|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
jimibones83, there is realistic and then there is Pathfinder.
In Pathfinder you can fire a muzzleloader a minimum of once a round (6 seconds) but realistically the fastest shooters would manage once every 20 seconds (about every 3 rounds) or so.
My suggestion is to use the misfire rules just for simplicity and in keeping with the general Pathfinder rules.
I shoot muzzleloaders. The simplest and safest way to remove the ball and powder is to fire the gun.
If you manage to load a ball without powder you can either use caps to fire the ball out (in the case of a caplock) or push powder through the touch hole (in the case of a flintlock, can also be done with caplock if you remove the nipple).
Finally, if all else fails, you can use a ball puller which is a sharp screw that you attached to your rod. You drill down into the ball and pull it out.
Since muzzleloaders are not modeled with any level of realism in Pathfinder (1+ shots per round is very unrealistic) I would suggest using the "clearing a misfire" action.
Elbedor, you are correct we can argue until the Sun goes out but it does appear that you are in the minority. At current tally the number is 30 to 3 against you (via the Poll I linked above).
While that could have some under-representation of your side I doubt it is so under-represented that it would change the results too much.
Matthew, I think that section you are quoting is to prevent people from trying to combine the two options into one super option.
Player: So, if I have the standard Detect Evil going and I use the move action version do I get all of the information at once on all the people in the cone?
GM: No, you use one or the other even if both are in operation at the same time.
As debated Here there appears to be two camps regarding this.
A) The Paladin ability Detect Evil takes a Standard Action to activate. After activation you may then use a move action to concentrate on a single target to shortcut 3 rounds worth of concentration regarding that target.
B) The Paladin ability Detect Evil takes either a Standard Action to activate as the spell OR a Move action to concentrate on a single target to gain 3 rounds worth of Detect Evil information.
So which are you? Please vote below by favoriting your choice.
I think it really breaks down like this:
Those in the "standard action to activate and move action to concentrate on one target" camp believe that the move action sentence is changing the method of concentration and shortening it but nothing else.
Those in the "standard action to activate standard version or move action to activate compressed version on one target" camp believe that the move action sentence is a separate, independent sentence.
Either could be correct because of the way the writers write this game. There are examples of similar arguments (Full Attack becoming a Standard attack debate comes to mind) where the 'connectedness' of the sentences were up for debate and turned out to not be as connected as people thought.
In short, there will be no resolution of this without Developer input because it goes to the core of how the Devs write the rules. Deletion of wording and paragraphs in order to save on space can cause confusion at times. Sometimes they write them A->B->C and other times they write them A <stop> B <stop> C <stop> while the differences between the two are not always clear without those spaces and extra words.
To conclude, please FAQ: Here
And if you are interested, a Poll
It is clear that this is not as clear as some people have previously thought so lets try a new FAQ attempt (I think they have changed their policy since the last attempt).
FAQ Question: Does a paladin need to activate Detect Evil with a Standard action before using the Move action to determine if a creature is evil?
Yes: You must spend a standard action to activate Detect Evil and then you can use a move action to shortcut the amount of time required to tell if a single creature is evil.
No: You can use the move action without already having spent a standard action to activate the Detect Evil ability.
K177Y C47 wrote:
Did you see me make an argument ANYWHERE that stated it was not intended? No? I didn't think so. I said we do not know what the Devs intended. Some people are making the assertion that because anti-fatigue items not only exist but have increased in numbers then the Devs must be intending them to be used for Rage Cycling.
Another poster said it was clearly intended as such and I am asking for either Dev comment or item statement that it is intended as such. That is a far cry from me saying it was *not* intended.
I don't know the Devs intent, neither do you or anyone else. They have not made it plain. That such items exists does not mean they intend this sort of combination but they may simply be choosing to do nothing about it for any number of reasons.
In short, any assertion pro or con as to the intent to allow Rage Cycling is guesswork at best.
Chengar Qordath, an alternative implication, and one that they have actually stated from time to time, is that they prefer to leave such decisions up to the GM.
Heck, it's time of existence may be one reason they are choosing not to deal with it. Look what happened with Crane Wing and that was out for a couple years.
Just because an option exists that does not mean a GM is forced to allow it. Frankly, there are many ways to abuse the system and Paizo does very little to close most options that some people consider abusive.
In any case, this option is firmly in the 'depends on the game' territory.
I disagree with the idea that we know what the RAI is on Rage Cycling. We are not Paizo Devs and I am not aware of any comments they have made that indicate Rage Cycling at low levels is intended.
While yes, there are items out there to prevent Fatigue that does not mean they were intentionally geared for Rage Cycling. There are other sources of Fatigue in the game.
Personally, I believe Rage Cycling is not intended and potentially abusive but I have no data to back this up. It really depends on your game and the power levels of that game.
To cast a spell from a scroll perform the following steps:
Step 1) Is the spell on your spell list?
Step 2) Is the scroll Arcane and you are an Arcane spellcaster or Divine and you are a Divine spellcaster? Note: If playing Pathfinder Society skip this step and proceed to Step 3.
Step 3) Have you deciphered the scroll using Spellcraft or Read Magic?
Step 4) Is the caster level higher than your caster level?
Step 1) Decipher the Scroll. UMD DC 25+spell level or Spellcraft DC 20+spell Level.
Step 2) Emulate an Ability score. You only need to do this if your ability score for the scroll (Intelligence for Wizard scrolls, Wisdom for Cleric and Druid scrolls) is not high enough.
Step 3) Use a Scroll. The DC for this is 20+ spell level.
This really isn't covered well in Ultimate Campaign but here is what I figure:
The moment you recruit an army it starts burning consumption BP.
Since the phase for paying for consumption has passed there are only a few options.
1) You have a Granary with consumption BP stored up. You can use it to pay for the newly created army.
2) You pay BP directly to pay for that first month of consumption (either x4 or x1 depending on reserve status).
3) You can choose to not pay for the army up front but that will cause a Morale penalty. You could consider this to be an example of forced conscripts.
This is based on the logic that whenever you activate a reserve army it starts burning weekly consumption. This can be anytime during the course of a Kingdom month and not just when you are spending the week doing the turn.
If you do not have the stored consumption then you must pay out of pocket with regular BP or choose not to pay for the army.
We really doing this again?
Here is a quote from a previous post of mine in a similar thread:
Ill say this even though I know Ill get disagreements left, right, and center but here is a post I made on 5' stepping in the middle of a whirlwind attack from a previous discussion about this.
Edit: When I originally posted that people ripped me for my lax wording on the disagreement line. Rather than change the quote I will amend it here (bolded text is the change):"There is disagreement on whether you can 5' step in the middle of a Whirlwind attack to gain new targets."
The same would apply to a swift or immediate action that changes your threatened space.
In short, if you check available targets at the start of the Whirlwind Attack like Cleave does then you cannot recheck them in the middle of the Whirlwind attack.
In the absence of official word on this it is up to your GM to decide if you check at the start or not.
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.
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?
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.