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

Howie23's page

FullStar Pathfinder Society GM. 2,422 posts (2,426 including aliases). 1 review. 1 list. No wishlists. 7 Pathfinder Society characters. 1 alias.


RSS

1 to 50 of 2,422 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
Andoran

In 3.5 days, a) seemed to be well established. Yes, it creates some oddities. It's a necessary application if wanting consistency in how the combat and magic systems interact with the grid.

That said, PF developers have not been so slavish about the grid. The reach weapon diagonal situation comes to mind. How they might weigh in on this question, or how their input ends up being filtered through posters to this thread, then becomes uncertain for me.

I guess, in summary: people approach it in different ways. How an official answer might be worded is a coin toss.

Andoran

One of the more difficult aspects of moving between the two rulesets, particularly if you know one of them well, is that there are lots of small changes that make it difficult to assume what is the same. We're i to provide advice:

1) let yourself be willing to make the character changes first without worrying as much about the other changes immediately.

2) there is a very long thread that focused on things about PF players tend to not know. I did the summary of that thread through the active and more productive early portion. There is a link in my profile to the last summary. While there are a few gems after that summary, the noise to signal ratio rises dramatically after the last summary. It quickly became apparent on that thread that a lot of the suggested topics were due to 3.5 to PF changes. The summary is organized to reflect that. I hope you find it helpful.

3) when I first started playing PF, I went through the 1st level wizard and cantrip lists. That's roughly 45-spells. Of them, IIRC, 18 of them had changes to some degree. Be prepared for this and a constant refrain of "that's different now" as you strive for mastery if the new ruleset.

Andoran

Darthslash wrote:

Wouldn't doing that be basically the same as doing a full round withdrawal action?

No. In what possible way?

Andoran

Useless: has no use.

Magic missile: a first level spell that is a force effect, has no to hit roll and no saving throw. It does damage. These aspects have utility.

QED

Andoran *

Asking for scenario specific access if frowned on. This isn't criticism, it's information. It's a campaign culture thing. If you disagree it don't get it, that's cool. If so, it's a statement of how well you fit into the campaign culture.

As a disclaimer, I support the idea. I just no longer fit into the campaign culture for different reasons, so have stepped out.

Andoran

Deadbeat Doom wrote:
I believe this thread reached an impasse back on the first page; how about we all just FAQ it and move on with our lives?

I don't think it reached an impasse until the Str 0 info, and to an extent, the Dex 0 info was brought in. I looked for them before my initial response because I knew there were some changes from 3.5 and I don't take a lot for granted given all the many small changes. I think the situation is no longer clear; this is a change from my early perspective on this.

I hit the FAQ and encourage it. We have rules that are in some degree of conflict and it gets down to a judgement call and a matter of playstyle, to a lesser extent.

Andoran

Mojorat wrote:
If he's riding the mount they always have shares initiative. However the normal rules as far as I know allow the rider to do an attack anywhere in the mounts movement.

This isn't even true for ranged attacks. Ranged attacks take place at the midpoint of movement. Why do you thing this is true for melee attacks? Have you read the ZrotG articles? Why do you discount them for PF? Why create ambiguity when there is an established standard?

Andoran

I see two disagreements.

Is magical flight a physical action? Some say yes. Some say no. I've explained my reasons for saying no. I see nothing meaningful to dismiss my argument.

Does the word move in the paralysis condition mean the move action or physical mobility? I see this as physical mobility: moving your body, not moving in space. The condition clearly states purely mental activities are possible. There is no restriction on actions. I have seen nothing to argue against this other than asertations.

Andoran

NoStrings wrote:
You cannot fly while paralyzed. The fly skill is dexterity based, which means that using it requires physical movement to use. I would rule that a character in that situation hovers in place, subject to winds, etc.

The Fly skill is Dexterity based. The fly spell is not. You can use the fly spell without having ranks in the Fly skill. The Fly skill only comes into play when performing complex manouvers. If doing so when paralyzed, you would use your modified Dex score of 0, as defined in the Paralyzed section.

Edit: the statement that a Dex based skill requires physical movement is false. It often does, but not always. It also is defined as involving reflexes. When dealing with magical flight, the Dex based element can be seen as the reflex or reaction to the conditions of flight, to judging distances and the like, all while staying within the non physical movement realm.

Andoran

LazarX wrote:
Howie23 wrote:

Yes, you can move through space under a fly spell while paralyzed.

The paralyzed condition says you cannot move or act. It goes on to say you can take purely mental action.

The fly spell says it takes as much concentration as walking. This refers to the need of some spells that require concentration, which in itself is a standard action. So, the fact that it refers to walking shouldn't be seen as really having to do with movement per se.

What is walking? It's movement. If you're paralyzed you can't do ANY form of movement, you're essentially shut down from any voluntary physical action. If you're hit with paralysis while flying, you immediately assume the aerodynamic characteristics of a brick, whether you're using wings, or magical flight.

I disagree. My argument was in the paragraph immediately after the section you cited.

Andoran

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Spell components strictly are aspects of generating the spell effect at the time of casting, not for controlling the spell after it is cast.

Without confirming specific components for another spell, if bull strength has a somantic component, would you expect that the caster, much less the recipient, had to make said movements through out its duration? I thing it might make for an amusing aspect of the game, but it would be a different game. Fun to play at midnight of a convention. A great in-game special magical zone effect, etc. but, this isn't part of the standard game's ruleset.

Andoran

No. The variable numerical squares are specific to the spell, not other quantities that are generated by encapsulated game mechanics. Likewise, you can't use a maximized true strike to get an 20 on an attack roll, or to ensure that summoned creatures always get a 20 on their attacks.

Andoran

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Democratus wrote:

"A paralyzed character is frozen in place and unable to move or act."

You can't act. So you can't take a Move Action.

This is taken out of context. The condition goes on to say you can take solely mental actions. You could, for example, use a standard action to continue concentrating on a spell, or to cast a spell that did not require components or only required material components that were already in hand.

Andoran

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Yes, you can move through space under a fly spell while paralyzed.

The paralyzed condition says you cannot move or act. It goes on to say you can take purely mental action.

The fly spell says it takes as much concentration as walking. This refers to the need of some spells that require concentration, which in itself is a standard action. So, the fact that it refers to walking shouldn't be seen as really having to do with movement per se.

Magical flight generally is assumed to not require physical activity by most people. In other words, control of the spell seems to be a solely mental activity. The prohibition on moving in the paralyzed condition reasonably refers to physical motions of the body, not the game term related to movement through space.

So, you can move through physical space solely by mental action.

Edit: cleaned up auto correct error and edited brain-o to "...solely mental activity..."

Andoran

Nice. *Slow applause*

Andoran

If new to mounted combat, and this seems to be implied by the language of the post, re-read, or read for the first time, the rules section on mounted combat. Read the FAQ sections on mounted combat, on tripping and other manouvers. The FAQ isn't the best FAQ I've ever seen, but it applies to your situation.

While there are some differences between 3.5 and PF, and even more so following the recent charge FAQ, the 3.5 Rules of the Game articles are helpful. This can be viewed more as a system of interpretation than an explanation of clear rules, but the mounted combat rules are not particularly clear to start with. They require interpretation, and these are the closest thing to to a standard system of interpretation. There is a link to the articles in my profile.

A) you can use any manouvers that don't require your personal movement. Tripping is fine. Bull rush isn't. In PF, you can use any weapon to trip. In 3.5 the weapon must have the tripping property. As a matter of play style, a group might opt to change this for mounted combat based upon the situation. For example, tripping with a dagger while mounted on an elephant might not really work to some people.

B) This one is a bit odd. In 3.5, you clearly provoke. In PF, you don't provoke for involuntary movement, such as a bull rush. The rider's movement on a mount is much more akin to voluntary movement than involuntary movement. To my thinking, while this is grey, the rider is subject to an AoO during a mount's spring attack.

C) see the Rules of the game article for a system for how to handle this. You and your mount share initiative. That's a weird thing. It isn't necessarily either/or. A readied action ends your turn. Since you share initiative, it ends your mount's turn as well. The condition that triggers your readied action cannot happen during your turn. This isn't stated. Rather it is a natural implication of the readied action ending your turn. You would not be able to execute the desired action as described following this logic.

D) as others have said, delay. You cannot delay if your mount is acting since you share initiative.

********

The mounted combat rules are not good. There are a lot of grey areas. Others may disagree.

Andoran

"Post your WTF moments from the weekend. "

It was autocorrect fail.

Andoran

blahpers wrote:
Quote:
Post your WStF mom enemy's from the weekend.
??? Autocorrect tomfoolery?

Exactly.

Andoran

I've noticed a trend. Monday Mornings bring basic rules questions. That's cool. We see new stuff over the weekend, and some if it is basic to the game. This thread is based on the premise that we all have basic stuff to learn about the game. Post your WStF mom enemy's from the weekend.

Andoran

Wraith covered what I was referring to. My apologies for referring to it by shorthand in a manner hat caused confusion.

Andoran

I don't think I can support this cleanly with references, but I think the answer is that it doesn't stack with itself.

There is the general rule on magic effect interactions that effects from the same source don't stack.

There is the specific rule or ruling, this is the one that I can't cite, that fear effects from the same source don't stack. I believe this has come up previously related to intimidation builds.

Andoran

No. You can squeeze past a creature, but cannot end up in a position at the end of movement in a space where the squeeze is the result of creatures.

This is different than squeezing in a space resulting from walls or other non-creature limiting borders.

I can't cite or copy text on my phone, but the reference text is the short paragraph in the squeezing section regarding squeezing past creatures, but not ending in the same space.

Andoran

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I've FAQed this, both of the first two posts. I'll let the devs figure out what's important. This area is long overdue to be addressed, and I welcome the carnage caused by the current FAQ as a mechanism to address it.

It should work. This is the pithiest thing that Dan be said about it behaving attempted to tackle it a few times myself, I totally appreciate that it's a tough subject to handle. Please do so anyway.

Andoran

4 people marked this as a favorite.

On the topic of the relevance of 3.5 to PF: I understand this perspective and it has become more common as the player base has migrated from 3.5 players who have adopted 3.5 to players who are new to d20 via 3.5.

However: my post was in response to people posting that this wasn't an issue in 3.5. It was. It was just one that was poorly understood, had not changed, and yet the FAQ makes worse. The fact is that the PF rules are based on the 3.5 rules. Mounted combat is an area that has very little change from those rules, other than through various FAQ entries. The distance grows as time goes on. And, while some players don't have 3.5 experience, many do. Highlighting the problems in this area of the rules, and indicating that the problem goes back to 3.5 days, serves to point out that this is a long standing problem. For me, personally, having a deep understanding of how problematic the 3.5 mounted combat rules were, the lack of addressing them in PF was a big disappointment. I understood why: they are obscure.

For everyone saying this is a non problem: look at the text. See the problem instead of projecting your own assumptions. Call for change. Call for a better game.

Andoran

2 people marked this as a favorite.

With respect to HA when charging being new in response to charging: no, it isn't new , as I've indicated. I haven't provided links, but the reference is there for people who want to look into it. Whether Ssalarn has changed his stance is immaterial to that point. He's serving as the point person on this discussion. His personal position is irrelevant, as is whether he's changed his position. The rules text is what is material. The entire area of mounted combat, which is a bastard child of the rules, is poorly understood. Ssalarn's observation that it is easier to run the less it is understood is dead on. The FAQ merely brings it into focus. This is a good thing.

We're talking about an area of the rules where SKR, one of the designers of 3.5 as well as PF, acknowledged years ago that he was effectively using the 3.0 version of the rules, even within the PF era, much less the 3.5 era. I don't have the link handy, but it's in this forum on the topic of Ride By Attack.

Getting an animal to move requires no action requires no action. Getting an animal to attack requires an HA skill check. A charge is a special action to attack. An animal charging therefore requires an HA check to attack. The Ride skill does not obviate this; the Ride check to attack with a mount has to do with the rider's ability to attack along with the mount. It doesnt address the requirement for the mount's attack at all. These are the RAW.

How did we get to this point where we have an FAQ that makes stuff impossible that shouldn't be? Simply put, the designers inherited the rules and don't personally play in a style that requires intense knowledge of this area. Mounted combat rarely comes up on everyday games. It DOES come up in PFS, where specialized builds are common. Your experience may be different. Mine is not. In LG days, I had a handout that I provided to players for mounted combat because the subject was so poorly understood. Talking about it highlights the problem, so that it can be addressed. This is a good thing. It will result in a better game. What we are dealing with right now is just the transition. Saying that there is no problem just perpetuates a problem that has existed since 2003 and needs to be addressed. Digging your heals in and saying that this isn't an issue is counterproductive.

Andoran

1 person marked this as a favorite.

To the question as to whether there has ever been prior discussion about Handle Animal while riding: Yes, there has. I've been involved in a number of these conversations going back to 2005. It was discussed on the old Infinite Monkeys yahoo group as well as in the the WotC forums. For those who saw my post in the PFS forum saying that the FAQ was opening a new can of worms, the handle animal check for charging is one of the things I had in mind.

It's an often overlooked area, but in a lot of groups so is Handle Animal for companions as well. And, the perspective that Ride substitutes for HA or otherwise is the only needed skill when mounted is common; I'm pretty sure that there is a JJ post from a few years ago that says this, for example.

Mounted Combat has always been a problem. The FAQ brings focus on it and by formally saying its both mount and rider who are charging, it kills the wiggle room that has been there before. Similarly with the problem for when mount and rider have different reach.

Andoran

Andrew Christian wrote:
Explain how it opens anything up?

Most of the things I would talk about are already being discussed in the vital strike thread in the rules forum. I won't be duplicating that discussion.

Andoran

I'll be happy to in the rules forum, but am traveling today and tomorrow.

Andoran

While I think this is consistent with the rules, codifying it in this manner opens up a good sized can of worms in a number of areas. It kinda removes debate from one Point and opens it up in several others. I'll be interested how this plays out on the rules forums.

Andoran

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Dwarf.

Andoran

For those with an interest in terrain based tactics and differences, there are options for limits or penalties for some weapons, based on effort grouping and damage type. While most of this would fall in houserules territory, there is also a system written up in WotC's Drow of the Underdark. While a 3.5 publication, this section for dealing with confined spaces is completely compatible.

Andoran

For those new to this thread, my profile has a link to the last time I summarized it. Starting from there gets you everything prior, although there may be some elements that are now obsolete due to subsequent rulings.

Andoran

Adding noise as a penalty for failure or changing the DC to reflect trying to do it silently is houserules territory and that part of the discussion belongs there.

Attempting to do activity silently sounds to me like a Stealth check. Depending on the nature of the mechanism, it could opposed vs perception, maybe a slill ossiciated with the maker of the device, or vs a fixed DC. For example, if a counterweight is being disengaged and will make a noise when this occurs, stealth isn't going to prevent that, although the noise itself may not be heard by an observer. This could be very situational and or plot driven and really gets to a matter of play style.

In general, breaking down an activity into multiple checks is the way to go, but be very careful of how the probability of multiple events decreases success dramatically.

Andoran

The mounted combat rules are not well written.

This may not give you everything you want, but the 3.5 Rules of the Game articles are pretty good for mounted combat, and most of it carries over into PF. There is a link in my profile.

Andoran

A swift action is not just a lesser action. Swift actions were introduced as a special form of Free Actions, along with immediate actions. It is it's own class of action. I disagree with the idea that there should be an official rule to change the substitution. If nothing else, there are a wide range of swift actions that have been placed as such with the knowledge that there is only one allowed per round as a design decision.

Regardless of whether the situation in the OP can be resolved with a liberal reading of the word can, if there is a problem in the ability's change from a move to a swift action, it is a problem with the ability, not the action economy. We're the language to read "...can use a move or swift action to..." It would solve the problem with the ability at question to everyone's satisfaction without rewriting a fundamental aspect of the action system that has been around since 2003-4.

Andoran

If you are new to mounted combat read the the 3.5 Rules of the Game articles on the WotC website. While they don't carry over entirely, they do to a large extent. There is a link in my profile.

Andoran

A crit doesn't always hit. A natural 20 always hits. For example, if a creature is using a long sword at +4 vs AC 24, a roll of 19 is in the crit range but it still missed. If he rolls a 20, it hits and threatens a crit. If he then rolls another 20 to confirm, it is a crit. If it doesn't confirm, it is just a normal hit.

Andoran

Errors happen. The general rule in determining which takes precedence is that text supersedes table.

Andoran

Domain spells that normally appear on the arcane spell list only, for example burning hands, are divine spells when cast by a divine caster. That the spell description shows the spell as only being on one or more arcane spell lists is immaterial.

Andoran

Ignore my FAQ. I had a phone fail.

Andoran

larsenex wrote:
Howie23, you must be a certain DM I gamed with here in Ventura County. I am glad to see you again! Oh and you played with him before Howie....

Yeah, that's me. I didn't even notice your screen name. Just threaten to roleplaying a little light dinner conversation on the nature if good and evil if he keeps arguing stuff that is unambiguous. Should solve the problem one way or another. ;)

Andoran

ZeroCharisma wrote:


Also, Enlarge Person definitely doesn't work on outsiders, giants, etc. It explicitly states "one humanoid creature"

Close. It doesn't work on outsiders, but does work on giants. Giants are type Humanoid (giant) in PF, not a type of their own as they were in 3.5.

So, while his tactic doesn't work for him, it does work for the NPC ogre or cloud giant they are about to encounter. ;)

Andoran

It gives a grittier feel to combat and puts more emphasis on combined arms. It probably needs some play testing for concentration, AoOs, counter spelling, etc.

I like the general idea, and it's a bit of a throwback to the segment based casting times of ie AD&D.

Andoran

You may explicitly take a 5 foot step (not an action) as part of a readied action, as long as you did not previously move and the readied action itself does not involve movement.

Andoran

Whether he wears boarding or armor is immaterial. Barding is just a name for armor worn by animals. A creature can wear boarding or armor, as appropriate to their form, with or without proficiency. Without proficiency, the non-proficiency penalties applies.

Andoran

There is no limit to the number of summoning spells a caster can cast other than as limited by spell slots and/or other class abilities, as has been indicated by others. Most summoned creatures do not require and commands to control them, unless doing something other than attacking foes.

Spiritual ally is not a summoning spell at all. Summoning spells have their own set of general rules, which to not apply to evocation spells, such as spiritual ally or spiritual weapon. There is no limit inherent to the spell regarding how many of these spells can be active at one time. Unlike summons, this spell does, however, require an action to move. This means that the tactical situation may influence how useful multiple castings are.

The rules basis for all of this is covered in the Magic chapter, under the heading Combing Magical Effects. In summary, spells don't interfere with each other unless as specified. None of the exceptions apply to OP's questions.

This all said, as a matter of procedure, not rule, a GM might choose to limit how many summoned creatures, spiritual allies, etc. might be allowed to be active at a given time. Reasons for this might include pace of play, player rules familiarity, etc. such procedural limitations are a matter of gaming style, not rules.

Andoran

An animal with Int 3+ can take any feat it is physically capable of using. That is in the animal companion section. If the animal is only physically capable when under the effect of the spell , it is a judgement call on part of the GM.

Andoran

Attacks of Opportunity aren't actions in this sense. Some free actions are taken with other actions, but not all. Dropping prone, for example, is a free action. I think it's a tough argument to make to say that you can't take a free action out of your turn, but can do so if also taking an AoO.

Andoran

In general, actions can only be taken on your turn. Free actions are actions. Thus, free actions can only be taken on your turn.

Free actions can also be the action designated by a readied action. And, as others have mentioned, speaking is an exception.

A number of abilities, for example giants catching thrown rocks, call for a free action and only really happen when it is someone else's turn. These are difficult to reconcile without also treating them as implied exceptions.

Andoran

1 person marked this as a favorite.

My take on the hit roll and damage roll is that these are separate events at the game table as a matter of game mechanics. They are not separate events in the game world. At the time a creature is hit, it is also damaged, and takes the other possible effects of that hot, and possible effects of the damage.

A character hit into negative HP or death is no longer able to cast a spell.

My experience is that this isn't a particularly popular position, not on the basis of the rationale, but on the basis of not liking the consequences of it. YMMV

1 to 50 of 2,422 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 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.