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.
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
N N 959 wrote:
Logic dictates it should be either 10, or 10 + CR of lowest CR creature in that Creature Type. I have yet to find it addressed by RAW.
This was part of the monster knowledge system that was introduced late in D&D 3.5, maybe in MM IV. Helpful for those who see PF as the successor to D&D. Those of the school that see PF as its own game are on their own.
The information given can vary widely from GM to GM. What's demonstrated in this thread is that there is a lot of variance, sometimes by not knowing the rules, due to intentionally avoiding giving information (effectively a house rule), or by creative interpretation about what is useful.
From OP's post, it sounds like he's giving more than one piece of useful information for a simple success. Success for monster knowledge is scaled. Using the DC 22 example, 22 gives an ID and a single piece if info. 27 gives a second piece if info. 32 is required for a third.
For some GMs, ID includes type and related traits common to all creatures of that type. For others, it is just a name. Additional pieces of information are determined by the GM, including how extensive. For one GM, a single additional point might be all special attacks, while for another it is only one. For simple creatures, low checks will give full knowledge for many GMs, just because there isn't a lot to give.
Personally, I find the game more interesting when characters are discovering information, often partial info, and acting on it, rather that keeping them in the dark.
Magic Missile is an attack, I don't see a viable argument against that.
I see two possible arguments against the trait working against magic missile in this instance, neither of which are conclusive.
Magic missile strikes unerringly. The trait changes the target of an attack. These are both specific rules. These are in conflict. The question then becomes which succeeds. There isn't a clear answer. A mechanism to resolve this is an opposed check of some sort. This mechanism is spelled out in D&D 3.5. I don't know if it is in PF, but is at least implied in the opposed Cha checks when some spells are in conflict. For PF, this resolution may fall into house rule territory.
The second may come down to a game style matter. As described in the OP, the trait was activated after the attack was resolved, to the point that the original target was dropped. An immediate action can be taken at any time, but can't be taken in the past. An ability like this places some demand on playstyle regarding GM announcing the attack and resolution. Did the player have an opportunity to interrupt before the original target dropped? Accommodating this kind of ability either takes a willingness to modify the normal flow of events, or compromise how closely to follow a linear sequence of actions.
I'm not a fan of these sorts of abilities. They put pressure on second guessing whether the ability would be used if the outcome was not already known when used in the normal flow of the game.
Character 2 can certainly have this goal. His world is not limited by PFS. When he has the necessary resources, he can spend them as he likes. His redirected brother can then be alive again. Some of this may have to happen outside of PFS, and character 1 is never eligible to play in PFS again. Nothing stopping the resurrection to be in the backstory of character 3 (a newly created level 1 char with the same exact stats as char 1), tho.
Mechanically from the campaign's perspective, char 1 is dead and won't see a PFS table again. Char 2 accumulates resources and then voluntarily abandons them. Char 3 is a new PFS char.
The rules are not provided only for PCs, but for the game world as a whole.
The design of a given campaign to exclude down time, or to pace events at such a time as to limit down time is a campaign specific decision, not a game based decision. Many feats, class ability choices, and other rules resources can be rendered ineffective based ion campaign specific choices.
Pathfinder was originally marketed mainly to to D&D 3.5 players as an improved 3.5. It is based on the SRD 3.5 rules, without the addition of the D&D 3.5 specific examples and clarifying language, and with intentional changes, additions, and omissions from the SRD 3.5. During the early days, it embraced that history with the marketing phrase, "3.5 Thrives!" As it established it's own position, it has moved away from emphasizing that history, with the developers saying they are different games.
SRD 3.5, on it's own, has gaps. In publishing D&D 3.5 from the SRD, WotC plugged some of those gaps with clarifying language and examples. Through the 5 year history of publishing and supporting D&D 3.5, it plugged other gaps and provided additional clarifying languages, rulings, and suggestions through the Rules of the Game articles, Sage Advice (which largely served as the source for the D&D FAQ), errata, Rules Compendium, etc. All of this additional insight and rules coverage was a value added layer that materially improved players' understanding of the game. It made a better game from the original SRD.
Paizo effectively picked up SRD 3.5 c. 2003, made intentional changes, and excluded all of the additional clarifying language, rulings, etc. that was added to to the SRD 3.5 to make the game that was D&D 3.5 in 2008. This was a necessary process given the nature of the development of PF for many reasons. The decision to follow this necessary process was intentional. On a macro scale, this was an intentional decision. On a micro scale, though, these are not individual intentional decisions, and they have consequences that have sometimes been unintended.
When PF is missing rules coverage, and yet that coverage is provided in the the layer that created mature D&D 3.5 out of the SRD, I use that material. I use it to provide insight into the intent of the rules. I do not treat it as PF RAW. As the player base has changed from what was originally nearly 100% D&D 3.5 players to a current base where many never played 3.5, I have changed my expectations that others necessarily see this as reasonable. When I tap the D&D 3.5 layer, I try to clearly point it out; this allows those of like mind to understand where it comes from while allowing those who reject the D&D 3.5 layer wholesale to reject what I have to say for their own understanding.
I suspect that the vast majority of players who came from 3.5 tap that D&D 3.5 layer, and that the vast majority of those who reject the D&D 3.5 layer either never played 3.5 or were not seriously invested in the game. We use the tools we have, and everyone has a different toolkit.
I suspect that there are few players who were heavily invested in 3.5 that, when faced with an area that isn't adequately addressed in PF, but which is addressed in the D&D 3.5 layer, knowingly reject the coverage from that layer, unless they actively didn't like what the layer provided in the first place.
However this works out, a key idea in modern RPGs is to avoid "gotcha" moments. Such moments reinforce a GM-as-adversary relationship and undermine player trust.
Foreshadowing prior to an encounter with a black dragon (a found body with destroyed/ruined alchemical equipment), foreshadowing whatever crunch is being introduced regarding catalyst quantities and/or storage, advance knowledge (whether via training, knowledge skills, reference materials found in game, etc.) all have the effect of engaging the Alchemist in the challenge, allowing preparation of alternate tactics and possible preventative measures (extradimensional storagage of materials?). It allows the party to decide whether the encounter is worth the risk and/or additional challenge.
Whether devaluing class abilities, whether this situation, spellbook destruction, weird magic zones, etc. is a problem to a given playing group is a matter of play style. I personally have no problem with it, with the caveat that it is presented in a way that doesn't involve this gotcha kinda moment. Others have different opinions, sometimes strongly so.
I know this is a rules discussion, but the consequences of rule choices are an important aspect of such discussions, and when played out in game rather than employed through "gotcha" methods, can result in a more vibrant world view, more extensive engagement with the game world rather than the game books, and a more robust gaming experience. Whether that is interesting and desired for any particular gamer and/or gaming group is another story.
In other words, you can attack the same target more than once with an attack of opportunity, but the AoO must be sparked from a different source. I can't attack the same target for taking 2 move actions and walking around me in a circle with 60 movement speed, but I can attack them if they fire an arrow in melee, then again if they move away from me.
They have to be different opportunities, and they cannot both be provoked merely by movement. Other opportunities can provoke more than once. If an opponent makes multiple ranged attacks, each one provokes.
Breath of Life leaves some holes that require some adjudication. For example, it would not help with death by Constitution damage/drain, which is neither death by HP loss nor a death effect. It isn't a case of either/or. There are not only two ways to die.
Having made the ruling the BoL wouldn't work (regardless of whether the BoL ruling was correct), I think he was correct in allowing the raise dead.
Whether the BoL would work or not vs. the failed Fort save used in CdG is in one of the previously mentioned holes, thus requiring adjudication. I do not think that it is clear that the character is at 53hp and dead after the failed save. I think it is more consistent with other areas of the rules (such as the glossary on Death Attacks, somewhat ironically) that the character is at -Con and dead after the failed save, with BoL being capable of preventing the death.
Given the need to rule at the table, I can't fault the GM's decisions on this. It's an unclear area of the rules.
One of the rules that I believed in, bringing over from d&d 3.5 (I know, stupid of me.) is that you can't attack the same person twice if they provoke you twice.
The AoO rules for 3.5 and PF work the same. As in PF, the only prohibition on multiple AoOs on the same target in 3.5 is w/respect to movement.
The PF restriction on tripping a flying creature treats flying as a verb, not an adjective. If a creature is capable of flight, but is standing, it can be tripped. A creature incapable of standing, such as a winged snake, cannot be tripped. The basis of this is inherent to game's meanings of tripping, standing, and prone.
I know of no rules based requirement for a flier to be standing prior to flight. Justification for such a requirement is outside the scope of the rules and gets into play style. It basically sees a leg thrust as being a requirement to become airborne, that wings require some space, or the like.
Games with such requirements logically need to desl with many additional factors as judgement calls, and run into multiple arguments based on personal experience. Examples include things like movement of a large die bat in a 10 foot corridor, use of some weapons in confined spaces, etc. Magic vs natural flight may enter into such a discussion. A game played under such a style is certainly playable and enjoyable for those who go in for it, but generate challenges for short running games.
The game limits tripping to a creature that is standing. It's somewhat biased this way, particularly given the lack of related manouvers to disrupt movement by fliers, swimmers, etc. 3.5 dealt with this differently, and in my mind, was better for it. This isn't an edition war statement, the lack in PF is more a matter of ink and space, methinks.
Which I did not do.
DM Beckett wrote:
You may explicitly do so while charging, as long as the movement doesn't exceed your move speed. See charging in combat chapter.
Sir Thugsalot wrote:
Scrolls and wands of enlarge person are both full round casting times.
OP wants to be large 24/7 for a non combat reason of some sort.
I'm super thrilled they finally got around to it. Now we just need to find out how to make weapons out of multiple materials, whether or not a Dwarven Waraxe can be all metal, and how to price out a Klar.
Multiple materials: no, albeit not very logical. Eligible swaps are based upon primary material of construction. This may not be spelled out universally for all materials, leaving loopholes/exploits.
All metal: no. Same reason.
Klar: no clue.
No. In 3.5, the table entry for enlarge potion was 250gp due to a copy paste problem from 3e, in which CL5 was required to get the full benefit. Potions of lesser restoration, for example, had no greater cost despite taking a 3r casting time.
I would recommend not posting things here unless you are absolutely sure on them. Doubly so for things that seem odd.
The rule we used in the two year old thread that Cheapy started and I summarized in the link above was along the lines if: "If there is disagreement that is more than error followed by correction, make a new thread and link to it. Worked well in the active period of that thread with some reminders.
BBT, I still have the Word file that I used for that list. If it would be helpful as a starting point for you, PM me an email and I'll send it.
One thing I am wondering is why there are no rage powers for barbarians which lets them 'hulk up' during a rage. It almost seems sacrilegious to omit those.
Barbarian rage powers are all (Ex), at least in the CRB. (Ex) abilities are non-magical. Physically growing larger tends to scream magic.
I'm sure that there are counter examples of rage powers that are either not (Ex), are which also seems like it should scream magic; I'm not a rules resource encyclopedia kinda guy. Maybe enlarge gets more scrutiny when suggested by authors because it is a pretty powerful melee buff that can be leveraged through other rules resources as well.
I don't GM much for PFS after DMing a lot in LG and LFR (the latter as a proportion...left early). In LG I DMed 3-4 sessions for every one I played. In LFR, it was about even. In PFS, it's been about 1session GMed for every 3 played; more like 1:6 in recent times.
The reasons are varied. Some of it has to do with real life stuff, and some of it is campaign specific, which I won't go into.
Take a break. There is a wide range of options between GM-everything and GM nothing. Just about everyone goes through down periods re: GMing. Take a break, play, play non-PFS stuff, and re-evaluate.
Play what you love, and live what you play.
The proposed FAQ creates an unnecessary complexity.
If adopted, a clear rule becomes convoluted and baroque. Instead of unspecified=in typed, it becomes untyped if not specified, unless derived from a trait bonus, in which case unspecified=trait. Not particularly condusive to game mastery.
Edit: edit splice fail. Sigh.
And yet we already have a clear rule. Bonus types are unruled unless otherwise specified.
If the rules don't work the way you want them, change them. If the rules are clear, no need for a FAQ. Not liking them doesn't make them unclear.
Edit: bad word choice fixed.
This isn't how I would describe the 1e rule.
Time in 1e was 100 segments= 10 rounds= 1 turn= 10 minutes. Combat was conducted in rounds; characters acted 1/minute in combat. Each spell had a casting time, usually in segments.
The problem was that 1e never spelled out how segments related to action order in a round, or how other related concepts might fit in.
To add this concept in PF, maybe a smooth fit would be spells going off a number of initiative counts later equal to spell level. It's a bit of a kludge, because rounds don't have a fixed number of initiative counts. It would also require some additional rules for swift spells and maybe some corner cases. It would make some big tactical changes.
It would also suggest parsing down when the attacks of a full attack come in and has effectively dial acted the time scale. There is a complexity here that would kinda big things down.
Which has nothing to do with what I said.
Edited to remove an unnecessary statement.