|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
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.
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.
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.
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...,
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.
That utterly sucks.
There is no prohibition against the mount readying. However, the mount and rider act together. Readying an action ends a turn. Because they act together, one of them readying ends the turn for both.
The link that Ssalern provided works best if you envision mounted combat combined actions as occurring in two impulses. Mount and rider can each act in the first (move or standard), and likewise they can both act in the second. This isn't spelled out and isn't RAW. That said, it results in the cleanest manner in a notoriously weak area of the rules.
I would like to thank Stereofm for illustrating the difference seen in this matter between Francophones and Anglophones.
For more fun and entertaining examples of historiography, look into the difference seen between English speaking accounts of the Battle of Waterloo in contrast to Continental Europe's perspective. Let's just say the views of the contributions of the British-Dutch and the Prussians are a tad bit different.
Almost exactly correct, but precisely wrong. :)
The 3.5 versions dealt enlarged damage for enlarge person and reduced damage for reduce person with respect to projectile weapons. The damage was based on the weapon being fired, not the arrow's size. See 3.5 SRD enlarge person.
It was an intentional change from 3.5 to PF. There has always been a consistency problem with these spells. Every time someone tackles it anew, it just pops up somewhere else. These spells are the Whack-a-Mole of the 3e family.
Jerra: The Monster Roles section states that creatures with an Int of 1-2 or mindless change role to combat role if they get to Int 3. The only time your dealing with class levels and animals is when the animal has an Int of 3+, and thus has a combat role.
It isn't a contradiction when read in context instead of picking out individual sentences.
A creature can attack with all natural attacks that is possesses unless the limb or appendage is otherwise occupied. For example, if a creature has two claws and a bite, and opts to use a weapon in one hand, it would attack with a weapon, a claw, and a bite. If if uses a weapon, all natural attacks become secondary attacks.
If an Orc armed with two weapons also has a bite attack, for any reason, he can attack with both weapons and the bite; the bite attack will be secondary. He retains the bite attack here because the bite is not occupied with one of the weapons.
In the case of your boar, it always gets the gore/claw/claw when you rage. When you gain the extra attack, it's a corner case that is unclear. You will get table variance as to whether it is gore/claw/claw, or gore/gore/claw/claw. Ruling that it had to chose limited number of gore/claw/claw is clearly incorrect.
TL;DR you local GM is confusing the FAQ on multiple weapons with natural attack. He's wrong.
The game distinguishes between PCs, NPCs, and monsters. However, it does a poor job of nailing down exactly what the differences are. See chapter 1 of the CRB and you'll see this. In various parts of the books, the word character is used for all creatures, at other times, the context suggests the word is used only for PCs, and other times it seems to refer to any creature with class level. In addition, the designers are quite find of waffle words like usually, normally, generally, etc. Such words give designers and GMs an out when choosing to do something atypical. Between these factors, trying to get a clear answer to the initial question effectively requires that readers have an opinion in advance, and the same sections can be used to argue both ways.
The sections on NPCs in the CRB and the section on advancing monsters in the Bestiary are directed to the GM with respect to creating those creatures, whether NPC or monster, for the PCs to interact with. It is reasonable to assume that a 20th level NPC Wizard wasn't born as such and that he gained levels to get there. How he gained those levels is a black box, because it is generally unimportant. In cases where a creature that can advance by class levels needs more details for how it advances is left to the GM to decide.
Appendix 13 on Monster Roles classifies creatures and identifies which can gain classes. Those with no role never advance by class levels. These are typically creatures that have an Int of 1 or 2, or are mindless. They are listed in detail. Horses and griffins have no role. They don't advance by class. However, on gaining an Int of 3, their role changes to combat. They can then gain class levels. See the following link, particularly the fourth paragraph down from the top: Monster Roles Link.
However, when how they gain classes is still nebulous, undefined, or otherwise without an answer that will satisfy everyone. Can a horse or griffin, either with an Int of 3+ gain class levels? Yes. Does it always do so? No. If nothing else we know that based on how animal companions behave. If they do, is it based on gaining XP? That's ultimately unclear and up to the GM, as tiresome as that phrase is.
Edit: changed alias and fixed bad link.
And intentional. Next.
Why can't someone make an Efficient Quiver but in the form of a Repeating Crossbow's magazine? I see absolutely no reason why not.
Because the D&D family originated in miniature historical gaming and in an English speaking country (sort of, but I digress). Or, if you prefer, the world of, "The English Yeoman Longbowmen were gods, as demonstrated at Agincourt," along with a seasoning of, "Richard I was killed by a dastardly and cowardly crossbow. obviously this weapon should not be considered by anyone why has the time to develop real skill."
Disclaimer: this post is intended as humor. Please rebut in kind.
Let's say you have the glove on your right hand. You start with two guns. You shoot them both. You suck the right hand gun back into the glove. You load the left hand. Now you have no way to get the right hand gun loaded and still hold the left hand gun.
You can spit the right hand gun, unloaded, back into the right han, but then don't have a free hand. There is no free action that would swap the guns and this allow storing what was originally the left hand gun in order to load the other.
Chengar Qordath wrote:
Doesn't work by my reckoning, but if it works for you guys, more power to you.
There is no rule regarding using your arm pit to hold a weapon. It generally shouldn't be expected to work in PFS. If you choose this as your plan, have a backup plan.
A spell with a Somatic, Material, Focus, or Divine Focus requirement requires a free hand. A buckler provides a free hand. A light shield can hold an object; at best you'll get mixed GM responses to this.
Holding a DF in one hand and casting a non DF spell with that hand is an odd fish. It's unclear. Respect table variance.
For what it's worth, I just use a buckler with my clerics in PFS and just avoid the whole issue. The only thing lost is a piddle shield bash, which clerics aren't proficient with anyway.
You must make the AoO with the weapon that threatens. So, to grab the potion, you would need to threaten with unarmed strike.
To the best of my knowledge, the AoO needing to be made with the weapon that threatens is implied and is not explicitly stated. For those who care, it is explicitly stated in the 3.5 FAQ.
The FAQ doesn't directly address it. The FAQ explains how to handle it for cases A..X. This is case Y. That said, I would certainly expect this to be ruled as divine if a PTB ruling were to be made.
In the interim, the standard advice on unclear rules ares in PFS are to only commit to the rules resource if you're willing to accept the worst case GM ruling. Since using this for entry to go into MT would result in an unplayable character, it's probably best to avoid it for this purpose.
If PFS admin wants to avoid the neef bat fallout that inevitably occurs whenever anyone fails to follow that standard advice, they have the option to kill the feat in the additional resource guide; doing so doesn't put them at the mercy of the design team's schedule in ever getting to a FAQ on the corner case.
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.