|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
The same as if it was not shrunk down to medium size. The rules only account for the size of the creature to determine reach. There is no rule that states weapon size is relevant to reach.
If you take a Tiny 2handed weapon with the reach property and stick it in the hands of a medium character (counts as a light weapon) it would still have the reach property and still allow the medium character to threaten 10'.
Does this make "logical sense"? No, but this is the rules forum where rules do not have to make sense. :)
I am new to pathfinder and a GM and player> they party of player is a dm'ing are rule mongers. They always have detect magic going do end y thing magic (I,e, traps or item are pointless. I need a to know if there is a fix for this ? They have it running at all times. This has made magic raps pointless. help please
Texas_ogre, basically, traps have been progressively marginalized with each new version since 3.0 came out.
Back in the "good old days" you could have a dungeon full of traps and only a rogue could do anything about it. This had a number of problems.
I agree that traps need to become more relevant, but they should not be an encounter unto themselves (usually). That is bad trap design. The best traps are the ones that have a battle involved.
Orfamay Quest wrote:
And this is why I ad-hoc CRs from traps. The existing CRs are almost always too high.
Just a note, staggered creatures CAN coup de grace, but it takes two rounds to perform.
CRB p186 wrote:
Here is how I handle it: every step in resolving something is a point you can use an immediate (or readied) action but some immediate actions are only useful in certain steps.
Example (note: I might be missing a step, this is just a quick example):
Now, you could disrupt the spell in steps one and two but by step three it is too late.
With all that said, there are no rules covering when immediate actions can occur. It is all a judgement call. Some immediate actions are useful at certain points while others are not. Thus it is more common sense rulings than anything else.
This is right up there with everyone playing chaotic neutral (evil) characters and the calling it 'roleplay' when they act like jerks.
There is a basic premise at the gaming table. For whatever reason a party is going to be assembled comprising of the player's PCs.
If a PLAYER is unable to make a character concept that will fit into that then he should be playing a solo adventure (ie, not with a gaming group).
It sounds like you have a whole group of players that do not understand that the game is co-operative. The GM and the group as a whole needs to resolve this.
Aelryinth, a bag of holding in a bag of holding does not cause an explosion. It causes one to be non-functional.
Only when you mix a Bag of Holding with a Portable Hole are there dangerous consequences.
CRB p501 wrote:
Reasons why most penalties for death are bad:
1) The "loss of level" penalty
2) The "loss of wealth" penalty
3) The "sit out and wait" a few sessions penalty
3.X lessened many of the penalties for horrible things that happened to PCs and Pathfinder has (rightly) continued that trend by removing or further lessening many of the penalties that still existed.
Ice Armor is a niche spell that is best used around level 5-8 if you regularly stay in a wild shape combat form rather than change back and forth.
4) An armor type for every form:
Additionally, at level 6 you will need Dragonhide Breastplate non-humanoid armor that costs 2800gp.
Finally, at levels 5-8 it is non-trivial to afford armor with the Wild property (a minimum price tag of 16,000gp +armor costs).
Summary: for a few levels, it definitely has some advantages if you can deal with the minor disadvantages.
The Devs have previously stated that they have made crafting as easy as possible. They did not make the rules 'vague' because they expected GMs to make something they intended to be simple not simple. They made the rules 'simple' and you are interpreting it as 'vague'.
Put another way: Any magic item in the book can be crafted by any character in the game provided you have the requisite feats and the gold to do so. This is by design. So why would the Devs then have a hidden rule that states 'oh, but you must learn how to do it first'?
Heck, if a wizard wants a spell all he has to do is pay for it from another wizard. Do many GMs houserule this out of the game by making it 'wizards dont share'? Yes, but that doesn't mean that is not how the game is written.
Rhedyn, is it not a rulebook? Ultimate Campaign is hardcover, not a 'splatbook' with a number of clarifications to the rules on topics like who controls Animal Companions.
People have been asking for those clarifications for a long time.
In any case, you countered Dustyboy's comment as if your comment were the rules or the only interpretation.
The rule as it stands is that they are GM controlled BUT the GM can opt to hand off control to the player to simplify the GM's handling of the game.
As for GMs being control freaks if they run the AC, I think that is a very narrow characterization. Sometimes the GM needs to take control of the AC because the player is having the AC do things that are out of character for an int 2 animal.
By it being a rule that it is GM controlled but can be handed off it means the player cannot just have the AC do whatever he wants it to.
RDM42, you appear to have missed the forest when you saw the trees.
Let me see if I can put it into context for you.
What is "realistic" in the context of a fantasy game is 100% subjective and defined by the author(s) and the people participating (GM and/or players).
The OP made absolute statements that X was not realistic. That is only a true statement FOR THE OP and not necessarily true for anyone else.
My reference to dragons was an EXAMPLE of things that exist in fantasy and that if they have heard of dragons they have probably heard of people who control animals.
My initial response stated that it was the GM who determines what is or is not acceptable to townsfolk.
Try to read my statements in context. :)
Hmmm, did I state that they did? *checks his post* Nope! Didn't even imply it.
What I said is that reality has no bearing on this discussion.
I also said that townsfolk have probably heard of people that can tell animals to do or not do stuff.
Please try to take what I write as writ rather than add things I did not write.
If anything, I basically stated it was GM fiat whether or not townsfolk accept ANYTHING.
Again, that has nothing to do with "reality". It is a fantasy world, not a reality world. The GM will do whatever he wants with his NPCs. If he wants them to accept it, they will. If he doesn't they won't. Reality has no bearing on the matter any more than it does in any fantasy adventure novel.
I bolded your problem. "Realism" and "Fantasy" do not belong in the same concept. This is a fantasy game. Fantastic things that would never happen in reality occur. Magic is a thing. Dragons are a thing. Animal Companions that obediently obey their "master" are a thing.
If the townsfolk have heard of dragons they have probably heard of people with animals that can tell animals to do (or not do) something.
Does this mean they will be allowed in the tavern? No, but then again halflings, orcs, or dwarves may not be allowed in the tavern. I am sure NPC people (ie, the GM) can come up with reasons to disallow anything.
Bane is a special property.
Determine the enhancement bonus (greater between bow and arrow applies).
Ergo: a +1 Undead Bane arrow from a +4 bow = a +4 Undead Bane arrow = +6 arrow vs Undead.
I really do not understand why people keep trying to resolve the special property before determining the enhancement bonus.
There are two possible ways you can use a 15' cone both of which are shown on CRB p215. From these two two ways you get 8 directions.
1) There is nothing in the Bestiary that states immunity to an energy type is a quality.
2) There is nothing in the Polymorph description that states lost physical abilities are qualities.
So all you are left with is any Special Qualities or abilities that define themselves as qualities. None of which are Immunity to Fire.
Summary: An Efreeti using Shape Change loses Immunity to Fire because it is not a physical quality but it is a physical ability and physical abilities are lost as per the Polymorph school.
Edit: an example of a physical quality that would be kept: Damage Reduction. This is because Damage Reduction (Bestiary p299) calls itself a quality.
Funny bit: (energy) Resistance (Bestiary p303) calls itself a quality while (energy) Immunity (Bestiary p301) does not.
So, I have been running RA for a year+ now...my group is level 10.
There have been 3 TPKs (the spell confusion has been particularly deadly) and a number of other deaths.
Some thoughts I've had:
1) This is a very treasure rich environment.
2) Decide in advance how you want to deal with death or TPKs.
3) Initially the entire dungeon was exciting, but as they got into some of the deeper levels it seems that there are more and more of 'you run into things you handle without flinching' mixed with 'start running for your life'.
4) Finally, read the levels before using them, there are moments of head scratching. The maps do not always conform to the text.
With all that said, overall, I have enjoyed RA and look forward to running it to the end.
CRB p179 wrote:
Touch Attacks: Some attacks completely disregard armor, including shields and natural armor—the aggressor need only touch a foe for such an attack to take full effect. In these cases, the attacker makes a touch attack roll (either ranged or melee). When you are the target of a touch attack, your AC doesn’t include any armor bonus, shield bonus, or natural armor bonus. All other modifiers, such as your size modifier, Dexterity modifier, and deflection bonus (if any) apply normally.
Touch attacks are your AC without armor bonus, shield bonus, or natural armor bonus. You apply all other modifiers normally. The Barbarian Rage's -2 AC penalty is another modifier.
CRB p178 wrote:
Flat-Footed: At the start of a battle, before you have had a chance to act (specifically, before your first regular turn in the initiative order), you are flat-footed. You can’t use your Dexterity bonus to AC (if any) while flat-footed. Barbarians and rogues of high enough level have the uncanny dodge extraordinary ability, which means that they cannot be caught flat-footed. Characters with uncanny dodge retain their Dexterity bonus to their AC and can make attacks of opportunity before they have acted in the first round of combat. A flat-footed character can’t make attacks of opportunity, unless he has the Combat Reflexes feat.
Flat-footed is your AC without your dexterity bonus. Thus the Barbarian Rage's -2 AC penalty still applies (assuming you are raging while flat-footed which is an uncommon situation).
CRB p199 wrote:
A creature can also add any circumstance, deflection, dodge, insight, luck, morale, profane, and sacred bonuses to AC to its CMD. Any penalties to a creature’s AC also apply to its CMD. A flat-footed creature does not add its Dexterity bonus to its CMD.
Penalties to AC apply to CMD.
So, the CRB 5-foot step rule states that you cannot 5' step when in difficult terrain or in darkness.
This is a rule duplicated from the 3.5 PHB. However, 3.5 then went farther (in the Rules Compendium) and stated that you cannot 5' step when your movement is hampered.
FAQ question: Can you 5' step when you have hampered movement (such as poor visibility or over an obstacle) or when your movement is slowed (such as Grease)?
Actually, the devs have stated that extra-dimensional spaces such as pits, bags of holding, etc. are not extraplanar (which is what I think you are thinking of).
On a more basic level, you would be giving such a spell far more power than is it's due if you make it extraplanar. You cannot use teleportation magic (D-door, teleport, etc) across planar boundaries.
Create Pit does not open a doorway into another dimension. It is an extradimensional space.
Extradimensional is an extension of the existing dimension. Not an entirely different place.
Golems are not immune to all magic other than that listed.
Bestiary p159 wrote:
Immunity to Magic (Ex) A clay golem is immune to any spell or spell-like ability that allows spell resistance. In addition, certain spells and effects function differently against the creature, as noted below.
Ie: golems are only immune to spells and spell-like abiltiies that allow spell resistance.
Create Pit does not allow spell resistance.
Robert Jenkins 953 wrote:
There is no problem. The rules regarding pricing work fine.Your entire post has come off as a 'I don't like that the pricing rules work this way'. Not as a 'could you help clear up something?' question.
You knew how they worked, you just didn't like it. This is not a rules question, it is a rules suggestion/discussion (starting with your first post) and as such belongs in a different forum.
Pricing on many items is not intended to be 'by the pound'. It is intended to be 'how much do we think this ability should cost'.
It is a game mechanic power metric, not an economic value.
Admantine armor has a specific game effect that should cost a specific amount.
There is really no rules question here, this appears to be more of a discussion regarding how the games "economy" was designed. I am flagging this as wrong forum.
Billbo_Baggington, yes, your confusion is because you confuse "Pathfinder Adventure Path" with "Pathfinder RPG". The two are not the same thing.
Pathfinder Adventure Paths are either D&D 3.5 or Pathfinder RPG depending on the rules used in the module. CotCT was D&D 3.5. CotCT was not Pathfinder RPG.
There is no rules ambiguity here, you must pick a square.
If you don't like it, house rule it. But, if you do house rule it don't forget to also add in things like 'my arrow missed the target's touch AC, did it hit the guy behind him?' house rules. (The rules are not a simulation of reality, they have nothing to do with reality and thus are silly. If you want to simulate these types of things, that is what house rules are for.) :)
vhok, as others have stated, the "sorcerer" bit in the metamagic rods is simply a reminder, not an inclusive or exclusive statement.
Metamagic Rods use the rules for Metamagic feats except where otherwise stated. I don't understand why you think they don't.
Ultimate Equipment p187 wrote:
It states that it is the essence of a metamagic feat.It states that it does not change the spell slot (an exception).
It states how it is used (use-activated).
It states how many rods you may use at once (clarification).
It states it can be combined with metamagic feats (a clarification).
It states that you do not actually possess the feat (some items actually grant the feat, this indicates you don't actually have it, the rod gives it to you for X number of uses a day).
It states that sorcerers still must cast spells as full-round actions (this is a reminder).
There is NOTHING that excludes other spontaneous spell-casters from being forced to cast as a full-round action like normal. The fact that they only reminded you about sorcerers is just a lack of foresight in predicting how overly rules-lawyerish people can get.
Are you using a Metamagic Rod? Yes
The reminder in the Metamagic Rod text is really pointless beyond being a reminder.
Sure, I already did but here you go again:
CRB p458 wrote:
Spell Completion: This is the activation method for scrolls.
Now, Spell Completion is defined as being for Scrolls. If it isn't a scroll it doesn't use Spell Completion unless it has a rule that states it does.
Are there other items that specify Spell Completion? Yes, examples are Riffle Scrolls and Spell Tattoos
Inner Sea Magic p16 Spell Tattoo wrote:
A spell tattoo is essentially a wearable scroll inscribed on flesh instead of on parchment or vellum. These tattoos appear as colorful and intricate patterns rather than magical writing. The tattoo is a silent, spell completion item that only the bearer can activate. It vanishes when activated. A spell tattoo must be visible to the bearer and must be touched as part of its activation. These magical tattoos are not normally placed on the head, neck, or back as a result, since most creatures would require mirrors to activate them. A spell tattoo’s aura and caster level varies as per the scroll it emulates. A spell tattoo has a market price four times as much as an equivalent scroll.
Now on to spell trigger:
CRB p458 wrote:
Spell Trigger: Spell trigger activation is similar to spell completion, but it’s even simpler. No gestures or spell finishing is needed, just a special knowledge of spellcasting that an appropriate character would know, and a single word that must be spoken. Spell trigger items can be used by anyone whose class can cast the corresponding spell. This is the case even for a character who can’t actually cast spells, such as a 3rd-level paladin. The user must still determine what spell is stored in the item before she can activate it. Activating a spell trigger item is a standard action and does not provoke attacks of opportunity.
So, nothing about which items are spell trigger. But if we look elsewhere we find it.
CRB p491 wrote:
Activation: Staves use the spell trigger activation method, so casting a spell from a staff is usually a standard action that doesn’t provoke attacks of opportunity.
CRB p496 wrote:
Activation: Wands use the spell trigger activation method, so casting a spell from a wand is usually a standard action that doesn’t provoke attacks of opportunity. (If the spell being cast has a longer casting time than 1 action, however, it takes that long to cast the spell from a wand.) To activate a wand, a character must hold it in hand (or whatever passes for a hand, for nonhumanoid creatures) and point it in the general direction of the target or area. A wand may be used while grappling or while swallowed whole.
Now, lets look at Wondrous Items (the category the Page of Spell Knowledge is in).
CRB p496 Wondrous Items wrote:
Activation: Usually use-activated or command word, but details vary from item to item.
So usually NOT Spell Trigger. Lets see if we can find some examples of Wondrous Items that spell out that they are Spell Trigger.
CRB p515 Golem Manual wrote:
The spells included in a golem manual require a spell trigger activation and can be activated only to assist in the construction of a golem.
CRB p531 Prayer Beads wrote:
The beads of blessing, smiting, and wind walking function as spell trigger items; the beads of karma and summons can be activated by any character capable of casting divine spells. The owner need not hold or wear the strand of prayer beads in any specific location, as long as he carries it somewhere on his person.
So, there are specific classes of items which are all Spell Completion or all Spell Trigger items. Then there are some exceptions which are spelled out.
This is not spelled out, so without rules stating it is, we default to the rules that govern that type of item. In this case, a Wondrous Item which is usually (without text to the contrary) use-activated or command word activated.
CRB p458 wrote:
Now, the only problem with it being Use/Command activated is that no action is specified in the magic item so the GM has to determine if an action is required.
My interpretation of the rules is that it falls under the either the continuous benefit or the 'activation is subsumed in its use' clauses. Either way it works without any extra action on the user's part.
Summary: Page of Spell Knowledge is a Wondrous Item, it does not have any text telling you the activation method is different than any other Wondrous Item. Examples of Wondrous Items with different activation methods from other Wondrous Items are provided, this is not one of them. So default to Wondrous Item (ie: Use Activated or Command Word) rules.
I really think this is a case of people not being able to believe that you can create an object with a spell in it without having that spell available. While odd, those are the rules.
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.
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.
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.
Put another way: ALL creatures have a type (and many have a subtype).
[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.
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".
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.
Crimeo, you are misreading the FAQ (as usual).
Pick an effect related to spell level vs spell slot. Now, use whichever is most disadvantageous regarding that effect.
It is quite clear that the disadvantageous element here is that you do not get to keep your 4th level spell slot memorized after you have cast a metamagicked zero level cantrip out of it.
But, as usual, you may continue to misread the rules to your heart's content. Enjoy! :)
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.
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.
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
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.