Paizo Top Nav Branding
  • Hello, Guest! |
  • Sign In |
  • My Account |
  • Shopping Cart |
  • Help/FAQ
About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ
Machine Soldier

Gauss's page

Goblin Squad Member. Pathfinder Society Member. 7,879 posts (7,887 including aliases). No reviews. 1 list. No wishlists. 1 Pathfinder Society character. 1 alias.


1 to 50 of 614 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

3 people marked this as a favorite.

The same as if it was not shrunk down to medium size. The rules only account for the size of the creature to determine reach. There is no rule that states weapon size is relevant to reach.

If you take a Tiny 2handed weapon with the reach property and stick it in the hands of a medium character (counts as a light weapon) it would still have the reach property and still allow the medium character to threaten 10'.

Does this make "logical sense"? No, but this is the rules forum where rules do not have to make sense. :)


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Texas_ogre wrote:
I am new to pathfinder and a GM and player> they party of player is a dm'ing are rule mongers. They always have detect magic going do end y thing magic (I,e, traps or item are pointless. I need a to know if there is a fix for this ? They have it running at all times. This has made magic raps pointless. help please

Texas_ogre, basically, traps have been progressively marginalized with each new version since 3.0 came out.

Back in the "good old days" you could have a dungeon full of traps and only a rogue could do anything about it. This had a number of problems.
A) It REQUIRED a rogue to be part of the group. No Rogue? You are screwed if you ran into a trap.
B) Traps were LETHAL compared to nowadays. Even simple traps did a lot higher damage relatively than traps do since 3rd edition. The damage of the traps hasn't changed that much, the health of the characters has.
C) Traps back in the "good old days" were usually boring or frustrating. Either you could figure your way around them or you couldn't.

I agree that traps need to become more relevant, but they should not be an encounter unto themselves (usually). That is bad trap design. The best traps are the ones that have a battle involved.
As for Detect Magic, that is really a non-issue. Perception does even more, is not directional, everyone can do it, and is not restricted by distance (just penalized for distance).


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Orfamay Quest wrote:

Just because it's a slow day in the office, I'm going to actually do an analysis of how hard it is to do any serious damage with traps....

I present unto you all <drum roll>, Nabisco the Incompetent, Bard of Bards. (All stats 13, no useful skills except his Perception score is +5 [+1 Wis, +1 rank, +3 class skill], no useful equipment or spells. He's got max hp at first level [9] and saves of +1/+3/+3). He will attempt to walk through the Hall of Infinite CR 1 Traps, encountering each one in turn -- but fortunately, because this dungeon is "not dynamic with monster movement," he can just back out and heal up before wandering in again, so he always encounters each trap at full hp.

Now, as a CR 1 creature himself, (actually, CR 1/2 because he effectively doesn't have PC wealth), he should, by the logic of the CR system, die 50% of the time or more at each trap. If he doesn't -- if he actually survives most of these traps -- that will show you just how ineffective traps are at causing casualties.

So let's begin.

I) He stumbles across the threshold and spots an arrow trap. With +15 to hit, it almost surely hits him for 2-9 points of damage, but he almost certainly stumbles back and recovers. Even at full damage, he is not dead, only seriously injured -- and from here on, I will assume average damage for simplicity.

II) On his next trip, he crosses the same threshold, but because the arrow trap doesn't self-reset, he's safe.... until he steps forward onto the collapsing floor. Needing a DC 15 Reflex save to avoid it, he naturally fails and tumbles 10 feet down, taking 1d6 damage.

III) Bypassing the unrepaired collapsing floor, he instead trips and slides into a...

And this is why I ad-hoc CRs from traps. The existing CRs are almost always too high.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

nosig, the Wizard doesn't need identify to identify magic items. Detect magic + Spellcraft will do nicely for most items.

Otherwise, good stuff. :)


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Just a note, staggered creatures CAN coup de grace, but it takes two rounds to perform.

CRB p186 wrote:

Start/Complete Full-Round Action

The “start full-round action” standard action lets you start undertaking a full-round action, which you can complete in the following round by using another standard action. You can’t use this action to start or complete a full attack, charge, run, or withdraw.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Here is how I handle it: every step in resolving something is a point you can use an immediate (or readied) action but some immediate actions are only useful in certain steps.

Example (note: I might be missing a step, this is just a quick example):
Enemy is casting a spell. (first step)
You use spellcraft and identify the spell. (second step)
Enemy's spell is finished and he targets "X". (third step)
Spell effect is resolved. (fourth step)

Now, you could disrupt the spell in steps one and two but by step three it is too late.
In step three you can do something to mess with the targeting (teleport away, throw up a wall, whatever).
In step four you could do something to mitigate the effect but it is too late to avoid the spell being cast and targeted at that person.

With all that said, there are no rules covering when immediate actions can occur. It is all a judgement call. Some immediate actions are useful at certain points while others are not. Thus it is more common sense rulings than anything else.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

There are already a couple examples of this.

You can use hero points to get an extra action, spells or feats can give a BBEG hero points.

Alternately, a creature can be built with extra actions per turn. An example of such a creature is the Maharaja Rakshasa (Bestiary 3 p226).


4 people marked this as a favorite.

For me GMing is a means to an end. The end is to have fun with my friends.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

This is right up there with everyone playing chaotic neutral (evil) characters and the calling it 'roleplay' when they act like jerks.

There is a basic premise at the gaming table. For whatever reason a party is going to be assembled comprising of the player's PCs.

If a PLAYER is unable to make a character concept that will fit into that then he should be playing a solo adventure (ie, not with a gaming group).

It sounds like you have a whole group of players that do not understand that the game is co-operative. The GM and the group as a whole needs to resolve this.


8 people marked this as a favorite.

Aelryinth, a bag of holding in a bag of holding does not cause an explosion. It causes one to be non-functional.

Only when you mix a Bag of Holding with a Portable Hole are there dangerous consequences.

CRB p501 wrote:

Extradimensional Spaces

A number of spells and magic items utilize extradimensional spaces, such as rope trick, a bag of holding, a handy haversack, and a portable hole. These spells and magic items create a tiny pocket space that does not exist in any dimension. Such items do not function, however, inside another extradimensional space. If placed inside such a space, they cease to function until removed from the extradimensional space. For example, if a bag of holding is brought into a rope trick, the contents of the bag of holding become inaccessible until the bag of holding is taken outside the rope trick. The only exception to this is when a bag of holding and a portable hole interact, forming a rift to the Astral Plane, as noted in their descriptions.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Yes, I know that is what we are discussing. That is what I am referencing too.

Bringing in a new/replacement character with an experience/level/wealth penalty is the same thing as such penalties for death.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Reasons why most penalties for death are bad:

1) The "loss of level" penalty
At best, you now suck compared to your fellow party members.
At worst, enjoy standing in the back and twiddling your thumbs while you are unable to have a meaningful impact on the encounter.

2) The "loss of wealth" penalty
At best, you now suck compared to your fellow party members.
At worst, enjoy standing in the back and twiddling your thumbs while you are unable to have a meaningful impact on the encounter.

3) The "sit out and wait" a few sessions penalty
Why even show up? Why not go play another game? Isn't the purpose of this game to have fun with your friends? Seems pretty contradictory to that purpose.

3.X lessened many of the penalties for horrible things that happened to PCs and Pathfinder has (rightly) continued that trend by removing or further lessening many of the penalties that still existed.
Most of those penalties were a detriment to fun and resulted in a PC that was at best, a tag-along dead-weight character and at worst, a so unfun to play that you might as well suicide and make a new character.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

No, there is no support in the rules for using a standard or move action to activate an ability that requires a swift action.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Ice Armor is a niche spell that is best used around level 5-8 if you regularly stay in a wild shape combat form rather than change back and forth.

Reasons:
1) Can you cast it while wild shaped:
At level 5 you can take Natural Spell and so casting this spell is not an issue while Wild Shaped.

2) Duration:
The spell lasts as long as your Wild Shape (hours per level) so that isn't an issue.

3) Water:
Via Create Water providing a sufficient quantity of water is a non-issue. Might even be able to purchase some kind of canvas 'tub' to dunk yourself in if the GM allows (allows you to form the armor around you rather than having to have it put on afterwards).

4) An armor type for every form:
Since there is no 'form' limitation on Ice Armor you can create it around any form you happen to be in so you do not need to worry about bringing multiple armor types for different combat forms if you happen to like using more than one.

5) Cost:
At level 5 you only have 10,500gp (assuming WBL). Spending 1400gp on Dragonhide Breastplate non-humanoid armor just for your combat form is a bit on the expensive side. Especially when you are just going to turn around and sell it at level 6 (when you gain access to large combat forms).

Additionally, at level 6 you will need Dragonhide Breastplate non-humanoid armor that costs 2800gp.

Finally, at levels 5-8 it is non-trivial to afford armor with the Wild property (a minimum price tag of 16,000gp +armor costs).

Summary: for a few levels, it definitely has some advantages if you can deal with the minor disadvantages.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Tormsskull wrote:
graystone wrote:
It's no assumption. The rules tell you everything you need to create items. As there are nothing mentioned about any special knowledge to make certain items, there isn't any needed. So sans house-rules, it is indeed as simple as scanning through the book and picking put something you can make. [assuming you can cover the prereq's of course.]

The rules for creating wondrous items say: "To create a wondrous item, a character usually needs some sort of equipment or tools to work on the item. She also needs a supply of materials, the most obvious being the item itself or the pieces of the item to be assembled."

If the character has never even heard of a particular item, how would they know what "sort of equipment or tools" they would need?

Personally, I think the rules are left somewhat vague so that GMs that want to place some sort of limitations around the process can easily do so.

Obviously, each group can choose how they want to play, but it seems odd to me to look at it like "there's no rule that says you can't look through all of the magical items and assume your character has knowledge of any/all of them, so you can."

The Devs have previously stated that they have made crafting as easy as possible. They did not make the rules 'vague' because they expected GMs to make something they intended to be simple not simple. They made the rules 'simple' and you are interpreting it as 'vague'.

Put another way: Any magic item in the book can be crafted by any character in the game provided you have the requisite feats and the gold to do so. This is by design. So why would the Devs then have a hidden rule that states 'oh, but you must learn how to do it first'?

Heck, if a wizard wants a spell all he has to do is pay for it from another wizard. Do many GMs houserule this out of the game by making it 'wizards dont share'? Yes, but that doesn't mean that is not how the game is written.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Rhedyn, is it not a rulebook? Ultimate Campaign is hardcover, not a 'splatbook' with a number of clarifications to the rules on topics like who controls Animal Companions.

People have been asking for those clarifications for a long time.

In any case, you countered Dustyboy's comment as if your comment were the rules or the only interpretation.

The rule as it stands is that they are GM controlled BUT the GM can opt to hand off control to the player to simplify the GM's handling of the game.

As for GMs being control freaks if they run the AC, I think that is a very narrow characterization. Sometimes the GM needs to take control of the AC because the player is having the AC do things that are out of character for an int 2 animal.
Are there GMs that are control freaks? Sure, I just met one recently and left his game because of it. But that doesn't mean that all GMs who want a final say in how an NPC is run are control freaks.

By it being a rule that it is GM controlled but can be handed off it means the player cannot just have the AC do whatever he wants it to.
There is interaction there, roleplay there.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

RDM42, you appear to have missed the forest when you saw the trees.

Let me see if I can put it into context for you.

What is "realistic" in the context of a fantasy game is 100% subjective and defined by the author(s) and the people participating (GM and/or players).

The OP made absolute statements that X was not realistic. That is only a true statement FOR THE OP and not necessarily true for anyone else.

My reference to dragons was an EXAMPLE of things that exist in fantasy and that if they have heard of dragons they have probably heard of people who control animals.
It was a different point altogether because "what townsfolk know" is a point related to "what townsfolk (the GM) might allow".

My initial response stated that it was the GM who determines what is or is not acceptable to townsfolk.

Try to read my statements in context. :)


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Hmmm, did I state that they did? *checks his post* Nope! Didn't even imply it.

What I said is that reality has no bearing on this discussion.

I also said that townsfolk have probably heard of people that can tell animals to do or not do stuff.

Please try to take what I write as writ rather than add things I did not write.

If anything, I basically stated it was GM fiat whether or not townsfolk accept ANYTHING.

Again, that has nothing to do with "reality". It is a fantasy world, not a reality world. The GM will do whatever he wants with his NPCs. If he wants them to accept it, they will. If he doesn't they won't. Reality has no bearing on the matter any more than it does in any fantasy adventure novel.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Dustyboy wrote:

Yep I said it.

In the dnd world, most people understand social issues with playing an orc, but the issue of having a bear or lion as an animal companion is rarely brought up.

So I want to explain to you the main issue here

Animal companions are autonomous, you can command them but the dm plays them. This means that they are npcs

Now a tamed bear is still a bear , and there is definitely a big problem with walking into town having one.

First off its not gonna realistically be allowed in the Tavern or inn, the stable isn't outfitted for a bear, and letting it roam in a town is out of the question .

There's also the logistics of caging it, especially if you're a ranger or a druid who tends to value freedom

If you have a dog it can likely come into some businesses with you, even the most unruly dog is better received than the most obedient lion when off leash.

A horse can be hitched up to a post without worry that the town guard will shoves Spears into it in a panic.

Arguments for wolves are potentially viable but again I wouldn't leave it alone anywhere, there's definitely a farmer or hunter in town that knows what it is

Basically wolves and big cats are great stat wise, but they should hinder you in role play heavily.

Hell can you even get past a gate keeper with a bear?

There are numerous familiars that also follow this, but as they are small and intelligent they can be more easily concealed or "contained".. chances are your imp knows to stay in rat form and not cause massive havoc

I bolded your problem. "Realism" and "Fantasy" do not belong in the same concept. This is a fantasy game. Fantastic things that would never happen in reality occur. Magic is a thing. Dragons are a thing. Animal Companions that obediently obey their "master" are a thing.

If the townsfolk have heard of dragons they have probably heard of people with animals that can tell animals to do (or not do) something.

Does this mean they will be allowed in the tavern? No, but then again halflings, orcs, or dwarves may not be allowed in the tavern. I am sure NPC people (ie, the GM) can come up with reasons to disallow anything.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Bane is a special property.

Determine the enhancement bonus (greater between bow and arrow applies).
Apply all special properties to the arrow upon being fired.

Ergo: a +1 Undead Bane arrow from a +4 bow = a +4 Undead Bane arrow = +6 arrow vs Undead.

I really do not understand why people keep trying to resolve the special property before determining the enhancement bonus.


6 people marked this as a favorite.

There are two possible ways you can use a 15' cone both of which are shown on CRB p215. From these two two ways you get 8 directions.

Here is an image I have created to show this based on the diagrams in the CRB.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Mairn,

1) There is nothing in the Bestiary that states immunity to an energy type is a quality.

2) There is nothing in the Polymorph description that states lost physical abilities are qualities.

So all you are left with is any Special Qualities or abilities that define themselves as qualities. None of which are Immunity to Fire.

Summary: An Efreeti using Shape Change loses Immunity to Fire because it is not a physical quality but it is a physical ability and physical abilities are lost as per the Polymorph school.

Edit: an example of a physical quality that would be kept: Damage Reduction. This is because Damage Reduction (Bestiary p299) calls itself a quality.

Funny bit: (energy) Resistance (Bestiary p303) calls itself a quality while (energy) Immunity (Bestiary p301) does not.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

So, I have been running RA for a year+ now...my group is level 10.

There have been 3 TPKs (the spell confusion has been particularly deadly) and a number of other deaths.

Some thoughts I've had:

1) This is a very treasure rich environment.
I suggest discussing wealth with your players to find out what they want out of the adventure. If they want to become the most powerful they can be and overwhelm things even more than they would otherwise, tell them to enjoy the wealth.
However, my group has come up with an interesting solution, spend 'excess' wealth on things like an airship, crew, and other non-combat luxuries.

2) Decide in advance how you want to deal with death or TPKs.
My group keeps backup characters prepped and updated in case they will be needed.

3) Initially the entire dungeon was exciting, but as they got into some of the deeper levels it seems that there are more and more of 'you run into things you handle without flinching' mixed with 'start running for your life'.
We initially wanted to run it 'as written' but now I either have to hand-waive the really weak combats or I have to spruce them up. I get that this is a normal occurrence to some extent but the CR disparity on some levels seems pretty big.

4) Finally, read the levels before using them, there are moments of head scratching. The maps do not always conform to the text.

With all that said, overall, I have enjoyed RA and look forward to running it to the end.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Select Familiar, do not summon Familiar (or kill Familiar), no Arcane Bond. Problem resolved.

If you want to trade out the Arcane Bond there are a number of archetypes that trade it out.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
CRB p179 wrote:
Touch Attacks: Some attacks completely disregard armor, including shields and natural armor—the aggressor need only touch a foe for such an attack to take full effect. In these cases, the attacker makes a touch attack roll (either ranged or melee). When you are the target of a touch attack, your AC doesn’t include any armor bonus, shield bonus, or natural armor bonus. All other modifiers, such as your size modifier, Dexterity modifier, and deflection bonus (if any) apply normally.

Touch attacks are your AC without armor bonus, shield bonus, or natural armor bonus. You apply all other modifiers normally. The Barbarian Rage's -2 AC penalty is another modifier.

CRB p178 wrote:
Flat-Footed: At the start of a battle, before you have had a chance to act (specifically, before your first regular turn in the initiative order), you are flat-footed. You can’t use your Dexterity bonus to AC (if any) while flat-footed. Barbarians and rogues of high enough level have the uncanny dodge extraordinary ability, which means that they cannot be caught flat-footed. Characters with uncanny dodge retain their Dexterity bonus to their AC and can make attacks of opportunity before they have acted in the first round of combat. A flat-footed character can’t make attacks of opportunity, unless he has the Combat Reflexes feat.

Flat-footed is your AC without your dexterity bonus. Thus the Barbarian Rage's -2 AC penalty still applies (assuming you are raging while flat-footed which is an uncommon situation).

CRB p199 wrote:
A creature can also add any circumstance, deflection, dodge, insight, luck, morale, profane, and sacred bonuses to AC to its CMD. Any penalties to a creature’s AC also apply to its CMD. A flat-footed creature does not add its Dexterity bonus to its CMD.

Penalties to AC apply to CMD.


48 people marked this as FAQ candidate. 3 people marked this as a favorite.

So, the CRB 5-foot step rule states that you cannot 5' step when in difficult terrain or in darkness.

This is a rule duplicated from the 3.5 PHB. However, 3.5 then went farther (in the Rules Compendium) and stated that you cannot 5' step when your movement is hampered.

FAQ question: Can you 5' step when you have hampered movement (such as poor visibility or over an obstacle) or when your movement is slowed (such as Grease)?

Hampered Movement table

Apparently the Pathfinder Beginner's box states that you cannot.

Thread this came up in.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Actually, the devs have stated that extra-dimensional spaces such as pits, bags of holding, etc. are not extraplanar (which is what I think you are thinking of).

James Jacobs on the topic and here too.

On a more basic level, you would be giving such a spell far more power than is it's due if you make it extraplanar. You cannot use teleportation magic (D-door, teleport, etc) across planar boundaries.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Create Pit does not open a doorway into another dimension. It is an extradimensional space.

Extradimensional is an extension of the existing dimension. Not an entirely different place.

Golems are not immune to all magic other than that listed.
Clay Golem example:

Bestiary p159 wrote:
Immunity to Magic (Ex) A clay golem is immune to any spell or spell-like ability that allows spell resistance. In addition, certain spells and effects function differently against the creature, as noted below.

Ie: golems are only immune to spells and spell-like abiltiies that allow spell resistance.

Create Pit does not allow spell resistance.
Golems are not immune to Create Pit. Create Pit works just fine against golems.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

You have failed to show how the rules are broken.

You have shown how homebrew rules break the rules. What you are doing (breaking things down to sell them by the pound) is homebrew.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Robert Jenkins 953 wrote:
Gauss wrote:
Robert Jenkins 953 wrote:
Gauss wrote:

Pricing on many items is not intended to be 'by the pound'. It is intended to be 'how much do we think this ability should cost'.

It is a game mechanic power metric, not an economic value.

Admantine armor has a specific game effect that should cost a specific amount.
Items without specific game effects are typically are charged by the pound. (Not always because game designers are a chaotic lot.)

There is really no rules question here, this appears to be more of a discussion regarding how the games "economy" was designed. I am flagging this as wrong forum.

Say what you will but this does have to do with the pricing rules for crafting and special materials, something they have admitted is flawed for mithral and trying to fix. I am bringing up how inconsistent both adamantine and mithral are together and seperately.

This is not a rules question, it is a rules discussion. As in, changing the rules, not a question to be resolved. The proper forum for this is the Pathfinder RPG General Discussion.

Rules Forum description wrote:
This forum is for questions and answers about the rules of the Pathfinder Roleplaying Game. House rules, variants and conversions should be posted in the appropriate Community Content forum.
Pathfinder RPG General Discussion description wrote:
This forum is for general comments about the Pathfinder RPG and discussing the system with other gamers.
There is no question here, this is a discussion.
Once more I disagree, hes it has become a conversation, and yes I have decided to fix this problem for myself until Paizo decides to fix the problem or give a response. The original question and topic involve rules for special materials that are inconsistant. I prefer playing by the rules written than making my own up, that way the game does not get watered down with house rules. I have identified something that I view as an issue and I want feedback,...

There is no problem. The rules regarding pricing work fine.

Your entire post has come off as a 'I don't like that the pricing rules work this way'. Not as a 'could you help clear up something?' question.

You knew how they worked, you just didn't like it. This is not a rules question, it is a rules suggestion/discussion (starting with your first post) and as such belongs in a different forum.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Pricing on many items is not intended to be 'by the pound'. It is intended to be 'how much do we think this ability should cost'.

It is a game mechanic power metric, not an economic value.

Admantine armor has a specific game effect that should cost a specific amount.
Items without specific game effects are typically are charged by the pound. (Not always because game designers are a chaotic lot.)

There is really no rules question here, this appears to be more of a discussion regarding how the games "economy" was designed. I am flagging this as wrong forum.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Diego, again, CONTEXT. I explained what he was probably confusing it with.

tchrman35, fine, I take 10, you roll "take 10" and it is still a 10. :P

If I am going to roll (for some bizarre reason) I will make sure I have the spell "Identify" handy to make sure that the item isn't cursed.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

You only provoke when you begin casting.

Here is the rule:

CRB p187 wrote:
You only provoke attacks of opportunity when you begin casting a spell, even though you might continue casting for at least 1 full round. While casting a spell, you don’t threaten any squares around you.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

Billbo_Baggington, yes, your confusion is because you confuse "Pathfinder Adventure Path" with "Pathfinder RPG". The two are not the same thing.

Pathfinder Adventure Paths are either D&D 3.5 or Pathfinder RPG depending on the rules used in the module. CotCT was D&D 3.5. CotCT was not Pathfinder RPG.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Since this is not actually a rules question I am flagging it for wrong forum.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

There is no rules ambiguity here, you must pick a square.

If you don't like it, house rule it. But, if you do house rule it don't forget to also add in things like 'my arrow missed the target's touch AC, did it hit the guy behind him?' house rules. (The rules are not a simulation of reality, they have nothing to do with reality and thus are silly. If you want to simulate these types of things, that is what house rules are for.) :)


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Which is why many people houserule it. But this is the rules forum and those are the rules. Rules don't have to be fair (and frequently are not fair). :)


1 person marked this as a favorite.

vhok, as others have stated, the "sorcerer" bit in the metamagic rods is simply a reminder, not an inclusive or exclusive statement.

Metamagic Rods use the rules for Metamagic feats except where otherwise stated. I don't understand why you think they don't.

Ultimate Equipment p187 wrote:

Metamagic rods hold the essence of a metamagic feat, allowing the user to apply metamagic effects to spells (but not spell-like abilities) as they are cast. This does not change the spell slot of the altered spell. All the rods described here are use-activated (but casting spells in a threatened area still draws an attack of opportunity). A caster may only use one metamagic rod on any given spell, but it is permissible to combine a rod with metamagic feats possessed by the rod’s wielder. In this case, only the feats possessed by the wielder adjust the spell slot of the spell being cast.

Possession of a metamagic rod does not confer the associated feat on the owner, only the ability to use the given feat a specified number of times per day. A sorcerer still must take a full-round action when using a metamagic rod, just as if using a metamagic feat he possesses (except for quicken metamagic rods, which can be used as a swift action).

It states that it is the essence of a metamagic feat.

It states that it does not change the spell slot (an exception).
It states how it is used (use-activated).
It states how many rods you may use at once (clarification).
It states it can be combined with metamagic feats (a clarification).
It states that you do not actually possess the feat (some items actually grant the feat, this indicates you don't actually have it, the rod gives it to you for X number of uses a day).
It states that sorcerers still must cast spells as full-round actions (this is a reminder).

There is NOTHING that excludes other spontaneous spell-casters from being forced to cast as a full-round action like normal. The fact that they only reminded you about sorcerers is just a lack of foresight in predicting how overly rules-lawyerish people can get.

Are you using a Metamagic Rod? Yes
Does the Metamagic Rod provide a Metamagic Feat? Yes
Do spontaneous spellcasters have to use a full-round action when casting a metamagic spell? Yes

The reminder in the Metamagic Rod text is really pointless beyond being a reminder.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Sure, I already did but here you go again:

CRB p458 wrote:
Spell Completion: This is the activation method for scrolls.

Now, Spell Completion is defined as being for Scrolls. If it isn't a scroll it doesn't use Spell Completion unless it has a rule that states it does.

Are there other items that specify Spell Completion? Yes, examples are Riffle Scrolls and Spell Tattoos

Inner Sea Magic p16 Spell Tattoo wrote:
A spell tattoo is essentially a wearable scroll inscribed on flesh instead of on parchment or vellum. These tattoos appear as colorful and intricate patterns rather than magical writing. The tattoo is a silent, spell completion item that only the bearer can activate. It vanishes when activated. A spell tattoo must be visible to the bearer and must be touched as part of its activation. These magical tattoos are not normally placed on the head, neck, or back as a result, since most creatures would require mirrors to activate them. A spell tattoo’s aura and caster level varies as per the scroll it emulates. A spell tattoo has a market price four times as much as an equivalent scroll.

Now on to spell trigger:

CRB p458 wrote:
Spell Trigger: Spell trigger activation is similar to spell completion, but it’s even simpler. No gestures or spell finishing is needed, just a special knowledge of spellcasting that an appropriate character would know, and a single word that must be spoken. Spell trigger items can be used by anyone whose class can cast the corresponding spell. This is the case even for a character who can’t actually cast spells, such as a 3rd-level paladin. The user must still determine what spell is stored in the item before she can activate it. Activating a spell trigger item is a standard action and does not provoke attacks of opportunity.

So, nothing about which items are spell trigger. But if we look elsewhere we find it.

CRB p491 wrote:
Activation: Staves use the spell trigger activation method, so casting a spell from a staff is usually a standard action that doesn’t provoke attacks of opportunity.
CRB p496 wrote:
Activation: Wands use the spell trigger activation method, so casting a spell from a wand is usually a standard action that doesn’t provoke attacks of opportunity. (If the spell being cast has a longer casting time than 1 action, however, it takes that long to cast the spell from a wand.) To activate a wand, a character must hold it in hand (or whatever passes for a hand, for nonhumanoid creatures) and point it in the general direction of the target or area. A wand may be used while grappling or while swallowed whole.

Now, lets look at Wondrous Items (the category the Page of Spell Knowledge is in).

CRB p496 Wondrous Items wrote:
Activation: Usually use-activated or command word, but details vary from item to item.

So usually NOT Spell Trigger. Lets see if we can find some examples of Wondrous Items that spell out that they are Spell Trigger.

CRB p515 Golem Manual wrote:
The spells included in a golem manual require a spell trigger activation and can be activated only to assist in the construction of a golem.
CRB p531 Prayer Beads wrote:
The beads of blessing, smiting, and wind walking function as spell trigger items; the beads of karma and summons can be activated by any character capable of casting divine spells. The owner need not hold or wear the strand of prayer beads in any specific location, as long as he carries it somewhere on his person.

So, there are specific classes of items which are all Spell Completion or all Spell Trigger items. Then there are some exceptions which are spelled out.

This is not spelled out, so without rules stating it is, we default to the rules that govern that type of item. In this case, a Wondrous Item which is usually (without text to the contrary) use-activated or command word activated.

CRB p458 wrote:

Use Activated: This type of item simply has to be used in order to activate it. A character has to drink a potion, swing a sword, interpose a shield to deflect a blow in combat, look through a lens, sprinkle dust, wear a ring, or don a hat. Use activation is generally straightforward and self-explanatory.

Many use-activated items are objects that a character wears. Continually functioning items are practically always items that one wears. A few must simply be in the character’s possession (meaning on his person). However, some items made for wearing must still be activated. Although this activation sometimes requires a command word (see above), usually it means mentally willing the activation to happen. The description of an item states whether a command word is needed in such a case.

Unless stated otherwise, activating a use-activated magic item is either a standard action or not an action at all and does not provoke attacks of opportunity, unless the use involves performing an action that provokes an attack of opportunity in itself. If the use of the item takes time before a magical effect occurs, then use activation is a standard action. If the item’s activation is subsumed in its use and takes no extra time use, activation is not an action at all.

Use activation doesn’t mean that if you use an item, you automatically know what it can do. You must know (or at least guess) what the item can do and then use the item in order to activate it, unless the benefit of the item comes automatically, such as from drinking a potion or swinging a sword.

Now, the only problem with it being Use/Command activated is that no action is specified in the magic item so the GM has to determine if an action is required.

My interpretation of the rules is that it falls under the either the continuous benefit or the 'activation is subsumed in its use' clauses. Either way it works without any extra action on the user's part.

Summary: Page of Spell Knowledge is a Wondrous Item, it does not have any text telling you the activation method is different than any other Wondrous Item. Examples of Wondrous Items with different activation methods from other Wondrous Items are provided, this is not one of them. So default to Wondrous Item (ie: Use Activated or Command Word) rules.

I really think this is a case of people not being able to believe that you can create an object with a spell in it without having that spell available. While odd, those are the rules.


8 people marked this as a favorite.

Yes, you are running it wrong, but your players are also wrong. It is worse for your players than they realize.

Draw a line from ONE of the shooter's corners to EACH corner of the target.
If any of those 4 lines crosses an obstacle or creature, then the target has cover.
If none of those 4 lines crosses an obstacle or creature, then the target does not have cover.

What this means is, an archer can fire around a corner at someone and maintain cover while the target gains no benefit of cover.

As an added bonus, it also means that an archer can be around the corner and shoot a medium creature 5' away without provoking an AoO.

Here is a picture illustrating this. The target on the left does not have cover from the shooter. The target on the right has cover from the shooter (red lines).

CRB p195 Cover rules wrote:
To determine whether your target has cover from your ranged attack, choose a corner of your square. If any line from this corner to any corner of the target’s square passes through a square or border that blocks line of effect or provides cover, or through a square occupied by a creature, the target has cover (+4 to AC).

So in the case of your kobolds, they continue to have cover (+4 AC) even while shooting. The PCs would not have cover unless they have an obstacle granting them cover (which is probably not the same object granting the kobolds cover).

Basically, this is the equivalent of shooting a gun around a corner, you don't have to expose yourself much.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Wolin,

I think you are assigning 'type' based on 'racial hitdice', this is incorrect. There is no link between the number of racial hitdice (zero or more) and the creature type.
There is a link between the size of the racial hitdice (if any) and the creature type.
(Note: some subtypes, such as Giant, state that the creature will have racial hitdice but does not define the minimum number of dice.)

Put another way: ALL creatures have a type (and many have a subtype).
Type determines the size of racial hitdice (if any) but does not determine the presence or absence of racial hitdice.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Crimeo wrote:
[blatantly obvious you are an ooze type now, that's what becoming something means.]

^This is the problem right here. You call it "blatantly obvious" while nobody else here is doing so. In fact, we are calling it obvious that you do NOT gain the type because nowhere does it state that you do.

You are going beyond the rules to apply what you think is obvious when nobody else is. This is the source of your problem.

Additionally, you keep trying to use standard english to define game concepts and rules. You really should stop doing this. It is a significant part of the problem you are having. The Devs simply don't write the rules to conform to standard english definitions.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Crimeo,

Not once have you shown a rule that states when you are polymorphed into a creature you gain that creature's type. Not once.

What you have shown, repeatedly, is text that can be interpreted to say that you turn into a creature. But that is NOT THE SAME as text that states you gain the creature type.

Show a rule, in black and white, that says anything remotely close to 'you gain the creature's type'.

You cannot call supposition, assumptions, and interpretations to be "RAW".


1 person marked this as a favorite.

You are allowed specific slots. Check the slot the magic item specifically takes up.

If you are referencing Gauntlets as a magic weapon they take a weapon slot, not the hands slot and thus you can wear gloves and magic weapon gauntlets together.

Some magic gauntlets are not magic weapons and take the hands slot. Example: Gauntlet of Rust.

Summary: you can wear magic weapon gauntlets with any handwear that uses the hand slots but you cannot wear magic "hands slot" gauntlets with other hand slot magic items.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Crimeo, you are misreading the FAQ (as usual).

Pick an effect related to spell level vs spell slot. Now, use whichever is most disadvantageous regarding that effect.

It is quite clear that the disadvantageous element here is that you do not get to keep your 4th level spell slot memorized after you have cast a metamagicked zero level cantrip out of it.

But, as usual, you may continue to misread the rules to your heart's content. Enjoy! :)


1 person marked this as a favorite.
FAQ wrote:

Metamagic: At what spell level does the spell count for concentration DCs, magus spell recall, or a pearl of power?

The spell counts as the level of the spell slot necessary to cast it.

For example, an empowered burning hands uses a 3rd-level spell slot, counts as a 3rd-level spell for making concentration checks, counts as a 3rd-level spell for a magus's spell recall or a pearl of power.

In general, use the (normal, lower) spell level or the (higher) spell slot level, whichever is more of a disadvantage for the caster. The advantages of the metamagic feat are spelled out in the Benefits section of the feat, and the increased spell slot level is a disadvantage.

Heighten Spell is really the only metamagic feat that makes using a higher-level spell slot an advantage instead of a disadvantage.

The bolded section of the FAQ disagrees with you Crimeo. Zero level level spells placed in a higher level slot are expended because that is the most disadvantageous option.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Back in 3.5 your worn outfit did not count towards weight, this was dropped in Pathfinder (could be for rule simplicity or it could be because it was not in the rules of the SRD that Pathfinder was derived from).


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Gustavo Iglesias, it may absolutely do some favor or service for you, at the level of it's abilities (int 1-2 for normal animals).

Yes, you give a mouse a big wheel of cheese, offers it more if he goes int and tells you what is inside. He tells you of the various kinds of food he likes and that there are 'big creatures'. He does not understand more than that. It is like asking a 3 year old for information.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Crimeo, I think the key element you are missing is that you are ALWAYS forcing an animal into doing things for you when you are the one asking it to do something. There is nothing voluntary about it.

You tell it to go feed itself, that is something it would do on its own...but on its own timetable. You are telling it to do it NOW. That is why handle animal is required regardless of language abilities.

Tell a 3 year old to do something. If the 3 year old is not ready to do it you have to convince the child to do it. It doesn't matter if the child likes you or not, it doesn't matter if it understands you or not.

Handle Animal covers ALL circumstances of getting the animal to do something on your timetable. Even if you had speak with animals you need Handle Animal.

Int 2 animal: Handle Animal is required
Int 2 animal with a language: Handle Animal is required
Int 3 animal: Handle Animal is required
Int 3 animal with a language: Handle Animal is required

The Blog states that handle animal is still required, you choose to parse this and ignore elements of it because you don't like it. Fine, but that is what it says and no matter how you protest it it will continue to say it.

Can you ask an animal who is friendly to you to do something? Sure, but itll do it on it's own time in its own way IF it bothers to do it at all. Like any 3 year old, the results are doubtful, might as well shake a magic 8ball to determine if itll follow through.

1 to 50 of 614 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

©2002–2016 Paizo Inc.®. Need help? Email customer.service@paizo.com or call 425-250-0800 during our business hours: Monday–Friday, 10 AM–5 PM Pacific Time. View our privacy policy. Paizo Inc., Paizo, the Paizo golem logo, Pathfinder, the Pathfinder logo, Pathfinder Society, GameMastery, and Planet Stories are registered trademarks of Paizo Inc., and Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pathfinder Adventure Card Game, Pathfinder Player Companion, Pathfinder Modules, Pathfinder Tales, Pathfinder Battles, Pathfinder Online, PaizoCon, RPG Superstar, The Golem's Got It, Titanic Games, the Titanic logo, and the Planet Stories planet logo are trademarks of Paizo Inc. Dungeons & Dragons, Dragon, Dungeon, and Polyhedron are registered trademarks of Wizards of the Coast, Inc., a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc., and have been used by Paizo Inc. under license. Most product names are trademarks owned or used under license by the companies that publish those products; use of such names without mention of trademark status should not be construed as a challenge to such status.