|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
Graystone, I guess the really interesting thing is I have nearly polar opposite views:
I don't think any of the ACG errata is all that bad. I'm actually happy Divine Protection got nerfed as I was using it on nearly every character I built in multiple games. It was broken so bad I felt compelled to use it if I had more than CHA 16.
I also like the general answers (in FAQ) that have wide reaching implications, because they inform me how other similar rules should also be interpreted.
No reason to wake the FAQ beast
I assume all of this is trying to be funny right?
I've wondered if that is the actual thought process. Something along the lines of "hey this rule is ambiguous and if I interpret it this way I get something cool, cute, interesting, broken, dumb, or klunky".
If you like the klunky, dumb, or broken rule, do you really wish they don't notice it and make it more clear so it has lees incorrect interpretations?
Or do you celebrate when clarifications happen?
Mark Seifter asking people to compile a list of what other things were hit by it but nothing seemed to happen with that. It impacts the Shaman FCB as well as the Wayang Oracle FCB amongst various other effects.
I remember that also. Maybe we should compile a list. I won't have much time this week past today (GenCon) but next week I'll start a new thread and you and I and others can compile a list of all things that could be interpreted to have impact on this. I'm thinking more "all things" not "classes of things". So all FCB that add spells that might be impacted by the FAQ each listed separately.
Lets say our shining child companion gets hit by deeper darkness. Is it safe to assume that his immunity to blindness does not prevent him from becoming effectively blind because of his inability to see in the deeper dark?
Yes Immunity to Blindness is talking about the condition not the state of being unable to see.
Fair enough, my statement has a bit of exaggeration to it. I'll retreat a little, and say a larger number of the times when the phrase RAW is used in a debate on this thread is to reject another person's interpretation of the rules. Not all of those times are for things like what is the BAB of a 12th level Fighter. Many of them are things like this or the courageous weapon property pre-FAQ.
This particular issue, for example, is a case where you could say RAW it doesn't do anything and I'd say RAW it adds it to spells known in agreement with the FAQ because it is a Shaman class feature. The key different in the interpretations of RAW is I consider it a class feature and you (and others maybe) do not.
Daring Dodo wrote:
I can't find that in the book, so I don't know whether or not that is "helpful" additional documentation for beginners written by d20pfsrd or is actually in a book written by paizo.
Book page reference? Otherwise I'll choose to ignore it, as it doesn't exist except on d20pfsrd.
As has been true since the 1st archetype was printed, if two modify/alter/add/remove/changed/touch/lookat/kick/etc the same class feature, they don't work together.
As has been clarified in the FAQ, something that modifies a class feature with sub features, doesn't work with something that modifies a sub feature. Whether or not this is how "it has always been" could be debated. But it is how it is now.
It's a melee weapon that is being thrown. It's not making melee attacks, but it's being used as a melee weapon, because that's what it is. It's only a ranged weapon if it cannot be used to make melee attacks.
Totally don't agree with you mostly because I totally don't agree the rules quote you quoted says this.
+1Much better said than me.
Alexander Augunas wrote:
It is and it doesn't.
When wielding your chosen weapon one-handed
Are you holding the thrown weapon in your hand? No, it is flying through the air as a "thrown weapon" that you used one hand to throw.
Not a one-handed weapon (a term specific to melee weapons).
In short, no.
But you differ, and others do. So:
Expect Table Variance.
Of course, this was also in a high-power AP campaign.
It went from "every CHA character takes this feat" to "who would waste a feat". But not every option should be broken (old) or required to be useful (new).
Well the good days are over. Divine Protection from ACG got nerfed from "Give me Paladin 2nd level Divine Grace" to 1/day immediate action on one save.
I got to say it is probably for the best. That feat was ridiculously broken.
I had it on a RotRL character, rocking 34 as my lowest save (Couldn't afford 2 levels in Paladin.)
I had it on another home creation.
I had it in a Dragon Conflict event on 2 characters I'm running for GenCon.
It was in PVP tournament characters I've played.
It was prolific. Every character that is CHA based, had this feat. If they didn't have the pre-res, they took them if possible before taking this feat.
It was dumb.
Why didn't they just say you can't wield a weapon in your off-hand? Isn't that what they intended
Perhaps the intent was also to disallow magus for spellcombat +slashing grace or something.
Or they could have intended to block:
So I'd prefer an FAQ.
But this is a horrible waste of text if it ends up in the FAQ. I'd much rather have things that are non-obvious get faq treatment like Overrun.
Why? Because they deliberately don't want the FAQ to be never ending. So if this gets FAQ treatment, I can promise you something else you would also get FAQ'd will not ever be.
If no, then the 5ft step prevents the AoO for the general movement, but the act of moving into someone else's square is a separate and distinct action which would not have the AoO negated.
That is the key rules difference we have in this thread.
Does the 5 ft step "never provoke" and as such prevent you from both the "leaving a threatened square" and "enter an opponent's square" AoO?
Conan: This is STUPID!!!
One man's stupid is another man's "common sense".
I honestly don't see the problem here.
There is a rule you can't sunder anything except weapons, armor, and shield.
If the GM calls the leg a weapon, you can sunder and deal damage to him.
If the GM doesn't current call it a weapon, you can't.
The GM is also free to say the leg he just picked up he intended to use as a weapon and he intended to use it for AoO, then it is a weapon. He doesn't necessarily need to actually attack you with it. He just needs to tell the GM (PC or NPC) that it is being used as an improvised weapon.
It's more a question of "Is a favored class bonus a class feature?" They certainly aren't listed with the class features.
Considering Paizo thinks of every bonus you can gain from a class as a class feature, including things like "Class Skills" changes. I think it is safe to consider a favored class bonus you gain from taking a class, a class feature. I do/will and I consider it RAW.
Common sense can be rendered worthless in PFS.
Actually, common sense is used liberally in PFS. Run the rules as written, with heavy doses of RAI to fix any possible issue like excessively pedantic readings that render FCB as no-ops.
The list is:
None of those cover Entangle until they fail the same.
So if you get 5 entangles, 5 saves. If you fail 2 or more they won't stack under One Effect Makes Another Irrelevant.
This is a common tactic in a lot of adventures. Throw 6 harpies and make the party roll 6 times. Throw 4 bunyips and make then roll 4 times. Roll 12 gorgon rolls and make them make 12 save of petrify. All these examples are in modules I've played or ran (in the combat advice.)
Charon's Little Helper wrote:
Only if they wielded it as such on their last turn.
I can only assume you joking, because I'd give you a sturn look in game if you tried to say that... ;-)
this seems the simplest solution to me.
Are you suggesting we all just "consider it moved" or that they errata a moved comma?
Because in practice, I simply stopped playing Overrun characters in PFS. Nearly every table used different interpretations for the various Overrun related feats I had.
I'd agree with "strict RAW" it only works as melee and not thrown.
Expect table variance ;-)
There are a ton of threads with 40 to 100 faq about Overrun.
This question on charging isn't the only Overrun questions. There are questions (table variance) with Charge Through, Elephant Stomp, Greater Overrun and more I can't remember right now.