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. 7,587 posts (7,595 including aliases). No reviews. 1 list. No wishlists. 1 Pathfinder Society character. 1 alias.


1 to 50 of 7,587 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

No, you cannot ready an action to charge.

FAQ wrote:

Ready: Can you ready an action to charge?

No. The rules for a charge state that you can take a charge action as a standard action if you are "restricted to taking only a standard action on your turn". Although the ready action text states that you can take a standard action, it does not meet the requirements of the text in the charge action. (See Core Rulebook pages 198 and 203)


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:

Move Action: A move action allows you to move up to

your speed or perform an action that takes a similar amount of time. See Table 8–2 for other move actions. You can take a move action in place of a standard action. If you move no actual distance in a round (commonly because you have swapped your move action for one or more equivalent actions), you can take one 5-foot step either before, during, or after the action.

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 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:
By your ruling, would you prevent a guy who was Bull Rushed from taking a 5' step on his turn in the same round as when he was Bull Rushed?

gnomersy wrote:
Gauss wrote:

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.
Shift is not a type of movement as far as 5' steps are concerned.

Do you move? Yes.
Are you using a movement mode? No.
Does it qualify as movement for the purposes of 5' steps? No.

Apparently defining game terms by those terms being used verbatim in other rules doesn't work either by your reasoning.

The shift ability literally calls itself movement that is a fact claiming that somehow movement =/= movement in game terms when both instances are used in rules text is a special brand of insane.

That's highly speculative logic particularly since the rules note that you can move without using the Move "Move action" and that you can move without using a movement speed which you possess for example crawling and jumping. By your logic neither jumping nor crawling provokes attacks of opportunity for leaving threatened squares.

Had the 5ft step rules stated so long as you haven't used your movement speed or used a Move move action it would be a different story but by the rules and basic understanding of English you must be wrong or the paizo devs and editors are incapable of writing rules.

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.
Shift is not a type of movement as far as 5' steps are concerned.

Do you move? Yes.
Are you using a movement mode? No.
Does it qualify as movement for the purposes of 5' steps? No.

The best way to think about it is like this:
Any "type" (such as Outsiders) gain class skills as part of racial hit dice. If they do not possess any racial hit dice they do not gain the corresponding class skills.

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.
The Fetchling has a -1 Int, +2 racial bonus to Knowledge Planes and +1 rank for a total of +2.
If the Fetchling had Knowledge Planes was a class skill (as listed in the Outsider section) then it would have a total of +5 instead.

Mark Hoover,

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:

You can place another spell upon your person so that it comes into effect under some condition you dictate when casting contingency. The contingency spell and the companion spell are cast at the same time. The 10-minute casting time is the minimum total for both castings; if the companion spell has a casting time longer than 10 minutes, use that instead. You must pay any costs associated with the companion spell when you cast contingency.

The spell to be brought into effect by the contingency must be one that affects your person and be of a spell level no higher than one third your caster level (rounded down, maximum 6th level).

The conditions needed to bring the spell into effect must be clear, although they can be general. In all cases, the contingency immediately brings into effect the companion spell, the latter being “cast” instantaneously when the prescribed circumstances occur. If complicated or convoluted conditions are prescribed, the whole spell combination (contingency and the companion magic) may fail when triggered. The companion spell occurs based solely on the stated conditions, regardless of whether you want it to.

You can use only one contingency spell at a time; if a second is cast, the first one (if still active) is dispelled.

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).

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.

Crimeo wrote:
It is also extremely disingenuous to make an explicit argument based around 'logic not consensus' and then try to use a player consensus
Gauss wrote:

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.

"Game concept"? Is there a special game-specific pathfinder definition of "become"? Anywhere. Any page? No it seems there isn't. Well then that means it's NOT in fact, a "game concept."

And non-game concepts are just... words, so they use the common, everyday, English definitions of words. It's really exactly as simple as that: "You become an ooze." means "You start to be an ooze." Because that's what the non-game concept "become" means in English. Thus, you're an OOZE. The only context that would change that as far as I can see would be something like "The following sentence means its opposite:" before it.

I think you have made you up your mind that the rule is not written clearly enough for you.

Regarding creature type, not at all! I don't see any lack of clarity. It says you become an ooze/change into an animal, crystal clear to me. Don't really need any more advice on that, and don't care to argue anymore. Thought something more interesting might still come of discussing it, but nothing did. I appreciate all the interest. Moving on.

I do think that step 2, however, is still extremely vague and confusing/undefined. That is, if you are an animal as a part of a temporary effect, are awakened, and then that temporary effect ends, what happens to you? Don't worry about what the effect is. Let's just say it's completely unrelated magical temporary animal type changing pixie dust for sake of argument.

If anybody has any further thoughts on THAT, and whether any rules might be relevant to it, I'd be happy to hear them. Not really interested in anything else, thanks, but definitely still interested in that.

As usual you ignore the main point and focus on a little element in the hopes that you will "win".

Once again:

Gauss wrote:

Try this:

What does "changes into" mean? It is not defined.
Are there rules that help define it? Yes, they tell you what you get.
Ok, so "changes into" means you have the shape of, appearance of, and get X Y and Z stats. Got it.

This is the part you are failing to do. You are applying your own definition instead of using the rules to define it.

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.

Wolin, the only direct relationship that racial hit dice and type have with each other is the size of the hit dice.

So, when you mention type and racial hit dice in direct relation to each other, like you did earlier, you MUST be talking about the size of the hit dice.


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.
False: All mammals are dogs.
Why? Dogs are a subset of mammals.

True: Type determines hit dice size.
False: Hit dice size determines type.
Why? Hit dice size is a subset of Type.

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, 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.
Yes, if a race has no racial hit dice it still has a type.
Example: Humans do not have racial hit dice, their type is humanoid.

Lets put this in exact terms for you Wolin:

Ooze has d8 racial hit dice (size).
Outsider has d10 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).

Regarding using Simulacrum on a Phantom Steed, the resulting Simulacrum would have no hitdice or levels since half of zero is zero.

It would thus have no hitpoints since it has no hitdice.

Since it has no hit points it reverts to snow and melts as per the rules of Simulacrum.

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, once again...hit dice do not determine type. Type determines type. Type comes with a list of abilities and rules including hit dice size. (Type determines hit dice size.)

You are doing the equivalent of putting the cart before the horse and telling us that the cart is pulling the horse.

Wolin, I really do not understand your logic.

Racial hit dice does not in any way impact your type.

Race starts with a type.
Elf for example = Humanoid

Race may also have a subtype
Elf for example = subtype elf.

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
Aberration, Animal, Construct, Dragon, Fey, Humanoid, Magical Beast, Monstrous Humanoid, Ooze, Outsider, Plant, Undead.

Do you have an example of a creature in the bestiary without a type?

1 person marked this as a favorite.


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.

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
Are the rules written in "plain" english? No

Try this:
What does "changes into" mean? It is not defined.
Are there rules that help define it? Yes, they tell you what you get.
Ok, so "changes into" means you have the shape of, appearance of, and get X Y and Z stats. Got it.

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.

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.

My Self,

I am not sure what your purpose for creating a fake quote and attributing it to me is, but please do not do it.

Nowhere have I written what you have quoted.

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.

Crimeo wrote:
But as they explicitly count as creatures, and creatures can explicitly run, they can run. That's not implied, it's fact.

Oh I fully agree. Because I realize that things which derive from clear, unambiguous deductions from written rules are facts, and should be considered just as official as things that are directly printed "in black and white."

It's just that Gauss, for some reason I don't quite understand, disagrees, and seems to think that only things printed "in black and white" are official, and not anything that isn't even if it directly derives from things that are. That's only really aimed at him. (Or anybody else putting all their weight on an argument of "well if it doesn't literally spell that out worrrrrd for word, then not official!")

This ignores, of course, the fact that giraffes have always been intended to run by simple linear logic and you have repeatedly admitted that your reading of an implication is an "accident".

Intentions don't change what's actually written for people with no interest in or access to any meta-information about intentions... Again, I agree about rules as intended, but my players don't give a damn about that and don't have any time or interest in looking up developer commentary in years old threads. So me citing developer commentary would be no different than any other deus ex machina house rule out of nowhere and would ruin the magical chess game of the situation.

I would like to therefore focus only on what is actually written, and the writing reveals nothing about "what the original intentions were" or which things are "accidents" or not.

Whats actually written simply shows a clear linear logical path for giraffes running, AND a clear, linear, logical path for polymorph granting a bunch of stuff including type.

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 that last statement that I am asking you to prove. Please prove it. If you cannot, stop calling it RAW. Call it RAI, call it reasonable inference, but don't call it RAW because it isn't written anywhere.

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.
RAW is a quote, interpretation is what that quote means to YOU.
Consensus is when a majority of people interpret things the same way. You are not in the majority.

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

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.

1 person marked this as a favorite.


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".

Again, you have yet to show the RULE that changing into a creature gives you that creature's type.

Please show the RULE that states that polymorphing into a creature gives you that creature's type.

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:

Stardust is correct. Polymorph spells do not change your type.

Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing

Link to above quote

Crimeo, I already proved conclusively IN THE RULES why you are wrong.

The rules clearly state that you gain the shape and appearance of the creature. They do not state that you become the creature.

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:

, granting you a number of bonuses to your ability scores and a bonus to your natural armor. In addition, each polymorph spell can grant you a number of other benefits, including

movement types, resistances, and senses. If the form you choose grants these benefits, or a greater ability of the same type, you gain the listed benefit. If the form grants a lesser ability of the same type, you gain the lesser ability instead. Your base speed changes to match that of the form you assume.

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.
It is not actually changing you into the creature.

No, turning into a creature does not obviously give you everything about the creature. Why? Because Pathfinder is not written that way.

You may think it is absurd, but that is exactly how the Devs have written it. That is the exact premise they used when they wrote this rule.

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.

No Crimeo, it does not explicity state that your type changes. Again, you are misreading it.

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.

Yes, you can wear multiple magic items but the rest (above the limit) do not function. Example: You can wear as many magic rings as you want but only two function.

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.

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.

Berinor, that is not represented anywhere in the rules. Magic is not a barrier to an incorporeal creature unless it states that it is.

The main way to provide a barrier to an incorporeal creature is with a Force effect. Wall of Ice is not a force effect.

CWheezy wrote:
Gauss wrote:

Can you really say that occasionally new people come in and don't have issues reading the rules?
The sheer number of questions by new people on the boards would seem to contradict that.

Can you say that occasionally people do not read the rules in the most pedantic or literal way possible?
We know that occasionally there are raging debates because some people do.

yeah new players have problems with the rules because the rules are really poorly written. Its ok to just say that instead of blaming new players lol.

There are debates because the rules are really poorly written, and often the debate is "the rules say X, that's dumb, but how it works" and the other side is "Well I don't think it was supposed to be that way, it was obviously intended to be Y".

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.


Good job on taking me out of context. Perhaps you should re-read the post and NOT take me out of context this time. Hint: if you are boiling my post down to one word, you are taking it out of context. :)

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.

Noobz, the rules are pretty clear on this. The attacks are at the reduced value, not the BAB. Even Pathfinder's rule (that I quoted) states this. I think this is a case of you trying to overthink it. The Devs simply don't write things that way.

1 to 50 of 7,587 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

©2002–2015 Paizo Inc.®. Need help? Email 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.