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. 7,578 posts (7,586 including aliases). No reviews. 1 list. No wishlists. 1 Pathfinder Society character. 1 alias.

1 to 50 of 567 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

8 people marked this as a favorite.

Yes, you are running it wrong, but your players are also wrong. It is worse for your players than they realize.

Draw a line from ONE of the shooter's corners to EACH corner of the target.
If any of those 4 lines crosses an obstacle or creature, then the target has cover.
If none of those 4 lines crosses an obstacle or creature, then the target does not have cover.

What this means is, an archer can fire around a corner at someone and maintain cover while the target gains no benefit of cover.

As an added bonus, it also means that an archer can be around the corner and shoot a medium creature 5' away without provoking an AoO.

Here is a picture illustrating this. The target on the left does not have cover from the shooter. The target on the right has cover from the shooter (red lines).

CRB p195 Cover rules wrote:
To determine whether your target has cover from your ranged attack, choose a corner of your square. If any line from this corner to any corner of the target’s square passes through a square or border that blocks line of effect or provides cover, or through a square occupied by a creature, the target has cover (+4 to AC).

So in the case of your kobolds, they continue to have cover (+4 AC) even while shooting. The PCs would not have cover unless they have an obstacle granting them cover (which is probably not the same object granting the kobolds cover).

Basically, this is the equivalent of shooting a gun around a corner, you don't have to expose yourself much.

1 person marked this as a favorite.


I think you are assigning 'type' based on 'racial hitdice', this is incorrect. There is no link between the number of racial hitdice (zero or more) and the creature type.
There is a link between the size of the racial hitdice (if any) and the creature type.
(Note: some subtypes, such as Giant, state that the creature will have racial hitdice but does not define the minimum number of dice.)

Put another way: ALL creatures have a type (and many have a subtype).
Type determines the size of racial hitdice (if any) but does not determine the presence or absence of racial hitdice.

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Crimeo wrote:
[blatantly obvious you are an ooze type now, that's what becoming something means.]

^This is the problem right here. You call it "blatantly obvious" while nobody else here is doing so. In fact, we are calling it obvious that you do NOT gain the type because nowhere does it state that you do.

You are going beyond the rules to apply what you think is obvious when nobody else is. This is the source of your problem.

Additionally, you keep trying to use standard english to define game concepts and rules. You really should stop doing this. It is a significant part of the problem you are having. The Devs simply don't write the rules to conform to standard english definitions.

1 person marked this as a favorite.


Not once have you shown a rule that states when you are polymorphed into a creature you gain that creature's type. Not once.

What you have shown, repeatedly, is text that can be interpreted to say that you turn into a creature. But that is NOT THE SAME as text that states you gain the creature type.

Show a rule, in black and white, that says anything remotely close to 'you gain the creature's type'.

You cannot call supposition, assumptions, and interpretations to be "RAW".

1 person marked this as a favorite.

You are allowed specific slots. Check the slot the magic item specifically takes up.

If you are referencing Gauntlets as a magic weapon they take a weapon slot, not the hands slot and thus you can wear gloves and magic weapon gauntlets together.

Some magic gauntlets are not magic weapons and take the hands slot. Example: Gauntlet of Rust.

Summary: you can wear magic weapon gauntlets with any handwear that uses the hand slots but you cannot wear magic "hands slot" gauntlets with other hand slot magic items.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
FAQ wrote:

Metamagic: At what spell level does the spell count for concentration DCs, magus spell recall, or a pearl of power?

The spell counts as the level of the spell slot necessary to cast it.

For example, an empowered burning hands uses a 3rd-level spell slot, counts as a 3rd-level spell for making concentration checks, counts as a 3rd-level spell for a magus's spell recall or a pearl of power.

In general, use the (normal, lower) spell level or the (higher) spell slot level, whichever is more of a disadvantage for the caster. The advantages of the metamagic feat are spelled out in the Benefits section of the feat, and the increased spell slot level is a disadvantage.

Heighten Spell is really the only metamagic feat that makes using a higher-level spell slot an advantage instead of a disadvantage.

The bolded section of the FAQ disagrees with you Crimeo. Zero level level spells placed in a higher level slot are expended because that is the most disadvantageous option.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Back in 3.5 your worn outfit did not count towards weight, this was dropped in Pathfinder (could be for rule simplicity or it could be because it was not in the rules of the SRD that Pathfinder was derived from).

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Gustavo Iglesias, it may absolutely do some favor or service for you, at the level of it's abilities (int 1-2 for normal animals).

Yes, you give a mouse a big wheel of cheese, offers it more if he goes int and tells you what is inside. He tells you of the various kinds of food he likes and that there are 'big creatures'. He does not understand more than that. It is like asking a 3 year old for information.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Crimeo, I think the key element you are missing is that you are ALWAYS forcing an animal into doing things for you when you are the one asking it to do something. There is nothing voluntary about it.

You tell it to go feed itself, that is something it would do on its own...but on its own timetable. You are telling it to do it NOW. That is why handle animal is required regardless of language abilities.

Tell a 3 year old to do something. If the 3 year old is not ready to do it you have to convince the child to do it. It doesn't matter if the child likes you or not, it doesn't matter if it understands you or not.

Handle Animal covers ALL circumstances of getting the animal to do something on your timetable. Even if you had speak with animals you need Handle Animal.

Int 2 animal: Handle Animal is required
Int 2 animal with a language: Handle Animal is required
Int 3 animal: Handle Animal is required
Int 3 animal with a language: Handle Animal is required

The Blog states that handle animal is still required, you choose to parse this and ignore elements of it because you don't like it. Fine, but that is what it says and no matter how you protest it it will continue to say it.

Can you ask an animal who is friendly to you to do something? Sure, but itll do it on it's own time in its own way IF it bothers to do it at all. Like any 3 year old, the results are doubtful, might as well shake a magic 8ball to determine if itll follow through.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

No, Dimensional Slide is not Dimension Door.

Tell your GM that there are many forms of teleportation effects, Dimensional Slide is one of them. Of those forms of teleportation effects Dimension Door is pretty unique in that it limits what you can do after you use it.

If it does not reference Dimension Door then there is no penalty associated with Dimension Door.

Here is an example of an ability that references Dimension Door:

Advanced Players Guide p147 wrote:
Shift (Su): At 1st level, you can teleport to a nearby space as a swift action as if using dimension door. This movement does not provoke an attack of opportunity. You must be able to see the space that you are moving into. You cannot take other creatures with you when you use this ability (except for familiars). You can move 5 feet for every two wizard levels you possess (minimum 5 feet). You can use this ability a number of times per day equal to 3 + your Intelligence modifier.

Point out the ability to him and then ask why it is missing from Dimensional Slide if it functions like Dimension Door.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Crimeo, that is NOT the point of the blog. That was one small aspect of it. Have you even read all the discussion afterwards? The discussion where the Devs made extra clarifications?

The point of the blog was to cover multiple aspects of an animal with an intelligence that is higher than 2. Some of those aspects are:

1) Can an animal have an int of 3? Yes, the rule in the Bestiary regarding animals having a maximum of 2 is 'to start' and does not include buffs later. This was a clarification.

2) Does the animal learn a language? Yes, but this should take time.

3) Can the animal speak a language? No, it does not have the proper physical equipment to speak a language.

4) Do you still need Handle Animal to get an animal to perform tasks? Yes, it does not matter how intelligent an animal is, as long as it is still an animal Handle Animal is required. There is no language anywhere in that blog that states that just because an animal has a language it negates the need for Handle Animal.

In fact, it was discussed in the thread and the end result was, no, having a language does not change the need for Handle Animal. Some people did not like this and are house ruling it, that is their prerogative.

Now, we know you disagree with it, but this is what the Devs wrote. Take it or leave it, house rule it as you like. But this is the Devs FAQ/Blog and it clearly states that you have to continue using Handle Animal with your overly intelligent animals.

3 people marked this as a favorite.

The descriptions are fluff, not rules text. Follow rules text first and then use fluff for guidance if the rules text is not clear.

There are many examples of fluff contradicting rules text.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Yes, you must still use Handle Animal

2 people marked this as a favorite.
TarkXT wrote:
knightnday wrote:
blackbloodtroll wrote:

Pathfinder Elves are aliens. Traveling from world to world through Stargates.

Elves see magic as natural a thing as the salt in the sea. To be in touch with magic, is to be attuned with Nature.

One could even play off that to explain why they are not more in touch with Golarion -- they are aliens and they are not more in touch with Nature on Golarion because she recognizes them as such, so they cannot form as close a bond with the planet.

So the fact that they manipulate nature for their homes and use doesn't make them in tune.

It makes them viruses.

Elves confirmed to be disease.

Elves cause cancer!

1 person marked this as a favorite.

A quick search has turned up that there are many threads on this topic. Most of them seem to say to calculate it in the way that is most advantageous to the defender (which would be energy resistance first, then the other two).

Meanwhile, a 3.5 FAQ states to do the energy resistance first.

Perhaps it is time for a PF FAQ on the topic.

Edit: Not a Dev but James Jacobs says Energy Resistance is last and also here.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I think the answer is in the Resist Energy spell where it states:

CRB p334 wrote:
The subject gains resist energy 10 against the energy type chosen, meaning that each time the creature is subjected to such damage (whether from a natural or magical source), that damage is reduced by 10 points before being applied to the creature’s hit points.

Application to the creatures hit points is the last thing to happen so Energy Resistance (or at least that supplied by the spell Resist Energy) would be the last thing to happen.

1 person marked this as a favorite.


One of the things I noticed in your options is that you are rolling extra dice. You don't roll extra dice for energy damage. You multiply the total.

With that said, we get:
Total damage * 1/2 (save) * 1.5 (vulnerability). Now, it doesn't matter which order those two are applied in. They result in the same number.

A) 50 * 0.5 * 1.5 = 37.5
B) 50 * 1.5 * 0.5 = 37.5

Where it does matter is where you apply energy resistance.

A) 50 * 0.5 * 1.5 - 10 = 27.5 (27)
B) 50 * 0.5 - 10 * 1.5 = 22.5 (22)
C) 50 - 10 * 0.5 * 1.5 = 30

Clearly, the energy resistance has to be put in the proper place. I *think* I remember a Dev once saying it is last, I am trying to find that reference.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
DiceBagChick wrote:
Rynjin wrote:
Next time if you don't want people to "jump to conclusions" don't say "How do I mess with this" and more "How do I come up with an alternate version of this" and give all the info at once instead of trickling it out a little at a time.

Guess that's my bad, i didnt figure a few people for being jerkish to me for something that's fairly common in gaming (GMs messing with wish to some extent), so i felt the need to constantly clarify things that were said or I didnt think needed to be said.

My thanks to those who did give reasonable alternatives though.

DiceBagChick, your question was fine as written.

People should not expect that all the information has been handed out.

You asked a reasonable question and instead of answering the question as it was asked some people posted responses that were not in line with the question and decided to place labels based on incomplete information.

Rather than accepting that different people have different gaming styles some people like to jump to the idea that if you do X then you must be a bad GM without understanding that the group dynamics may be different than what they would normally experience.

2 people marked this as a favorite.


If the Wish was reasonable, then yes, it should happen without being messed with. This kind of wish is not reasonable. The parameters of what should be replicated without problem are in the Wish spell's description. This is clearly beyond that and thus, should be messed with.

Of course, different people will have different ideas of what is reasonable and what the response should be.

The GM could give the player an arcana or spellcraft check to realize that that kind wish will not work as intended.

Alternately, the GM could discuss it with the player as to the expectations of what a reasonable Wish is before the Wish is made and if the player decided to make an unreasonable wish (knowing that there could be consequences) that is on the player.

Finally, messing with an unreasonable or complicated Wish is a classic in D&D gaming. It has been happening by GMs to Players for decades. The player should be expecting this.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

alexd1976, your question is misleading and incomplete. (Also, I was editing when you quoted me, I was rephrasing my statement.)

Yes, you can modify an initiative result when it is rolled using all applicable modifiers.
No, you cannot modify an initiative result 'someday later' because the roll is done. I know of no abilities that allow you to modify an initiative result in a later turn.
Yes, you can modify your place in the initiative order using abilities such as Delay or Ready. This still does not modify your rolled initiative result, it tosses it out completely.

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Wow, this thread is still going?

For a modifier to affect a die roll it must be going at the time the die is rolled unless the ability granting the modifier states it can be applied after the roll.

Initiative is rolled only once, during the beginning of combat. Apply all modifiers and move on.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

BigNorseWolf, I agree with you, it is a particular ability. I also agree with you, it is specific. However, it does not provide a specific exception to movement that does not provoke. ANY movement that does not provoke.

Lune has already shown an ability that clearly states that movement that does not normally provoke provokes, so clearly the Devs can write such a thing into the rules.

That statement is missing from this ability, you, and others, are trying to insert it.

This has nothing to do with intent of the rules. This is entirely, what is written. And based on what is written there is no exception provided that allows you to make an AoO for movement that does not have an AoO.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Rory, Paizo has created abilities and feats that do nothing or do not work as intended because of either poor wording or due to a poor understanding of the rules by the author.
One such example is the pre-errata Prone Shooter feat where it allowed you to shoot a crossbow while prone. Something already allowed by the rules WITHOUT a feat.

Lune, game logic states that if a rule is going to override another rule it must state that clearly. Underfoot Assault does not state that. Example of what it could say: "...but if the foe attempts to move to a position where the mouser is no longer in its space, the movement provokes an attack of opportunity from the mouser, even if moving would normally not provoke an attack of opportunity." (Bold section is the added override.)
Such a statement would deal with any number of rules that avoid movement related AoOs.

So either
A) We have a feat that does not work correctly because the author did not understand that tiny creatures still threaten their own squares.


B) We have a feat that does not work correctly because the author did not provide an exception to the existing rules.

Either way, it needs an errata or FAQ in order to work correctly. Until that point, it is a GM call and you should expect table variance.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Not really Rory, this would not be the first case of an ability giving you the ability to do something you can already do (example: pre-errata Prone Shooter).

1 person marked this as a favorite.

The quoted rules state that Eidolons are treated as summoned creatures and then provides a number of exceptions (none of those exceptions relate to AMF).

The rules for AMF state that summoned creatures go poof.

Ergo, Eidolons go poof in an AMF.

If you want to state that Eidolons are instantaneous you need to provide text that states they are. However, there is no text that states this and the non-instantaneous nature of the ability (poof when you go to sleep) is against you.

Instantaneous effects do not go poof when you fall unconscious. Once an instantaneous effect is created there is no magic leftover to go poof.
The fact that Eidolons go poof because you fell unconscious clearly indicates a non-instantaneous effect.

Summary: Eidolons are summoned, summoned creatures go poof in an AMF. There is no proof or even hint that Eidolons are in any way instantaneous conjurations.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Diego Rossi wrote:
Gauss wrote:
Diego, do you have an example of a specific ability that imposes an initiative penalty that can only be used after combat begins?

One has already been cited several times in this thread:

PRD wrote:

Unprepared Combatant

School enchantment (compulsion) [emotion, mind-affecting]; Level bard 1, sorcerer/wizard 1, witch 1
Casting Time 1 standard action
Components V, S
Range close (25 ft. + 5 ft./2 levels)
Target one creature
Duration 1 minute/level
Saving Throw Will negates; Spell Resistance yes

The target takes a –4 penalty on initiative checks and Reflex saves.

It require a saving throw, so there is no question that it is an attack. To make an attack you must enter initiative.

If we apply your interpretation of the rules, the only way for this spell to work is to enter combat, cast it, then disengage completely to the point that subsequent encounters are a new event, Only at that point you would benefit from it.

- * -

Here is another interesting example, an initiative bonus that disappear after the surprise round:

PRD wrote:

Sixth Sense (Ex): At 3rd level, the superstitious barbarian gains a +1 bonus on initiative and a +1 insight bonus to AC during surprise rounds. This bonus increases by +1 for every three levels after 3rd. This ability replaces trap sense.

So the bonus to initiative and AC last for the surprise round only.

What happen when it end?

You have a very skewed idea of initiative and combat.

First, I asked for something that can only be cast during combat. There is nothing preventing you from casting that outside of combat or from having it penalize you in subsequent combats.

Second, it could be argued that "during surprise rounds" applies to the AC bonus, not the initiative bonus.
However, for the sake of argument lets assume that it applies to both. That would mean that if there is not a surprise round you do not get the bonus to initiative.
(Note: The way it is worded, to me, indicates that the initiative bonus applies all the time while it is the AC bonus that only applies during surprise rounds but I can see interpretations going either way.)

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Actually kyrt-ryder, a readied action going off DOES change your place in initiative to right before the character who's action triggered it.

CRB p203 wrote:
Readying an Action: You can ready a standard action, a move action, a swift action, or a free action. To do so, specify the action you will take and the conditions under which you will take it. Then, anytime before your next action, you may take the readied action in response to that condition. The action occurs just before the action that triggers it. If the triggered action is part of another character’s activities, you interrupt the other character. Assuming he is still capable of doing so, he continues his actions once you complete your readied action. Your initiative result changes. For the rest of the encounter, your initiative result is the count on which you took the readied action, and you act immediately ahead of the character whose action triggered your readied action.

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.

1 to 50 of 567 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

©2002–2015 Paizo Inc.®. Need help? Email 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.