|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
The Max Dex is the lowest of any items that have a max Dex. So if shield is max Dex +4 and armor is +3, the lowest of these is +3, so that is your max Dex. You can gain a maximum of three to your armor due to Dex. max Dex does not affect any other Dex Checks.
ACP stacks. Whatever the modified numbers are with the class ability, add them. Minimum ACP is 0 for each item, so avoid just subtracting at the end.
Is there a state between dead and ash? If so, during that period the item is unattended and is subject to going up in flames. This decision is a matter of gaming style. The game is conducted in turns and actions without much reference to the time of the individual actions; it is abstracted. The passage of time within an action is precisely the issue from a rules basis, and this is so dependent on the players' desire for what they get out of the game that a single answer isn't possible that would be adequate to every position on that continuum.
If stuff burns to dragon flame, all stuff, you have to decide how this affects a dragon's horde or tactical choices during combat. I don't know about you, but my adventurers expect a horde if gold pieces not gold slag.
Rogues are bad enough without the DM intentionally trying to give them the shaft, IMHO.
It is a game that revolves around the PCs ultimate success. It is not a game that requires success in all efforts to succeed.
Whether the rogue is problematic is irrelevant; unchained has redefined the rules. Other classes can exist with trap spotting. Rogues can be redesigned. The rules stand regardless.
Can a trap be detected from farther than 10 feet using trap spotter? No, by definition. Is a trigger part of a trap? I think we are working that out.
Emphasis added. You have defined the trap as being at the end of the hallway. The rogue is more than 10 feet at that distance. He can't use trapspotting outside if 10 feet.
Is it a GM cheat? Nope, it's a trap builder who knows what he's doing. This statement reflects a matter of playstyle, not rules. Nor can it be answered by rules.
Within 10 feet is one square between rogue and trap. Distance is counted as movement is.
There have been worthless feats when the text is clear. I'm not convinced the text is clear here. I see this as an additional talent. The whole point behind poison use is about not accidentally poisoning yourself when applying poison....to objects. Applying it to claws for a feat seems right to me. Applying it to softer or absorb ant body parts really seems problematic.
Finally, how would you view this for an alchemist cat folk, given the rule?
Space does not indicate a cubic creature. It represents the space occupied by the creature in a way that represents only the space occupied in a manner to 1) be denied, 2) provide a valid target for attack. Can there be vital parts outside that space, yes, but abstraction for the benefit of a playable game takes priority.
If an improvised weapon is a object not normally used as a weapon, and a masterwork weapon is one so well designed and manufactured as a weapon that it improves on it's ability to hit, then it is really a stretch to say that masterwork object is improvised. In talking about frying pans, a masterwork frying pan is weaponized and is no longer an object that isn't intended as a weapon.
Frying pans aren't normally weapons. This one is. Other frying pans can be used as improvised weapons. This one...no.
I haven't read the entire thread. If this is a duplicate, my apologies.
If something seems too good to be true, it likely is. Making use of it at be within the rules, but if too many people look askance at it and it's gonna be changed. This thread, at least in the early parts I read, illustrate this repeatedly. For MT, for Aasamars, for speed running mods. It may be within the rules, but don't be shocked when it is removed or changed. Actions have consequences.
I totally appreciate people stating that they played within the rules and got screwed. When you see exploitive options, they will be changed. If you rely upon them as a new player, i feel for you. If you give people advice to take advantage of exploits, you're setting them up for disappointment. If you so it as an experienced player, you took a risk. If it doesn't seem like it, use it as an opportunity to adjust your approach to organized play.
I'm not being dismissive. There is a bit of "you got what you deserved Shadenfreunde in my post, but please take it for the constructive input contained. I don't know how to communicate this without it.
Thx BNW. Sorry for the misdirection mutton.
Claude has an interesting point. You cannot 5 ft step after running, withdrawing, charging, moving, etc. some of these are move actions. Some are something else. What they have in common is movement. Dismount may be a move equivelant action, but that's irrelevant. The movement type doesn't matter. Movement does.
Robert Hetherington wrote:
We've got most of our tables locked in well ahead of the recent announcement but I'm certain some of our Wounded Wisp tables will become CORE along with a smattering here and there.
So, given the lateness of the announcement, there won't be a scramble to do one per slot or something?
Nonsense. A very literal reading of RAW tells us that "Concealment is not always effective."
Concealment affects vision only. Creatures that have no vision target by other means; in such a case concealment isn't effective.
Concealment is only effective 50% of the time at best. In the other cases, it isn't effective .
These are just a couple of ways it isn't always effective.
The spell creates the effect. The effect makes the grapple attempt. There is no statblock for the effect, so we don't know which of the implied statblocks are in play. Is the implied statblock one that assumes that the invisibility is negated, so only states the summary result. (Miss chance)+(ability to ignore miss chance)=(just do it)? Or is it one in which all stats are described, and now apply all other rules?
The action economy is part of the game. It is also something that some don't find important and instead prefer to focus on the story telling portion of the game. But from a rules perspective, it is there and vital. It's portant to understand what actions are required or else the characters get, effectively, extra actions. Extra actions are the root of any builds that are viewed as being on the higher tiers of play. Understand them or they get out of control.
There is a difference between rules and procedures. Creatures must have objects in hand to use them in most cases. This is a rule. What a character has in hand by default is a matter of procedure. For example, I ask players to decide what's in hand. That's my procedure no trust my players to act like adults playing a game (even the teens) until they prove me wrong. I assume that characters are always armed in dangerous county, such as a dungeon, approaching a ruin, in game world environment, walking down the road outside of town. I don't see that as being the case in a settlement.
Where an item is in inventory determines the action needed to draw it. That is a rule. Wands are weapon like in almost all situations. However you want to justify it is up to you, but the distinction exists between items that are carried as accessible and those that are packed away or stowed. Likewise with potions. How many can be readily carried at a time is a matter of procedure and style until an item surfaces in your game that states a limit . For on GM, that's one potion and one want. For another it is all owned. For a third, it is up to 3, 5, or 10 each.
Distinguish between rule and procedure. Procedure is a matter of style, not rule.
[b]491. Sexual Dysfunction In The Elven Male[\b]
The text of this time has the typical juxtaposition between the titalating and the disgusting, with an occasional entry specific to elves that may teach more than is desired.
The notable part if this tone is that the inner covers, and much of the margins, are filled with inscriptions from one Elven man to another; the book has been a gag gift for centuries. "Elandil, Happy Festivus. Check page 47, then see the doctor...." Might be a typical entry. Enhancements with various enchantments, such as magic mouth, programmed illusions, etc. just add to the fun.
Hook: book can serve as evidence that two characters new each other; or, proof is provided that a character was still alive on a certain date.
Note: book based on an actual volume found in a second hand store going back to the 1920s. I regularly kick myself that I didn't buy it.
You cast the spell.
The target has spell resistance. So, you make a caster level check to overcome SR.
If you fail to overcome the spell resistance, then the spell has no effect. If you succeed, then the spell has affected him.
If it affects him, he rolls a Reflex save vs the DC. If he makes the save he is dazzled for 1-4 rounds. If he fails the save then he is instead blinded for 1-4 rounds.
On the topic of the PFS FAQ on animal intelligence:
The PFS FAQ that has been cited is there in part due to the multiple GM factor that PFS has. However, a good portion of that ruling is a summary of the mechanical aspect of the Blog on animal intelligence. How you fit that into your definition of what constitutes official rules is another story.
AoOs are provoked by opportunity. There is no relationship between the number of AoOs and actions. A single action can provoke multiple times (cast a ranged attack spell, full attack with ranged weapon, etc.), and movement only provokes once. Read the text in the first post.
The spells available to player characters outside of the core list is a GM decision. How this is done can have a huge impact on the power of some classes. For example, a cleric in a core only campaign vs a campaign that allows all printed spells is dramatic.
I'd appreciate page number from the prior poster regarding the 3.5 PHB reference.
It's completely silly to claim it's impossible to attack a huge creature....
When is it ever helpful to refer to your opponent's position as silly during a debate or discussion? I've made the point of trimming your post to demonstrate the effect that it has on the reader: to get to this phrase and then stop reading.
It looks to me like it works. It also looks to me like it's stretching the rules, and this is why OP is getting resistance.
Specific rules over-ride general rules. Everyone gets that. This appears to be stretching things because it's using three rules exceptions (the tatoo, false focus, alchemical components) to then seek a second generation exception. That the result is a second generation exception is why some are finding it problematic. Some GMs don't have the skills to be able to follow the logic chain. Others intuitively see it as undesirable. It probably wasn't envisioned, which makes it a likely exploit.
I don't think you're going to get the clear resolution you want. It's probably a poor choice for PFS due to the complexity and time required to get someone to follow the logic, understand all three items and how they are interacting, and to then persuade the GM to overcome intuitive first impressions that it shouldn't work or that it's an exploit.
The typical rule of thumb for organized play is that if you would expect table variance, only use the option if you're satisfied with the most conservative ruling. Use the idea in a different game. My suggestion is to retrain and you'll enjoy your sessions more.
To clarify what Zhayne is saying, while there is no Arcane Spell Failure, there is still the non-proficiency penalty to attacks and some skills.
The spell reads that the weapon attacks. The cleric does not attack. The analogy isn't perfect, but it's compatible to the same cleric casting summon monster. While they are not both conjugation, in each case the effect of the spell attacks rather than the caster attacking. Spiritual weapon identifies how to calculate the attack: caster's BAB plus Wis modifier.