|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
Aranna, Snowblind, it may not be a rigid body but it has a specific external volume that is larger than the internal volume you are trying to put it in. It is not about fitting it through the opening.
To put it another way, you can fit an empty burlap potato sack through the opening in your pants pocket but there is no way you are putting the entire thing in there.
I don't have to imagine it, I just have to look up the rules. The rules state that a rider on a mount occupies the entire mounts space.
Going with your large example, if a rider is on an huge creature, where is the rider? The rider is in all 27 (3x3x3) cubes, even the mount's feet!
Reach is not determined by space, you are conflating the two. You have a small creature occupying a medium, large, huge, or whatever, space. That does not change the small creature's reach (5' or 10' with a reach weapon).
Summary: the rules clearly state that the rider occupies the same space as the mount.
Lune, lets change tack a moment, can an Ogre, using a Longspear, attack any square adjacent to him? Nope.
Same thing here, a Halfling using a Longspear while mounted on a Horse cannot attack any square adjacent to the Halfling/Horse.
The Halfling is considered to take up the same space as the Horse, which is also the same space as an Ogre.
Positive and Negative energy are not "energy" attacks in the same way that the classic energy types (Acid, Cold, Electricity, Fire, and Sonic) are and do not usually do damage to objects for the same reason that they do not do damage to Constructs. There is usually an 'alive or undead' clause in there.
In 3.5 there was actually term definitions that supported this. Pathfinder did not bother to define many terms and that has created many problems.
Regarding Kaiju, you'll notice it does not say "acid energy" or "cold energy" but it does say "negative energy".
"Negative Energy" is not one of the 5 types of energy, it is a name.
Edit: here are a couple of quotes from 3.5
3.5 PHB p308 wrote:
energy damage: Damage caused by one of five types of energy (not counting positive and negative energy): acid, cold, electricity, fire, and sonic.
3.5 PHB p310 wrote:
negative energy: A black, crackling energy that originates on the Negative Material Plane. In general, negative energy heals undead creatures and hurts the living.
The CRB does not have a basic word defintion section and as a result these questions repeatedly come up. Heck, people even argue over whether "character" and "creature" are interchangable (some people think they are not). Back in 3.5 the glossary stated they were and without these basic definitions there is a lot of confusion and debate that shouldn't happen.
I edited my post as you were posting and removed the location element. I updated it to include the text from 3.5 which explained it better than Pathfinder does.
Also, I provided another rationale, the observation rationale. Detect Magic does not allow you to observe the spell effect, it only lets you see the aura.
Yes, you are misinterpreting it.
Please note that it doing this does not require Detect Magic.
Polymorph has specific ways to detect it and this is not one of them.
Method 1: opposed Perception check vs Disguise+10 check.
In one respect, this is another casualty of Pathfinder trying to shorten things without explaining them. In 3.5 it had this wording:
3.5 PHB p82 wrote:
20 + spell level Identify a spell that’s already in place and in effect. You must be able to see or detect the effects of the spell. No action required. No retry.
Detect Magic tells you that there is an aura, but you are still not seeing or detecting the effects of the spell. For that you need the above mentioned Perception check or True Seeing.
To add to what the others are saying, lets assume for a moment you can select a power you do not have.
You gain uses in a power that, you still do not have. Put another way, the uses in an ability you don't have don't do anything for you because you still don't have the ability.
Its like wearing a magic item that adds uses per day to a power. It does not grant you the power.
karnos, this is a case of specific overriding general.
General: prepared spells must be prepared with the metamagic feat.
Pathfinder is full of specific vs general "contradictions".
However, if you want to ignore how everyone has understood this to work for the last 5 years (pathfinder) or 10 years (3.5+PF) then that is up to you.
Of course, you can ignore the entirety of the history of Pathfinder (ie: 3.5) and if that is the case you are in trouble. There are A LOT of Pathfinder rules that are not defined or poorly defined unless you look at 3.5 rules.
Example: What is "energy"? If you look just at Pathfinder a case for Positive and Negative "energy" being "energy" (and thus subject to effects that affect energy) could be made.
CRB p185 wrote:
Holding the Charge: If you don’t discharge the spell in the round when you cast the spell, you can hold the charge indefinitely. You can continue to make touch attacks round after round. If you touch anything or anyone while holding a charge, even unintentionally, the spell discharges. If you cast another spell, the touch spell dissipates. You can touch one friend as a standard action or up to six friends as a full-round action. Alternatively, you may make a normal unarmed attack (or an attack with a natural weapon) while holding a charge. In this case, you aren’t considered armed and you provoke attacks of opportunity as normal for the attack. If your unarmed attack or natural weapon attack normally doesn’t provoke attacks of opportunity, neither does this attack. If the attack hits, you deal normal damage for your unarmed attack or natural weapon and the spell discharges. If the attack misses, you are still holding the charge.
CRB p216 wrote:
Touch Spells and Holding the Charge: In most cases, if you don’t discharge a touch spell on the round you cast it, you can hold the charge (postpone the discharge of the spell) indefinitely. You can make touch attacks round after round until the spell is discharged. If you cast another spell, the touch spell dissipates.
Two different sections state that do not lose the held charge until you discharge it with a successful hit. Note: you can also lose the held charge if you touch something else (like a door) or by casting a new spell.
The Magus changes this in two ways: One, you can touch your weapon without discharging the spell. Two, you can channel a touch spell through your weapon in a regular attack. The Magus did not change that you keep the held charge until you successfully hit.
ARG Statblock (page 202) does not list them as having Darkvision.
This appears to be a case where the ARG is trying to fit the Bestiary and they should have offered a points refund for the Suli or at least not charged for Low-Light Vision.
It doesn't matter how many actions the person provoking takes, moving out of more than one square counts as only one opportunity per round.
CRB p180 wrote:
Moving out of more than one square threatened by the same opponent in the same round doesn’t count as more than one opportunity for that opponent. All these attacks are at your full normal attack bonus.
First, not a rules question. Flagging to be moved.
Second, watching that video there are several things to note.
2) Several of those actions (such as the jumping up and kicking feet together) appear quite ungainly in armor.
3) We have no idea how much people have practiced in that armor to do those things.
4) We did not see them try to scale a wall without a ladder using either a rope or freeclimb (climb skill), walk a thin ledge (acrobatics skill), or swim in a lake/river (swim skill).
So, that video can neither support nor contradict a -6 penalty as it provides insufficient evidence but the person performing those maneuvers certainly did appear to be ungainly.
Then it needs to be enchanted as a weapon and not as a shield. If it is enchanted as a shield they cannot then use the shield enchantment as a weapon enchantment if they are already doing that with the other shield (due to only one shield slot).
So yes, you can save half the money on one shield but not the other.
Short answer, yes. Mithral Breastplate is Light Armor for the purpose of Nimble.
1. No, because you do not have a clear straight line path.
CRB p198 wrote:
You must have a clear path toward the opponent, and nothing can hinder your movement (such as difficult terrain or obstacles). You must move to the closest space from which you can attack the opponent. If this space is occupied or otherwise blocked, you can’t charge. If any line from your starting space to the ending space passes through a square that blocks movement, slows movement, or contains a creature (even an ally), you can’t charge.
2. Yes, you can charge while you are flying.
3. If you are on a mount you occupy the entire mount's space. You are not above the mount.
CRB p202 wrote:
For simplicity, assume that you share your mount’s space during combat.
So, since you occupy the entire space you can be struck from below if they can strike your mount. The Ranger can attack the rider of the Roc provided he can attack the Roc.
4. No, pinpointing only tells you where a creature is, it does not allow you to ignore miss chance.
Bestiary p305 wrote:
5. I think you have Throw Rider backwards. A snake would be a mount, it is not a rider. The mount (the snake) throws the rider (presumably a humanoid). The humanoid is not immune to trip.
6. Yes, it is an attack roll.
7. Charge/Run: Only if you do not reduce your speed. If your movement is hampered you cannot charge or Run.
Did you read the entire FAQ? The entire question it is asking is who is charging. It states that both are charging.
This was to shut down the very loophole that you are still trying to claim.
Really, you are quite late to this one, as it was already asked, answered, and the dead horse beaten to death again.
This comes up quite a bit on the boards. As written, the mounted combat rules do not work as intended. That has been clear for quite a long time.
Even the phrases: "You must move at least 10 feet (2 squares) and may move up to double your speed directly toward the designated opponent." and "You must move to the closest space from which you can attack the opponent." (CRB p198 Charge rules) cause problems with Mounted Combat (specifically Ride-By Attack).
Many people read those phrases (separately or combined) to be that you draw a line from your square to the opponents square and move along that line. The problem is, that prevents ride by attack as you cannot move through your opponent afterwards.
Then there is the issue stemming from the rules not taking into account a rider and mount with different reach.
A Blog or FAQ on all of the mounted combat issues has been needed for quite some time.
Every time someone brings up economics in relation to Pathfinder it makes me laugh.
What should happen when adventurers dump thousands of "lost gold" into a region?
Is rampant inflation represented? Nope, equipment does not suddenly cost more coin because adventurers keep dumping gold into a region that didn't have it previously.
Is the buying and selling of magic items even remotely accurate according to economics? Nope, prices are static and do not fluctuate. While some GMs may vary this depending on diplomacy the starting point is always the same.
Is half a dozen other elements of economics represented? Nope
Gold is a metric of the game, nothing more, nothing less. We dress it up when roleplaying but that is a thin veneer. If you look too hard at it the veneer becomes see through.
Orfamay Quest, I was not wrong to inform someone of the rules. The guidelines are still rules. Again, the Devs have stated this.
If you choose to think of guidelines as 'not rules' that is up to you. However, they are clearly laid out as rules in rules books. Do they have the same force as other rules? Not necessarily. But they do not have to be to still be rules.
Heck, even the definition of "guideline" is "a rule that tells you how something should be done".
So, I am not wrong in any way shape or form. Guidelines are indeed rules.
RedDogMT, your own quote states otherwise, "or just wait until some time later in the round and act then, thus fixing your new initiative count at that point."
You can either specify a number or just wait. So yes, you can just end the delay as a response to something, although you will go after that something (rather than before as in the case of a readied action).
Byakko is absolutely correct. The concept that you lose your turn is an outdated concept, you are delaying it, even if you delay it until your next action would have come up.
The problem with the concept of losing it is some GMs will say 'well, round 1 is done, you have lost your turn' when that is not how delay works.
Player 3 decides to delay.
The correct procedure is that Player 3 is delaying until he chooses to act or his normal initiative comes up. He can choose to act after Enemy 1, after Player 1, after Player 2, etc.
CRB p203 wrote:
The Sash of the War Champion "doesn't work" folks state that because you traded out Armor Training 2 it is lost and any increase in the level of Armor Training is meaningless (ie: you cannot ever advance Armor Training). The higher effects effectively never exist for you.
The Sash of the War Champion "does work" folks (I am one) state that the loss of Armor Training 2 is a loss of advancement of Armor Training and not a change of the class ability Armor Training.
Taken from one perspective, Armor Training 2 could be interpreted as a class feature, but the problem with that perspective is that it is not written up as a class feature. It has no text under "Class Features".
As strict RAW (which nobody uses) Armor Training 2 doesn't even exist because it is only on a table with no corresponding text under "Class Features". Note: I am saying that nobody uses this interpretation because it is nonsensical even if it is RAW (people keep missing this point, I am emphasizing it).
Armor Training 2 clearly does mean *something* and we all assume that Armor Training 2 means the level 7 increase of Armor Training. But that is where our understanding diverges.
Either it is a class feature (which it isn't written up as) or it is an advancement of a class feature like every other class feature that advances (such as Sneak Attack and Channel Energy).
Rub-Eta, what wording, to you, would mean it is a restriction?
It is unfortunate, it would be nice if you could use the touch during a move but, that is not how it is worded. They probably worded it this way specifically to avoid 'touch and run' tactics.
First question, yes, usually. Example provided..no.
Normally this rule applies (allowing you to take a free action during another action):
CRB p182 wrote:
Free Action: Free actions consume a very small amount of time and effort. You can perform one or more free actions while taking another action normally. However, there are reasonable limits on what you can really do for free, as decided by the GM.
However, there is a specific rule regarding touch spells that overrides the free action rule:
CRB p185 wrote:
Touch Spells in Combat: Many spells have a range of touch. To use these spells, you cast the spell and then touch the subject. In the same round that you cast the spell, you may also touch (or attempt to touch) as a free action. You may take your move before casting the spell, after touching the target, or between casting the spell and touching the target. You can automatically touch one friend or use the spell on yourself, but to touch an opponent, you must succeed on an attack roll.
Because of the bolded line you cannot touch a target while moving.
Your options are:
You cannot cast, move, touch, continue moving.
Of course, there are ways around this (Quick Runner's Shirt for example).
There seems to be some confusion as to what the Armor Training ability states:
CRB p55 wrote:
1) Does the Dragoon have Armor Training? Yes2) Does the Dragoon advance his Armor Training ability at level 7? No, his Armor Training (by level) is arrested at level 3.
3) Does the magic item Sash of the War Champion advance the Armor Training ability 4 levels? Yes
Result: A (minimum 3) Dragoon with Sash of the War Champion, by the Armor Training ability, counts as having level 7 Armor Training with a 2 pt reduction in ACP, +2 Max Dex, and can move full speed in Heavy Armor. This is what the magic item does.
This is really not difficult, yes he traded out ADVANCEMENT in the ability, he has not lost it. Since he has not lost it if he found alternate means to advance then he can do so.
Ok, once again (because this keeps coming up), the rules for load does not have ANYTHING to do with the rules for what kind of barding fliers can wear.
People keep assuming that the rules for Barding (a subset of Armor) apply to Armor and thus to light loads. They dont because they are a subset of the Armor rules.
If Barding the barding rules regarding flight applied to Armor then a Solar would not be able to fly (which a Solar is clearly doing in it's statblock).
Thus, Barding is a subset of the Armor rules.
In short, you can be medium or heavy loaded and wear Medium or Heavy Armor and still fly. You cannot wear Medium or Heavy barding (a subset of armor) and still fly.
Bonus history comparison:
CRB p106 Spellcraft wrote:
Learning a spell from a spellbook takes 1 hour per level of the spell (0-level spells take 30 minutes).
CRB p106 Spellcraft wrote:
If you fail to learn a spell from a spellbook or scroll, you must wait at least 1 week before you can try again.
CRB p106 Spellcraft wrote:
Learn a spell from a spellbook or scroll 15 + spell level
CRB p219 Adding Spells to a Wizard's Spellbook wrote:
CRB p219 Writing a New Spell into a Spellbook wrote:
Once a wizard understands a new spell, he can record it into his spellbook.
So, where does that leave us? The only general rules for learning a spell are from a spell that is written.There are no general rules for learning a spell that is not from a written source.
Then we have that the Replacing and Copying Spellbooks section directly references that you use the procedure for learning a spell.
Do you have anything in the Replacing and Copying Spellbooks section that provides an exception? Anything at all?
The rules are clear, you cannot write a spell down until you learn it.
This really seems like a case of 'starting with and ending in mind and trying to make the rules fit'. This is appears to be an attempt to sidestep the normal process of learning a spell.
Human Fighter wrote:
I haven't read this all, but got called out on my thread accusing me of making two threads and that it wouldn't change the rules. I was at the table, and the paladin 2/ sorcerer 8 with 15 or 12 str (I forget) str fully min/maxed Jasper Williams who is obviously totally op as hell detected evil, then detected magic in this scenario mentioned above on some brass stone door stuff, and detected nothing causing his curiosity to open the door. Somehow this sprung a surprise round after the door had opened, which I would think he'd see the thing(s), but surprise round. Either both shadows where in this 5ft square, or the one inside surprised, and the other decided to 5ft out and surprise. Greater shadows, and an 8 then 7 were rolled, and we have a collapsed Jasper. From that point it was like, "what is the answer to no save awful" because flat footed touch double suppose shadow bros. isn't something we've experienced.
Ok, having a hard time separating everything in this wall of text. Please use bullet point style writing. :)
If 3 is no then there might be an appeal to be had. Detect Evil will reveal the number, strength, and direction of auras even through a 1 inch thick metal door. Unless specified otherwise doors should not be greater than this normally.
If 5 is no then a surprise round might not have been the correct GM call.
If 6 is a yes and the GM did not roll miss chance then there may be an appeal to be had.
This is a classic example of reading a FAQ out of context. The context of this FAQ was to indicate that you can use two weapons for regular iteratives without going the TWF route. Ie, you can +6 with one weapon and +1 with the second weapon.
It then went on to clarify that you could not go +6/+6 with one weapon and +1/+1 with the second weapon when using TWF.
FAQs only answer the question being asked. The question is:
Multiple Weapons, Extra Attacks, and Two-Weapon Fighting: If I have extra attacks from a high BAB, can I make attacks with different weapons and not incur a two-weapon fighting penalty?
The question the OP is asking is (summarized):What order do I have to make my TWF attacks in? Do I have to go +6/+6/+1/+1 (ie: Primary +6, Secondary +6, Primary +1, Secondary +1) or can I use a different order?
This is an entirely different question and one that the Devs DID NOT ANSWER in the FAQ.
In short, all those using the FAQ as evidence cannot do so. It in no way answers the OP's question and is not evidence that secondary attacks can be taken after the primary attacks because the Devs were not answering that question.
Yes, you can charge, the mount is not entangled.
Any argument to the contrary is ignoring the fact that the rules cannot cover every conceivable permutation and that common sense (rules common sense, not real world common sense) must prevail.
Entangle prevents the creature entangled from moving normally. In the case of the fly spell or a mounted on a creature not entangled the movement should not be impacted. This is because the rule regarding entangled assumes you are providing your own motive power.
Put another way: Mount charges and you are along for the ride. Since the rules state that both the mount and the rider are charging when the mount charges then you must also be charging.
The feat you want is Stage Combatant.
Ultimate Combat p120 wrote:
Lord Vukodlak, 3.5 is the source for PF yes, but there have been multiple departures from 3.5.
With that said, here is the reference you failed to provide:
DMG II p275 wrote:
The feycraft template can be added only to light or medium armor, or to wooden shields. Even fey that are martially minded enough to construct objects of war favor tactics involving stealth and guerilla warfare. Heavier armor or shields only slow the wearer down in most natural settings, so the fey do not specialize in their manufacture. The only exception is the rare suit of mithral heavy armor, which actually counts as a medium armor because of its construction (see page 284 of the Dungeon Master’s Guide).
So yes, according to the DMG II mithral heavy armor "counts" as medium armor because of it's construction (implied: for the purposes of Feycraft armor).
This is fully compatible with the 'limitation' clause in the mithral description and in no way states that mithral counts as one step lighter for all purposes.
The way I read it is that the limitations clause applies to limitations, not bonuses.
As a result, you get the best of both worlds. Yes, mithral medium armor is medium armor for those things that benefit from medium armor. Yes, mithral medium armor is light armor for those things that benefit from light armor.
I see nothing wrong with this interpretation and have been running it that way since 3.X. Paying for a benefit to count something lighter when beneficial should not create a situation where your otherwise heavy armor cannot be used as heavy armor.
This wouldn't be the first time where you get the best of both worlds.
Lets take a closer look at what limits you from taking a 5' step:
CRB p181 wrote:
CRB p186 wrote:
CRB p186 wrote:
CRB p186 wrote:
The only movement you can take during a full attack is a 5-foot step. You may take the step before, after, or between your attacks
CRB p189 wrote:
So what do we have? We have context.Despite the final bolded quote the context throughout is that you must be expending movement related action such as a "Move" move action or a Full-round action that moves you some distance (such as a Charge action).
Lets take another tack: If some ability moves you any distance are you able to take a 5' step? (example: Conjuration-Teleportation subschool ability "Shift")
Now, the obvious answer is that teleportation is not moving even if you travel some distance. Most people wouldn't hesitate to state that, of course you can take a 5' step.
But, according the argument that only distance traveled counts you would not be able to take a 5' step.
Dismount places you on the ground. Due to the rules the only legal place you can occupy is outside of your mount's space. It is not intended as a form of movement and it shouldn't count as such.
It is not what the rules against taking 5' steps was intended for (see context quoting above).
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.