAIN, how about FAQing the thread here: FAQ request regarding interrupted actions, AoOs, and readied actions


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Yes, you can charge, the mount is not entangled.

Any argument to the contrary is ignoring the fact that the rules cannot cover every conceivable permutation and that common sense (rules common sense, not real world common sense) must prevail.

Entangle prevents the creature entangled from moving normally. In the case of the fly spell or a mounted on a creature not entangled the movement should not be impacted. This is because the rule regarding entangled assumes you are providing your own motive power.
It is not written to cover cases where you are mounted.

Put another way: Mount charges and you are along for the ride. Since the rules state that both the mount and the rider are charging when the mount charges then you must also be charging.
Note: if you are entangled AND anchored your mount will charge, you will fall off and land on your rump.

1 to 50 of 537 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

©2002–2015 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.