In short they shouldn't, but as I stated earlier there may be feats written without the qualifier *melee*. I figure you use common sense. If the feat is intended to apply to melee weapons only then the answer should be 'no'.
This game is not written in legalese. Common sense must be applied.
Ipslore the Red, there are a couple problems with your statement.
First, being slotless it does not fall under the "Adding New Abilities" rules.
CRB p553 wrote:
If the item is one that occupies a specific place on a character’s body, the cost of adding any additional ability to that item increases by 50%.
So, in the case of the OP's question, simply double the cost of the Muleback Cords to make them slotless.
Personally, I like to add Muleback Cords to a Cloak of Resistance.
I don't have a problem with CN, NE, or CE provided people recognize that you cannot be the wrong type of CN, NE, or CE. IE: Don't create a PC with that alignment that cannot get along. Nothing about those alignments means that you should be a jerk to close allies.
Shatter CRB p341 wrote:
What it can target:
1a) unattended nonmagical objects made of crystal, glass, ceramic, or porcelain up to 1 pound per level.
2a) single solid nonmagical object of up to 10 pounds per caster level.
Note: No statement that the object must be unattended so it appears attended objects are eligible.
3a) crystalline creature of any weight
What it can target appears to be clear.
What is the effect?:
1b) 5' radius area attack that destroys objects in #1. Will negates (object).
2b) "sunders" objects in #2 (single solid nonmagical object) with a Will save to negate.
3b) 1d6/level sonic damage (max 10d6) to a crystalline creature with a Fort save for half.
What the effect is for #1b and #3b appears to be clear.
However, what is "sunders" in the case of #2b?
Checking how Sunder works (CRB p201) you perform a Sunder attempt and then give damage to an object (subtracting hardness). If the object has equal to or less than 1/2 of it's hitpoints it gains the broken condition. If the object reaches 0 hitpoints it is destroyed.
Seems simple, you do enough damage and the object is either broken or destroyed.
The spell states that it sunders a single object but it then fails to give either a broken or destroyed condition clause or it fails to assign damage. Either condition (destroyed) or damage (1d6/level) are given in the other two cases.
So the question: what is the effect of 2b? Broken, Destroyed, or Damage and if damage how much?
Either it is or is not capable of supporting you. That would be a judgement call on the GM's part, one that I can see going either way depending on the GM.
Personally, I would say no because it does not actually support you it breaks when you put your weight on it.
Kazaan, as you have so kindly pointed out in this thread and the one that I linked, you have to do some linguistic rules lawyering to clarify the difference between the two FAQs. As a result they are NOT clear to those people not capable (or inclined) of such linguistic rules lawyering.
If a Lance is meant to be an exception to this then it should be stated that it is an exception.
Try to read it from the perceptive of a non-rules lawyer. Better yet, present the two FAQs to a few people who have very little system mastery and ask them to make sense of it without someone like you to explain it to them. Im pretty sure they will wind up with the conclusion that they are contradictory.
The WBL table is not designed to be used for treasure rewards. That is what Table 12-5 Treasure Values per Encounter is for. However, Table 12-5 gives out about 30-40% more wealth than the WBL table. The expectation is that the excess is lost through selling equipment and using consumables.
With that said, the WBL table is a good way to measure the relative equipment power of a group. If it is too low or high and you are having problems balancing the encounters it might provide an indication of the source of the problem.
As Wraithstrike stated, when discussing things on the boards it is a good reference point. Perhaps the message that it is a reference point gets lost in the debates regarding the rules (guidelines if you want to call them that).
Again, for me, when I am examining the rules fun is not the issue. Fun has nothing to do with analyzing the rules and coming up with an understanding of how they work.
Step 1: Analyze the rules.
Steps 1 and 2 are what happens in the Rules Forum. Step 3 can be done after steps 1 and 2 are completed but it has nothing to do with the Rules Forum.
Aelryinth, there is nothing to support that each + is a separate qualifier. The caster level requirement for an enhancement bonus is bonus times 3.
Either you meet the Caster level or you do not. The rules even state that you must meet the highest Caster Level requirement. It does not state you must meet the lowest, the next lowest, and then the highest separately.
When you have a +1 Bane Vorpal Spell Storing weapon there is only one caster level you must meet, the highest. The highest in this case is Spell Storing at Caster Level 12.
Now, if we have a +5 Bane Spell Storing weapon the required caster levels are 12 (Spell Storing) and 15 (+5). The highest is +5 so that is the caster level requirement.
Yeah, that is why I prefer the following common sense interpretation (house-rule):
Makes it simple (mostly). :)
Ashiel, yes, the Two-Handed Fighter only works with two-handed weapons (category) but the FAQ provided an exception that states that the Bastard Sword used two-handed may be used with feats and abilities that specifically require two-handed weapons.
So while it may be more beneficial to use a Greatsword your statement that a Longsword does everything a Bastard Sword does is not true. There are a number of feats and abilities that specifically require a two-handed weapon (not a weapon used in two-hands) and the Bastard Sword, via the FAQ, counts as a two-handed weapon for those purposes.
Other examples I can think of right now are Pushing Assault and Shield of Swings.
Disclaimer (again): I house-rule that how many hands are on the weapon determines feats and abilities that may be used with the weapon, not it's original category. However, you must still be able to legally use the weapon with the number of hands you are using.
Ashiel, a longsword does not functionally do everything a bastard sword does.
Due to the recent FAQ Bastard Swords now count as two-handed weapons for the purposes of feats and abilities which require two-handed weapons.
A one-handed weapon in two hands does not count for feats and abilities that require two-handed weapons. It only counts for feats and abilities that require a weapon being used in two hands.
(Note: I ignore this restriction in my own games and use common sense. If it is in two hands it counts for two handed weapon feats and abilities.)
Fomsie, much of the time on these boards there is a misconception regarding people's understanding of the rules and the actual wording of the rules.
Most of us understand the intent behind the rules even if the wording is confusing or contradictory. However, in the rules forum many of us do not discuss what we think the RAI is or the understanding are, only the actual wording.
There are a couple reasons this happens.
1) If you do not discuss the actual wording someone is going to come along and tell you that you are wrong, and they will be correct.
2) By discussing the actual wording this (hopefully) helps to clean up the language.
Now, there are two ways to clean up rules that immediately come to mind. Simplify them or make them legalistically complicated. Personally, I think many rules are contradictory because they are legalistically complicated. Example: Two-handed weapon vs wielding/using a weapon in two hands is an unnecessary distinction imo.
3) Multiple interpretations of the same passage. This has happened any number of occassions.
The temporary increase to strength *could* be understood to mean "use common sense you dolt and just apply it to things that are not X/day". But, that is not what the rules stated. Now, the FAQ cleaned that up but it still leaves penalties and maybe a few other grey areas debatable. Edit: Rereading the FAQ and looking through the rules the FAQ has left open the X/day issue. It is going to need to be fixed unless the intent is to allow X/day increases via temporary ability scores.
We *could* use this FAQ as a general guidepost to deal with those grey areas but the Devs have stated that using a FAQ to generalize a concept beyond the specifics of the FAQ is NOT something they endorse or intend.
Thus, those grey areas will remain.
Ultimately, it is the hope (of at least some of us) that FAQ attempts will eventually result in a cleaner game system as those FAQs are accrued and someday, hopefully, included into the printed rules.
So, instead of moving it to two-handed (which would prevent the issue entirely) they created a situation where it is a two-handed weapon in the FAQ but a one-handed weapon in the book. A conflict exists that needs to be clarified.
While I may agree with the intent the wording of the FAQ created a conflict with the rules.
Karui Kage, this has been answered in a couple FAQs and a blog.
In short, all bonuses that can be applied to your weapon can be applied to a combat maneuver with that weapon.
However, only a few combat maneuvers are able to be performed with a weapon. Those being mainly: Disarm, Sunder, and Trip. Some of the others are debated and may be up to GM fiat.
fretgod99, the problem is, how does a GM define what is "reasonable"?
There is only one definition of what is reasonable, in the FAQ. What is reasonable has never been defined up until that FAQ.
Prior to the FAQ what was reasonable was a nebulous concept where the GM was mostly limited to whatever was legal except in obvious (to the GM) cases of abuse.
After the FAQ what is reasonable has now been defined as 3 or 5 free actions and the GM has to intentionally override them in order to allow more.
While experienced GMs will happily override the FAQ inexperienced GMs won't know all of the chat that has occurred. They will not know it is not intended to apply to bows, crossbows, or dagger throwing.
Yes, it is a suggestion we can ignore. But, it is a suggestion that people may follow and as a result nerf things that were not intended to be nerfed.
Of course, the counter-argument will be: Why are such newbies GMing?
Because they do, I see posts from newbie GMs on these and other forums. GMs that picked up the game with their friends and are giving it a try. All of them new, none of them having ever touched it before.
Do you really expect these people to read hundreds of comments to find out that the Devs did not mean for the FAQ to apply to X, Y, and Z?
Hell, that doesn't even cover the slightly more experienced that simply read it and then follow the guideline because they think that if it is good enough for Paizo it is good enough for them. Again, all because they did not read hundreds of posts.
If a FAQ leads people to an incorrect conclusion about what is reasonable in a game is it a good FAQ?
Thank you for your blankety blank blank blank. It amused me. :)
I do have fun, like I said, the problem is the number of times I have to house rule something. It is much simpler to open the book and point to a rule than to open book, open FAQs, open house rules and try to make sense of why I house ruled something awhile back.
In that case, the rules disagree with the Design Team and thus an Errata should be issued combining the Draw ammunition free action and the Reload a weapon action if both are a free action.
As written, they are two separate (free) actions. Without someone reading your post they would never know that they should be combined into the same free action.
If a guideline is to be effective at all, should it be a workable guideline or should it conflict with the rules in such a way that it is automatically dismissed (or worse, followed)?
Yes, we can ignore the guideline. Yes, that is written right into the FAQ. But, is a guideline that is written in such a way that the majority ignores it much of a guideline?
As a customer, this is a bit frustrating for me. It really feels the Devs are tap-dancing around the issue that this guideline is written in such a way that it conflicts with the rules. And yet, you guys keep pointing to the 'ignore me' clause.
This means we are left with 'ignore me' as our only recourse since the guidelines interact badly with the existing rules.
Where the frustration comes in is that there has been little acknowledgement that yes, the guidelines do interact badly with the existing rules.
Instead we get what has seemed like doublespeak.
I'm not one to normally post something like this, I prefer to keep things logical and without emotion.
However, rather than stating, yes, a bow requires a free action to shoot because you must draw your arrow I am told it does not despite being clearly in the rules that it does.
We are also told (in a different thread by a different Dev) that this FAQ has nothing to do with the number of attacks, when it clearly does since drawing an arrow and/or reloading is what enables many ranged attacks.
It feels like we are being told we are stupid because we are bringing up how the the guidelines to applying the law disagrees with the letter of the law.
Yes, we can ignore the guidelines, but it's like giving a guideline that the penalty for theft is beheading instead of the written jail time and then saying to ignore the beheading and someone is wrong if they do it that way. Someone, somewhere, is going to lose his head because of that guideline. If it wasn't meant to be followed, why put it out?
Anyhow, back to your regularly scheduled logic based discussion. :)
How did it come up? I read the rules.
Free actions are a catch-all that seems to grab anything that is not specifically designated as a Full, standard, move, swift/immediate, or non-action. There is very little rhyme or reason to it.
Free actions are in need of some redesign. Simply put, anything that is a free action but should be part of another action shouldn't be a free action. For me, reloading a crossbow (rapid reload), drawing ammunition, etc is in this group.
Free actions should also not be in the situation where you can use them when it is not your turn. On these boards this is something people are regularly corrected on. It can be confusing which free actions can and cannot be used when it is your turn.
Unfortunately, on that point we will have to agree to disagree. From what yourself and other Devs have stated you see it as a restatement of what is already stated in the CRB. I can understand that.
However, I and others see it as a restatement with a tacked on guideline that did not exist prior to the FAQ.
It is the guideline that is the problem. It gives GMs an arbitrary idea of what Paizo considers reasonable.
Now, can they ignore that? Yes. But, if Paizo has done it's job people will listen to your recommendations and be loathe to go against them.
Either the authority will be heeded, or it wont.
So, where does that leave us? An arbitrary limit that you did not intend to interact with a variety of weapons such as bows, crossbows, and (probably) dagger throwing. But they DO interact because you did not provide an exception in the FAQ to these items and the CRB states all of these use 1 (or more) free actions.
Anyhow, I am just trying to explain the problem. It is up to you guys to resolve it or not but I plan on ignoring this FAQ because it does set up an unreasonable guideline in an attempt to nerf one specific build.
Forgive me if this was overly long, and if I haven't said it already, thank you for the work you guys do.
Regarding the rules, I only know what is written (which I may then choose to ignore).
CRB p187 wrote:
Drawing ammunition for use with a ranged weapon (such as arrows, bolts, sling bullets, or shuriken) is a free action.
CRB p132 wrote:
Benefit: The time required for you to reload your chosen type of crossbow is reduced to a free action (for a hand or light crossbow) or a move action (for a heavy crossbow). Reloading a crossbow still provokes an attack of opportunity.
Drawing ammunition and reloading are two separate actions. For a light crossbow they are normally a free and then a move action. Since the move action for a Light Crossbow is then reduced to a free action that becomes a free action to draw the bolt and then a free action to reload the crossbow. Still two actions as defined in the CRB.
For bows, there is drawing ammunition (free action according to CRB p187) and nocking (no action according to CRB p182). Thus, only one free action is being used.
Personally, it doesn't matter for me, I am not using the new FAQ. However, this is important when understanding how we are reading this FAQ since it is actually two free actions to reload a crossbow as written in the CRB.
Driver 325 yards, a number of people have explained to you over and over that "if you" is not the same as "you can".
A number of people have also explained what the author has stated. The author stated it is not possible within the current rules. The author also is said to have stated that he wrote the rules that would allow this but that those rules were cut from the final wording.
So what does that leave us with?
Now, IF you can find a rule somewhere that states you can turn into a Roc, THEN you can do so. But the Eagle Shaman contains no such rule.
Many people have told you this, the author has stated it. Im not sure why you are so intent on this but conversing with you any further on this topic is really pointless.
The way I have solved the whole weapon cord issue is to simply say that as long as your hand has a weapon cord attached to it it is occupied. As in, not available for other things and actions except to use the weapon it is tied to. Once the weapon is not connected to the cord then you can use that hand again.
Stops all sorts of abuse.
iammmercy, the spell is not based on 'a good aura'. It is based on 'a good aura from a class feature'.
Only two classes have a good aura class feature. Clerics (worshiping a good aligned deity) and Paladins. This is stated right in the text on the relevant classes.
CRB p39 Cleric wrote:
CRB p60 Paladin wrote:
Ultimate Combat p235 Litany of Righteousness wrote:
If the target is evil, it takes double damage from attacks made by creatures with a good aura (from a class feature or as a creature with the good subtype).
So lets ask:1) Does the attacker have a good aura?
Yes: Proceed to question 2.
No: Does not benefit from Litany of Righteousness
2) Is the good aura from a class feature or alignment subtype?
I do not know how much simpler this can get. Yes, a good aligned human Rogue has a good aura. No, it does not have an Aura from a class feature or alignment subtype.
iammercy, Clerics (of a good god) and Paladins specifically have a good aura as a class feature.
CRB p39 wrote:
Aura (Ex): A cleric of a chaotic, evil, good, or lawful deity has a particularly powerful aura corresponding to the deity’s alignment (see the detect evil spell for details).
CRB p60 wrote:
As per the spell, you need a good aura from a class feature. These two classes qualify since they have an Aura from a class feature.
Additionally, as per the spell, creatures with the good subtype qualify.
Simply having a run of the mill good aura is insufficient and this really does not have anything to do with Detect Good and regular alignment auras.
Driver, RAW is not what you want it to be when there is ambiguity.
1) There are a finite number of animals that are printed as RAW.
2) Any animals not printed are, by default, not RAW. Why? Because they are not printed thus cannot be 'Rules as Written'.
3) A GM can use the Rules as Written to create any animal (or other creature) he desires. Yes, this is an application of Rules as Written to create something that is not Rules as Written.
4) a Player polymorphing into a GM created animal is polymorphing into an animal that is not Rules as Written.
5) A Player cannot use step 3 to create any animal he desires. Why? Because he is not the GM and cannot create custom items or creatures without the GM saying he can.
So where does that leave us?
Custom creatures are by default, not RAW because they are custom. They may use RAW in their creation but they, themselves, are not RAW because they are not written anywhere.
Since there are no generic versions of a Huge Rocs, Huge Wolves, or Small Humans then you cannot change into them by RAW. You can of course petition the GM to create one but at that point, you are still not using a RAW creature. Thus, you and your GM are using a houserule - which is a perfectly reasonable option, but still not RAW.
Psyren, the problem is not that people *might* be rational adults. The problem is that Paizo has just proposed a *recommended* cap to the number of free actions which, when followed, has chilling effects on just about any ranged combat build.
So where does that leave people?
A makes the FAQ more or less pointless.
Tell me how this is desirable for a FAQ?
The point is, as the FAQ is *currently written* there is no guideline indicating that the FAQ is not intended to cover ranged combat builds outside of Gunslingers.
That is the non-gunslinger issue.
Now, the gunslinger issue. It has been stated by some that the FAQ's second example is designed to cover a specific Gunslinger build. However, it affects ALL gunslinger builds and the example specifically states that the recommended maximum number of reloads for a pistol is 3. Ask anyone prior to the FAQs introduction if they thought a pistol with Rapid Reload has a cap of 3 reloads per round. I bet you would find nobody to say it did.
P.S. I shoot muzzle-loaders and I hate the gunslinger class as it is currently designed and I do not allow them in my games without house rules.
Part of this dislike is that the best historical musket shooters in the world did not average more than one shot every 20 seconds (without cartridges) Even with cartridges reload times were not quick enough to get off more than 1 shot every round.
However, my feelings on the class have no place in a discussion regarding whether or not a rule or guideline is going to lead to unintended consequences.
Steve Geddes, in a way, you just proved my point. Experienced people will naturally draw the conclusion because the FAQ is alien to the existing rules.
Inexperienced people who do not have years of experience telling them not to apply the FAQ to bows will, when they see the FAQ, think that 3 is the maximum "reasonable" limit to free actions of the same type.
So, when they then see that drawing an arrow is a free action what other conclusion can be drawn? There is no exception to the FAQ about "3" being the maximum "reasonable" limit so the conclusion is that archers can draw 3 arrows.
Many people may go a long time without ever seeing the clause that GM's can limit the number of free actions. That is not what I am addressing. What I am addressing is the conclusion that an inexperienced player or GM will draw when they see both the clause and the FAQ.
Regarding the FAQ being a "passing example" when a game publisher produces an example or guideline of how to run the game which is more reasonable:
Examples and guidelines are there to clarify rules and provide guidance. People will of course follow them because that is the intent. If a bad guideline is written then people will have to choose to follow it or not..IF they realize it is a bad guideline.
In any case, this FAQ does not affect me in any way shape or form. I am either the GM in my games or play with GMs who are experienced. However, I do have a number of friends who are very new to RPGs in general and Pathfinder in specific. They find Pathfinder's layout and rules organization to be extremely confusing and difficult. This FAQ has muddied up one more section of the rules rather than clearing them up. With that said, I still love PF and have no intention of leaving it.
Cheapy, how does the GM not being a robot have anything to do with it? He is following Paizo's recommendation with NO data to contradict it.
In my (not so hypothetical) example of a new GM he has no knowledge that yes, you are supposed to exceed 3 arrows a round. He will read the book, look at the FAQ, and draw the obvious conclusion that 3 free actions of the same type (draw an arrow) is reasonable because that is what the manufacturer's stated is reasonable.
Sometimes, it is worthwhile to set aside the years of experience people have and approach the game from the perspective of a new player or GM. It helps identify issues like this.
Sean K Reynolds, if the example stated what you just stated then I would understand. However, that is not what the example states.
Free Action FAQ wrote:
Example: In one round you could reload a pistol three times (using alchemical cartridges and Rapid Reload [pistol]), or speak and reload a pistol twice, as you are repeating the same free action multiple times.
There is nothing in the example about dropping weapons, quick drawing more weapons, etc.
What IS in there is that, in this example, you cannot reload a pistol more than three times or speak and reload more then twice.
I have no problem with the FAQ itself. My problem is with the example.
Examples produced by Paizo are the golden standard and set precedents.
The precedent here is that, a level 20 Gunslinger with Haste, Rapid Shot, and Rapid Reload and using cartridges, cannot reload more than 3 times. Prior to this Example the same Gunslinger would have gotten 6 attacks and reloads (4BAB, 1 Rapid Shot, 1 Haste).
I ask again, is it the intent to prevent this?
I really want to know your intent, this is not a rhetorical question.
Since you do like your questions answered here goes.:
Using the Glove of Storing, yes I think there is a combination of rules that allows a user to:
1) Fire two hand-crossbows (TWF)
2) Place one hand-crossbow in the glove as a free action.
3) Reload the remaining glove and continue with Iterative and rapid shot attacks.
4) Use Quickdraw to continue firing with previous weapons.
However, since the user cannot reliably swap crossbows from hand to hand (it takes a free hand to accept the crossbow from one hand to the other) I do not think your specific question is possible. In short, Crossbow A is in Hand A. Crossbow B is in Hand B.
There is no room for Crossbow A to go into Hand B and no room for Crossbow B to go into Hand A. The glove of storing does not get one out of this restriction either since it requires a free hand for the item to appear in.
Ultimate Equipment p64 wrote:
End of problem?
Speaker for the Dead, there are two versions of Magic Circle against Evil. Both are listed in the same spell description.
Version 1 is targeted upon a person and is an emanation. Since the target can move, and emanations are based on whatever they are cast upon, then Magic Circle against Evil (version 1) is mobile.
Version 2 is a circle, inscribed in a physical location, used as a trap for a creature being called (conjured).
Version 1 is the first paragraph of the spell.
Summary: Magic Circle, cast upon an ally, is mobile. There is nothing in the rules or spell description that states it is not and there is evidence (ie: targeted emanation on a creature, not a point in space) that it is mobile.
Magic Circle, used as a trap for a called creature, is not mobile. There are rules in the spell that indicate this.
PridefulOne, nothing about Magic Circle against Evil prevents hoards of Demons, Devils, or any other Evil Outsider from attacking people. It prevents summoned evil creatures from entering the 10' radius emanation around the creature touched.
There are many ways to have Evil Outsiders present without summoning them. Calling, Portals, etc do not involve summoning.
Additionally, many evil outsiders have Spell Resistance and you must beat that to keep a summoned evil outsider at bay (admitedly, not that difficult since summoned evil outsiders are usually lower level).
Edit: One other note, for those of you arguing that there is a circle of silver and thus it should be immobile, there is no circle of silver for Version 1 if cast by a Divine spellcaster. The second version still calls for silver and that *probably* overrides the M/DF part of the material components.
FAQ Question: In the Bronze, Gold, and Silver Dragon versions of Change Shape does the phrase "any animal or humanoid form" mean "any size animal or humanoid form"?
Bestiary p110 wrote:
Change Shape (Su) A silver dragon can assume any animal or humanoid form three times per day as if using polymorph.
The Change Shape rules limit Change Shape to 1 size difference from the original size of the creature using it. Is "any" an exception to this?
Bestiary p298 Change Shape wrote:
A creature cannot change shape to a form more than one size category smaller or larger than its original form.
Note: An exception is not provided via the Polymorph spell (the spell that Change Shape must also follow) which also uses the Alter Self spell.
An example of a Change Shape ability that provides a size exception is the Oni.
Bestiary p221 wrote:
Normally the Oni would not have access to Small forms nor to Giant Form I. Small form is against the Change Shape rules and Giant Form I is not part of the Polymorph spell.
At no point does the Eagle Shaman state she can become a Roc. What it DOES state that IF the Eagle Shaman takes the form of a Roc she uses her druid level +2.
"IF" is not permission.
APG p102 wrote:
Wild Shape (Su): At 6th level, an eagle shaman’s wild shape ability functions at her druid level – 2. If she takes on the form of an eagle or roc, she instead uses her druid level + 2.
Now, does that mean she 'should be able to'? Perhaps. But without supporting rules to counter the existing rules she cannot.
Scavion, I have quoted the "extra wording" a number of times. Even people *not* on my side of the debate have debated the "extra wording".
One more time.
(The remains of a creature hit by a disintegrate spell count as a small portion of its body.)
This allows it to target the dust.
Now, the opposite side of the argument that the others are presenting is that this is not changing the parameters at all but is just clarifying that yes, the dust is a "body part".
So we have two sides:
Side A) Dust is not a creature (not even a dead creature). However, Resurrection has wording (see above quote) that allows it to target dust as if it were a body part of a dead creature.
Side B) Dust is a dead creature and the wording in the Resurrection spell is a confirmation that dust is a component of the body.
Now, do you see that I do indeed understand and have read everything? :)
I am on Side A, you and others are on Side B.
However, for the purposes of Breath of Life the whole 'dead creature or not' debate is irrelevant as far as I am concerned. What is more relevant is that Breath of Life, at it's core, is Cure Deadly Wounds with the added benefit of bringing you back to life if it heals you enough.
So, what are your hitpoints after a Disintegrate spell? 0? -10? -1000? -1000000? There is no answer there so Breath of Life has no effect.
What are your hitpoints after being subject to and dying from Flesh to Stone? What about after Phantasmal Killer?
Ultimately, I think the Devs will come down on the side of: even if it isn't a Death effect it is not death by hitpoint damage so you cannot fix it via Breath of Life.
I see no point to debate this with you further as the sides have been clearly stated and defined and neither side is going to budge.
Resurrection does not state it is a 'dead creature'. It states that the dust counts as a small portion of its body. That means something very different.
It means that dust normally does NOT count.
Since no exception is provided in Raise Dead or in Breath of Life, it still does not count.
Taenia, give it up, Driver has already stated in this thread that he won't even listen to the author (Jason Nelson) regarding the rules on Wild Shape. His position isn't RAW.
The James Jacobs states this, Jason Nelson states this, many posters state this, the rules state this. But, he won't admit it. Every now and then you just have one of these kinds of posters. :)
Ok, lets take a different tack: Could Breath of Life bring someone back who is say, dead from Flesh to Stone? There is no HP damage to repair and yet they are still dead. Nor is it a death effect.
Simply put, I do not think that Breath of Life is intended to restore creatures who are dead from something besides HP damage.
How about Phantasmal Killer? Another non-death effect that kills instantly without doing any actual damage.
Lets go in even another (related) direction:
How does that relate you ask? Because Breath of Life, at it's core, is a 5th level Cure Spell. It was even called Cure Deadly Wounds at one point in the development cycle.
Breath of Life is not a Raise Dead type spell. It is a Cure type spell that will bring someone back from death by HP damage. If there is not HP damage to repair then it really doesn't do anything.