|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
Let's picture a tiny creature with a speed of 20. He marches up, using the move action called move, and enters a small creature's square to attack him. He has made one action, move. He has provoked two AoOs. One for exiting a threatened square. The second is for entering an opponent's square. If the small opponent has Combat Reflexes, he can take two AoOs on the tiny creature; there has be one action, and movement only provokes once. Yet there are two opportunities: one for exiting the square and one for entering an opponent's square. This second opportunity, while requiring movement to achieve, is due not to the movement itself, but due to the entirety of, "entering an opponent's square."
When taking a five foot step to enter opponent's square, the tiny critter has negated the first AoO, the one for exiting a threatened square. This is one of the two ways of negating the AoO from exiting a threatened square. All is well and good. However, the critter has not negated the second opportunity, the one provided by, "entering an opponent's square."
There are two things that provoke AoOs. These are leaving a threatened square, and the other is performing a distracting act in a threatened square. The second AoO is due to the distracting act of "entering an opponent's space." It is not due to leaving a threatened square. It is not die to movement. It is due to "entering an opponent's square."
The quote marks above are solely for highlighting the phrase I have used. It is not citing a rules source.
For anyone who gives credence to 3.5 rulings and such in understanding Pathfinder, see the table on the first few pages of the Rules Compendium; this calls out in detail that there are two AoOs provoked.
The error in your logic is in separating the act of a five foot step from the movement of the five foot step. Instead, separate the movement of the five foot step from the distracting act.
This is as full as an explanation as I'm going to give. If it doesn't do the job for you, that's cool. My motive here isn't to personally persuade you. Good Gaming!!!
Bob Bob Bob wrote:
No, to be clear, I am not saying that it provokes for leaving a threatened square. I am saying that entering an opponent's quare provokes, and that the 5-foot step doesn't negate that.
Share spell only applies to spells cast from the list of the class from which the animal companion is derived. If the Druid has a level of the Sorc bloodline, and if the sorc's animal companion both grants animal companion with shared spell, and that is incorporated into the animal companion in question, then yes. The mere existence of a Sorc bloodline that does it is insufficient.
The Druid needs to cast the spell to share it. You can't share from a wand.
Bob Bob Bob wrote:
Are you saying the line "Taking this 5-foot step never provokes an attack of opportunity." only refers to the act of initiating the 5-foot step? Because if so, you still provoke for moving out of a threatened square (if you do so). Which is clearly not the intent of the ability. If the moving out of a threatened square doesn't provoke because it's part of the 5-foot step, why isn't entering the opponent's square covered by the same rules? Nothing in the text says "does not provoke for movement", it just says "does not provoke".
The 5 foot step does not provoke. What you're doing with the 5 foot step does. This sort of thing happens in multiple parts of the game. Charging through a threatened square, casting a ranged touch attack spell defensively. These are examples. 5 foot step into an opponents square is another. These aren't the only ones.
Assuming that these are close to unique in rarity based on the age, the value might be quite high to the right buyer, more so in their original language, where translation error might change meaning. Given that individual masterwork tools exist that these would seem to super cede in content, that alone is a reason for that 50gp price to be insufficient.
In a more forefront game, rather than the AP, these are great lead ins to additional content. Without that, and merely looking at value, best pricing should accompany an extensive look for the best buyer.
Regarding the staggered release: this is about prolonging the hype. It creates an environment where gamestore owners see a lot of repeat business during the early months. The starter kit is designed to provide the foundation materials needed from the DMG and MM. The statement has been made that campaigns can be played in August.
On the topic of feats vs ability bumps: the feats generally give a one point bump and goodies that are generally better than the 3.5 feats on top of that. Often, they are akin to two 3.5 feats. The accuracy bounding concept, as well as a cap of 20 on ability scores, means that rushing ability bumps isn't the must-have that might be seen through 3e family experience.
I'll be giving it a shot. It has it's good points. It has some areas for which I like some other games better. I don't know of a single RPG I've ever played where the same could not be said.
If you interpret directly to mean distance rather than direction, A2, B2, and C2 are all valid. If you interpret directly to mean direction, it is B2 only. I understand directly to indicate direction. This same distinction was regular debated in 3.5 WotC boards, with a discussion that basically looks like a dog settling down to sleep.
If you don't like the charging rules, it doesn't help that an obstacle in B2 prevents charging to A2 or C2. For that matter, an obstacle in A4 prevents charging to A2. Charging is generally not as usable as most people seem to play it.
I was heavily involved in the thread that is linked above. The posts linked above were the ones written by SKR before he realized, later in the thread, that he was using the 3.0 charge rules, rather than the 3.5 rules that are also used in PF, with respect to charging. His mea culpa is in post #57 of the same thread.
There is one charge line; it must be directly toward the target. (Sean realized he wasn't using this point in my linked post above.) If it isn't valid, you can't charge. The charge line must be to the closest square to you, not the closest square to the target, as all square from which you can attack are the same distance from the target. There can certainly be corner cases to this, but this is the general case. See this post in that thread for the highlighted relevant areas of the charge rules.
This is a great example of one of the reasons why the developers point out that their contributions in threads are not binding rulings. In this thread, Sean was erroneous in his description of the rules. He was describing 3.0. He later acknowledged this. Yet, people keep linking to his posts prior to his understanding that he was in error, and do so treating it as authoritative.
Most enhancements are priced based upon their bonus equivelant. For example, a +1 flaming long sword is the price equivelant of a +2 long sword, 8315gp. A +1 flaming burst long sword or a +2 flaming longsword is the price equivelant of a +3 long sword, 18,315gp. The price to upgrade a weapon is the difference between the old price and the new price. So, the price to upgrade a +1 long sword to +1 flaming, is 6000gp. This would also be the cost to upgrade from a +1 long sword to a +2 long sword.
If you can't come up with an existing rules resource, creating one is an excellent approach.
Your players will have a better experience, and you will give them a better experience, if you clearly understand the mechanism behind the plot. It will allow providing clues, knowledge checks, interactions with libraries or sages. It will also help with a plan and background for whatever they do, and what challenges they face, in order to help the Druid break out......and as a twist, why he shouldn't be released....
Ready does the job. Not one I would use for a zombie, but it does the job just fine.
Claude, in answer to your original question, PFS does not have a special rule about this.
In general PFS follows the general rules of the game unless changes are needed due to the unique qualities of organized play. This is often misunderstood to think that PFS GMs all interpret the rules exactly the same or should do so. In fact, there are a tremendous number of rules that experience some degree of variance, often called table variance.
PFS tends to step in with FAQ or administrator statements when these involve character build or equipment/resource acquisition matters. They rarely make statements that are matters that come up repeatedly during play. Your example is of this type.
While my opinion is that wands can be drawn on the move, and have never run into anyone who has ruled it the other ways hen playing with probably 60-70 Organized play GMs under PF and 3.5, where the rule is the same, I do understand that there are some who view it differently from the text. There are also some who are mistaken and think that wands can never be drawn as weapons. I have seen that, and somewhat commonly...maybe 20% of the GMs I've played with have initially made this error, and accept a respectful citation.
PFS can be enjoyable if understood for what it is. I see it as best enjoyed as a spice rather than a regular diet. It fits very well into adult life styles. Take from it what is good about it, but understand its limitations.
The combat system essentially assumes that you can only take actions on your turn, unless as excepted. The Immediate action was added subsequent to the original design of the combat system although it has always been part of PF.
A five foot step can be taken on your turn, or as part of a readied action; in either case, it cannot be combined with other movement.
General opinions in the forums have increasingly made arguments to expand the scope of when a free action can be used. The primary discussion is around the description of a free action being taken while taking another action. This was interpreted more strictly in 3.5. Now it becomes the basis for then applying it along with any other action. As a result, the discussion becomes what situations are actions.
You'll get differences of opinion about whether the contingent element of a readied action is an action, whether an AoO is an action, etc.
When coming to the forums for a clear answer on a complex topic can be frustrating due to the exposure to multiple opinions. You are best of viewing the forums as a place to be exposed to different arguments in such cases rather than a definitive source.
Thor Odenson wrote:
See the section in magic items under the heading Magic Items and Size. It gives stats on the relative proportions of armor of different size. The fact that it exists must be read in the context that size for armor is fixed. There is no option in the rules to alter armor to fit a different form, such as for a quadruped.
It was at best debatable whether bane stacked in 3.5. I moderated a Living Greyhawk forum on the module in question and it was known to be problematic back then as well. At one point, we had assembled a list of over 350 rules problems with the module in question. It was released late in 3.5's publishing life and appears to have had a second class treatment regarding the technical aspects of the editing process. It's a nice yarn. It's just annoying and requires a lot of tweaks to get it to line up with 3.5; that's even more true for PF.
Kwauss: yeah, I messed up the tags. I can't edit it and won't be reporting it.
As for Thai poetry, that's all fine and good. And irrelevant to a rules discussion. You are not a character in the game. The poet is not a bard.
If you want to talk about how it should be and if it could be better, that's all fine and good. I prefer that level of detail and role play in my game as well.
The only rules based variability is that inspire courage has to be perceived, and that it must have a visual or auditory component. A blind person cannot perceive a visual performance. A deaf person cannot perceive an audible performance. Further distinctions are outside the question of rule and are a matter of play style. Tha only subtlety that is there is if you or others choose to insert it.
Discussions of whether an animal can be courageous, benefit from a morale bonus, etc, is all a discussion of play style, not of rule.
Inspire courage is not language dependent. Whether the animal can understand or not is irrelevant.
Whether animals can be allies are not is another story. Domestic animals are generally indifferent. This doesn't sound like an ally to me. Summoned creatures seem to me to be allies, whether an animal or not. Looking at it from the ally side may, in itself, be a matter of playstyle, although with the support of domestic animals being indifferent as a matter of rule.
Human Fighter wrote:
What's so hard to understand the simplicity of what this thread is trying to accomplish? I just want suggestions on how in the moment to grab someone's attention and make it sound convincing that you can use delay in that fashion by the rules, and in the quickest and time saving way.I understand lost causes can't be convinced, so I want to make quick and efficient attempt, then move on for everyone's sake. Understand now?
With all respect, this is exactly what all the conversation about clumping initiative is doing. Clumping initiative is not a rule supported practice. Therefore if playing by the rules, initiative isn't clumped, thus you can delay. If the procedure is being used to clump at the start, the rules state creatures go through initiative one at a time, regardless of what their initiative count is; thus, the rules allow exiting delay in between any two creatures. If clumping itiative is being implemented as a houserules, ask the guy who made up the houserules, since we don't know his rules.
OP is correct in his understanding of when he can come out of delay. It can be done between the end of one combatant's turn ends and the next starts. The support for doing so in the midst of batches opponents is found at the beginning of the combat section in the description of how initiative works. Each combatant rolls initiative and they act in turn.
Grouping combatants on the NPC side is common practice. It is a matter of convenience and has a long history. The problem is when GMs fail to recognize that their use of this procedure doesn't make the individuals in an initiative group a monolithic and indivisible whole. Alternatively, they can't be bothered to break up the group, for the same reason as they grouped them in the first place: convenience.
Interesting question. Many spells are essentially fire and forget. The caster has no further control over them. Others have effects that are controlled by the caster. Finally, some spells can be dismissed my the caster.
By RAW, casters know whether spells have been effective re: saving throws. This doesn't answer your question, but is related tangentially. By RAW, dispelling or activating an event triggered spell isn't know by the caster. The whole point of the alarm spell is to provide that information. However, in the case of a spell that is controllable after being cast, or which can be dismissed, there reasonably seems to be some ongoing feedback. This really starts to get into corner cases and on the fly rulings, though. What you might do really is a matter of play style.
You can copy the spell it into your spell book now. You cannot cast a spell, nor make a scroll of it, until you are able to cast it.
See the section in the Magic Chapter under the heading "Spells Copied From Another's Spellbook or Scroll." There is nothing here to say you must be of a level to cast it befor putting it into your Spellbook. Rather, the word, "whenever" is just one example of how this passage is quite permissive.
While I understand that you can certainly think of circumstances where disable device might not really be effective, the idea of needing to explain how the device is being disabled is a mindset out of prior editions in and old school vein. In older editions, there was a certain degree of expecting the player to come up with such solutions. On the 3e family, including PF, the idea of the skills is that the character is the one with the expertise, rather than the player.
In the case of the thin floor surface over the bit, it almost comes off to me as a concealed opening rather than a trap that can be defeated or disarmed. If you had an open pit with no concealment, the issue wouldn't come up. It becomes terrain rather than a trap. In such a circumstance, it might be reasonable to treat it simply as terrain once found. I see this as the exception rather than the rule with respect to traps.
There is a degree of abstraction in these editions. While either style is playable, the social contract implies that you're playing in the spirit of the ruleset unless its agreed otherwise.
The summoned bear would appear just befor the druid's next round. At that point, it gets it's full actions. If in a position where it can fill attack, it can full attack. The Druid then gets her full actions.
Find out why your players think it can't to straighten out the misunderstanding bits possible they just "know" that as a result of a prior HM's misunderstanding or ruling.
My two cents. You could apply adaptive to a +1 composite (+0 STR) but would get no benefit by RAI. It appears intended to allow you to use a high strength bow at a lower strength. Of course RAW it would work as he suggests, but that just makes it your call. Imo.
This is just one use. It also allows a bow to be used at a higher strength while gaining the benefit of that high strength. It means the bow can be used at full strength when buffed, or that the same bow can be used while gaining strength from leveling up. It effectively eliminates the requirement to have backup bows, bows for special circumstances, etc, and still gain the full utility.
I'm talking about the composite ability to add your strength modifier to damage, not the magical quality of +1.
In that case, he's right. It could me a +0 strength composite bow. A +0 meets the requirement, that it be a composite bow. If a +1 were required, the requirement would state that.
If it helps, a +0 strength composite bow isn't just a non-composite bow. It's build differently. It has layers of materials rather than being merely a length of shaped wood. It has a longer range than a regular bow. It is built to a specific strength rating, which happens to be +0.
If that doesn't satisfy, perhaps you can give us your rationale so that we can see why you're thinking the bow must have a +1 strength rating.
Theoretically speaking, SRD creatures are based on the 11,11,11,10,10,10 array, with hit dice and racial modifications. Since the racial modifications contain a lot of creative license, in practice, they have whatever the designer wants them to have to reflect the creature she envisions. To what degree Paizo continued this, I'm not sure.
The observation that ACs and purchased creatures are relatively stronger at lower point buys for PCs is a good one, and interesting. It probably contributes to the idea that mundane mounts due too easily. On the other hand, if you've ever read Andy of the battle scenes from Le Morte d'Arthur, mounts dying and being replaced is a common event, at least as envisioned by the author; presumably, this was based somewhat on 15th century battle experience.
But I digress.
I'm not 100% sure, and my 3.0 books are 20 feet away, do inaccessible (;)), but iirc, healing spells were necromancy as late as 3.0. I generally don't rely this much on straight memory, so may be wrong. As I recall, the idea was that it was thought conjugation needed a boost. Ironically, in the 3.5 era, conjugation was seen as one of the strongest schools, largely due to lack of SR.
Is it rational? I don't think so bid it reasonable, I don't think so, but is debatable. Ultimately, the answer is because it was that way in 3.5.
I'm reversing my position on the meaning of the Fight with War-Trained Mount. I am doing so on the basis of the following passage from the 3.5 RotG articles on mounted combat ca link can be found in my profile. The link in question is to the second article.
This isn't a decision made lightly. This has been a topic I've debated since 2005. During the last days of 3.5, the RotG articles were modified to conform with the FAQ, Rules Compendium, and other sources. In some cases, Skip's original take on things was seen as an addition to rules and/or WotC's developers had found them to create problems. I suspect this was an area where there was a change in the last days and I haven't noticed it before.
It is my opinion that the RotG articles provide the closest thing that we have to a standard interpretation. While I'm not a fan of what this means to my sense of approaching the rules from the perspective of system mastery, I'm also of the opinion that a level of consistency is important and is worth making compromise.
The passage in question:
"Fight Along with Your Mount: Make a DC 10 Ride check as a free action. If you succeed, you can direct your mount to attack a foe and you also can attack as well. See the section on attacking while mounted for details. If you fail this check, or don't bother to make it, either you or your mount can attack this turn, but not both of you."
If that's directed at me, it so egregiously mischaracterizes my post as to be meaningless. I provided a rules quote. I broke it down with commentary.
What exactly do you think I have asserted that isn't supported? I'm sorry, but posting from a phone carries a few limitations and it is my only way to post these days. I can't copy and past selected passages, and there are limits to what I'm going to type out.
Are you suggesting that you can command a mount with your knees to do so you couldn't do while using one hand on the reins? Guiding with knees is a rider's ability to substitute knees for a hand to allow that hand to be used in other ways. Guiding with knees grants no command capability that doesn't already exist. It just changes the medium of command.
Fight with a combat trained mount has been discussed in detail. It isn't a free action to order Fluffy to kill. Rather it is a free action for the rider to fight, given that the mount already is doing so.
There is no ride or handle animal check required to move a combat trained mount around during battle. Ride says everything stuff doesn't take a check. You just move where you want.
The issue is with the attack. Handle animal has the attack trick. It requires a move action for a non-companion or other situation where it is a free action.
The fight with war-trained mount section in the ride skill grammatically identifies what you need to do to fight with your mount. "If you direct your war-trained mount to attack...." How does one direct a mount to attack? It says right in Handle Animal how....with a trick. Having done so, "....you can still make your own attack..." How do you do this? You make a Ride check. This usage of the Ride check, the topic of the passage, is a free action. What does it do? It allows you to attack along with your mount, who has been directed to attack via HA.
The idea that the attack at the end of a charge doesn't work to solve the problem vcharge is an integrated action that includes an attack. The animal must be commanded to attack before it can charge. Getting it NOT to attack at the end of a charge actually requires an ADDITIONAL command, the down trick. Likewise, defend doesn't do the job because of the need to issue the active attack that is part of the charge.
The idea that the ride skill replaces the need for varied HA tricks is invented out of whole cloth. It does not exist in the rules. The idea exists because of the nature in which rules are learned, which is mainly from others. We have repeatedly seen the idea of viral rules...where an influential player gets an entire community off on the wrong track via a misunderstanding. This is an example of the same process.
I agree with Ssalarn's position regarding the different role that the rules identify for Handle Animal and Ride. I apologize that this post is long. If you care about the issue, please read it. I know I am pretty wordy.
I also understand that this is an unpopular position. It's my opinion that it stems out of how people want the rules to work rather than how the rules are written. Mounted combat is broken; that word gets thrown around a lot, so to be clear, it doesn't work as written. I think everyone has an idea of how it should work, even if those ideas are not the same. The FAQ seems simple, but when pealed back, it results in more problems than it solves.
Anyone seeking to make mounted combat work has to decide upon compromises that they will make in the rules to some degree. This was the case in 3.5 and it remains the case. Unfortunately, the FAQ is directly at odds with the set of compromises that is the closest thing we have had to date that describes a standard set of compromises, the 3.5 era Rules of the Game articles on mounted combat. ( see my profile for a link.)
Should it work? Yes. Ssalarn has done an excellent job, with an incredible degree of patience, of communicating the disconnect that the FAQ has created in something that should just plain work. The campaign he is on hopefully will result in future changes that will improve the game.
I encourage anyone who is interested in this topic to read the relevant mounted combat rules again, including the ride skill, handle animal skill, mounted comat section, FAQ entries, and related feats, with fresh eyes to see what they really say. Going so will result in additional voices communicating to the developers how bad the problem is, particularly with how the FAQ fits in. The various portions of the mounted combat system do not work together.
The biggest thing that I see in preventing people from seeing the rules as they are written is some variation on, "Handle Animal doesn't figure in when mounted; only the Ride skill matters." This is an invention. It doesn't exist in the rules. It is often supported by readings of the ride check to attack with a mount that relies on reading it differently than the words on the page. This isn't an attack or dome egotistical statement that I'm right and others are wrong. It is a recognition that reading comprehension can be influenced by what we think is fact before we read a passage in question.
It's a messed up area. Defending it as being just fine as is is a disservice to the game and prevents it from being fixed. Thank you for your patience in getting to the end of this post.
James' observation about clipping the ally's square is correct. The 3.5 PHB had a diagram showing it clearly. The language is slightly different, but not in a material way. That said, it is commonly ignored or people are unaware of it, particularly when the corner is clipped by a small amount.
Changing lanes doesn't figure into it.
Mysterious Stranger wrote:
I could see disallowing a 5 foot diagonal step on the basis that you are moving more than 5 feet. When moving diagonally you are actually moving at 2/3 speed rounded down. Each odd square is 5 feet, each even square is 10 feet.
You aren't moving at a reduced speed when moving diagonally. The 5-10-5-10 movement pattern is an approximation of the geometry of triangles. Is a nod to Pythagoras.
In game terms, a single diagonal square is five feet of movement bit isn't 7.5 feet of movement. It is counted this way for all purposes.
You can assuredly make a 5-foot step unless prohibited by a hard corner, terrain, etc. disallowing a 5-foot diagonal step due to the diagonal distance is wholly within the realm of houserules do so if your style of gaming suggests it. The effect is to push the game further toward a slug-fest by further reducing mobility and tactical movement during movement.
Back on page 1 I was asked to to cite unlimited circumstance modifiers were permitted. This merely turned around my request for the +/-2. Not playing the prove a negative game.
This thread has a tone that I have no interest in participating in further and is rapidly on its way to a 1000 post thread merely on the basis of people saying the same thing repeatedly and refusing to acknowledge points. Enjoy.
To the best of my knowledge there is no maximum circumstance modifier that can be applied to a given situation. It's your understanding. Please cite it. I'm happy to learn. Note, I'm not saying it's cool to do whatever, but I don't think it's quantified. While PFS doesn't support houserules,it also doesn't hamstring a GM from applying reasonable modifiers for a circumstance. Please note I'm not making a comment about whether the described example are reasonable.
I'm not sure what you're looking for here. This is the advice forum. If you want rules advice, go to the rules forum. If you want to know how to deal with GM abuse of rules go to the PFS forums.
In 3.5, diplomacy abuse was a problem in organized play. In PF, intimidate seems to have gotten some of that. Social skills killing off combat encounters rarely are dealt with well in organized play, primarily because expectations can vary a lot from person to person. This variance is why the 3e family tried to formalize them; and they still don't work as formalized skills vary well.
If you're looking for advice: building a character that relies on diplomacy or intimidate to walk around combat encounters is not always going to be well received in organized play, regardless of how close to written rules they should be run or what variability is acceptable. If you like playing at the guys tables, then consider a different character that doesn't hit one of his buttons regarding response. You may have more assertive actions you could take, but you've indicated you don't want to, and there is some relationship risk in doing so.