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. 6,696 posts (6,704 including aliases). No reviews. 1 list. No wishlists. 1 Pathfinder Society character. 1 alias.

1 to 50 of 469 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.
thundercade wrote:
JohnF wrote:

... The way to trigger an AoO is by taking an action. Once you've taken that action, even if doing so ends up having no mechanical effect, you can't pretend you didn't take that action.

Ugh, that's exactly what I'm saying. If there is no mechanical effect, then I consider it not having ever really taken the action, even if it triggered something else. None of the definitions around actions include not doing or performing something, or just trying to do something. So if you end up not really doing or performing anything, it's not an action. Remembering that it triggered and AoO doesn't make you go back and relabel it as an action.

I don't have to go back and reconcile the triggers to the AoO. Nothing is making anyone do that.

That's what others are inventing, some overall checking system that says you have to go back and make sure it all could have played out in a step-by-step way. That's the invention.

I bolded the error you are making. There is nothing in the rules that allows you to consider an in-progress action as "not having ever really taken the action". Yes, there are ways to interrupt the in-progress action so that you effectively do nothing with it but it is still an in-progress action.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Another side note: this is not 4th edition, it is a 5 foot step, not a 5 foot shift. :)

1 person marked this as a favorite.

A 2cubic foot backpack can hold:
2,413.66 pounds of gold
or 1,309.82 pounds of silver
or 1,119.74 pounds of copper
or 982.18 pounds of iron


I would go with something along the lines of 80-100lbs. 2 cubic feet of meat is between 70-80 pounds and that seems like something a backpack should be able to hold.

Starbuck, do you have a source that states how much space gold (not gold coins which are different) takes up in D&D/Pathfinder?

41 people marked this as FAQ candidate. 2 people marked this as a favorite.

FAQ question: If an AoO (or Readied Action) prevents you from completing an action can you change your action or change the order of your actions?

Example: I declare I am using a "Move" move action to move out of a threatened square. I move zero distance when the Attack of Opportunity (or Readied Action) results in my being tripped.

Change action: Did I actually use my "Move" move action even though I didn't travel any distance before I was tripped? Ie. Can I replace the "Move" move action with another action?

Change Order of actions Can I use the Stand Up action and then use the "Move" move action I had already declared?

This has come up in multiple threads (this is the latest).

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Bestiary p162 Iron Golem wrote:
Immunity to Magic (Ex) An iron golem is immune to spells or spell-like abilities that allow spell resistance. Certain spells and effects function differently against it, as noted below.

Not immunity to magic, only immunity to spells and spell-like abilities that allow spell resistance.

So, anything besides those things work fine.
Even a Witchwyrd's "Force Bolt" works because it is a supernatural "Magic Missile" rather than a spell "Magic Missile".

Bestiary 2 p285 Witchwyrd wrote:
Force Bolt (Su) A witchwyrd can “throw” a magic missile (1d4+1 damage) from each free hand as a free action (maximum of two per round). If it has absorbed a magic missile, it can throw an additional force bolt that round, expending the absorbed energy (maximum of two additional bolts per round).

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Because the rules are written from the perspective of PCs which do not (normally) have a natural armor bonus. Thus, it is a 'bonus to your natural armor' since you have no natural armor.

The Devs have stated repeatedly that the rules are written from this (PC rather than monster) perspective.

However, there have been many threads on the topic of 'is a natural armor score an ex/su ability and/or due to form and thus lost when you polymorph?'. The consensus seems to be 'yes'.

Additionally, James Jacobs has weighed in on this topic here and here.

(Edit: remembered a Dev response so changed my post.)

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Hearing a sound is not the same a seeing the action. People who are blind but with excellent hearing still cannot see hand gestures. They are still unaware of key elements of activities.

In any case, Greater Invisibility is not ambiguous, if you hear them (perception check) then you pinpoint their square. But using Perception does not in any way allow you to avoid the loss of Dexterity (there are other methods that are not perception related) from an Invisible attacker.

Simply put, the rules on this are clear, if you are being attacked by someone with Greater Invisibility you lose your dexterity unless you have a special ability that says you do not. Perception is not such an ability.

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

I was wondering what people though regarding whether or not this weapon property allows SR or not.

First quote, phase locking weapon property:

Ultimate Equipment p146 wrote:
A phase locking weapon interferes with dimensional travel. A creature damaged by a phase locking weapon is affected as though by the dimensional anchor spell for 1 round.

Second quote, Dimensional Anchor:

CRB p270 wrote:


School abjuration; Level cleric 4, sorcerer/wizard 4
Casting Time 1 standard action
Components V, S
Range medium (100 ft. + 10 ft./level)
Effect ray
Duration 1 min./level
Saving Throw none; Spell Resistance yes (object)
A green ray springs from your hand. You must make a ranged touch attack to hit the target. Any creature or object struck by the ray is covered with a shimmering emerald field that completely blocks extradimensional travel. Forms of movement barred by a dimensional anchor include astral projection, blink, dimension door, ethereal jaunt, etherealness, gate, maze, plane shift, shadow walk, teleport, and similar spell-like abilities. The spell also prevents the use of a gate or teleportation circle for the duration of the spell.
A dimensional anchor does not interfere with the movement of creatures already in ethereal or astral form when the spell is cast, nor does it block extradimensional perception or attack forms. Also, dimensional anchor does not prevent summoned creatures from disappearing at the end of a summoning spell.

My own feelings are mixed. It says 'as though by...' which could be read as the entire thing (including SR) or just the effect.

What are your thoughts?

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Sheriff Bart wrote:
Gauss wrote:

Do you generally know the rules? Do you read the books? If the answer to these is "yes" then my comment regarding a 'crutch' was not addressed to you. To liken it to a person in physical rehab, using the crutch to avoid physical rehab is the problem here. *Some* people use it to avoid learning the rules.

My experience regarding "Hero Lab said so" is that the people who claim that are wrong much of the time, far more than 0.1% of the time.
Now, I do not claim that this is due to Hero Lab being wrong but probable user error on the part of the person making the claim.
The problem is that the perception of Hero Lab being infallible is giving these people a false sense that anything they build with Hero Lab cannot possibly be incorrect. That sense is what I have a problem with. Of course, that is not necessarily a problem with Hero Lab.

It sounds like none of my comments cover you as a user, perhaps you should not take them as if they did.

1) Actually no, I don't read rulebooks much at all. I have in the past but there are too many sources now, as I said before. I read only the relevant bits that I need from the PRD and then only when HL doesn't make them clear, which is rare. HL is much easier and accurate enough that it has never yet caused a real problem in any of my builds.

Does that make my style of play inferior to yours because it is different? That I am more casual in my approach to this game? By the above, I'm guessing the answer is yes, but correct me if I am wrong.

The fallacy in that position is the assumption "Hero Lab MUST be wrong" somehow. Well, so can the published source. So can the interpretation of said source. So can the human doing math in his or her noodle. HL ain't the issue when it comes to rules accuracy.

You choose to memorize rules. I choose to spend my time doing other things because I have multiple sources that I can check in a few seconds, should the need arise. 15-20 years ago I might have agreed with you. Now I have other...

I never made any qualitative argument regarding inferiority, please do not read into my statements more than is actually present.

Good thing I do not make that assumption. If you think I am show me where I said "Hero Lab MUST be wrong". I did not make that statement.

You are making the same mistake that several other posters made. You are reading more into my statements than I actually stated. Please do not do that, it is it's own falacy.
To clarify, I am not discussing Hero Lab, I am not discussing people who know the rules. I am discussing two things:

1) People who claim Hero Lab is right 'because it is Hero Lab'. These people are wrong in surprising ways and are usually as a result of user error. I don't give a damn if people are wrong, the problem I have is what happens when people swear, for 30 minutes, that Hero Lab cannot be wrong even when they are shown that they are wrong.

2) That people do not know the rules of their character because they build something using Hero Lab without ever learning how their character works.
If you use Hero Lab to learn the rules, then at least you made an effort to learn them. However, there are people who do not and those are the people my comments are addressing.

Summary: I have not once stated Hero Lab is a problem, please do not pretend I did.

Regarding "crutch" I was the first person to use "crutch" in this thread and your point appeared to address that. However, you are correct that you could have been addressing someone else's post but if that is the case then you should indicate that.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Sheriff Bart wrote:

I'm happy to keep using HL as a "crutch." ;)

I use an airplane as a crutch sometimes when I don't want to hitch up a covered wagon and travel several years to my destination.

(As an aside, the use of the word crutch is baiting - trying to imply that one is a better person/player than you are if you use HeroLab - which every time I hear/read it I envision a cantankerous old man with a cane stomping in his doorway telling kids to get off'n his lawn and yelling things like "back in MY day...")

I'm bringing a minimum of 3 devices to every table at which I play (laptop, ipad, phone). I can have several sources open at the same time that way in a very small space compared to a stack of books or even printed pdf pages. That way I also have three copies of everything I own. I rarely use all 3 but when things get busy or if I am GMing they are useful to have.

There is simply too much material to remember. No one here knows all of it. Everyone here uses a "crutch" to help them organize the game unless you are using physical copies of every single source, every single time (in which case I pity you - how archaic!)

I also have no problem with people saying "HeroLab said so" because 99.9% of the time, HL is correct. Many of the examples given above have nothing to do with the tool being used. They are also easily corrected by looking at the screen modifiers when they occur.

People showing up without purchased sources has nothing to do with HeroLab, either. The rule is the rule. I've seen people show up without sources of any kind -- same issue but no HL involved.

And as long as we are using personal experiences as a basis for argument (as if it matters to the reader), here's mine. I have been challenged at tables exactly five times on rules / whatnot that appeared in HeroLab while I was using it. All five times the GM was incorrect and HeroLab was right. These included 5-star GMs and GMs who are (very) outspoken that HeroLab is badwrongfun.

I find the experience...satisfying when that...

Do you generally know the rules? Do you read the books? Do you look up the rules pertinent to your character?

If the answer to these questions is "yes" then my comment regarding Hero Lab being a 'crutch' was not addressed to you.
To liken it to a person in physical rehab, using a crutch to avoid physical rehab is the problem here. *Some* people use it to avoid learning the rules.

My experience regarding "Hero Lab said so" is that the people who claim that are wrong much of the time, far more than 0.1% of the time.
Now, I do not claim that this is due to Hero Lab being wrong but probable user error on the part of the person making the claim.
The problem is that the perception of Hero Lab being infallible is giving these people a false sense that anything they build with Hero Lab cannot possibly be incorrect. That sense is what I have a problem with. Of course, that is not necessarily a problem with Hero Lab.

It sounds like none of my comments cover you as a user, perhaps you should not take them as if they did.

4 people marked this as a favorite.
thejeff wrote:
Gauss wrote:

I accept that people use Hero Lab but unfortunately people use it as a crutch. "But Hero Lab says..." is a constant refrain. Hero Lab is not the book and should not replace the book.

I find that system mastery is increased if you actually build the characters yourself. Frankly, I see fewer errors in any character I have ever produced than those any player brings to the table using Hero Lab.

Of course, those players would probably have a greater number of errors if they had NOT used Hero Lab but they have an unreasonable expectation that their characters are 100% accurate.

Edit: Just to clarify, I don't dislike Hero Lab, I dislike how some people use it as a crutch rather than learning the rules.

Luckily, I don't really care about "system mastery", so I don't have to obsess about this kind of elitist nonsense.

I'm glad you're such a system guru that you make flawless characters everytime and I'm sorry that HL is so broken that it introduces errors into everyone else's characters.

Personally, I've made hundreds of PCs (and far more NPCs) over the decades, the vast majority of them with pen and paper, in dozens of game systems, some of the very simple and some more complicated than PF. For all but the simplest, I'm much happier these days with some kind of Hero Lab like program. It reminds me of things. It cuts back on the simple stupid errors. It even brings up rules I've forgotten. It's not a crutch. It's a tool. Like pen and paper are tools. I can do without it, but why?
Just like I can pound nails with a hammer, but it's much faster and easier with a nailgun. Is that a crutch, keeping me from achieving some kind of mastery?

This has nothing to do with 'elitism'. It has to do with people not knowing how their characters work because they failed to build their character. It was built for them. Then they don't understand why the character that was built for them violates the rules in some way.

It is the same as if you asked someone to build you a character and they just handed the sheet to you.
Do you know all the rules? Nope, you didn't build it.
Do you know if it is built correctly? Nope, you didn't build it.

If you know all about your character and you use Hero Lab to shave some time then that is great. But that is not how I am seeing people use it. I am seeing people use Hero Lab as a substitute for the rules and then when there is a rules discrepancy claim that Hero Lab must be right.

It is great you can use Hero Lab as the tool it was designed to be used as. Unfortunately not everyone is doing that.

4 people marked this as a favorite.

I accept that people use Hero Lab but unfortunately people use it as a crutch. "But Hero Lab says..." is a constant refrain. Hero Lab is not the book and should not replace the book.

I find that system mastery is increased if you actually build the characters yourself. Frankly, I see fewer errors in any character I have ever produced than those any player brings to the table using Hero Lab.

Of course, those players would probably have a greater number of errors if they had NOT used Hero Lab but they have an unreasonable expectation that their characters are 100% accurate.

Edit: Just to clarify, I don't dislike Hero Lab, I dislike how some people use it as a crutch rather than learning the rules.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

What I see them as: Spontaneous Spellcasters that can change what they "know" every day (or even on the fly).

A Page of Spell Knowledge should benefit them like it would a Sorcerer (give them another spell "known").

A Pearl of Power should not work for them since they can cast any spell they "know" (have memorized) from any spell slot. However, a Runestone of Power should work for the same reason.

Of course, RAW is muddy as all heck.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Alignment Channel only works against outsiders with an alignment subtype.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Wheldrake, there is no reason for someone to give up a +2 circumstance bonus to gain a +5 competence bonus if they are willing to pay for both sets of bonuses. That is a basic element to the game and is not cheese.

Unless you consider someone having Masterwork Lock picking tools (+2 circumstance bonus) and Ring of Maniacal Devices (+5 competence to Disable Device) be cheesy.

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I have taken Rodinia's idea of showing how reach weapons and soft cover works and provided several views in this image. Note that side view 1 can also be used for medium creatures (on a large mount) with a reach of 10'.

Red lines indicate that there is not a clear shot (cover).

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Artanthos, could you point out where I said that

Artanthos wrote:
You cannot pull one sentence that you disagree with out of the middle of a paragraph, label it fluff and disregard it.


In fact, I am pretty sure I was defining what each camp was saying and then stated what stage the debate was at. Perhaps you should re-read my post.

Please do not take my posts out of context and then post a response to a statement I did not make.

3 people marked this as a favorite.

Guys, you are arguing interpretation of RAW, not RAW itself.

The Con-Cover camp argument: If "ignore non-living material" is not fluff then it is a rule that is then defined by the sentences that follow it (armor, shields, objects, undead, and constructs)

The Pro-Cover camp argument: "ignore non-living material" is not fluff and what follows are specific examples of what is non-living material. The book cannot be expected to outline every specific as to what qualifies as non-living material.

There is not going to be a solution without a FAQ since we are clearly in the "is not" vs "is too" stage of debating.

Perhaps someone should author a FAQ?

1 person marked this as a favorite.

mplindustries is correct. Daze is not lesser Stun although it would not make an unreasonable houserule.

Frankly, there are some significant gaps in the rules where undead and constructs are concerned. There is too great a reliance on the Fortitude and Mind-Affecting immunities.

There are effects that are *normally* a Fortitude save but either have no save or are a different save.
There are also effects that *should* be mind-affecting but aren't listed as such.

A GM can and should adjudicate these discrepancies.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Short of a FAQ the 'non-fluff' crowd is going to say that "ignores non-living matter" is not fluff and thus the weapon goes through non-living matter such as doors, walls, whatever when you attack with it while the 'fluff' crowd is going to say that "ignores non-living matter" is fluff and only the specific things in the list get ignored.

Thankfully, we can rule how we want in our games. In mine it ignores non-living matter, whatever the consequences of that statement are (such as no cover via a door) we can probably adjudicate them like intelligent people.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

You have to roll for any level beyond the first level for your character. Ie: if you are a 5th level Rogue and you take a level in Barbarian you roll a d12 to determine your hps.

BTW, what is a level 5 rouge? Some form of monstrous facial makeup? Perhaps an Ooze? (Sorry, couldn't resist.)

1 person marked this as a favorite.

LazarX, again, you quote me and bring up a point that I did not make. Again, please stop addressing points that I did not make as if I made them.

Equipment GP value has nothing to do with magic mart. WBL has nothing to do with magic mart either. There is NOTHING in the WBL rules that determines how the PCs should acquire the wealth they have.
Wealth does not mean liquid cash assets.

Magic Mart has no relevance to WBL.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

LazarX, did you even read my post that you quoted?

At no point was I addressing whether or not WBL should be followed or not. I was addressing whether people encourage or discourage it being used as a guideline. If you are going to bother to quote me at least make your point applicable.

In any case, what is the difference between planning GP value and planning future needs and treasure output? Answer: There is none.
Whether you feel they need a +3 sword or 18,300gp the answer is the same, it is still 18,300gp.
You have already determined what the wealth should be and are balancing it accordingly.

Anyone who uses any concept of 'equipment is based on the needs of the group' uses some form of WBL whether they look it up in a chart or they just eyeball it.
The players need item X to take down monster Y? That is a form of WBL because you are making sure the group is equipped properly. That is the exact same thing WBL does (equips them properly for the expected challenge).

Now, you may dress it up as not being WBL but it is the same effect (to equip the PCs properly for the expected challenge) arrived at via a different mental process.

3 people marked this as a favorite.

Just a note, many people say that guidelines are not rules. Everything in the book is part of the rules, even the guidelines. The Devs have stated this. This is also backed up by Websters definition of rule.

One of those definitions of 'rule' is: guide. Another is 'regulating principle'.

Point being, WBL IS a rule. Whether you consider that a guideline rule, tool rule, or whatever else is another matter, but it is most certainly a rule.

It would be nice if WBL were not dismissed simply because it is a guideline rule. It has value for many GMs and players even if it can be ignored (like most rules of the game).

*waits for the flames to begin*

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Ok, there is a lot of misconceptions regarding the WBL table. Here are some clarifications:

1) The WBL table (CRB Table 12-4) is a rough rule (guideline, whatever) regarding how much wealth a character should have at each level.

2) It applies to both creating characters above level 1 and as a guide to how much stuff players should have above level 1. (As Jeff Merola quoted above.)

3) The table for actually handing out treasure is CRB Table 12-5.

4) Table 12-5 hands out between 30 and 40% extra treasure per level than Table 12-4. (You can do the math, I did.)

With the extra 30-40% treasure in Table 12-5 over Table 12-4 is assumed to be lost via sold or lost equipment and consumables.

5) This is all a guideline. You can give more, or less treasure out but if you do so expect more, or less powerful PCs compared to what the book expects. (Of course, with power creep PCs are already more powerful than what the book expects so you will have to figure out what the right balance is for you.)

Note: If you do give out more or less, make sure you also update the amount of wealth a PC coming into the game is supposed to have as that should be approximately the same.

6) Finally, if you are going to follow something like a WBL table (or ad hoc it on your own) do yourself a favor, do it as a group. Multiply how much you want each PC to have by the number of PCs in the group and then use that as your guideline. Don't try to balance out each character wont happen.

Different players will use their wealth differently. But if the entire group is close to WBL (or your own version) then any imbalance is probably the result of player choice.

Of course, you could periodically drop PC specific items from time to time to help out the less fortunate PCs.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

It is interesting how many people are using statements like 'believe' when this is the rules forum.

RAW: As shown in this post Eschew Materials does not cover Foci.

House Rule: Eschew Materials does cover Foci.

This is the rules forum, if you are going to go against RAW when RAW is this clear at least please state that you are doing so as a house rule when you state your opinion.

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Lakesidefantasy, here are the relevant quotes:

CRB p124 wrote:

Eschew Materials

You can cast many spells without needing to utilize minor material components.
Benefit: You can cast any spell with a material component costing 1 gp or less without needing that component. The casting of the spell still provokes attacks of opportunity as normal. If the spell requires a material component that costs more than 1 gp, you must have the material component on hand to cast the spell, as normal.

Nothing in Eschew Materials about ignoring a Focus component.

CRB p212-213 wrote:


A spell’s components explain what you must do or possess to cast the spell. The components entry in a spell description includes abbreviations that tell you what type of components it requires. Specifics for material and focus components are given at the end of the descriptive text. Usually you don’t need to worry about components, but when you can’t use a component for some reason or when a material or focus component is expensive, then the components are important.
Verbal (V): A verbal component is a spoken incantation. To provide a verbal component, you must be able to speak in a strong voice. A silence spell or a gag spoils the incantation (and thus the spell). A spellcaster who has been deafened has a 20% chance of spoiling any spell with a verbal component that he tries to cast.
Somatic (S): A somatic component is a measured and precise movement of the hand. You must have at least one hand free to provide a somatic component.
Material (M): A material component consists of one or more physical substances or objects that are annihilated by the spell energies in the casting process. Unless a cost is given for a material component, the cost is negligible. Don’t bother to keep track of material components with negligible cost. Assume you have all you need as long as you have your spell component pouch.
Focus (F): A focus component is a prop of some sort. Unlike a material component, a focus is not consumed when the spell is cast and can be reused. As with material components, the cost for a focus is negligible unless a price is given. Assume that focus components of negligible cost are in your spell component pouch.
Divine Focus (DF): A divine focus component is an item of spiritual significance. The divine focus for a cleric or a paladin is a holy symbol appropriate to the character’s faith. The divine focus for a druid or a ranger is a sprig of holly, or some other sacred plant.
If the Components line includes F/DF or M/DF, the arcane version of the spell has a focus component or a material component (the abbreviation before the slash) and the divine version has a divine focus component (the abbreviation after the slash).

Nothing in the Components section that indicates a Focus is the same as a Material Component.

Unless you can show somewhere that Foci are the same as Material Components then Eschew Materials does not allow you to bypass Foci.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

If you read RAW 'to the letter' then how do you deal with dead people? There are no statements where dead people cannot act.

There is no such thing as 'RAW to the letter' in this game. It simply isn't possible.

What about definitions? How do you define negative and positive energy? Because according to a 'strict RAW' reading of the quote below you can cast a Positive Energy spell and change it to Fire.

CRB p75 wrote:
Bloodline Arcana: Whenever you cast a spell that deals energy damage, you can change the type of damage to match the type of your bloodline. This also changes the spell’s type to match the type of your bloodline.

There are many many assumptions in the rules that are simply not stated and any statement of 'I use strict RAW' is either false or delusional. It simply isn't possible to use 'strict RAW'.

The Devs have even stated that they did not write the rules to be read via 'RAW'. They expected people to apply common sense.

BTW, what 'armor and shield bonuses' are provided by living beings?

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Bracers of Falcon's Aim is one of those major mistakes when it comes to magic items.

First, it fails the 'does an item already do this' test.
Lesser Bracers of Archery has a price tag of 5,000gp for a +1 attack bonus (it is either the +1 attack bonus OR proficiency, most bow users will already have proficiency).

Second, it grants a +3 bonus to perception checks, that should cost an extra 900gp.

Third, it is granting a major combat feat for only 4,000gp.

Ultimately, the item is one of those examples of an item that should have never been made or at least should have been priced significantly higher (8-10,000gp sounds about right to me).

Another item in Ultimate Equipment that I feel they made a major error with is the Feather Step Slippers. A magic item that replaces two feats and an entire class feature for the low low price of 2,000gp? Who wouldn't want these?

6 people marked this as a favorite.

StDrake, could you please point to the rule, sentance, or passage that indicates or states that only the head of the arrow ignores objects?

As I pointed out earlier, if only the head of the arrow ignores objects then it is utterly impossible for an arrow to harm someone in armor.

Why? Because if we use your house-rule then the head of the arrow is not creating a hole in the armor for the arrow shaft to follow. Thus, the head of the arrow goes through the armor (about 0.5 to 1 inch) without causing a hole and then the shaft hits the armor and stops. This would have the result of stopping the arrow head since it is still part of the arrow.

In short, it doesn't make sense.

Either the ammunition ignores objects or it doesn't, there is no half measures here because that is not in the rules and it would lead to the absurdity shown above.

5 people marked this as a favorite.

James Risner, could you elaborate how you feel the weapon cannot pass through?

If the object was thicker than the weapon is long then I could see it blocking the weapon (the hilt/hand holding the weapon cannot get through). But in the case of an arrow I can easily see it passing through since it ignores objects.

2 people marked this as a favorite.

The black raven,

CRB p470 Brilliant Energy wrote:
Brilliant Energy: A brilliant energy weapon has its significant portion transformed into light, although this does not modify the item’s weight. It always gives off light as a torch (20-foot radius). A brilliant energy weapon ignores nonliving matter. Armor and shield bonuses to AC (including any enhancement bonuses to that armor) do not count against it because the weapon passes through armor. (Dexterity, deflection, dodge, natural armor, and other such bonuses still apply.) A brilliant energy weapon cannot harm undead, constructs, and objects. This property can only be applied to melee weapons, thrown weapons, and ammunition.

The bolded sentence is not "fluff", it is part of the rules just as the sentances that follows it is.

Ignoring Cover is simply the logical conclusion, if it ignores nonliving matter (such as a wall) then you can attack THROUGH that wall.

How does it make sense that only the head of an arrow is brilliant?
If only the head of an arrow was brilliant and the shaft was not then the arrow would be unable to penetrate deeply into flesh. The head is only an inch or so long and since it failed to put a hole in armor the shaft would smack into the armor and stop thus stopping the head (which is still attached).
In any case, there is nothing in the rules that state only the head is brilliant. "significant portion" is not defined.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Akerlof, thank you for such a clear explanation as to why people see 4th edition as a "tabletop MMO". It has borrowed elements from it that were not present in any edition of D&D to date.

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Zhayne, what he has heard is not an unknown opinion. I too have heard this although I more often hear that it is more of an attempt at marketing to the MMO crowd rather than being an MMO on a tabletop.

3 people marked this as a favorite.

I would count Total Cover as Total Concealment if you had a way to shoot through the cover as if it was not present (ie: Brilliant Energy) and you would have to have some way of determining location (such as Tremorsense) or guess location.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

As the GM you can house-rule that any or all of them are possible.

It is probable that the other mounts are more powerful than they felt the Cavalier should have.

However, if your player really wants a bear or cat I suggest he select the Beast Rider archetype. It is specifically intended for other types of mounts and doesn't require you house-ruling what mount he can select.

1 person marked this as a favorite.


It also depends on the type of people you game with. Frankly, gamer types have typically grown up playing video games. This teaches spatial awareness. Not everyone new to RPG gaming is a gamer type though.

Put another way, most gamer types have been taught spatial awareness via video games since childhood. This gives us significant advantages when it comes to spatial awareness. There have been studies on this and the differences in spatial acuity between those with video game experience and those without are significant.

My point is not to say that "gridless is bad". Far from it, I would prefer gridless myself. But, the entire group needs to be able to deal with the spatial visualization issue and there are people who are not biologically wired or sociologically trained to do it and those people will have difficulty.

Edit: Here is a wiki link regarding Spatial Visualization. It is basic but it will give you the general idea.

8 people marked this as a favorite.

It's back!!! The 3.5 reach weapon exception has been officially re-introduced into Pathfinder!

While one cannot be sure that this poll had any bearing on this decision I still want to thank everyone that voted.

New FAQ/Errata!!

FAQ/Errata wrote:

10-Foot Reach and Diagonals: I’m confused about reach and diagonals. I heard somewhere online that you don’t threaten the second diagonal with a 10-foot reach but that you somehow get an attack of opportunity when opponents move out of that square, but the Rules Reference Cards show that you do threaten the second diagonal. Which one is correct?

The cards are correct. As an exception to the way that diagonals normally work, a creature with 10 feet of reach threatens the second diagonal. These changes will be reflected in the next errata.

4 people marked this as a favorite.

YAY! 3.5 exception is back in the rules!!! :)

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Enlarge Person + Lead Blades works because Enlarge actually changes your size while Lead Blades changes the base damage (and not size).

Bashing + Lead Blades does not stack because both use the same language (as if X size categories larger).

So, Enlarge Person + Lead Blades + Bashing = Enlarge Person + Bashing

5 people marked this as a favorite.

Yes, the pathfinder rules specifically allow this.

CRB p459 wrote:
A humanoid-shaped body can be decked out in magic gear consisting of one item from each of the following groups, keyed to which slot on the body the item is worn.

You can find the listing of slots on CRB p459 or here.

Headband and Head slot are two different slots with different items that go into each slot. As per the rule quoted above both can be filled.

I am curious why you think it is overpowered. They are two very different slots with different types of items going into each slot.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Situation A is not a readied action, it is two AoOs.
1) Wizard moves 30' provoking an AoO. He doesn't get past the threat range of your weapon.
2) He casts while on the ground and you AoO. Don't forget that interrupting his spell is then dependent upon the his concentration check.

Situation B1: The Wizard 5' stepping does not provoke even if you do move to put him in your threat range. There is no AoO for his movement although there may be if he is in your threat range when he casts.

Situation C1: Since you have already moved on your turn you cannot take a 5' step as part of a readied action.

Additionally, even if you had not moved on your turn, you must make your "Move" move action. The 5' step can be PART of a readied action but since your readied action was "Move" it cannot be part of a "Move" move action.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

You are not asking him to slaughter a village. You are asking him to fail the Planar Binding charisma check (surrender to the Binding spell). That is, at the very least, contrary to what any creature summoned by Planar Binding would do.

So lets see what you have done:
Cast Planar Binding.
Cast Charm Monster.
Told it to kill things (Charm Monster)
Watch it become uncontrolled as the Charm Monster fails because you never rolled that opposed Charisma Check for Planar Binding.

Lets see what you would have done otherwise:
Cast Planar Binding.
Made an opposed Charisma Check to get it to do what you wanted with a bonus based on the nature of the service and the reward.

Looks like you have actually made your check HARDER by using Charm Monster and never bound it properly. Of course, the GM could ad hoc a bonus to the Planar Binding check based on the Charm Monster but I fail to see how it would be much more than asking it to do what it wants to do anyhow.

The problem here is that your premise is faulty in what you think you are asking it to do with Charm Monster.
You are not asking it to 'slaughter a village'. You are asking it to surrender to the Planar Binding. THEN you are asking it to 'slaughter a village' as part of the Planar Binding spell.

So to answer your original question, you violated the Planar Binding spell when you used Charm Monster and failed to get it to agree as per Planar Binding. The moment Charm Monster fails you are in a battle with an uncontrolled creature.

3 people marked this as a favorite.

Just a Mort,

No, by RAW once the combat has started and they have acted they are no longer flat-footed unless a creature has some ability to create the flat-footed condition (shadows do not have that ability).

With that said, what I think you are really meaning is does the creature count as invisible or hidden and thus deny dexterity on a subsequent attack.

Unfortunately, the current rules regarding stealth are pretty vague. The Stealth playtest attempted to address this but it never became RAW. If you are playing in a home (rather than a PFS game) game I suggest that you explore the stealth playtest. It makes sense out of a lot of the stealth rules.

Regarding readied actions: As a readied action you can 5' step. Depending on the situation that could give a whole bunch of people an attack before it pops back in.

Lets start by saying everyone has a readied action and on the last turn nobody moved.
1 (Fighter): Attack Shadow (with melee weapon) when Shadow appears (attacks anyone).
2 (Cleric): Channel Energy to harm Shadow when Shadow appears (attacks anyone).
3 (Ranger): Attack Shadow (with ranged weapon) when Shadow appears (attacks anyone).
4 (Wizard): Magic Missile Shadow when Shadow appears.

In the diagram below "W" is "Wall" while "X" is empty". 1, 2, 3, and 4 are PCs. "S" is Shadow in a Wall.

Now, the rules are silent on who goes first if multiple readied actions occur on the same trigger. I suggest that people allow the basic initiative rules to prevail to prevent chaos (including the ability to wait until other readied actions have resolved). However, that is a house rule I use to resolve these sorts of situations.

S: moves along the inside of the wall and then attacks 4.
4: 5' steps to just below 3 and hits the Shadow with Magic Missiles. 3: Shoots S (with Cover).
2: Channels Energy to harm S.
1: 5' steps to 4's former location to attack S (with S having cover).
S: fails to attack anyone since it's movement is done and it began it's attack sequence. (note: some people argue that if it has movement remaining it can use it and then attack. Others state that it can choose to attack someone else. That is another debate.)

Ending positions:

Frankly, Shadows are a PITA but not a huge problem for a group that is ready to deal with them.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Well, they wanted Dev input and while James Jacobs is not "the rules guy" he has posted the same thing people are saying in this thread:



Additionally, here is a 2008 post from Jason Bulmahn (who is THE rules guy) specifically addressing Detect Magic's ability to detect Invisible creatures with a possible increase in the detection time to 1 minute.

That increase never occurred but it is clear from his post that Detect Magic was being used to detect the presence of invisible creatures back in 3.5 and that the Devs were considering ways to address that in Pathfinder. It looks like they did not change anything (probably figuring that 3 rounds to pinpoint an invisible creature is pretty significant as it is).

In short, yes, the magic aura from Invisibility is detectable just like any other magic aura.

This meshes with the rules since there is nothing in the rules saying anything to the contrary.

6 people marked this as a favorite.

Since nobody has quoted it yet:

CRB p551 Creating Potions wrote:
The imbiber of the potion is both the caster and the target. Spells with a range of personal cannot be made into potions.

2 people marked this as a favorite.

There are two ways to deal with limited slots.
1) CRB p553, Adding New Abilities allows you to combine items. The second item's price is multiplied by 1.5.

2) Pay double to make an item slotless.

However, Endless Bandolier (Chest) and Beneficial Bandolier (Belt) are different magic slots. There is not a conflict in this case.

Of course, the Beneficial Bandolier will conflict with a Belt of Incredible Dexterity and that is a bigger concern.

Just use the Adding New Abilities rule to add the Beneficial Bandolier to the Belt of Incredible Dexterity.

Note: You cannot use either the Adding New Abilities rule or the 2x price slotless rule if you are playing in PFS.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Trogdar, I think the fear was that at level 18 there would be no attack penalty for using a Gargantuan Greatsword. Then stack on Enlarge Person and Lead Blades.

Gargantuan Greatsword : 2d6(medium)-> 3d6(large)-> 4d6(huge)-> 6d6(gargantuan)-> 8d6(enlarge)-> 12d6(lead blades). Average = 42damage

Compared to Medium Greatsword: 2d6(medium)-> 3d6(enlarge)-> 4d6(lead blades). Average = 14damage

An increase of 28 damage for replacing a crap ability (Trap Sense).
Note: Without Enlarge Person and Lead Blades the difference is 14damage.

Also, this doesn't include what happens when you stack the Vital Strike tree onto this. 48d6 = 168avg damage (without bonus damage) in a single attack.

While this is similar to your Huge Hippo build the Huge Hippo is limited to 4d8 (pre-Vital Strike) while the Gargantuan Greatsword can get up to the afforementioned 12d6 (pre-Vital Strike). Also, since this is a Large Humanoid rather than a Huge Hippo the Greatsword option has better tactical value.

In short, there is a clear mechanical reason to disallow this. The Titan Fighter's Giant Weapon Wielder is a much better approach.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

_Ozy_ is correct.

Example, if you create a Scroll of a level 3 spell and apply a +1 Metamagic feat to the spell then you are paying the costs of a level 4 spell with a minimum caster level of 7 (up to whatever you wish to set it at). However, any save DC is still that of a level 3 spell scroll as per the normal metamagic rules.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

ElementalXX, I was not the first person to state that it doesn't work for the exact reasons I provided.

Giant Weapon Wielder makes perfect sense. For a Medium creature, it takes an inappropriately sized weapon that cannot be used (Large 2-handed weapon) and makes it an inappropriately sized weapon that CAN be used (Large 2-handed weapon that counts as Medium 2-handed weapon due to the "effort" section of the rules.)

This is all covered in the inappropriately sized rules section in the paragraph on the "effort" required. I have quoted the relevant paragraph above.

You will note that changing the "effort" required has no bearing on whether or not the weapon is an inappropriately sized weapon.

1 to 50 of 469 << 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.