|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
Koshimo, I don't think it is "no because we said so" so much as "no, the rules say 'melee' and ranged is not 'melee'".
Yes, it allows you to threaten but threatening is not what allows you to benefit from flanking. Even if you do not threaten with your melee weapon (unarmed strikes for example) you still benefit from flanking because an unarmed strike is melee even though it does not threaten.
Put another way:
The prerequisite cannot be bypassed by adding +5. Using another source of the spell is not bypassing the prerequisite. It is supplying the prerequisite.
From the quote I quoted earlier:
CRB p549 wrote:
Note that all items have prerequisites in their descriptions. These prerequisites must be met for the item to be created.
States that the prerequisites must be met.
CRB p549 wrote:
Most of the time, they take the form of spells that must be known by the item’s creator (although access through another magic item or spellcaster is allowed).
States that the creator must know the spells and then provides an exception where a magic item or other spellcaster can provide it.
CRB p549 wrote:
The DC to create a magic item increases by +5 for each prerequisite the caster does not meet. The only exception to this is the requisite item creation feat, which is mandatory. In addition, you cannot create potions, spell-trigger, or spell-completion magic items without meeting their spell prerequisites.
States that you can bypass prerequisites by adding +5 to the DC except in the case of the item creation feat and spells in the case of potions, spell-trigger, and spell-completion items.
Since the cleric is supplying the spell as per the rule in quote #2 then quote #3 is not even an issue. Quote #2 allows the cleric to supply the spell to the wizard for a scroll.
(I bolded the part where you stated it would take a minute.)Just a note: Take 10 does not increase the time it takes to do a task, Take 20 does.
1d8 doubled and tripled in 3.X/PF is: 1d8(base) + 1d8(double) + 2d8(triple) = 4d8
His interpretation is correct.
A better way to think about it is 'double = roll again' and triple = 'roll again twice'.
Simple answer: Yes, they can.
All spell variables (including targeting) are not decided until the spell is completed. Because of that the Glabrezu can redirect.
However, if the wizard waits until the Glabrezu completes the spell and targets the wizard then the wizard is still going to suffer being stunned but can dimension door beforehand.
Note: Immediate actions are very much left to interpretation. Expect table variance.
I already explained what that was.The disruption to spellcasting is a specific rule that causes you to lose that action.
There is no rule for tripping, disarming, etc. that states you will lose the action. However, he does state that other game rules can dicate an interruption (ie. prevent you from completing an action).
How does this work?
What he is saying is that there is no specific 'if you are tripped you lose your action regardless of what you can do' rule like there is for spellcasting.
Summary: there is a colossal difference between losing your action (such as the spellcasting rule) and being situationally unable to complete your action (such as being prone while moving).
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.
A 2cubic foot backpack can hold:
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?
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).
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.
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).
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'.
(Edit: remembered a Dev response so changed my post.)
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.
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:
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?
Sheriff Bart wrote:
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.
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.
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.
Sheriff Bart wrote:
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.
It sounds like none of my comments cover you as a user, perhaps you should not take them as if they did.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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).
Artanthos, could you point out where I said that
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.
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?
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.
A GM can and should adjudicate these discrepancies.
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.
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.
Magic Mart has no relevance to WBL.
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.
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.
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.
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*
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 because...it 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.
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.
Lakesidefantasy, here are the relevant quotes:
CRB p124 wrote:
Nothing in Eschew Materials about ignoring a Focus component.
CRB p212-213 wrote:
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.
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?
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.
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?
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.