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. 2,560 posts (2,564 including aliases). 1 review. 1 list. No wishlists. 7 Pathfinder Society characters. 1 alias.


RSS

1 to 50 of 2,560 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
Liberty's Edge

Avoron wrote:
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.

Liberty's Edge

Spells end. Supernatural abilities should end but this isn't specified.

See the summoning sub school description.

Liberty's Edge

2 people marked this as a favorite.

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?

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Gauss' answer appears correct to a more abstract reading of the rules, Dave's more accurate to the concrete approach to what is going on.

Liberty's Edge

Did anyone else read Snorter's post and then Louis' post, without noting that Louis was citing a third post?

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

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.

Liberty's Edge

[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.

Liberty's Edge

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.

Liberty's Edge

It's a messed up area of the rules. I prefer using the mounted combat Rules of the Game articles in my profile.

Liberty's Edge

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.

Liberty's Edge

Familiar, yes.

Animal companion Int 1-2: not without trick or Push.

Animal companion Int 3+: all bets are off on concensus.

Liberty's Edge *

Your friend has options for how to rebuild a character. Posing that this be moved to the PFS group.

Liberty's Edge

Why doesn't everyone use spiked gaunlets: in part because the glavor of them don't work for some people's sense of immersion.

Liberty's Edge

I'm always amused when someone asks a question, but really already has an opinion and wants to argue it. I'll cop to having done it before, albeit not recently.

Granting an extraordinary ability that heals someone is healing. It doesn't say just cure spells or similar restricted language.

Liberty's Edge

It's been an issue for archers as well. I think the FAQ should cover it....it's the same language just for a different item.

Liberty's Edge

2 people marked this as a favorite.

It's not covered in the rules. There is no RAW answer.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Eridan wrote:
Quote:
Moving out of more than one square threatened by the same opponent in the same round doesn’t count as more than one opportunity for that opponent. All these attacks are at your full normal attack bonus.
Please keep in mind that every 'Move' action provokes an AoO. So if you use two move actions to circles around and enemy you provoke two AoO, one for each move action.

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.

Liberty's Edge

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.

Liberty's Edge

RumpinRufus wrote:
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.

Liberty's Edge

The monster is 10 feet away. The Samurai cannot attack 10 feet away. The Samurai cannot attack the monster.

The rule on big creatures and cover only refers to determining cover, not whether the target is a valid target.

Liberty's Edge

No.

Liberty's Edge

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.

Liberty's Edge

Zhayne wrote:
Chess Pwn wrote:
divine casters are awesome in that they can unproficiently wear heavy armors and their spells aren't effected at all.
They still suffer the nonproficiency penalty on attack rolls with spells.

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.

Liberty's Edge

Marc Radle wrote:
Woops - I did ineed miss that!

Same rule as in 3.5, Marc, although often subject to error there, too.

Liberty's Edge

Note that archetypes that give up spellcasting cannot use wands without UMD, though.

Liberty's Edge

graystone wrote:
Nefreet wrote:
Human Fighter wrote:
If anyone has RAW insight as far as how PFS should rule this with extending table variation, I'd love that. GM agreed it could fit, but making up arbritrary rules to damage it doesn't seem cool.

Blackbloodtroll beat me to it, but if you're interested in the "rules as written", and interested in avoiding table variation, it's best to go off of the items listed in the Wrist Sheath description. That will cause you the least grief.

Which means no potions, and no scrolls.

That's not entirely true.

"Flask Thrower: This weapon resembles a halfling sling staff, except that the cradle at the end is designed to hold and hurl flasks as well as stones or bullets."

So flasks can fall under ammo.

"Alternatively, you may store up to 1 pound of ammunition in a wrist sheath."

So 1 pound of flasks may be stored in a wrist sheath by RAW.

Logic doesn't really work this way. A flask can be used in a flask thrower. It doesn't make it ammunition, with all of ammunition's characteristics. That is over generalizing.

If you want to house rule it that way, go ahead.

Liberty's Edge *

Reach weapons extend the reach of of the user. 3.5 had a FAQ entry that provided the additional requirement that the weapon be appropriately sized. PF doesn't have that. This puts it in wonky-land.

Liberty's Edge

Avatar-1 wrote:
I can't say I'm not curious as to what happened in pre 3rd edition when you drank multiple potions?

Pre 3e stuff tended to have a bunch of stuff that was "gotcha" style material that would often be considered "DM is a dick" material to many of today's players.

Liberty's Edge

Rikkan wrote:
Here is the 3.5 version.

Note that this is an April Fool's Day article. :)

Liberty's Edge

Monster Ronster wrote:
Well, is my face red. Thanks for the clarifications!

I don't recall....is face turning red on the 1e chart? ;)

Liberty's Edge

Yes, you can have a weapon deliver frost and fire. Some people object based on background in other games or due to a sense of aesthetics about their view of how things should be. There is no issue from a rules perspective.

Liberty's Edge *

Merisal The Risen wrote:
Howie23 wrote:


I withdraw my objection. I was responding to the quoted text. Thanks for the sarcasm.

Sorry I'm british and resort to sarcasm far too easily

My intention was to belittle the argument not the arguer if it came across otherwise my sincere apologies

I love some sarcasm from time to time, albeit less so as more hairs in my beard turn grey. Thanks for the apology, and good gaming!

Liberty's Edge *

Merisal The Risen wrote:
Howie23 wrote:

I think the phrase "as appropriate" is being misunderstood. It refers to whether the item will be consumed or donned. It doesn't say use the item will be used as appropriately based upon the item's function. Rather, it compels the target to drink or don the item.

If you hand the target a drum, he doesn't try to play the drum; he puts it on his head (donning the item) rather than trying to drink the drum.

So the later text of the spell when gives an example of wielding a sword must be wrong because that is neither donning or consuming said sword

I withdraw my objection. I was responding to the quoted text. Thanks for the sarcasm.

Liberty's Edge *

I think the phrase "as appropriate" is being misunderstood. It refers to whether the item will be consumed or donned. It doesn't say use the item will be used as appropriately based upon the item's function. Rather, it compels the target to drink or don the item.

If you hand the target a drum, he doesn't try to play the drum; he puts it on his head (donning the item) rather than trying to drink the drum.

Liberty's Edge

Master of Shadows wrote:

Wow, My thread is over 185 posts, and has already received some Moderation because of folks losing their cool! keep up the discussion guys we'll reach 200 posts yet!

There is a lot of circular logic going around. I personally think that a little more crystal clarity would be helpful, to me and the groups I play in. I also wish the abilities that were intended to be once per round abilities were written as such rather than using swift actions as a crutch for laziness of design. All actions should be able to be traded up for slower actions (at an always 1:1 ratio regardless of relative scale in order to prevent abuse). this just makes so much sense that many folks simply assume its included in the rules even when we discover to our surprise in a later reading that woops, its not.

If you feel as I do, then click FAQ, if you don't, don't.

I will be happy to click FAQ on threads that address the multiple questions brought up here and which are presented in the format requested by the development team in the sticky post.

Liberty's Edge

You make the decision when the attack attempt is announced, before the result is know.

You make the decision on behalf of the character. The character knows nothing about the roll. The character responds to the attack by attempting to dodge it. He doesn't wait for the attack to land to them decide if he dodges.

Would it be more effective to know the result first? Yes. It's still effective as written.

Is this totally clear? I understand why some might see it differently. There is a bit of prior expectation that goes into this. I could see others look at it differently in terms of style of play.

Liberty's Edge

I think lines are kinda drawn on this and suggest an interested party review the FAQ format sticky and post separate posts on:

1) direct substitution of a swift for a standard and/ or move;

2) use of a readied action to use a second swift in the same round;

3) ability to opt to use a standard or move when a class ability or other rules resource "improves" the action economy tequirement to a swift.

Liberty's Edge

Readying an action doesn't change initiative. Executing the readied action does. Some folks are talking past each other.

Liberty's Edge

2 people marked this as a favorite.

There is no general rule about trading actions down on some ordinal hierarchy. There are specific action exchanges that are spelled out. No FAQ is needed about this. Of you want the rule to be different, houserule it to be different.

The option to ready a an action to take a swift action was added by Paizo to the 3.5 SRD when making PF; it didn't exist in 3.5, as the swift action was not part of the SRD. The ready swift option coexists with the limit on one swift action. To ready a swift action, you have to have a swift action available.

I don't think there's really confusion on the rule, there is dissatisfaction.

Liberty's Edge

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I believe it involved fatal walrus beachings due to loss of polar ice, which in turn is due to global warming. This in turn, (sigh) according to many American politicians of the Republican Party, is due to a spell of the illusion school, Gore's Inconvenient Truth.

Given that the spellcasting abilities of this archetype of the Politician class are limited to spells of the bull pucky school, knowledgeable sages disagree.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

FAQed.

The accidental activation issue is a screwy leftover from the Gygaxian "gotcha!" School of thought.

Liberty's Edge

pathfinder rules require a shield to be strapped on to the arm to gain the benefit. By game rules, it provides no benefit when strapped on one's back.

Real life examples generally don't provide evidence of what a reasonable use is, primarily because the game structure is build on the basis on non-proficient/ proficient/ resource enhanced. In other words, using the tower shield as an example, non proficient use, as by a cleric without a feat, allows for an AC benefit, but incurs a big penalty on attacks. Proficient use negates the penalty. Various feats, whether published by paizo, a third party, written by a private party, or yet unimagined, can add additional functionality. A real world example of someone gaining a benefit from a strapped on shield may be the in-game equivelant of making use of a feat.

Liberty's Edge

I hold the position that only the most recent is in effect. It is an unpopular opinion that is contrary to how most approach it or expect it. I think it's pretty clear from a rules analysis perspective, but that the idea is so remote to most playing experience as to render the actual rule moot.

If permitting only one effective spell at a time, it can really change the nature of some pre published adventures. Make sure everyone knows about it in advance.

Liberty's Edge

seebs wrote:

There is not a spell named "Cavesight".

It's the ability name that counts. It doesn't say you cast darkvision, it says you grant darkvision. If the word "darkvision" referred to the spell, then the SLA would be granting the target the ability to cast that spell, not letting them see in the dark.

Precisely this.

Liberty's Edge

Nefreet wrote:

Ah. I understand why we're looking at this differently.

You're trying to apply the logic of stacking untyped bonuses to the cost of crafting items.

That is a fallacy. The two are nothing similar, and have nothing to do with each other. One is stated in the rules; bonuses without a type always stack. The other is not stated in the rules; it is only being inferred by you.

I would also argue that it isn't common sense. Simply paying double and throwing away half an item. I cannot think of anything in the real world that is handled in that way, and even if there were something like it, it would be extremely wasteful.

Common sense would be working with your GM to determine how much weight a spearhead would be and paying for each part separately.

You can do whatever you want in your home games. I've divvied up weights for items in my campaigns before. But for Pathfinder Society, if it isn't in print, you're out of luck.

You really can't argue against that.

With all respect, the issue isn't whether it's in print, the issue is how much it costs.

We have multiple aspects of the rules that describe how to determine cost in a formulaic manner. Wands, potions, scrolls, magic weapons: these are all handled formulaicly. The only difference her is the proportion of the cost. It is undefined. By paying the full value, you have covered the cost. To use your language, you can't argue with that.

I tilt ally respect the unique nature of PFS with buttoning down details to the lowest common denominator. The proprosal I provided, by it's very nature, assures that every reasonable objection to what the cost might be is covered.

Any remaining objection has no substance in terms of the game rules, when viewed in terms of whether the cost has been payed. It solely has objection in pedantic issues, such as whether it permissible to pay too much in order to negate discussion of what the cost is for something that is clearly allowed by the rules.

Nefreet, I've played in your games. I generally respect your ideas about the game in general, and PFS in particular. But your logic here is essentially: this is possible; it has a cost; the cost cannot be identified with precision, but has clearly been exceeded; there is still a reason to deny it, regardless whether this is to the benefit of the organized pmay campaign, the player, or the GMs she will interact with.

I understand the Lawful Neutral approach you are espousing. I also think it beyond the scope of what is either useful or helpful to the campaign without benefit, and in addition exaggerates the reality of the campaign in a manner that fuels that negativity with which some view the campaign.

You generally fight the good fight. You have pushed it beyond the bounds of form and purpose in this particular manner. This post is submitted with the utmost respect for you and the vast majority of your posts.

Liberty's Edge *

4 people marked this as a favorite.

I don't refer to my figure as a pawn. I don't refer to my character as a toon. I don't talk about tapping a spell when my character casts it . None if this has to do with my age, however grey in the beard I've become. It is a recognition that different games use different jargon and that using the jargon appropriate to the game in question is an indication that you take the game seriously and you have enough respect for the people that invest their time in it to adopt the local terms. When in Rome...,

Liberty's Edge

@Te'Shen: The ability is Cavesight. This is different than the spell Darkvision. Return to Go. Do not collect $200.

Liberty's Edge

Is there any rationale to see this anything other than a standard action?

Liberty's Edge

I appreciate that you're trying to keep the game Society friendly, so it's an opportunity to discuss the ideas associated with table variance and relying on an interpretation that is liberal.

If the description is ambiguous, it can be interpreted different ways. Which means that it will. Use it as an opportunity to explain that people may view it differently, and in such situations, it's up to the GM to decide.

Likewise, if he relies on a favorable interpretation for it to work, he may be disappointed. In such situations, he needs to learn to be willing to accept the less favorable ruling.

Given his age, some of this may be tough for him to process developmentally. At this age, he's pretty focused on things being black and white with respect to rules. But, exploring such grey areas is how he grows developmentally.

Liberty's Edge

Nefreet wrote:
Except, there are no price guidelines for such a creation, so for Society play, you're still out of luck.

Pay the amount needed to make the entire weapon out of dark wood, and the entire weapon out of mithral or adamantine. Done. Luck replenished. Efficient? No.

1 to 50 of 2,560 << 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.