|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
SlimGauge, the lance is just an example in the first FAQ ("such as"). The first FAQ also applies to any other two-handed weapon being used in one hand.
I pointed out the apparent contradiction when the second FAQ came out and was told by a number of posters that the difference is "using" vs "treated as" or vs "wielding".
I still don't really see a need to split hairs in the language to that extent. Either your weapon is or is not in one hand and based on that there is an apparent contradiction here.
SKR had even stated that it would need to be examined but there was no (posted) followup to that. SKR's post
The obvious answer to that tactic is that if the (single) opponent has not attacked the monk then the monk also readies an action to attack when attacked.
It becomes a standoff of "you first".
Also, your "take any action" is a bit broad. Are we talking "if the monk attacks" or are we stating any action from the CRB? As a GM would you allow a player to state such a broad readied action? How does the NPC/PC *know* it is an action? Are you counting a 5' step as an action? (It is listed as a non-action.)
While your readied action solution is a good one it brings up a number of questions and there is a counter (to ready an action).
Edit: Dang it, I gotta stop posting in this thread. I said I would stop and yet I keep getting drawn back into it. Don't you hate it when that happens? :)
I recently had a frustrating experience with a friend of mine where she played a druid and she had a hard time leveling her character due to needing to update all of her wild shape forms. I decided there had to be a better way to level up a character with a significant number of alternate forms. Not finding any I liked I decided to create my own.
Thus, I present: the Polymorph Sheets excel file
What it is: It is a way to quickly level your Polymorph (wild shape) forms via significant automation.
What it is not: It is not a database of creatures, you still have to know the rules. It is not a full character sheet but will handle just about anything polymorph can throw at it.
How is it used? Fill out the base creature information (Ability Scores, Armor Class, some Skills, etc.). This information will be plugged into all of the Polymorphed forms you create and then modified by the size and type of Polymorph effect you use. Then fill out the Polymorph form's attack data (a bit more complex but still automated once you fill it out the first time.)
Extra information: There are four Polymorph sheets per printed page. This allows you to have only a few sheets for all of your polymorph forms.
I am looking for feedback. Anything I missed, anything that is broken, opinions on color scheme, layout, and the clarity of the instructions.
In general, have at it and let me know what I can improve.
Blackstorm, you do not need to threaten, you need to be able to make an attack. They are not the same thing. :)
CRB p197 Aid Another wrote:
In melee combat, you can help a friend attack or defend by distracting or interfering with an opponent. If you’re in position to make a melee attack on an opponent that is engaging a friend in melee combat, you can attempt to aid your friend as a standard action. You make an attack roll against AC 10. If you succeed, your friend gains either a +2 bonus on his next attack roll against that opponent or a +2 bonus to AC against that opponent’s next attack (your choice), as long as that attack comes before the beginning of your next turn. Multiple characters can aid the same friend, and similar bonuses stack.
The reason why "make a melee attack" does not equal "threaten" is because "make a melee attack" is a subset of "threaten".
I can make a melee attack with an unarmed strike. But because I do not have Improved Unarmed Strike I do not threaten with my unarmed strike. Because Aid Another only requires that I be able to make a melee attack against the attacker and not threaten I can use Aid Another with an unarmed strike.
The mount using it's action to move does not mean you are not using a charge action. What you posted does not tell me in any way that you are not using a charge action. That is the debate that has raged for years. The same debate that was clarified back in 3.X.
Posting an opinion to clarify understanding does not mean the rules themselves are clarified. They are two separate things. The rules are still grey and unclear and if they require explanation to clarify them that does not mean they (as an object) have been clarified (changed).
Perhaps this will explain the difference:
No, I made no such argument. My argument stems around the fact that SKR's clarification is not in the rules or even a FAQ. It is a post which (as Stephen pointed out) does nothing to clarify the understanding of the rules for a majority of people (the majority probably do not visit the boards let alone know of that one single post tucked away somewhere). So the statement that the new rules re-write is reversing a previous rules clarification is only correct in that it is reversing some people's understanding of the rules (via SKR's post). It is not actually reversing the rules since the rules themselves were grey even after SKR's post.
P.S. It does not state that if you take an attack action at the end of the charge you get the bonus. It states that if you make an attack at the end of the charge you get the bonus. They are different statements and do not mean the same thing. If it said attack action I would be agreeing with you.
Show me in the CRB (not SKR's post) where it states that the Rider is or is not charging when his mount charges. You cannot. At best it was unclear.
I am not saying nothing changed. I am saying that it was unclear before and SKR's post did not clarify the rules. It may have clarified some people's understanding but the RULES were not clarified.
Now they (the rules) are finally being clarified. YAY! Unfortunately for some people they are being clarified in the opposite of the desired direction. Fortunately for some people they are being clarified in the desired direction.
Personally? It doesn't matter to me which direction they get clarified in so long as they are clarified. Justifications for either direction can be made.
My problem is that you keep presenting your case as if this is some major change to a clear rule. It isn't. The rule was never clear.
Frankly, I have a house rule that you can use Vital Strike anytime you make a single attack regardless of action economy so I really have no personal stake in which direction the Rider charging/not charging rules get clarified. It really just doesn't matter for my own games.
My posts in the Rules forum assume no house rules. I only state my own house rule in this case to indicate my lack of a personal stake in the direction this comes down on.
Does it make sense that guys in plate mail can swim? Does it makes sense that....well frankly, so many things in the game fail to make sense in the context of reality that debating what makes sense is pointless. It is a set of rules, it is not reality.
In this set of rules Vital Strike cannot be combined with a charge. Thus, within the context of the rules it makes sense that it cannot be combined with a mounted charge. Any context outside of the rules is not really relevant.
Oh, and just for a bit of reality...it is not *just* the weight and momentum of the animal beneath you. If you are not properly set you cannot properly use that weight and momentum. That requires specific actions on the part of the rider to get set.
Ssalarn, you often state it was always possible. Do you have a citation to back that up?
I am not aware of SKR stating that it was always possible. To my knowledge he neither stated that it was always possible nor did he state it was not always possible. He made a statement that the rider is not charging his mount is charging without providing any historical background.
In fact, if you check the historical background (3.X) it was unclear until it was clarified in "Rules of the Game: All About Mounts" where it was placed in the Full-Round Action category for rider's actions when riding a moving mount. I am not aware of anything Paizo/Pathfinder did to change that understanding (pro or con) until SKR's post.
You repeatedly make statements that this has always been possible but the fact is, until SKR made his statement it was not well explained and many people were forced to rule one way or the other.
Additionally, you and several others keep stating that this was covered in the RAGELANCEPOUNCE FAQ and that is also not true. There was no statement in the FAQ that a rider was not charging. It required SKR providing further explanation in a post (not FAQ) to arrive at that conclusion.
Ssalarn, all but one of my questions were issues before the current FAQ and they were issues before the SKR post. Except for one (which I stated was related), they exist without the "you are charging/you are not charging" issue. You are being disingenuous by using my post as an example for your case.
Your statement specifically said that "there is a greater number of questions and discrepancies" and linked my post. That is either an incorrect statement or a lie. My post had exactly ONE issue brought about by the current discussion. One issue is not a "greater number". It is in fact an "equal number". As stated earlier, all of the other issues in my post exist separately from the "am I charging when my mount charges" issue.
Even if the FAQ backed up SKR's statement my post (save the one issue directly stemming from the current FAQ) would remain. In fact, I would have several more FAQ questions relating to specific feats which do not work as written when using SKR's statement.
You and I have argued over this issue before, it is not worth it. All I ask is that you do not use misrepresent my posts as backing up your own.
Please do not use my post as fodder for your argument. All but one of my questions have existed long before this current FAQ issue so you providing my post as an example of "greater number of questions and discrepancies" is incorrect and misleading.
Frankly, SKR's statement that the Rider did not charge when the mount charged created just as many problems. A number of mounted combat feats broke as a result of that but people chose to gloss over that or claim that no problem existed because you had to use common sense.
In short, the Mounted Combat rules have never been clear. Not in 3.X, not in Pathfinder. They did not become more clear with the "old" ruling and they did not become less clear with the "new" ruling. There is still much work to be done.
Mounted Combat has been a big mess for a long time. However, lets try to post all the issues at once in a concise and clear way so that they might get addressed.
Q: Does Ride supersede Handle Animal?
Q: What does "closest space" mean when charging (a Ride-By-Attack question)?
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. Helpless creatures don’t stop a charge.
Q: Can your mount make an attack when you use Ride-By Attack?
Q: Can you make a lance attack when your mount charges?
Mounted Combat quote:
CRB p202 wrote:
Q: If your mount charges can you elect not to charge so that you can perform other actions (such as spellcasting)?
These are just some of the questions I have seen come up. There are probably others.
I, for one, am very happy with the new Mounted Charge faq. It ends the ongoing debate because the former wording of the "RageLancePounce" faq did not specifically state that the rider was not charging. You had to look to SKR's post for that.
For years, including back in 3.X, the Rider and the Mount were both expending a full-round action when charging (despite it not being clear back in 3.X either without looking to Skip Williams' Rules of the Game for partial clarity).
Basically, in one it says you get the 2-handed damage from Power Attack while using a weapon one-handed while the other says you do not.
Oh, and thank you for the open dialog. While it may confuse some it is much appreciated and will hopefully move us towards a better understanding of the game.
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.