|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
No, you cannot ready an action to charge.
Nowhere in that FAQ does it state that you can ready a charge if you are limited to a standard action.
Gwen Smith, the other rules provide the needed context. The problem occurs if you are just looking at the 5-foot step rules. Like many rules in Pathfinder you have to look in multiple places to get the full context.
Here is an example:
CRB p181 wrote:
Note how it uses the similar wording "move no actual distance in a round" but then qualifies that as having swapped your ("move") move action for one or more equivalent actions. It is clearly in reference to movement based on the "Move" move action.
Other rules provide further clarification. Basically, EVERY reference to 5-foot step EXCEPT 5-foot step is in relation to movement mode type movement. Not a single one is in relation to moving distance without using some movement mode. ("Move" move actions uses a movement mode, charging uses a movement mode, running uses a movement mode, etc.)
The rule CLEARLY tells you that you cannot do any movement other than a 5-foot step. It tells you when this applies (before, during, or after). So yes, the rule IS telling you you "can't move outside of during your full attack action".
I don't understand how you are misreading this. It is "RAW" as you stated.
I can only surmise that you are ignoring the ramifications of your ruling in order to support your position.
In any case, you are in the minority. Most everyone else understands that the term "movement" is relative to the context in which it is used.
gnomersy, try reading the rest of the quote...it also said BEFORE, during, or AFTER the action.
How are you moving before the full-round action when it says you can only do a 5-foot step?
How are you moving after the full-round action when it says you can only do a 5-foot step?
According to you, Shift is movement and according to that quote you cannot do any movement other than a 5-foot step before, during, or after.
It is clearly not the intent, but according to YOUR ruling you cannot use Shift in combination with a full-round action.
gnomersy, you are ignoring the part of your own ruling where you stated that shift is movement and the full-round action rule states that the only movement you can take is a 5-foot step. The fact that Shift is a swift action is not relevant to your ruling.
And no, I am not making up lines of text. I quoted it directly from the rulebook. Others have quoted other sections to clearly indicate what the rulebook intends to be movement in the context of a 5-foot step.
You are ignoring the CONTEXT of the rules.
gnomersy, there is no such thing as a "RAW" game. It cannot exist since the rules are incomplete, confusing, and in some places contradictory. What there is is "RAW" and "what we think RAW is trying to tell us".
Can you take a full-round attack and then as a swift action use the Shift ability?
Answer according to your "RAW" logic: no
CRB p181 wrote:
Full-Round Action: A full-round action consumes all your effort during a round. The only movement you can take during a full-round action is a 5-foot step before, during, or after the action. You can also perform free actions and swift actions (see below). See Table 8–2 for a list of full-round actions.
This is CLEARLY not the intent. The intent is obviously the regular forms of movement (legs, swimming, flying, etc.), not teleportation.
You are reading "RAW" without considering intent and as a result you are arriving at nonsensical answers.
gnomersy, what Matthew Downie said.
How is it you got that I said Charging doesn't qualify? It is an action that uses a TYPE OF MOVEMENT. Either standard move speed (legs), flying, swimming, etc.
But, you either failed or chose to not answer my question.
Here is a single line version:
Are you prepared to use the one phrase "movement" to apply to EVERY element of the rules that in any way references "movement"? Because there are a number of rules elements that are not intended to interact that way.
Example: You are Bull Rushed, that is 'movement'. Are you able to 5' step when it comes to your turn? According to your logic, the answer is no.
CRB p199 wrote:
An enemy being moved by a bull rush does not provoke an attack of opportunity because of the movement unless you possess the Greater Bull Rush feat.
CRB p189 wrote:
You can move 5 feet in any round when you don’t perform any other kind of movement. Taking this 5-foot step never provokes an attack of opportunity. You can’t take more than one 5-foot step in a round, and you can’t take a 5-foot step in the same round that you move any distance.
It says round, not your turn, so using your logic, if you have movement AT ALL in the round then you cannot use a 5' step.Hmmm, guess Bull Rushing a target is very powerful in your game.
This is clearly not intended. It is clearly intended to be your movement via your modes of movement, not teleporting. You are mis-applying the rules and not reading the intent.
You must have a very strange game when any movement inflicted upon the target prevents him from 5' stepping if his actions are in the same round (guess he better wait for the next round).
Please note: that was an example to show how absurd your literal definition is. Heck, the world is moving around the sun, how is anyone 5' stepping? According to your definition, they cannot since that too, is movement.
It is very simple, Movement was defined up thread as moving via one of the normal modes of movement. This is further supported by EVERY other reference to 5' step in the combat rules as being movement such as a Move action, Charging, Running, or Withdrawing. It was never intended to cover effects that are teleportation (or otherwise magical relocation) in nature.
However, you will believe as you want, you are clearly in the minority.
gnomersy, defining game terms using a dictionary doesn't work well.
Movement in Pathfinder as it applies to a 5' step is using an action such as Move, Charge, Run, etc. to move.
Do you move? Yes.
The best way to think about it is like this:
An example of this is the humanoids section.
Bestiary p308 wrote:
Skill points equal to 2 + Int modifier (minimum 1) per Hit Die or by character class. The following are class skills for humanoids without a character class: Climb, Craft, Handle Animal, Heal, Profession, Ride, and Survival. Humanoids with a character class use their class’s skill list instead. Humanoids with both a character class and racial HD add these skills to their list of class skills.
My guess is the Devs didn't initially think of adding the bolded section to the other types as most of them have racial hit dice. However, that is the premise that the Devs appear to be operating under.
The Fetchling(Kayal) with 1 level in Rogue (Bestiary2 p123) confirms this by only having a score of +2 on Knowledge Planes.
I think the problem you and your players are having is the 'pop out' part. There is no 'popping out'.
Imagine yourself around a corner with your head, arms, and upper torso sticking out shooting. That is cover.
What you are describing is more of a 'total cover' situation where someone is completely obscured, pops out to attack (cover) and then retreats to total cover. An example of this is incorporeal creatures fighting from inside a wall.
Regarding Soft Cover, the main difference between Cover and Soft Cover (as they apply to ranged attacks) is that Soft Cover has no Reflex bonus and you cannot use Soft Cover to stealth (without special abilities).
Rogar Stonebow wrote:
Awaken is not a valid spell choice for contingency. The valid spell choices are personal spells.
That is not correct, it does not need to be a personal spell.
CRB p260 wrote:
Nowhere in that does it state that the contingent spell must be personal. What it says is that it must be cast upon your person. That could be anything that targets you (such as personal, touch, or other targetable spells such as Haste).
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.
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.
As usual you ignore the main point and focus on a little element in the hopes that you will "win".
So, yes, it is ultimately defined by the rules surrounding it.
When you run into a word that has no specific game mechanic definition, look to the rules surrounding it to see if they define it because, they probably do.
Of course, you love to take things out of context and thus you constantly read rules out of context.
Yes, if you have racial hit dice you must have a type that defines the size of the racial hit dice.
However, you cannot use the racial hit dice size to determine what your type is.
If I tell you your racial hit dice is 4d10, and then asked you what is your type you could not answer me because there is not one possible answer. You could be a Magical Beast, you could be a Monstrous Humanoid, you could be a Construct.
Type determines the size of the hit dice, not the other way around.
What you are doing is the equivalent of saying that all mammals are dogs.
True: All dogs are mammals.
True: Type determines hit dice size.
I do not have to agree that racial hit dice (size) also defines type since it does not. Type defines racial hit dice (size).
Again, cart...horse...they need to be in the proper order.
Type defines racial hit dice size. Racial hit dice size does not define type. In fact, racial hit dice size cannot define type since there are a number of types with the same size of racial hit dice.
To answer your question in your OP. All races have a type regardless of the presence or absence of racial hit dice.
Lets put this in exact terms for you Wolin:
Ooze has d8 racial hit dice (size).
You cannot have both types, therefore you cannot have both d8 and d10 racial dice sizes.
What you are asking is not possible.
The size of racial dice is determined by the type. Select the type of your creature then determine the number of racial dice of that creature (if any).
Wolin, again, you are putting the cart before the horse.
You cannot have both ooze and outsider racial hit dice because racial hit dice (size) are determined by the type. You can only have one type. Thus, you can only have one type of racial hit dice (size).
Summary: Type determines racial hit dice (size). You can only have one type. Thus, you can only have one type of racial hit dice (size).
What you are asking is not possible under the current rules.
You cannot have an odd creature that is both an Ooze and an Outsider. The rules prevent this. Creatures have only one type.
Bestiary p306 wrote:
Each creature has one type, which broadly defines its abilities.
What they do for creatures that have extraplanar origins is give them the extraplanar subtype.
Wolin, I really do not understand your logic.
Racial hit dice does not in any way impact your type.
Race starts with a type.
Race may also have a subtype
There are no typeless races in the game, period. All races belong to one of the types.
Your discussion regarding polymorph is not relevant to that fact.
Edit: here is a list of types
Do you have an example of a creature in the bestiary without a type?
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.
Put another way: ALL creatures have a type (and many have a subtype).
Actually, reading the rules is literally what you need to use.
Polling people who have no familiarity with game concepts and rules is exactly the people who's opinion is meaningless. They, like you seem to, do not understand how the rules are written.
Now, should the rules be written in "plain" english? Yes
This is the part you are failing to do. You are applying your own definition instead of using the rules to define it.
In any case, keep misreading the rules. I am sure this won't be your last "I don't know how to read the rules and I am too stubborn actually listen to people." thread.
[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.
Except people are not deducing the same things you are so clearly your deductions are in some way flawed.
When the majority arrives at a different conclusion (deduction, whatever) from you you may want to look at why. The error is almost certainly yours.
At this point you are clearly starting with a conclusion and trying to justify that conclusion. Why? I don't know, but you clearly did not come here looking for an answer. You already had your answer.
House rule it any way you like.
In any case, as others have pointed out, further discussion with you is pointless. Your basic question has been asked, answered, debated, and you have been repeatedly shown to be wrong. The Devs intent is clearly stated. The rules showing you to be wrong have been clearly stated.
Please do not misrepresent my stance. My stance is that you keep stating things NOT WRITTEN ARE WRITTEN (RAW).
You keep stating that since you can turn into a creature then you become the creature type and THEN you state that the creature type is RAW.
It is you that is trying to put "official weight" on a statement which does not exist.
Edit: Deductively derived conclusions are not RAW, they are INTERPRETATION. Learn what things actually are.
Crimeo, the general rules state that creatures can take run actions. It does not require any "implication" to make the statement that creatures can take run actions since it is stated in the rules that they can.
However, there is NOTHING that states in the rules that you can become another creature type. This is not a matter of implication, it is a matter of rules.
If you want to say that you believe it is implied that you can become another creature type then you can say that. What you CANNOT say is that it is RAW because nowhere, in any book, does it state that you can become another creature type by using a polymorph spell.
You are ignoring several lines of rules to come up with your "implication". Until you can admit that your "implication" is not in RAW there is really nothing to discuss.
Crimeo, are you going to continue to ignore my request?
Here it is again in case you missed it:
Until you do that you are making an assumption that turning into a creature grants the creature's type. That assumption is not RAW and you cannot call it RAW. You can call it your interpretation of course, but you cannot call it RAW.
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".
Crimeo, nothing in RAW establishes your point. You are basing it all on 'changing into a creature and since creatures have type I get type too'.
The way the Devs have worded it is that you get NOTHING, NADA, ZIP, ZILCH that is not spelled out in either the Polymorph rules or the polymorph spell.
You are going that extra yard to read something into it that is not stated. Until you accept that you will continue to have problems with it.
Crimeo, what you may not be aware of was that in 3.5 Polymorph explicitly changed type and subtype and this was removed from Pathfinder.
The change was because of the problems (abuse) with 3.5 Polymorph. That is why the Devs rewrote the polymorph rules and why they wrote them to not include granting type and subtype.
Jason Bulmahn wrote:
Crimeo, again, you are making a huge assumption by stating that changing into the creature grants everything about that creature EXCEPT what is stated.
First, you have not stated anywhere in the rules where it states that you get all abilities the creature gets except where it states otherwise.
Second, it pretty clearly states what you do get, type is not amongst them.
Lets analyze the section.
CRB p211 wrote:
Polymorph: A polymorph spell transforms your physical body to take on the shape of another creature. While these spells make you appear to be the creature, granting you a +10 bonus on Disguise skill checks, they do not grant you all of the abilities and powers of the creature.
Hmmmm, it says you appear to be the creature, not that you are the creature. It goes on to state that you do not get all abilities and powers of the creature.
So what do you get?
CRB p211 wrote:
Each polymorph spell allows you to assume the form of a creature of a specific type
You get the form. Form is not an ability but it is reasonable to believe it is the general appearance (as covered in the previous quote).
CRB p211 wrote:
Ok, so you get Ability score bonuses, Natural Armor bonuses, the creature's base speed, and benefits based on spell such as movement types, resistances, and senses.
Page 212 then goes on to state you get the form's natural attacks.
You are treating the Polymorph section as subtractive. Ie. You are treating it as you start as creature X and subtract abilities.
However, it is clearly additive. First you get appearance, then you get ability scores, natural armor, movement types, etc.
What it never states is that you gain type. You do not gain the type.
Frankly, you are flat out ignoring the section that states you take the shape of the creature and you APPEAR to be the creature.
Crimeo, please show the line that states you get the creature type. Changing into a creature does not equate to gaining its attacks, type, or anything else unless the rules state it does.
Please show the rules that state you gain the type. So far you have failed to do so.
Your entire premise is flawed, you are operating under the assumption that by changing into a creature you become that creature except as the rules dictate.
The correct premise is that you change into that creature with the specific abilities the rules dictate and nothing that the rules did not dictate.
Crimeo, the way that Pathfinder polymorph works is that you change into something resembling that creature, but you don't actually change into that creature. The Devs have stated this numerous times.
Every time the polymorph section references that you take a form that does not include the type of that form because it never states you do.
Every time the polymorph section references creature type it is referencing the type of the creature who's form you are taking. It never states that your type actually changes to match the creature's type.
If it did then you would be immune to critical hits when you use Elemental Body 1.
Now, you can take this at face value or you can do what you usually do and argue it until people get tired of it and walk away. It doesn't really matter. Everyone else knows how this works.
Crimeo, you are misreading the quote you provided. It is not stating you change into that type. It is stating that when you change into a creature of that type your equipment melds with your form.
Lets do an example: You use Elemental Body III to change into an elemental.
If your type changed into a creature of that type (Elemental) there would be no reason for Elemental Body III to state that you are immune to critical hits and Elemental Body II to not state it because creatures with the Elemental type are immune to critical hits.
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.
Berinor, I think you are misreading the order of things.
Lets assume that yes, you roll 50/50 on Entangle or on Walls or on ANY spell for that matter. Lets assume you rolled the 50% and it can affect the incorporeal creature.
That does not mean it WILL affect the incorporeal creature. You still have to check it's immunities and whether or not the incorporeal creature can simply ignore the effect.
If you need an actual rule as to why entangle won't work, here you go:
Bestiary p301 wrote:
In fact, they cannot take any physical action that would move or manipulate an opponent or its equipment, nor are they subject to such actions.
Plants cannot entangle (manipulate an opponent) an incorporeal creature. Similarly, incorporeal creatures go through walls, even walls made of ice (though they may suffer cold damage if not resistant/immune).
The Incorporeal entry is a guideline that requires significant GM adjudication. You cannot simply state carte blanche that anything can affect it if it makes that 50/50 check. You have to check whether or not the effect can reasonably affect a creature that is immune to most physical effects.
If you think I was in any way blaming new players then you really need to re-read my post. I was stating WHY new players have problems with the rules. The statement that occasionally people are reading the rules in the most pedantic of literal way possible is a separate statement.
You continue to conflate the two statements. The problem here is in how you are reading my posts, not the post.
It seems to me that the issue that needs FAQing is the actual wording for charge rather than Ride-By Attack. Admittedly, it is Ride-By that shows the problem, but SKR's solution, to read "closest space from which you can attack", to mean that you cannot move past the target and THEN attack makes perfect sense.
In any case, this has been a long standing issue with Pathfinder, FAQd.