|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
The strange thing about this was the seemingly different effects one could acquire between a 3rd level Dragoon with a Sash and a 7th level Dragoon without one.
No other place in the rules would we assume this could be true. Adding two levels of Cleric or an item that is as if two levels higher should arrive at the same values. Same for Monk and Monk's Robe.
I feel that it is clear that the section above also applies to armour training.
Good fine, yes that is explicitly on point. So it covers Armor Training and not getting Armor Training 2 means you don't have it and can't get it until you have sufficient levels to gain it (which may be never.)
Durngrun Stonebreaker wrote:
+1 There is no different in a level 4 Dragoon with the Sash and a level 8 Dragoon without the Sash in regards to Armor Training. Neither have move in Heavy Plate. That is all the Sash does, increase your Fighter levels by 4 and since your Fighter levels are modified by your Archetype, you may get varied benefits from using the Sash if the Archetype swapped out higher level Armor Training advancement.
cite any class ability text (not table) that uses the terms "Armor Training 2" or "Armor Training 3" or Armor Training 4". You won't find one.
The archetypes that swap out Armor Training 2 etc.
Ultimately, this doesn't sound like something that all parties can agree. So we each need to understand that both interpretations are RAW, even if we don't agree to the other interpretation.
Chess Pwn wrote:
Gisher shows us an official source to say that armor training 2 is what give heavy armor movement.
+1 If you have traded away the Armor Training 2 then you don't get the speed reduction in Heavy Plate.
Durngrun Stonebreaker wrote:
The Dragoon trades away Armor Training 2 which means at 7th level Fighter the Dragoon doesn't have Armor Training with or without a Sash.
that spend our times on the forum out the total number of people that play pathfinder is a very small fraction.
Many groups have interesting dynamics, where the people who spend a lot of time on the forums steer the group in the direction of their interpretation of the RAW. Sometimes this agrees with developer guidance, sometimes it doesn't. That is ok too.
But what's the point of so many devs saying it if they aren't willing to put it in the book?
Because they seem to be very selective on what they comment publicly and especially what they Errata. It needs to be widely confused to get errata. I just don't see this topic as widely confusing to people. It is basically a corner case for most characters or builds. So only a few people ever run into the root of this question. Of those the GM either runs it the way they intended the rules to be read or different. It doesn't shatter anything that there is a deviation.
As for PFS, the GM's are required to run RAW. But that doesn't mean they are required to run perfectly. If they make mistakes, remember a rule incorrectly, read a rule incorrectly, etc. They are not fined or fired. This is all about "doing your best to run as close to RAW as possible." Perfection isn't mandated.
Right, and the spells that aren't Rays is what I'm trying to clarify.
I'll restate what has been stated in this thread many times:
It has been clarified in forum posts my many paizo staff including dev team members while on the dev team, that any enhancers to weapons work on attack rolls that deal damage.
This includes all spells that you make the attack roll. This includes Supernatural abilities (like Sound Striker ability.)
You can choose to say "It doesn't say that in the RAW so I won't use it." I'm fine with you reading the RAW to prohibit it. But you need to be fine with the fact many GM's won't agree. I believe the RAW is good enough to conclude that Inspire Courage and Point Blank Shot work with any spell or effect that has an attack roll and deals damage.
I see now. The fact that a magic weapon has an explicit Activation text is what disables the bonus during polymorph.
While true, that isn't why you can't do this.
You can't gain any benefit of the sword while polymorphed because you are not using the sword to attack. You are using your natural weapons.
So if this comes up for PFS, where do I point to that's official for an answer?
Other than web posts by SKR etc, no.
If you sit at my PFS table, I feel comfortable saying I'm following RAW and that your Weapon Focus (Ray) works on everything ranged touch whether or not it is named as a Ray.
It has always been my understand that any attack roll from any spell, ability, etc that deals damage can have any weapon enhancer like Point Blank Shot applied. The only exception is things that are restricted to special types (like "one handed weapon" or other limiters that would mean ranged attacks don't apply.)
I'm aware of the current debate over things that say "ray" and things that don't say "ray". I just ignore that debate because I don't agree with them. I consider Weapon Focus (Ray) to apply to any damage dealing ranged attack roll from any spell, ability or effect.
I say let it lie, make your own choices for home games, and avoid the items in PFS. Unless you are a brawler, and then you get everything thanks to close combat mastery.
I bow to you sir.
That very close to my stance (however I'd rather we had an official answer), and something these forums need more. Acceptance that there are different interpretations and there isn't always only one way to read a rule.
I think the RAW says that the gauntlets count as unarmed strikes ... I don't like that ruling ... monks should be using their bodies over most other weapons, but there isn't good RAW support for it.
There are multiple RAW interpretations. We are polar opposites of what we think the RAW says unambiguously. The developers have post that the position of the development team is Gauntlets are weapons and deal a static amount of damage to all (no enhancement for 20th level Monks). So ultimately, the only fix for this ambiguity is a FAQ. So please click the FAQ above.
I don't think we have a clear question on this matter with more than a couple FAQ clicks. That may be because the question isn't really something that comes up often. I certainly don't see many people trying to use a Gauntlet or Brass Knuckles at tables and get Monk unarmed. So I made a clear question without much extra info.
Orfamay Quest wrote:
I'm duly impressed, Professor Xavier. But what do you do when the people at Paizo wear helmets to block your telepathic superpowers?
I guess we get to be jolly today.
We know how it is supposed to be interpreted by the dev team's various accounts. If you choose not to interpret that way, it is fine. It is your game. But when the question is asked, should we kid around? Should be tell them it doesn't work the way the dev team wrote the lines and that they can be interpreted to work that way? Or should we bury that fact and assert it works some other way?
Which best serves the readers in general?
A better way might be us clicking on the post below and having a high number of FAQ on this question so it gets answered in a way that the people who don't like the answer must house rule it away instead of saying "that isn't official".
Another post by SKR, wherein the timeline is discussed and Sean opines that Brass Knuckles and so on should get Monk IUS damage.
He has commented on that in the past, as that was his view but the dev team's view didn't match and he got on board with the dev team for future posts.
Scott Wilhelm wrote:
PFS players have no choice but go by the letter of the rules, however stupid.
Way to totally miss my point. RAW can have multiple interpretations (all valid for the GM in question) and I always interpret the way that matches RAI.
In this case there is a way to interpret these weapons that do not grant unarmed damage increases from being a monk and do not allow for the weapon bonus to aid in attacks or damage for monk unarmed strike.
At that time in 2011 everything on the forums was considered official. The unofficial (mistake in my mind) came along when SRM made a post, got yelled at by jerks saying that it needed to be in FAQ or Errata, and solved it by saying basically ~ fine everything we post is unofficial ~.
We know how they wrote the rules, we know why they changed the items in newer printings. If someone wants to say "that isn't official", then don't play at my table. You won't have fun.
It isn't like this hasn't been this way for ever or anything. In 3.5 days this was a FAQ (+5 gauntlet doesn't let a monk deal monk damage just the 1d3). Pathfinder has always been the same as the 3.5 FAQ. A gauntlet is not a cheap alternative to Amulet of Mighty Fist for the monk. Also before you say "you must hate monks", most of my characters have monk levels. I just don't try to use a gauntlet to deal my 2d6 damage.
Chess Pwn wrote:
overlapped on a lv1 ability then you can't take them at the same time. You'd have to pick one or the other.
And to clarify, by overlap, that is if they alter, modify, change, add to, remove from, give more options, talk about, or otherwise mention the same ability, then they don't stack.
Can anyone think of anything that would be horribly broken by simply allowing Weapon Focus to be taken for any weapon, ability, or spell that requires an attack roll? Or for Precise / Point Blank Shot (and all their follow up feats) to simply be ruled to work for all ranged attacks, regardless of the specific nature of the attack/ability/spell?
The PBS/Precise Shot has already been answered several times, it works for anything that makes an attack roll (spell, supernatural ability, anything).
As for weapon focus, we know that Weapon Focus (Ray) is allowed. What we don't know is whether or not Ray covers all ranged touch things including ones not listed as Ray or if you can choose other things to cover them like Weapon Focus (Kineticist).
Rays are called out specifically, but there are damage dealing ranged touch attacks that are not rays.
I'm pretty sure Ray covers all ranged touch effects.
But let's move this slightly. What are we debating?
We know that Point Blank Shot works on rays and on ranged touch effects (from spells, Supernatural abilities, etc.)
So are you saying PBS works on a ranged touch but you can't gain Weapon Focus on ranged touch?
Or are you saying neither works?
That usually comes from the "RAWR" crowd who like to discuss every word and use their own interpretations and reject FAQ entries that differ from their "interpretation" right?
You see the gatekeeper to being able to cast as being in a Wizard spellbook, but it is actually being on your class spell list. Various ways can be used to add a spell to your spell list (Ring of Spell Knowledge).
A 10th Wizard with a Ring of Spell Knowledge Cure Light Wounds can copy a Bard scroll into his spellbook and memorize it as a prepared spell. Without the ring he can do neither task.
*cough* Weapon Focus (rock) *cough*
Did you make an attack roll with the rock or chair?Does it deal hit point damage?
Then you gain the Weapon Focus benefit.
The only caveat is this has significant table variance with regard to using the rock or chair as an improvised weapon.
KestrelZ - This is Organized play, so no Scribe Scroll for PC.
Then I suggest you stop, because this is very far into the table variance world.
Look up book and page for each of these steps and we can advise:
What rule allows you get Imbue with Spell ability as a Sorcerer.
What rule allows you to ignore the "Only cleric spells" in the spell.
What rule allows you to write a spell you can cast into your spellbook.
The problem is, that Kinetic Blast being a viable choice with Weapon Focus will probably need to be FAQ'd in unless it's mentioned in the book somewhere.
Does it have an attack roll?Does it deal damage?
The current playtest passes that test with Yes.
So because it is weapon like, you can take Weapon Focus.