Yes it does, it clearly states the area of effect is "plants in a 40-ft.-radius spread" and if this is the only plant, it's all that is effected.
No, the spell only cares if there's some vegetation it can use. no mention on how much.
If the Area creates plants within the area of effect as you purport, why then do you need to throw a pot-plant into the area of effect for it to work?
Because the spell clearly states that there must be SOME vegetation it can use.
Let's look at another example, circle of death. It says: "Area several living creatures within a 40-ft.-radius burst" does this mean that (by your interpretation of entangle that the Area is what the spell creates) the entire area fills with living creatures that are then effected? Or does this mean that only living creatures within the area of effect stated are effected?
It creates an effect on this area- it kills the living creatures.
Yes, it's the latter.
IMO it can be either.
Hence the Entangle spell only works on plants that are within the area. It does not grow them, it does not spread them over the area, it merely allows the plants that exist within the area to entangle those persons unlucky enough to be stood in their square.
I see nothing in the rules that indicate that.
#1- Nope. If this were the Druid intentionally sending his Animal Companion into a fight where it knew it was going to get killed or using Handle Animal to send a group of animals into a dungeon to set off traps then I would agree. But, at this point your arguments aren't the same because they are summoned creatures. If we were to play by the rules you are setting forth then everyone that uses summoned creatures for combat would have to be chaotic evil.
By your interpretation the Druid falls! You can't come up with an argument and then apply it selectively. It's a slippery slope. If in your game a Druid falls for using a potted plant, he falls for animal cruelty. Simple.
#2- Read the OP before posting responses to people that are posting responses to the OP.
I did. So?
#3- I'd pay money to see a druid throw a potted plant 50 ft. with a -8 to hit. If thats his strategy (and I'm sure its not) he isn't a power gamer he is a moron.
O.oHe only needs to throw it in 40 ft. radius from the enemy. And it's not that hard to throw it where he wants. The AC is 5, IIRC.
they are going to not be able to fight two handed
He's either casting or fighting. And why should he fight two handed? Druids aren't that big on fighting in melee, unless wildshaped.
cast somatic spells while holding a weapon (they are carrying a plant in the other hand)
If he's casting then why does he need a weapon in his hand? If he's adjacent to an enemy, why is he casting and provoking AoOs?Regardless, he'll throw the plant and his hands will be free to do anything he wants.
make them explain how they are keeping it alive
I suggested the same thing.
not being thought completely insane for being a guy walking around with a potted plant
Yeah. A Druid caring a plant is insane. That tiger or wolf accompanying him is normal, but a plant in a pot is too much.
If when I say the above they say I'm being cruel, they are just being a jackass.
I would say you're being cruel, because most of this things are either non-issues or totally situational. You're just saying whatever you can think of to s*#~ on one little trick which isn't even overpowered, it just allows a Druid to use one of his better spells in a place where normally he couldn't. The DM is being a jackass.
Reread how summons work you have it wrong...when reduced to zero they simply return to their plane of existance...nothing says they die forever.
Oh. So unless they die, it's okay? It doesn't matter that they suffer? That's animal cruelty. Druid loses powers!
And throwing it isn't bad...INTENTIONALLY LIGHTING IT ON FIRE IS! Its premeditated plant murder!
Sorry, but I said nothing about burning anything. My only argument here is that using a plant in a pot isn't cheating or wrong.
Again you can only throw the plant 10 ft and the area is 40 ft radius, so therefore you just trapped yourself and all of your travelling companions along with the enemy.
Things can be thrown up to 5 times it's increment. Or 4. Regardless, further then 10 ft.
Which covers maybe a 1'x1' square. So A 1'x1' square inside the entire area of effect has sufficient vegetation to entangle a foe. Gosh. Oh, and as it was thrown in a pot-plant, it isn't securely rooted, so it won't stop anyone from moving.
All requirements that the spell doesn't care for.
No, it's way beyond that.
No, not really.
It's just blatant misinterpretation of the rules in a manner no sane, experienced DM would allow.
So every DM I ever knew is insane?
Most munchkins think this about themselves.
So now being creative equals munchkins? Lol.
No, but it is a game with rules that regulate actions so that no-body can just say "I win!"
Good that no rules are broken then.
Note that the Area says clearly "plants in a 40-ft.-radius spread" if the pot-plant is the only plant in the area, it is the only plant effected.
The Area part id what the spell creates, not what it needs to work.
Abusing that poor plant and killing it intentionally IMO is not reverent.
And summoning animals to fight for him and get slaughtered is? Also the plant isn't killed. It shrinks back to normal after the spell is over. Taking a Druids powers for something like that is a jerk move and punishing a player for using his head.
Carried around a small potted plant, would start every combat by throwing it towards the enemy, then cast entangle to root everything, then throw alchemist's fire in order to catch the plants on fire and burn everything to the ground.
That's not powergaming. That's playing smart.
his stats are usually 18-20 in the primary stat of his class, 16-17 in whatever secondary he has, and 6-8 in everything else.
His feats/traits/flaws he would choose would be the best min/max he could do for it, as well as min/max his skill choices.
I'd need a little more info on that one. Because it's pretty normal to take options that are helpful. And what does min/maxing skill choices even mean? He's maxing the skills he's going to use?
One game he built a silver tongued bard that at level 2 had something like a +20 to diplomacy and bluff specifically so he could trick or coerce NPCs into somehow killing themselves.
He can't do that.
He mainly powergames in the "do everything to ruin how the encounters play out" way. He's the kind of player that would use a Locate City bomb because it is legal and breaks the game.
He's a munchkin then. Maybe also a powergamer (although not a good one), but that's actually not the problem here. Don't invite him. He'll ruin everybody's fun either through powergaming or just by being a douche and cheater. And he doesn't even like the adventure path.
Infinite time stop! Infinite shapechange! Infinite true strike! Infinite blink! Infinite everything!
Steve Geddes wrote:
No, you're not. You just don't know it.
He sounds more like a douche and munchkin then a powergamer.
Broodmaster changes Eidolon to Eidolon Brood, but the changes from First Worlder can still be technically applied. RAW it's most probably not possible, but it's not unreasonable to bend the rules a little here, right?
Also, can I make the eidolon small or tiny without taking Broodmaster? I want to make a familiar-like eidolon, but I don't really like the idea of having multiple weaker eidolons.
If you got CWI and Craft Arms and Armor, you got nearly everything covered.
No, you don't. Wizards use also rings, rods, wands, staffs and scrolls.
What else do you want, a detailed breakdown of every item?
I want you to stop making generalized and untrue statements.
You can do that on your own, I really don't need that kind of hassling, especially since it is quite apparent that people now are just turning up to get some additional digs in.
I don't follow.
Just because you're unable to imagine a slashing arrow doesn't mean they're not possible. A slashing arrow would be broad instead of pointy. Or it could have the tip look like a snakes tongue.Example #1.
I'll let you guess which ones are the slashing arrows.
And a bludgeoning arrow.
Except most people aren't whining about balance. They just want to be better than the guy sitting across from them.
OR they don't want to be worse. That's also a possibility. And a less condescending one.
I think it's reasonable to balance the game. Calm down man.
Someone failed their Sense Motive check for sarcasm.
Ah, the old "Something is powerful, that means everything else should be powerful!" argument. Gotta love the never ending power creep that's disguised as "X getting deserved nice things". Or power all-out-sprint as it is in some cases.
You're right. Mundanes should be nerfed and casters buffed. Only then will it feel like Pathfinder.
Oh, and a little clarification on my interpretation of Detect Evil:
You play it as people who are 'born evil'??
In D&D/PF? Sure.
Are you saying that EVERY Goblin HAS to be Evil? EVERY Faun is CG without exception?
Where did I say that?
People can have Evil desires and evil thoughts.. but until you ACT on them, you aren't a lost cause yet.
But you have an evil alignment in D&D/PF.
Except in PF/D&D alignment isn't earned. It's innate. If a creature is Evil then it is actually Evil, no matter if it had time to do evil deeds or not. That's how alignment in this system works. It's objective.
This separates Detect Evil a bit from the simple HD-based method described in the spell; a thief and a murderer might both be evil, but the murderer detects as more evil at the same level of personal power. First off, it enables shades of grey. Second, is simplifies play, since an aura of petty evil tells the Paladin to keep an eye on someone, but that the aura alone is not sufficient to warrant violence. Cutting out these distractions lets the DM and the Paladin focus on bigger moral questions, such as whether a given villain can be redeemed or how to deal with a prisoner who has surrendered.
How... is that different from registering as Evil, but with no aura?
Matthew Downie wrote:
It doesn't to me. Sure, the aura doesn't register, I have no issue with that, it's understandable and your reasoning is good. But as I said earlier, if the spell/ability doesn't detect alignment then it's almost useless at the level you gain it and a few levels later.
Something ate my last post, so lets try again.
Aunt Tony wrote:
Nice strawmans.Just because you didn't experience problems with classes doesn't mean there aren't any.
I'm not sure what you mean? Are you suggesting that the paladin should fight them without investigating them first, or are you suggesting that the paladin should do nothing at all?
It's not his job to investigate every Evil person. Read the Paladins Code of Conduct that I quoted above.
I'm happy to know that a large amount of other people are misunderstanding the rules the same exact way as me.
Where are those people? I'm going to tell them that they're wrong too.
Code of Conduct wrote:
I see nothing about attacking or investigating evil people just because they're evil. What I DO see is that Paladins can't associate with Evil people (unless as allies against a much greater evil), and also should punish those that harm or threaten innocents, and that's not even limited to Evil people.
Yes. But the point is to help the paladin, to avoid him having to investigate all those evil low-level people, so he can instead focus on those who actually merit such focus.
Why should he investigate them? Did they do something wrong? Being evil-aligned isn't against the law. And Paladins are there to fight against evil, not investigate it.
It's also to help the game from turning into a "I detect evil in the bar. Oh, there's evil here. Well, I'll spend the next hour of game-time checking all of these people out and force the DM to come up with stories for all of them".
Again - why should he do that? That's not his job.
As for a citation, I can't give you one. If a designer even straight out said it, it would probably have been in the Beta Playtest forums about 5 or so years ago (and I don't have easy access to those forums now). Regardless of quotes, the fact that the spell changed from the 3.5 version (all evil people were detected, no HD-limit) to its current version (where there is a HD-limit) is enough to tell me, at least, that there was a reason for the change. If Paizo still wanted all who have an evil alignment to detect as evil, why make the change?
Sorry, but you're just misunderstanding the rules. The HD thing is relevant only for discerning the auras power.
If the spell is not able to discern alignments of creatures of 5 or lower HD then it is near useless at the level it is gained because most enemies at those levels are below 5 HD and only a fraction of them are clerics/paladins/outsiders/undead.
It doesn't have an aura. But it does have an alignment.
That would be an odd interpretation, considering (AFAIR) one of the reasons the 5-HD limit was introduced in Pathfinder was specifically so low-level NPCs wouldn't be detected.
You have any citations? I find it weird and silly that a low level spell isn't able to discern the alignment of a low level NPC.The lower level you are the harder it is to discern your alignment? It doesn't make sense.