|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
Cap. Darling wrote:
Formally, adamantine will ignore hardness up to 20. Hardness 21 and high still applies at full value.
Adding: one of the design elements of the 3.5 system, including PF, is that when things are different, make them different. When they are the same make them the same. The skill spells out for cleric and Druid AC. Use the do it the same design rule to go with the cleric AC and AC from like classes and other AC rules resources.
Raw, only Druids and rangers get the free action. Because the game is a rules-by-exception game system that cannot anticipate every combo, I think the RAI is that he should get the free action control.
I tend to be more conservative on this stuff than most. This one stands out for me as straightforward. That isn't to senegrate OP, just to provide context.
This is a game design question, not rules. Flagged.
As to why, flame arrow is grandfathered in from 3.5. The others I'd be happy to look at with links.
School selection can be promblematic. Generally, evocation spells call energy into existence and apply it. Conjugation brings items into existence. Transmutation changes things. Flame arrow doesn't directly effect the target of the arrow. Rather, it transforms the arrow, which then affects the target of the shot. This sort of intermediary item is almost always transmutation.
You've described flame arrow as adding fire rather than being changed. The arrow is changed bit now burns when fired.
See if the same sort of distinctions in the other spells.
Is it intended for monsters to grab -> constrict -> release -> grab -> constrict in one attack sequence?
The Max Dex is the lowest of any items that have a max Dex. So if shield is max Dex +4 and armor is +3, the lowest of these is +3, so that is your max Dex. You can gain a maximum of three to your armor due to Dex. max Dex does not affect any other Dex Checks.
ACP stacks. Whatever the modified numbers are with the class ability, add them. Minimum ACP is 0 for each item, so avoid just subtracting at the end.
Is there a state between dead and ash? If so, during that period the item is unattended and is subject to going up in flames. This decision is a matter of gaming style. The game is conducted in turns and actions without much reference to the time of the individual actions; it is abstracted. The passage of time within an action is precisely the issue from a rules basis, and this is so dependent on the players' desire for what they get out of the game that a single answer isn't possible that would be adequate to every position on that continuum.
If stuff burns to dragon flame, all stuff, you have to decide how this affects a dragon's horde or tactical choices during combat. I don't know about you, but my adventurers expect a horde if gold pieces not gold slag.
Rogues are bad enough without the DM intentionally trying to give them the shaft, IMHO.
It is a game that revolves around the PCs ultimate success. It is not a game that requires success in all efforts to succeed.
Whether the rogue is problematic is irrelevant; unchained has redefined the rules. Other classes can exist with trap spotting. Rogues can be redesigned. The rules stand regardless.
Can a trap be detected from farther than 10 feet using trap spotter? No, by definition. Is a trigger part of a trap? I think we are working that out.
Emphasis added. You have defined the trap as being at the end of the hallway. The rogue is more than 10 feet at that distance. He can't use trapspotting outside if 10 feet.
Is it a GM cheat? Nope, it's a trap builder who knows what he's doing. This statement reflects a matter of playstyle, not rules. Nor can it be answered by rules.
Within 10 feet is one square between rogue and trap. Distance is counted as movement is.
There have been worthless feats when the text is clear. I'm not convinced the text is clear here. I see this as an additional talent. The whole point behind poison use is about not accidentally poisoning yourself when applying poison....to objects. Applying it to claws for a feat seems right to me. Applying it to softer or absorb ant body parts really seems problematic.
Finally, how would you view this for an alchemist cat folk, given the rule?
Space does not indicate a cubic creature. It represents the space occupied by the creature in a way that represents only the space occupied in a manner to 1) be denied, 2) provide a valid target for attack. Can there be vital parts outside that space, yes, but abstraction for the benefit of a playable game takes priority.
If an improvised weapon is a object not normally used as a weapon, and a masterwork weapon is one so well designed and manufactured as a weapon that it improves on it's ability to hit, then it is really a stretch to say that masterwork object is improvised. In talking about frying pans, a masterwork frying pan is weaponized and is no longer an object that isn't intended as a weapon.
Frying pans aren't normally weapons. This one is. Other frying pans can be used as improvised weapons. This one...no.
I haven't read the entire thread. If this is a duplicate, my apologies.
If something seems too good to be true, it likely is. Making use of it at be within the rules, but if too many people look askance at it and it's gonna be changed. This thread, at least in the early parts I read, illustrate this repeatedly. For MT, for Aasamars, for speed running mods. It may be within the rules, but don't be shocked when it is removed or changed. Actions have consequences.
I totally appreciate people stating that they played within the rules and got screwed. When you see exploitive options, they will be changed. If you rely upon them as a new player, i feel for you. If you give people advice to take advantage of exploits, you're setting them up for disappointment. If you so it as an experienced player, you took a risk. If it doesn't seem like it, use it as an opportunity to adjust your approach to organized play.
I'm not being dismissive. There is a bit of "you got what you deserved Shadenfreunde in my post, but please take it for the constructive input contained. I don't know how to communicate this without it.
Thx BNW. Sorry for the misdirection mutton.
Claude has an interesting point. You cannot 5 ft step after running, withdrawing, charging, moving, etc. some of these are move actions. Some are something else. What they have in common is movement. Dismount may be a move equivelant action, but that's irrelevant. The movement type doesn't matter. Movement does.
Robert Hetherington wrote:
We've got most of our tables locked in well ahead of the recent announcement but I'm certain some of our Wounded Wisp tables will become CORE along with a smattering here and there.
So, given the lateness of the announcement, there won't be a scramble to do one per slot or something?
Nonsense. A very literal reading of RAW tells us that "Concealment is not always effective."
Concealment affects vision only. Creatures that have no vision target by other means; in such a case concealment isn't effective.
Concealment is only effective 50% of the time at best. In the other cases, it isn't effective .
These are just a couple of ways it isn't always effective.
The spell creates the effect. The effect makes the grapple attempt. There is no statblock for the effect, so we don't know which of the implied statblocks are in play. Is the implied statblock one that assumes that the invisibility is negated, so only states the summary result. (Miss chance)+(ability to ignore miss chance)=(just do it)? Or is it one in which all stats are described, and now apply all other rules?
The action economy is part of the game. It is also something that some don't find important and instead prefer to focus on the story telling portion of the game. But from a rules perspective, it is there and vital. It's portant to understand what actions are required or else the characters get, effectively, extra actions. Extra actions are the root of any builds that are viewed as being on the higher tiers of play. Understand them or they get out of control.
There is a difference between rules and procedures. Creatures must have objects in hand to use them in most cases. This is a rule. What a character has in hand by default is a matter of procedure. For example, I ask players to decide what's in hand. That's my procedure no trust my players to act like adults playing a game (even the teens) until they prove me wrong. I assume that characters are always armed in dangerous county, such as a dungeon, approaching a ruin, in game world environment, walking down the road outside of town. I don't see that as being the case in a settlement.
Where an item is in inventory determines the action needed to draw it. That is a rule. Wands are weapon like in almost all situations. However you want to justify it is up to you, but the distinction exists between items that are carried as accessible and those that are packed away or stowed. Likewise with potions. How many can be readily carried at a time is a matter of procedure and style until an item surfaces in your game that states a limit . For on GM, that's one potion and one want. For another it is all owned. For a third, it is up to 3, 5, or 10 each.
Distinguish between rule and procedure. Procedure is a matter of style, not rule.
[b]491. Sexual Dysfunction In The Elven Male[\b]
The text of this time has the typical juxtaposition between the titalating and the disgusting, with an occasional entry specific to elves that may teach more than is desired.
The notable part if this tone is that the inner covers, and much of the margins, are filled with inscriptions from one Elven man to another; the book has been a gag gift for centuries. "Elandil, Happy Festivus. Check page 47, then see the doctor...." Might be a typical entry. Enhancements with various enchantments, such as magic mouth, programmed illusions, etc. just add to the fun.
Hook: book can serve as evidence that two characters new each other; or, proof is provided that a character was still alive on a certain date.
Note: book based on an actual volume found in a second hand store going back to the 1920s. I regularly kick myself that I didn't buy it.
You cast the spell.
The target has spell resistance. So, you make a caster level check to overcome SR.
If you fail to overcome the spell resistance, then the spell has no effect. If you succeed, then the spell has affected him.
If it affects him, he rolls a Reflex save vs the DC. If he makes the save he is dazzled for 1-4 rounds. If he fails the save then he is instead blinded for 1-4 rounds.
On the topic of the PFS FAQ on animal intelligence:
The PFS FAQ that has been cited is there in part due to the multiple GM factor that PFS has. However, a good portion of that ruling is a summary of the mechanical aspect of the Blog on animal intelligence. How you fit that into your definition of what constitutes official rules is another story.
AoOs are provoked by opportunity. There is no relationship between the number of AoOs and actions. A single action can provoke multiple times (cast a ranged attack spell, full attack with ranged weapon, etc.), and movement only provokes once. Read the text in the first post.
The spells available to player characters outside of the core list is a GM decision. How this is done can have a huge impact on the power of some classes. For example, a cleric in a core only campaign vs a campaign that allows all printed spells is dramatic.
I'd appreciate page number from the prior poster regarding the 3.5 PHB reference.