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

HangarFlying's page

Goblin Squad Member. Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber. Pathfinder Society Member. 3,106 posts (3,111 including aliases). 1 review. 1 list. 1 wishlist. 4 Pathfinder Society characters. 3 aliases.


1 to 50 of 290 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | next > last >>
Liberty's Edge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Just a Mort wrote:


Lets assume our shadow has been hiding in the wall. It's up to gm fiat if you're considered denied dex. In which you just wasted a standard action doing nothing.

Perhaps I've misread something, but I'm not seeing what would deny a character's DEX bonus by having a shadow be in a wall. Incorporeal /= invisible.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Zwordsman wrote:

kind of.. scanned over the previous thing but wanted to input.

Order of operations.
You cast a spell. You gain the spell effects "number of rays"(depending on the spell)
you wield the spell's ray, and take a non-action attack with it (typically as part of the spell)
I remember somewhere someone saying that melee touch attacks recieve "free action attacks" but I can't remember where it makes mention of it
EDIT: Found it in Magus's spell strike.

But that would mean that since it's written the same way the same is true of ranged touch attack spells no?

** spoiler omitted **

** spoiler omitted **
I've always thought it was weird people said you couldn't...

Because the rules say that ranged touch attacks can't be held:

Combat: Cast a Spell wrote:
Ranged Touch Spells in Combat: Some spells allow you to make a ranged touch attack as part of the casting of the spell. These attacks are made as part of the spell and do not require a separate action. Ranged touch attacks provoke an attack of opportunity, even if the spell that causes the attacks was cast defensively. Unless otherwise noted, ranged touch attacks cannot be held until a later turn.

EDIT: Bolded the relevant part to make it easier to see.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

It's questions like these that turn members of the PDT into alcoholics. Though, I did hit the FAQ just so I can have the opportunity to say "FIRST"! That, and to be able to drink the tears of sorrow from those who are wrong.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
fretgod99 wrote:
No, the phrasing implies that the usually is likely limited to command word. If it's not command word, it's continuous. In the rare event that another activation method is relevant, that method will be specified.

Um, yeah, pretty much this. Do we need to bring in the English teacher to do a sentence diagram?

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

What's with all of this "you can't have your cake and eat it" crap?

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Malachi Silverclaw wrote:
HangarFlying wrote:
You do realize that that the ring of invisibility has always abided by the limitations of the spell invisibility ever since AD&D, don't you?

Yes. Thank you for quoting the description of the 1st ed ring to support my position.

The 1st ed Ring of Invisibility wrote:
The wearer of an invisibility ring is able to become invisible, at will, instantly. This non-visible state is exactly the same as the magic-user invisibility spell...

It doesn't affect you with the spell in the way some items are really an SLA, it simply grants the state of invisibility, just like that described in the spell.

So the 1st ed spell didn't have a duration? Well the 2nd ed spell did: 24 hours. Yet the 2nd ed ring worked dxactly like the 1st: granted the invisible state as described in the spell.

Once again, 'duration' and 'effect' are different things. If a magic item gives you the same effect as a spell effect, this does not mean it has the duration of that spell.

Well, considering you're placing emphasis on the wrong part of the sentence, I can understand why you're thinking the way you do.

Liberty's Edge

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
"Malachi Silverclaw wrote:


Good. In that case, use your discretion to make the ring work as always intended: when activated it lasts until you attack, de-activate it or remove the ring. That's a far better use of discretion than choosing to have it end after three minutes or speak out loud every three minutes.

You do realize that that the ring of invisibility has always abided by the limitations of the spell invisibility ever since AD&D, don't you?

Advanced Dungeons & Dragons: Dungeon Masters Guide (1979; reprint 2012): Ring of Invisibility, page 130 wrote:
The wearer of an invisibility ring is able to become invisible, at will, instantly. This non-visible state is exactly the same as the magic-user invisibility spell (q.v.), except that 10% of these rings also have inaudibility as well, making the wearer absolutely silent. If the wearer wishes to speak, he or she breaks all silence features in order to do so.

The difference is that the 1e AD&D invisibility spell didn't have a timed duration:

Advanced Dungeons & Dragons: Players Handbook (1978; reprint 2012): Invisibility, Page 70 wrote:
The spell remains in effect until it is magically broken or dispelled, or the magic-user or the other recipient cancels it or until he, she, or it attacks any creature.

The spell lasted indefinitely until one of those conditions ended the spell. Therefore, the effect the ring provided lasted indefinately until one of those conditions ended the spell.

My 2nd edition AD&D books are packed away, but I have a hunch that things were very similar to 1st edition.

My 3rd edition books are also packed away, but according to the the 3rd edition SRD (not 3.5, 3rd edition)—located at www.opengamingfoundation.org/srd.html, the invisibility spell had a duration of 10 minutes/level. The language for the description of the ring states: "By activating this ring, the wearer can become invisible, as the spell".

The duration of the spell in 3.5 was changed to 1 minute/level.

So, the ring has always been adjudicated as per the spell. It's just that in the beginning, the spell didn't have a duration. The spell, and thus the ring, has had a time limited duration for 14 years now. That you don't like it doesn't change the facts.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Malachi Silverclaw wrote:
Wikipedia wrote:
De jure is an expression that means "concerning law", as contrasted with de facto, which means "concerning fact". The terms de jure and de facto are used instead of "in law" and "in practice", respectively, when one is describing political or legal situations.

So the 'de jure' rule is that reach weapons don't reach the diagonals, but the 'de facto' is the 3.5 exception.

Quote:
In a legal context, de jure is also translated as "concerning law". A practice may exist de facto, where, for example, the people obey a contract as though there were a law enforcing it, yet there is no such law. A process known as "desuetude" may allow (de facto) practices to replace (de jure) laws that have fallen out of favor, locally.
...and it's about time that the de facto 3.5 exception replaced the de jure lack of it.

I agree with you completely.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Mark Seifter wrote:
Barker wrote:
Do you like tacos?
I prefer burritos, as veggie burritos tend to have more oomph to them than veggie tacos do. Do you like tacos?

HEY! This isn't the ASK *BARKER* ALL YOUR QUESTIONS HERE! thread. Oh...wait...this isn't the ASK *BARKER* ALL YOUR QUESTIONS HERE! thread?

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:

So I have but a few questions to pose to the party that claims you can use the feat to qualify for the feat to determine how they would run scenarios in comparison to the RAW presented in the book.

1. Say I was an 8th level Fighter who just took Greater Weapon Focus for his 8th level Bonus Feat. I fight a vampire and he level drains me 2 levels. What happens to the feat I just took for being 8th level?

Point of order: when you receive negative levels, you don't actually lose any levels. Nor do you lose any access to class features that are predicated upon that level. Feats that have a class level as a prerequisite are not lost and are still accessible because the prerequisite is still met.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

If you grant invisible creatures the 50% chance, then you must carry the logic to its conclusion and apply the concealment to every creature that it attacks because black tentacles don't have eyes.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
NobodysHome wrote:

The media now exists to sell papers. The infamous McDonald's "hot coffee" incident is a spectacular example. Everyone reads, "Woman spills hot coffee on herself, sues McDonald's, wins millions. The system is broken."

How many people actually know that the store in question was out of heat-proof cups, and had served her the coffee in a non-approved cup that proceeded to melt in her lap, which is the reason she suffered 3rd degree burns to her groin? She didn't spill it. The cup melted. That's not reported. Because it's not inflammatory.

According to the documentary that I watched in which this woman was interviewed, this isn't correct either.

Liberty's Edge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Kaisoku wrote:

It just sucks in a situation where you've changed your judgement (swift), moved to a new position (move), and now you are stuck (standard action left) unable to Lay on Hands yourself, but you could lay on hands an ally?

This is where the internal consistency kicks in for me, and I have to let it happen. Maybe the abilities that should be capable of doing this should have the same verbiage as bardic performance (in that at 13th level, you *can* start it as a swift, but you don't lose the ability to do it as a move).

If I must, I'll houserule it from one end, or the other. LOL!

Fortunately, you count yourself as an ally, so you're more than able to Lay on Hands to yourself as a standard action.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Malachi Silverclaw wrote:
Quote:
Swift actions are specifically limited to one per turn, regardless of what other actions you take, and nothing in readying an action changes that.

This, although true, is not what's being posited.

Take the first swift action off the top of my head: Lay On Hands. It takes a swift action to use LOH on yourself.

We are not asking to convert our standard action into a swift action so we have two in the same round. We are asking to be able to LOH on ourselves as a standard action. Not a swift.

We are saying that we can use our standard action to do stuff which normally only takes a swift, not asking for two swift actions!

Therefore, saying 'you can't have two swift actions' is irrelavent.

I think the issue is not that it's being used as two swift actions, but that it's being used twice in a round. The fact that it's a swift action indicates that the intent is for it to only be used once a round—specifically, it allows you to give yourself a bit of a heal and still lay the smack down that same round.

Generally speaking, I feel that there are some situations in which I would allow the swift action to be expended as a standard, with the caveat that it would provoke an AoO to do so (as others have already alluded to).


1 person marked this as a favorite.

This was all much more exciting when you were talking about me.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
fretgod99 wrote:
"I want to change my appearance to that of Captain Shuffles McTrufflestein so I can bluff my way into the guardhouse barracks more easily."

It really pisses me off when people try to disguise themselves as me.

Liberty's Edge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
NobodysHome wrote:


Option 3: Have them send the party Conna's head. REALLY mean. I wouldn't do it, but you know your players better than I.

O.O

—.—
o.—
—.—
o.—
O.o
^.^

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Lilith wrote:


You'll notice Paizo really hasn't trod down that particular path since.

While certainly adult in nature, it was well within the context of the storyline.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

NSFW, but completely appropriate given the awesomeness.

Liberty's Edge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

The problem isn't that theory crafting is a part of the playtests, the problem is that people have trouble receiving criticism or being told "no" without getting butt-hurt.

Participate and contribute, but leave the 'tude at the door.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Regardless of what it actually ends up being, some people will still complain about how broken and OP it is.

Liberty's Edge

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

In my experience, the biggest time sink are players fretting about which equipment they want to buy or what spells to pick out. Everything else was ready to go in 5-10 mins.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

What kind of pirate are we talking here? Johnny Depp pirate, or Cartman pirate?

Liberty's Edge

7 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

I pretend to not hear the players announce any action during a monologue.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

I wouldn't have a problem allowing it, but I reserve the right to rule differently in the heat of the moment.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

O.o

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

I've been in a "retro" mood for the last few months and have been looking at various clone systems. Having only flipped through and skimming parts of the PHB, and reading the free download, I do have to say I'm impressed. While I'll never stop playing PF, and likely won't invest in 5e, I'd be more than happy to jump into a game to try it out. I do think it will be a successful system, and that alone is something we should all be happy about.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Name of PC: Variel
Class/Level: Elven Mage of the Veil 3
Adventure: Burnt Offerings
Catalyst: A failure to heed the "Adventure Party Golden Rule" assisted by Yeth Hounds.

Story:

Spoiler:
While exploring the first level of Thistletop, the group encounters and dispatches Bruthazmus, the Harem, and Orik. The group proceeds into the jail cells, with the rogue checking doors as they go along.

The rogue makes an off-hand comment that it's a bit difficult to be sneaky when the rest of the group is so close. The group moves off, back into the central room. The rogue discovers, but doesn't open, the door into Lamashtu's temple.

The party splits up, spreads out, and starts to open different doors. The mage opens the door leading to the Tentamort, discovers it, but does not approach (the Tentamort is oblivious, continuing to catch seagulls). The barbarian remains in the central room. The cleric heads up and discovers the double-doors leading to the Temple.

The rogue meets up with the cleric, and together they open the doors. The cleric moves away and approaches the door leading to the Tentamort area. The rogue moves up to investigate the altar.

Both Yeth Hounds bay. Rogue and barbarian fail their save. Barbarian runs upstairs and away. Rogue runs. Yeth Hound catches up, crits, knocks rogue into negatives. Other Yeth Hound heads up to the cleric, hits, knocks him prone.

Yeth Hounds gang up on cleric, who channels to bring the rogue back up to positive health. The mage moves into line of sight of the Yeth Hounds while invisible. Next round he drops obscuring mist which saves the group from a TPK.

The rogue works back to the altar via the jail cell room to pick up her bow. Barbarian still running. Mage maneuvers to hit both Hounds with Color Spray. Both hounds make the save. Next round, Hound crits against the mage, dropping him. The mage fails his next stabilization roll, which kills him.

The obscuring mist allows the cleric and rogue to hold on long enough for the barbarian to recover and return. Eventually, with the barbarian in the fight, the hounds finally succumb. The group beats a hasty retreat back to Sandpoint. The male elf is reincarnated as a female half-orc.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Simon Legrande wrote:
blackbloodtroll wrote:

Hmm, there is nothing noting you must move the entirety of your Acrobatics check, as a horizontal jump.

I am carefully reading through, and am just not seeing it.

PRD wrote:
For a running jump, the result of your Acrobatics check indicates the distance traveled in the jump (and if the check fails, the distance at which you actually land and fall prone). Halve this result for a standing long jump to determine where you land.
I agree that it doesn't say "must", but it also doesn't say "can". It only says distance = jump check.

It doesn't say "must" because a character doesn't actually jump 20 feet to clear a 5-foot gap. And yes, this is a RAW interpretation, despite what your protestations may be.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Suffice it to say, if the campaign setting being played in is Golarion (and the GM is sticking to canon), then no, a Paladin cannot worship an Evil deity.

If, instead, the GM is using PF to play in a home setting, it is up to the GM to decide whether or not this would be allowed.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

What is the point of this thread? To tell everyone that you're switching games? Ok...best of luck to you. I'm sure that game will be fun too.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Coridan wrote:

I don't agree with every Paizo decision (Pathfinder Online, ACG, monthly companions/quarterly modules) but at least Lisa doesn't plan on selling to some publicly traded monster

The reality of life is that everything is for sale...for the right price.

Liberty's Edge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

No. That doesn't mean that I don't want 5e to be successful. I just won't be spending any money on it.

Liberty's Edge

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Darned kids and their "real world" examples in my "don't mix fantasy with fantasy" thread. Stay off my lawn!

Liberty's Edge

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

TOZ because he made me look up 'vociferous'.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Erylium forgot that she had enough HD to only be stunned for 1 round, instead of falling unconscious from color spray and allowing herself to be CDG'd.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Rushley son of Halum wrote:

Actually Gauss, no I don't. Because PFS in Australia doesn't twist the rules to such absurdities so I can in fact threaten diagonally with a reach weapon.

The only time i've ever even see this raised in on the forum by a few people who for some reason want to ruin the game.

You could possibly be 100% correct, but that doesn't excuse your tone and attitude.

For the record, you're not correct.

Liberty's Edge

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

The internet quakes in fear from all of the "factual opinions" given in this thread. /sarcasm *rollseyes*

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Nefreet wrote:
How long did it take you to come up with this post?

Who, me? :-D

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

No. When prone, you can crawl 5 feet as a move action. Whether actually crawling or rolling is irrelevant, it is a move action to move that 5 feet. To avoid the AoO, as a full-round action, you can make an Acrobatics check vs. the opponent's CMD+5 to move that 5 feet.

EDIT: For further clarification, the 5-foot step rules state that any creature with a speed of 5 feet or less (a prone character, for example) can't take a 5-foot step.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Malovec wrote:

You guys are being extremely picky. :P

The reason the tape measure isn't exact in the picture is because I can't put it under the mini, the line effect label with out it falling over. It's got the metal notch at beginning of the tape measure.

If you put it under the mini and the line board, it would line up better. I suppose if I had a ruler, or a t-square something I could lay flat under the display it would look more accurate but then you can't see the numbers either.

do it yourself if you don't think so. Measure the same squares as in that second picture with the mite, and then put the mite and the line board down and it'll be EXACT.

I mean sure, if Paizo wants it to be mathematically incorrect, fine, it's their product and I'll keep using it that way since it is raw, but it's screwing players.

Calls people out for being extremely picky, then makes a statement about how the rules are a known approximation and is screwing over the players. O.o

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

@BigDTBone We had a couple of post get caught up in the crossfire. I'll repost this one because it's really the only one relevant, IMHO.

I agree that Spontaneous Casting is a class feature of the Cleric class, though it only applies to those spells prepared in Cleric spell slots. You can't prepare magic missile in a cleric slot anymore than you can prepare cure light wounds in a wizard slot.

For the most part, everyone who says that you could spontaneously cast from wizard spells are reading the spontaneously casting class description out of context.

The "any" doesn't refer to "any spell slot from any spell-casting class". And "prepared" doesn't refer to slots from a spell-casting class that prepares spells ahead of time. It is written in context of the cleric class and the cleric class only. So, a cleric must have a spell prepared, and any of those spells prepared may be exchanged for a cure spell of that level or lower.

Remember, the whole point of the class ability is so the Cleric can still be an effective healer without having to prepare healing spells ahead of time as well as an effective buffer without having to waste slots on preparing cure spells. In absolutely no way does the rules allow this class feature to apply to other spell-casting classes. Regardless of what people want from a misapplied FAQ.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
KrispyXIV wrote:
Diego Rossi wrote:
KrispyXIV wrote:
Nefreet wrote:

For the people advocating that Clerics can swap out Wizard spells for Cure spells, consider this quote:

"A Magus must choose and prepare his spells ahead of time".

If you claim that the phrase "The Cleric" is irrelevant, and what it really means is "The Character", then wouldn't a multi-classed Magus/Sorcerer have to "choose and prepare" ALL of "his" spells "ahead of time"?

In effect, a Magus/Sorcerer would lose the ability to spontaneously cast spells.

This is not an ability that modifies Spellcasting, like Bloodline Arcana or Spontaneous Casting. It is Spellcasting. Not comparable.

Spontaneously casting cure or inflict spells is Spellcasting, not an ability that modifies Spellcasting.

:-P

You are incorrect. Please check the Cleric Class entry on the PRD and you will see Spontaneous Casting listed as a seperate Class Ability from Spells*.

*aka Spellcasting. It turns out 'Spells' is the name of the class feature.

[Inego Montoya]I don't think that means what you think it means.[/Inego Montoya]

Dumping a prepared spell to spontaneously cast cure light wounds isn't a modification to spell casting. Changing the DC, CL, damage dice, or adding damage to the damage caused by a spell is a modification of spellcasting.

If we continue with your logic, a Clr 1/Wiz 1 should be able to prepare Cleric spells in the Wizard spell slots, which we know cannot be done (unless they also have the Mystic Theurge Prestige Class.

No, regardless of what the Sorcerer FAQ says (because that FAQ is actually irrelevant to this discussion), one may not "lose" a prepared Wizard spell to cast a cure spell.

Furthermore, actually read what the description says:

Spontaneous Casting wrote:
A good cleric (or a neutral cleric of a good deity) can channel stored spell energy into healing spells that she did not prepare ahead of time. The cleric can “lose” any prepared spell that is not an orison or domain spell in order to cast any cure spell of the same spell level or lower (a cure spell is any spell with “cure” in its name).

And compare it to the bloodline arcana of Sorcerers:

Aberrant wrote:
Whenever you cast a spell of the polymorph subschool, increase the duration of the spell by 50% (minimum 1 round). This bonus does not stack with the increase granted by the Extend Spell feat.
Abyssal wrote:
Whenever you cast a spell of the summoning subschool, the creatures summoned gain DR/good equal to 1/2 your sorcerer level (minimum 1). This does not stack with any DR the creature might have.
Arcane wrote:
Whenever you apply a metamagic feat to a spell that increases the slot used by at least one level, increase the spell's DC by +1. This bonus does not stack with itself and does not apply to spells modified by the Heighten Spell feat.
Celestial wrote:
Whenever you cast a spell of the summoning subschool, the creatures summoned gain DR/evil equal to 1/2 your sorcerer level (minimum 1). This does not stack with any DR the creature might have.
Destined wrote:
Whenever you cast a spell with a range of “personal,” you gain a luck bonus equal to the spell's level on all your saving throws for 1 round.
Draconic wrote:
Whenever you cast a spell with an energy descriptor that matches your draconic bloodline's energy type, that spell deals +1 point of damage per die rolled.
Elemental wrote:
Whenever you cast a spell that deals energy damage, you can change the type of damage to match the type of your bloodline. This also changes the spell's type to match the type of your bloodline.
Fey wrote:
Whenever you cast a spell of the compulsion subschool, increase the spell's DC by +2.
Infernal wrote:
Whenever you cast a spell of the charm subschool, increase the spell's DC by +2.
Undead wrote:
Some undead are susceptible to your mind-affecting spells. Corporeal undead that were once humanoids are treated as humanoids for the purposes of determining which spells affect them.

There is a distinct difference.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Marthkus wrote:
If the GM decides you mean.

No. If the character is not in one of the above situations that I mentioned above, and the GM said the player couldn't take 10 or 20, the GM is being a jerk.

Marthkus wrote:

The definitions of "immediate threats and distractions" are not explicit.

Pretending they are is a reaching claim at best.

Sure, if the characters are in a situation that the GM feels would constitute a reasonable distraction, and explains as such, then no, they couldn't take 10.

  • The presence of a trap does not constitute an immediate threat or distraction when using Perception to search for a trap.
  • The narrowness of a ledge does not constitute an immediate threat or distraction when using Acrobatics to cross that ledge.
  • The alertness of a guard does not constitute an immediate threat or distraction when using Stealth to sneak past the guard.
  • The presence of a trap does not constitute an immediate threat or distraction when using Disable Device to unlock a chest--they just set off the trap in the process of unlocking the chest.
  • The fact that you "could" fail on your Disguise check does not constitute an immediate threat or distraction when using Disguise to impersonate a local official.

    What does constitute as an immediate threat or distraction?

  • Climbing a vertical cliff during a heavy windstorm.
  • Searching for a secret door while being actively chased by bad guys.
  • Using Sense Motive on a charmed enemy while in combat.
  • Using Heal on yourself while under the effects of the "bleed" condition.

  • Liberty's Edge

    1 person marked this as a favorite.
    Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
    Marthkus wrote:

    His post doesn't say rules dev next to it anymore. So what he says cannot be taken as from a rules dev. Some of his post still do have the "rules dev" title by them. I won't assume that isn't on purpose.

    That doesn't invalidate his reasoning, but SKR quotes are not Word-of-God for RAW.

    *bertstare*

    If any post ever deserved an epic facepalm, this one is it.

    Liberty's Edge

    1 person marked this as a favorite.
    Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
    lantzkev wrote:
    Quote:
    Dismounting does not either. It is a move action (or free), not movement.

    Even if you dismount from one square into an ajacent square?

    Quote:
    Right now, they clearly state that you can't take a five foot step if you have moved any distance.

    the whole point is that moving from a horizontal position, to a vertical position requires movement to any english speaker with common sense. The fact that it does not factor into tacticle/overland/or local is irrelevant to the issue.

    Since you have moved from one position to another, you're prevented from taking a free 5ft step.

    Quote:
    That's just as clear, but people still ignore it.
    no
    Quote:
    You can take a 5-foot step as part of your readied action, but only if you don't otherwise move any distance during the round.
    or
    Quote:
    You can move 5 feet in any round when you don't perform any other kind of movement
    is not clear, specially compared to your comment
    Quote:
    Movement occurs only when you move from one square to another. Actions taken within a square are not movement.

    Let's take a moment, ignore previous arguments and pay attention to just the following questions.

    Do you see a difference between the following statements.

    "you may not 5 ft step if you have moved any distance"
    and
    "you may not 5 ft step if you have performed any kind of movement"

    Now consider the full sentence rule quote:

    Quote:
    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.
    If movement is only a reference to distance, the first part of the rule is meaningless. If the first part has meaning, it must refer to non-distance movement... which would mean things like standing up, dismounting, etc.

    Drawing a weapon out of a sheath requires movement to any English speaker with common sense. To an English speaker using any amount of common sense, attacking an opponent requires movement to do so. Under your strained, pedantic logic, these qualify as movement, thus preventing a 5-ft. step.

    Liberty's Edge

    2 people marked this as a favorite.
    Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

    Spellbook Prices:

    Note: These spellbooks only contain the 0-level spells from the CRB unless specified in the NPC's statblock. If you wanted to include the 0-level spells from other sources, the prices would have to be adjusted accordingly.

    Lyrie Akenja: 515 gp (257 gp, 5 sp)
    Caizarlu Zerren: 954 gp (472 gp, 5 sp)
    Mammy Graul: 1,805 gp (902 gp, 5 sp)
    Barl Breakbones: 3,580 gp (1,790 gp)
    Mokmurian: 71,310 gp (35,665 gp)

    These are all I've gotten to, so far.

    Liberty's Edge

    1 person marked this as a favorite.
    Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

    So, essentially, Remy Balster believes that if one is wearing +5 leather armor and bracers of armor +5, that the +5 enhancement to the leather armor should stack with the bracers?

    I mean, this is essentially the same scenario as what was in the OP. Or have we moved beyond the original question?

    Liberty's Edge

    1 person marked this as a favorite.
    Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

    In all honesty, the Pathfinder Core Rulebook is what you want, anyways. If you want to keep playing a "Beginner Box style" of game, there is nothing about the CRB that prevents you from doing that. Just don't use any of the rules that aren't already found in the BB, and work through the list of feats and spells to weed out any items that don't work well within the confines of the BB parameters.

    1 to 50 of 290 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | next > last >>

    ©2002–2014 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.