Paizo Top Nav Branding
  • Hello, Guest! |
  • Sign In |
  • My Account |
  • Shopping Cart |
  • Help/FAQ
About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ

Kazaan's page

5,043 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists.


1 to 50 of 5,043 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

Skylancer4 wrote:

Virtual handedness could or could not be a reference. We know for a fact two handed (melee weapons) are a concrete game mechanic. Ergo, that is what we should be looking at when another game mechanic refers to "two handed weapon" opposed to "a weapon that takes two hands to use." The wording is distinctly different, and that means something. Bows having explicit rules allowing for something to happen doesn't mean you can "extrapolate" for every other rule that remotely relates to the subject.

That is bad logic. We don't "need" to extrapolate as the rules are already fairly obvious in regards to what they point to. And that doesn't include the category of ranged weapons. If it doesn't include them, there is no valid reason to "extrapolate" past that.

The only reason to "extrapolate" is to bend the rules beyond what they allow. You can make all the logical and reasonable arguments you want, but that still doesn't change the mechanics we actual do have nor the lack of need to push the rules beyond what they state they allow mechanically.

Incorrect. Reference this FAQ:

FAQ/Ultimate Combat wrote:
The text of the rule is, "The size of a firearm never affects how many hands you need to use to shoot it." The intent of that rule was to prevent a Medium character from using a Small rifle as a one-handed pistol; it wasn’t intended to let a Medium character use a Large, Huge, Gargantuan, or Colossal two-handed firearm as a two-handed weapon. Just like with non-firearms, a creature cannot wield a weapon that’s far too big or small for it. Specifically in the case of firearms, a Medium character can’t use a two-handed firearm sized for a Large or larger creature, and a Small character can’t use a two-handed firearm sized for a Medium or larger creature.

We need some means to determine whether a weapon is far too big or too small when dealing with wrong-sized weapons. Otherwise, a medium creature would be able to wield a colossal longbow.

Ranged weapons don't have "handedness" categories, but they can and do have "virtual handedness" categories. The crossbows, for instance, are neither light, one-handed, or two-handed weapons; but they can function as one of those for the purpose of interacting with various rules elements like TWF. The same logic would, naturally, apply to the bows. The bows explicitly specify rules for needing two hands to wield a "wrong-sized" bow; therefore, you can wield a wrong-sized bow. But there is a logical limit; for instance, it wouldn't make sense for a medium creature to wield a tiny or smaller creature's shortbow. The bows, unlike crossbows, don't specify the virtual handedness category, thus, we need to extrapolate. The rules of thumb is that a two-handed weapon is the same size category as an object as the creature it is intended for; for example, a medium Greatsword is a medium-sized object. Its size is comparable to a medium creature. A Longsword is a small-sized object and a dagger is a tiny-sized object. A medium creature is roughly 5-6' tall and this corresponds to the size of most medium two-handed weapons. A Longbow is about 5' long so we can presume that it is equivalent to a 2-h weapon. A Shortbow is about 3' long so we can presume it is equivalent to a 1-h weapon. Ergo, the virtual handeness categories, for the purpose of determining how far you can go from your intended size category, are 1-h for a Shortbow and 2-h for a Longbow. So, normally, a medium creature can't wield a large Longbow, but he could wield a large shortbow. Likewise, you could wield a tiny creature's longbow, but not their shortbow.

Since Massive Weapons was altered in how it functions, we can apply these rules to show that, as a Medium creature with Massive Weapons, you can wield a Large Longbow for a total of -6 to attack (-2 from 1 size category difference, -4 specific to overcoming normal category difference maximum) and this goes down by 1 for every 3 levels.

No, for the same reason that if an opponent hits you with an unarmed strike or natural weapon, you don't discharge the spell on them. Unless you have some rules element that makes a specific exception, you must make an attack roll to discharge a touch spell against an opponent.

Remember, Good isn't pragmatic. It's hard to justify using Evil spells based on reasoning of "they work better". So it's not so much that the Evil spell "contaminates" you, but more that you're making little choices that pile up and, eventually, your character doesn't care so much about being Good and Noble and more about how well he performs in combat. Alignment and Action ought to be reciprocal for good roleplay; the alignment on your sheet doesn't dictate your actions but it also isn't just an inert element. Moral tension can make for very good roleplay if handled well. Maybe decide if your character really is devoted to being NG or if he's starting to slide into TN territory; and roleplay accordingly.

Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
Kazaan wrote:
Number of arms doesn't affect how many off-hand attacks you have unless it explicitly says so. If it did, then losing an arm ought to reduce your number of off-hand attacks, but nothing indicates that it does. You could get your arm cut off, but still TWF with a weapon in the other hand and a non-hand weapon (ie. armor spikes, unarmed strike, etc). Even a creature without any hands at all can make viable attacks using unarmed strikes and non-hand weapons. Therefore, gaining more hands doesn't automatically grant additional off-hand attacks; you need some rules element that explicitly states you have more than the one standard off-hand attack.

Tell that to the Armor Spikes FAQ. When a FAQ says an official Paizo weapon, which doesn't normally require hands to use, requires a hand to use for TWF, both metaphorically and actually, then you know that more hands = more off-hand attacks, at least in regards to the TWF action.

That's also the entire point of MWF, and it specifically modifies TWF if you possess more than the standard amount of hands the game assumes you possess.

Armor Spikes only require available off-hand attack economy; not a physical hand. You can use armor spikes even if your physical hand is occupied or missing. It's the subsuming of the off-hand attack economy by a two-handed weapon that prevents you from using Armor Spikes, not the fact that both physical hands are occupied.

Number of arms doesn't affect how many off-hand attacks you have unless it explicitly says so. If it did, then losing an arm ought to reduce your number of off-hand attacks, but nothing indicates that it does. You could get your arm cut off, but still TWF with a weapon in the other hand and a non-hand weapon (ie. armor spikes, unarmed strike, etc). Even a creature without any hands at all can make viable attacks using unarmed strikes and non-hand weapons. Therefore, gaining more hands doesn't automatically grant additional off-hand attacks; you need some rules element that explicitly states you have more than the one standard off-hand attack.

Ok, here's the breakdown:

Normally, you get a pool of potential attacks. For example, if your BAB is 11-15, you get three attacks. These attacks can be made with any selection of weapons you have available for use and each sequential attack takes an additional -5 penalty. Any one of these attacks could be with a 2-h weapon, a non-handed weapon, you could drop a weapon and switch to another, whatever you want so long as you stick to that pool of three attacks. To illustrate, it is perfectly valid with BAB+11 to attack with your Longspear two-handed (BAB+11), drop it, quickdraw a Longsword, attack with it either one or two-handed (BAB+6) then make your last attack with armor spikes, unarmed strike, or any other non-handed weapon (BAB+1). This is perfectly valid, it is not considered TWF, and none of your attacks are considered off-hand so you get full Str to damage (or 1.5x in the case of the 2-h attack(s)) and suffer no TWF attack penalty.

When TWF rules enter, you are declaring an off-hand weapon and taking a penalty to all attacks in order to gain a second pool of attacks. Your normal pool of attacks are your main-hand attacks and follow all applicable rules for a normal attack routine save that you cannot make main-hand attacks with your designated off-hand weapon. This pool is separate and distinct from your off-hand pool. Your off-hand pool, by default, has just a single attack. It takes ITWF and GTWF to gain additional attacks. Additionally, each main-hand attack you make two-handed "eats" the next available off-hand attack. Conversely, each off-hand attack you make incurs a "debt" on your main-hand attack that it must be made one-handed. It doesn't matter if your main or off-hand weapon is wielded by hand or is a non-hand-associated weapon (ie. armor spikes, unarmed strikes using parts other than your arms, etc). This is what prevents you from meaningfully meshing 2-h weapons with TWF rules; it is the attack pool being occupied, not the hands themselves. Even if you drop the 2-h weapon, it doesn't "free up" your attack pool. Conversely, items that occupy your hands but do not occupy your attack pool have no bearing on how many attacks you can make. You could very well have a potion in one hand and a Longsword in the other, make one attack with your Longsword one-handed, use an ability or feat to chug your potion as a swift or free action, then continue swinging the Longsword with two hands. Or you could hold a Longspear in two hands and TWF with kicks but still threaten at reach with the spear. Think about it in terms of "attack economy" being separate and distinct from "occupied hands" and it should never be confusing.

Oh the irony, a thread about Breath of Life from over 6 years ago getting necro'ed.

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Ron Swanson.

He has no faith in the governing structure, but also doesn't act chaotically. He's got a soft, personal structure to life and believes that he is the only one he can rely on. He certainly isn't actively evil, but also believes that it is unnecessary to coddle and help others out of pure charity; that people should sink or swim on their own. He believes in the pure simplicity of life without letting it be complicated by overbearing compassion, distracting hedonism, unproductive chaos or oppressive law. Ron Swanson is the epitome TN.

Fernn wrote:

Oh sorry, the fact that anti paladins and the samurai had their own archetype(s) confused me because that implies that archetypes have their own sub archetypes with them.

So an antipaladin that is a knight of the sepulcher is in fact:

A Paladin, with the Anti Paladin Archetype, whose Anti Paladin Archetype has the Knight of the Sepulcher Archetype.

Also, are you saying that once you become a Ninja Archetype Rogue, that some favored class bonuses just stop working?

Yes, there are "archetype archetypes" when it comes to alternate classes, again, for the sake of convenience. These could be considered a completely separate alternate class archetype that is being applied to the base class; KotS applied to Paladin instead of Anti-Paladin, for example. But since the changes to the alternate class itself are on par with the changes of a simple archetype to the base class, they are presented in the rules as an archetype of the alternate class.

Regarding favored class bonuses, the only ones that technically wouldn't work are the rogue talent ones and those can easily be understood to be "shifted" to ninja talents since the alternate class archetype is shifting the whole ability "rogue talents" to "ninja talents" and it is within reason to presume that this shift covers alternate racial favored class bonuses as well.

Here are the swaps being made when applying URogue, as an archetype, to Rogue:
Lvl 1: gain Finesse Training (trade out nothing)
lvl 3: gain finesse training (trade out nothing), trade Trap Sense for Danger Sense (but still counts as Trap Sense for archetypes)
lvl 4: gain Debilitating Injury (trade nothing)
lvl 5: gain Rogue's Edge (trade nothing)

So, as I see it, the URogue, functionally, doesn't trade out any original abilities except for Danger Sense which, explicitly, counts as if it were Trap Sense for archetypes that trade out Trap Sense. All other URogue abilities are gained with no trade. That means that any Rogue archetype, including Ninja, would work with URogue. But, as always, PFS is "special" and chooses to selectively ignore rules that it doesn't want to deal with; ie. restricting ARG racial feats and racial archetypes to that particular race, regardless of half-breed, racial heritage, etc otherwise making them available.

JakeCWolf wrote:

My conflict is simply it doesn't make sense, your "this" kind of holy being yet not "this" kind of holy being, so this doesn't work for you, despite Heavenly Radiance and Angelic Blood being fairly generic terms to describe something holy and good.

But I digress, I'm thankful for the input though, given me a few idea on workarounds and making me wonder if I want to bother with the Angel Bloodline to begin with.

It's called Heavenly Radiance because it alters how you can use the Daylight ability. If you no longer have the Daylight ability, you're no longer the kind of Aasimar who can use Heavenly Radiance. There are different "kinds" of celestial beings just as there are different "kinds" of fiends. Devils, Daemons, and Demons are different so you wouldn't argue that an Abyssal Sorcerer should be able to use Infernal bloodline rules elements on the premise that "evil outsiders are all the same". So why would you argue that "good outsiders are all the same" to justify why a variant heritage that no longer has the racial ability you want to take a feat to support is a "conflict"? There is not, nor was there ever, a real conflict; only an imagined one.

Oh man, I totally misunderstood that title... I was thinking about storing a spell in some kind of choker or tongue piercing and, when I ask someone a question, the spell would come out of my mouth.

"Excuse me sir, do you happen to know the way to the nearest townSCORCHINGRAYINYOFACE!!!"

Fernn wrote:
Also, does your GM approve of you dipping into a rogue archetype for ninja? I hear that as long it replaces certain features its fine, but technically speaking Ninja can not be combined with the rogue class because they Ninja is just a Different version of Rogue, so distinct that they are their own class.

Incorrect. Alternate classes ARE a part of their original class; basically a super-archetype.

CRB/Paladin wrote:
The antipaladin is an alternate class. Making use of and altering numerous facets of the paladin core class, this villainous warrior can't truly be considered a new character class by its own right. By the changes made here, though, the details and tones of the paladin class are shifted in a completely opposite direction and captures an entirely different fantasy theme, without needlessly designing an entire new class.

And, more succinctly:

ACG/Designing Classes wrote:
Alternate Classes: Sometimes an archetype exchanges so many class features that it almost becomes a new class itself. In such cases, the class might warrant a representation of all of the class features, even those that it shares with its base class. While still technically an archetype, characters who play this class have all the tools they need to advance their character in one convenient location. The antipaladin, ninja, and samurai are all examples of an alternate class.

An Alternate Class is just an archetype that is so extensive that list all class features rather than just those that were swapped for the sake of convenience; so you have all your leveling resources in one spot. But, otherwise, a Ninja is just a big, fancy archetype for a Rogue.

Additionally, keep in mind that it's only TWF if you're getting extra attacks. If your BAB is +6, and you do Longsword +6/Gauntlet +6/Longsword +1, that's TWF, but Longsword +6/Gauntlet +1 is not because you're only doing your attacks normally allowed, even though it's split between two weapons. So the gauntlet might come in handy against an enemy with DR/Blud. Lastly, remember that Gauntlets are their own weapon with an added benefit towards Unarmed Strikes (totally different weapon). In effect, you can use a gauntlet in two ways; 1) make an Unarmed Strike with any benefits and penalties normally affecting it (eg. Weapon Focus(Unarmed Strike), Magic Fang, provoking, etc.), with the sole exception that it does lethal rather than nonlethal damage, and 2) make an attack with the Gauntlet weapon with any benefits/penalties that normally apply to attacking with this manufactured weapon (eg. Weapon Focus (Gauntlet), Magic Weapon, etc.).

The way I interpret it, it is, effectively, an Invisibility spell that only has a verbal component (Invisibility has V/S/M/DF components) and the added benefit that it creates an illusion that makes it look like a teleport spell. It specifies that if an observer identifies the spell with a spellcraft check, they make a will save. If they succeed, then the spellcraft check identifies it as the Fool's Teleport spell, though, this doesn't counteract the invisibility. If the will save fails, then their spellcraft check identifies the spell as a random teleportation conjuration (Dimension Door, Teleport, etc.). But if you don't attempt a spellcraft check, apparently, you don't get a will save, though, you can attempt a perception check to notice the presence of an invisible creature. The range is Personal or Touch and, since the illusion of teleportation VFX isn't persistent, concentration is a non-issue beyond the initial casting of the spell. Also, apparently, the spell isn't dismissable as Invisibility would be.

As far as theatrics go, imagine it this way: Normally, when casting invisibility, you do a shimmery fade like Predator and when casting a teleport spell, there's a blur of light going off in the direction you teleported. Fool's Teleport is casting Invisibility, but showing off the blur of light instead of the shimmer effect. It's kind of two illusions at once; the illusion of invisibility and the illusion of the substitute visual effects.

Beopere wrote:

Kazaan your numbers seem enormous to me. How are you getting arc minutes?

(object diameter/orbital distance)*3348 (3348 is radian to arc minute).

Using that formula I find it to be muuuuuch smaller than the values you posted.

Angular diameter for a spherical object is different because the tangent lines to the edges of the sphere don't evenly line up with the center. The formula is Angular_Diameter(radians) = 2arcsin(Actual_Diameter / (2 * Distance)). Then, to convert radians to arcminutes, multiply by 60 * (180/pi). I also had to take into consideration that distance of the moon is generally measured from the center of the planet to the center of the satellite so I had to deduct the radius of the moon from the total distance to give a result for a person standing on the surface with the planet directly overhead.

When it comes to how big something appears, the most important thing is "angular diameter". Two objects, one twice as big and twice as far away, will "appear" the same size because they take up the same amount of space on your retina. How big the moon "looks" is dependent on how far away you hold the ruler. At a certain distance, it may be 3/4 inch diameter, but holding the ruler half the distance away would measure it at 1 1/2 inches and holding the ruler at twice the distance away would make it look 1/4 inch. Also, having a field against which to compare affects apparent size as well. The brain has a tendency to underestimate size given no other input so the moon, high up in the sky, appears smaller because the brain presumes it's closer than it really is and, therefore, rather small. But when the moon is at the horizon where we can compare it to landmarks like trees, hills, and buildings, the brain gets a sense of scale and realizes, "oh wow, it's bigger than I thought and also much further away." The same thing happens with airplanes and other aircraft. So, the best way to compare is by comparing the angular diameter of Jupiter from its moons to the angular diameter of our moon from Earth (29.3-34.1 arcminutes).

That having been said, Jupiter has a diameter of about 139822 km and distances from the moons as follows: Io (419,879 km), Europa (669,473 km), Ganymede (1,067,781 km), and Callisto (1,880,299 km). Thus, the angular diameter from each moon would be: Io (65898 arcminutes), Europa (41213 arcminutes), Ganymede (25811 arcminutes), and Callisto (14650 arcminutes). By comparison, the angle for Earth's moon is about 31.7 arcminutes. So relative sizes compared to our own moon would be Io (2079x), Europa (1300x), Ganymede (814x) and Callisto (462x). So, at its smallest, Jupiter, from the surface of Callisto looks 462 times as big as our own moon does from Earth and, from the surface of Io, it looks 4.5x as big as it does from Callisto. For additional reference, the angular diameter of the Earth from the surface of the moon is about 114 arcminutes so the Earth from the moon looks about 3.6x as big as the moon from the Earth.

So, your answer to "how big does Jupiter look from its moons" is, "rather overwhelming" as, even at its smallest from Callisto, it could span one horizon to the other. For the closer planets, you could see Jupiter out past the horizon even when on the opposite side of the moon.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

The problem comes with the conflation of a zealot for their religion and a zealot for themselves who wears a religion. Paladins are, by definition, zealots for Good. But Good, in Pathfinder, isn't a subjective, abstract thing; it is a real, concrete force as real for Pathfinder as Gravity or Electromagnetism is for us. Good is a tangible force and Paladins live their lives upholding and espousing Good and fighting enemies of Good. They cannot do this while simultaneously being corrupted by their power; it is fundamentally impossible because, as stated, Good is a tangible manifestation in the universe. A corrupted, overbearingly zealous Paladin who wishes to "enforce" Good upon all is a fallen Paladin.

Even in the real world, we have the concept that a "religious terrorist" is an oxymoron when the religion in question espouses peace. But that doesn't stop a terrorist from "self-identifying" as a particular religion. Since religions are entirely abstract in the real world, it is purely the social power we empower them with that grants "clerics" and "crusaders" in the real world with the power they have; social power. But in Pathfinder, Clerics and Paladins literally wield real, tangible, concrete divine power and those powers can and will be revoked; something that doesn't necessarily happen in the real world when a "religious leader" contradicts their own religion. They don't suddenly, magically, an absolutely lose their social power; in fact, in many cases, they gain social power by misrepresenting their religion. They are selfish zealots, interested in their own personal power, who hide behind a facade of being religious zealots. It's much harder to do this when your supposed position as a religious leader isn't backed up by divine might. Thus, the GM in question, if he is interested in being a good and competent GM, ought to evaluate whether A) the person in question is actually a religious representative by the rules of the game and B) what the religion actually espouses in terms of "enforcement" among the people.

PS: In the U.S., it is actually unconstitutional to prohibit a priest from becoming president because religious affiliation is, absolutely, not a qualifier for public office. You could no more ban a priest from becoming president (or being elected to any other office) than you could for an atheist. But the people could choose not to vote for the priest if they feel his religious views would unduly influence his political power; but that is entirely up to public opinion. What people think is right and wrong tends to have far more social power than what is actually right and wrong.

Touch AC is still AC. It's just AC without certain bonuses.

Two natural attacks, one with each claw.

Basically, shield bonus =/= shield just like armor bonus =/= armor. It has to, explicitly, be a shield in order to be enhanced as a shield.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Blur makes the intended target look "out of focus" so it's hard to properly aim. Imagine putting on someone's glasses with a very strong prescription (or, if you already wear a very strong prescription, take off your glasses) and this what the target looks like. Mirror Image, on the other hand, is your classic ninja clone technique that makes a bunch of copies appear. Your character is, effectively, picking one at random to attack and, if you hit (or nearly hit) the wrong one, it "pops". Another thing to consider is that Displacement is a Glamer while MI is a Figment. This means that the Displacement effect "comes from" the target, kind of like the illusion of the bent/broken straw in water while the MI effect is free-standing. Furthermore, Displacement doesn't specify that it dispels on being hit. So, if you had both Mirror Image as well as Displacement, one of those images wouldn't "pop" if hit. Lastly, there is a slight difference in the wording of Concealment vs Mirror Image. Mirror Image states that it comes into effect "if the attack is a hit" while Concealment states, "if the attacker hits". So, what is a "hit"? "If your result equals or beats the target's Armor Class, you hit and deal damage." So beating their AC corresponds to "if the attacker hits". But Concealment can "retcon" that hit into a technical miss. This would mean that the attacker hit, but the attack missed. From a purely mechanical standpoint, this means that Concealment must be processed first. So, you first roll your concealment to see if you hit an actual target (real or figment) or you missed due to them being either blurry or displaced. Once you've determined that you hit "something", you roll for MI to determine whether that "something" was a creature, or a figment that will pop if you hit or nearly hit it.

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I was going to say no at first, but on looking more critically, I can't find any logical reason to say this isn't permissible. It's the same logic that says that an alternate class (ie. Ninja) can take Rogue archetypes provided they have the class feature to trade. Neither Samurai (alternate Cavalier) nor Anti-Paladin (alternate Paladin) has any of the class features that the "original" class trades out so, effectively, no Cavalier archetype works for a Samurai nor Paladin for Anti-Paly. But there are Rogue archetypes that work for Ninja because they trade class abilities that are the same for both Rogue and Ninja. Ergo, if both a pure race and its associated half-race share the same exact racial trait, then the half-race ought to be able to take the alternate racial trait from the pure race's list (though, not vice versa). Instances of this kind of crossover are, undoubtedly, going to be rare, but the potential is there. However, in PFS, races are considered completely discrete and things listed under a given race are not considered share-able even with half-breeds.

Ok, here's what you can do with a double-barreled gun:

As a Standard Attack Action, you can fire both barrels with a -4 penalty, rolling for each one. You get two shots, but only on your Attack action (Neither Full-Attack nor AoO is the Attack action). Or you may make a full-attack and make your normal attacks with the benefit that you reduce the impact of reloading. With a single-barrel gun, you fire once, reload, fire again. With a double-barrel gun, on a full-attack, you fire twice (BAB+6, then BAB+1, no -4 penalty), then reload either one or both barrels. In other words, you don't consider each potential attack within a full-attack to be an Attack action and subject to the "doubling" effect.

Well, in the case of a damaging spell like Fireball, it would attempt to damage things like walls, pillars, obstacles, etc. Spread effects like Glitterdust affect objects and walls would certainly be objects, so if the wall (or ceiling for that matter) are within the area of effect, they will be covered in craft herpes. Grease affects solid surfaces and, if the counter-argument is that the spell doesn't specifically allow the effect to turn at a 90 degree angle, that also means the spell doesn't specifically allow the effect to turn at any angle. But it would be ridiculous to presume that Grease must be cast upon a mirror-flat surface or that you cannot grease a set of stairs. Thus, it is more meaningful to say that the spell must, in some way, spell out that you can't affect a non-horizontal surface because can is built into the system by default.

HWalsh wrote:

That is cute but I disagree.

In Pathfinder there is no "Greater Good" there is just "Good" and it is from that which Paladins gain their power. If a Paladin does something evil, for any reason, then they fall. It doesn't matter if that evil action is for the "greater good" or not.

In the scope of Pathfinder everything I outlined is factual.

Yeah... no. If you bothered to actually read what I wrote instead of dismissing it out of hand, you'd realize that you are mistaking fake "greater good" for real "Greater Good". I took the time to write out the explanation so it's rather rude of you to pretend you understand it without even having taken the time to read it. It's not nearly as "cut and dry" as you've attempted to make it; you've over-simplified the matter to the point of absurdity. Good is a force in Pathfinder. People, magic, actions, etc. can resonate with that force. Paladins draw power from a very strong resonance with that force and, as such, they have a far greater burden to uphold its values than any other character who shares Good alignment. "Greater Good" is not just pragmatism or rationalization of Evil acts; Good is not pragmatic and doesn't compromise in this way. But people often will rationalize their actions and (mistakenly) call it "greater good". Thus, you have made an Equivocation Fallacy in your argument, confusing pragmatism and rationalization for actual absolutist force interactions.

Furthermore, while a Paladin falls for committing an Evil act, that is not because they are Good but because their code prohibits it. Their code is not a matter of pragmatism; it is a set of guidelines to ensure that the Paladin maintains their strong resonance with the force of Good in order to maintain his powers. A Paladin falling and losing his powers stems from losing resonance with the universal force of Good, not just because of the code itself. Just like any laws of physics, they describe how the world works, they don't define how the world works. But we're not discussing how and why Paladins fall, we're discussing matters of universal force resonance and, for that, intentions do matter.

HWalsh wrote:

Rule 1: There is no such thing as the "Greater Good."

The concept of the greater good is something people created so they wouldn't feel bad for doing evil things. It is a coping mechanism. Generally good people who felt bad about doing evil conjured it up as a way to justify their actions.
1) In Pathfinder, there IS an objective "Greater Good" which applies. This Greater Good is what grants Paladins power, fuels the powers of Celestial Outsiders, etc. It is a tangible force as real in Pathfinder as Electromagnetism is for us. Moreover, even if you're applying "real-world" philosophy (already a mistake), can you objectively prove that "Greater Good" isn't real? Sure, even if it IS real, people will still mistake other things FOR it; typically they mistake pragmatism for "Greater Good". But to claim that real, actual "Greater Good" is absolutely unreal based on nothing at all is very illogical.

Rule 2: Intentions don't matter.

If a Paladin does something evil they fall. It doesn't matter why. This applies universally. If an evil character does something good, regardless of why, its still good. An evil character who does too much good becomes neutral or good, much like a good character who does too much evil CAN become neutral or evil.
Intentions matter very much. Again, Good and Evil, at least in the scope of the Pathfinder game (which we are currently discussing), are tangible, appreciable, real forces. People aren't "good" JUST because of a personal decision; they are Good because their actions AND intentions resonate with the energy of Good. Paladins are sworn so strongly to Good that both their actions AND their intentions must unwaiveringly resonate with Good. But other character not so code-bound may resonate on just one side of that equation. Actually, it's more of an inequality because Action weighs a bit more than Intent, but that doesn't mean that Intent has no value. Furthermore, even if we WERE talking about the real world, there is a very good argument for the value of utilitarianism in the morality of action. Is it moral to let a killer live and escape and threaten people? Can you absolutely say that the immorality of killing a killer completely invalidates the threat to their future victims? I'll give you a hint: no, you can't. You might think you can, but that doesn't make it correct.

Rule 3: The ends don't matter, only the means.

This is the most important part. It doesn't matter what the outcome is. If you save an innocent child then you did a good thing. If that child grows up to be Hitler it doesn't change that you did a good thing.

Likewise, if you murder a man because he was in the way of good it doesn't change the fact that you murdered a man.
Events don't exist in a vacuum. Everything is a continuum so, realistically, it's the division between means and ends that is a false-dichotomy. In the scope of Pathfinder's objective morality, it isn't the "act" of killing that is inherently evil (Good murder-hobos kill dangerous non-Good creatures for a living), but how that killing resonates with the cosmological energies. Was it killing for Good (It's a sad job, but it must be done) or was it killing for Evil (Woo, look how far that blood spray went!). Intent and action, again, go hand-in-hand. Even in the real world, both intent and action are important. Furthermore, in your first rule, you claimed that there is no Greater Good. If that were truly the case, then your other rules are invalid because if there's nothing that determines what kinds of actions are "good" or "evil", it's entirely up to personal discretion. If one followed all three of your rules, the first claims that Greater Good doesn't exist, thus, there are no such things as "good" or "evil" acts; everything is subjective and personal, so Rules 2 and 3 serve no purpose as NOTHING matters, neither means nor ends nor intentions.

Comments now with 100% more bold flavor.

Ok, I've thought this over for quite some time, and I think I've come up with a pretty good system for how to address this issue. Note that these aren't just a "list of suggestions" but things that need to be implemented together; doing some of them without the rest will likely do more harm than good.

1) Tiered classes. There are three "starting age" categories for classes; Intuitive, Self-Taught, and Studied. Intuitive classes start younger because, presumably, it takes less training to achieve your first level while Studied classes start older because it takes more training. But this only applies to the very first class your character takes because, beyond that, every class takes exactly the same exp to train. I propose Intuitive classes (Barb, Rogue, Sorc, Oracle) should take less exp to level up while Studied classes (Alch, Druid, Cleric, Inquis, Magi, Wiz, Monk) take more exp to level up.

2) Running exp costs. Instead of having an ever-growing cost for "character level" to which you overlay a class level, have level cost based on the actual level of the class being attained. To illustrate, instead of a lvl 19 Fighter needing lvl 20 exp to get Rogue 1, let him get Rogue 1 for only lvl 1 exp cost. This bolsters multi-classing a bit because it lets a multi-class character gain "point values" (ie. saves, HP, attribute increases, BAB, etc) at a faster rate while foregoing class specialty.

3) Re-tool classes. Right now, classes are very scattered in utility. By lining up utility and growth rate with the "starting age" tiers, this can be much more unified. For instance, Intuitive classes would be more front-loaded with very narrow focus. They progress through levels fastest, but gain less per level doing so and have the least versatility, though, to avert "dipping abuse", their growth rates may jump up at certain thresholds (ie. hit dice gets bigger, shifts to higher BAB at a certain level, etc). Self-taught classes have an even spread of abilities throughout their class and Studied classes have the most delayed growth but also the greatest versatility.

4) Delayed unconsciousness. Right now, you are staggered right at 0 and then any damage beyond that takes you right into KOsville. Instead, let Con determine how far below 0 you can go before falling unconscious from HP loss. For instance, a character with a +3 Con modifier wouldn't fall unconscious until he hits -4 HP, though, he still starts making "bleed-out" rolls at -1. This gives a little more margin to compensate for a sour fight.

5) More options to use multiple attribute scores. MAD classes get quite hosed because the benefits of a single high attribute score drastically outweigh several moderate scores due to the fact that you can typically only use 1 attribute at a time. This is "supposed" to be countered by the notion that getting a single high attribute is "difficult", but it's not really. So, for MAD setups, allow combining scores for better results.

6) "Magic level" and "Martial level" sliders to determine how "Magic" the campaign will be and how "Martial" the campaign will be. Low Magic will push effective spell levels up and cut spells/day while High Magic will bring effective spell levels down and boost spells/day. For the Martial slider, it will increase the BAB prereq for feats at Low Martial or reduce BAB growth and, for High Martial, either increase BAB growth or reduce BAB prereqs. So Low Martial will represent a more gritty, realistic approach to armed combat, Mid Martial is the normal state of the game now, and High Martial would allow martials to do all sorts of crazy stunts. Maybe even Mythic Martial which brings Mythic abilities down to just somewhat above average and you've got superpowered Anime martials running around.

7) Armor as both AC and DR. In the traditional system, Armor is, literally, hit or miss. It either protects you completely or it does nothing. Add some DR to armor pieces so that it offers at least some protection even if it doesn't completely negate an attack. Of course, heavy armor would have the most DR while light armor has the least.

8) Tiers of item workmanship. Presently, there is only Masterwork as a non-magical way to strengthen items. Instead, I propose a tiered system involving both sub-par items that reduce quality in exchange for fast, cheep creation, as well as boosted tiers higher than plain Masterwork.

Well, there are a few things at play here. First is the objectivity of Good/Evil as tangible forces in the universe. Pathfinder is predicated on the idea that Good and Evil aren't just abstract, subjective matters of behavior, but real, tangible forces, as real as gravity and electromagnetism. In Pathfinder cosmology and meta-reality, Good and Evil are both real forces as well as a meta-matter. Celestial beings are, literally, "made of Good" (capital G) while Fiends are "made of Evil" (capital E) in the same way that Fire Elementals are "made of Fire" (capital F). So, when we're talking about matters of planar influence and interaction, you must treat the four Alignment energies (Good, Evil, Chaos, Law) as being real, objective, and tangible just as the four Elemental energies (Fire, Cold, Lightening, Acid) and the two Primal energies (Positive, Negative).

Second, is the moral inequality between Good and Evil. Good seeks cooperation and compassion while Evil seeks competition and destruction. Good wants to work together to protect the innocent, and so, takes on more of a "united we stand" view. By comparison, Evil is the exact opposite of the "united" front; Evil is all about competition and, in order for one to rise, another must consequentially fall. So working together comes naturally to those who are Good. Evil, on the other hand, considers anyone a fair rival and competitor; allies are transient and each side in an "alliance" is looking for the opportunity to capitalize on the other for self-gain. Thus, both Good and Evil will actively fight Evil; Good is united and fights Evil as a united front; Evil is divided and in-fights with other Evil forces. So just fighting against Evil doesn't automatically make you Good; "the enemy of my enemy is my next target". Additionally, Evil can "fake" being good without actually being good but not the other way around. If an Evil person spares an innocent as either a whim, as part of a ruse, or purely out of self-interest, that is VERY different from a Good person killing an innocent "for the Greater Good".

Lastly, Neutral is a valid option both for those who intend to "walk the razor's edge" as well as for those who simply don't care one way or the other. If actions, good or evil, are merely tools for you and you'll use either if convenient, then it doesn't matter if you consistently pick the "good" tool because you aren't actively promoting or supporting it; it just so happens to be convenient more often than not. It's the active commitment to Good that distinguishes a "Good" act from a "good" act (note capitalization). A Good character, for instance, protects the innocent because he is Good. A Neutral character could protect those same innocent but not "because" he is Good but for any number of reasons (just because he can, expects a reward, sees the challenge as a way to personal strength, etc). And an Evil character could protect those same innocent but on account of Evil reasons (demands an exorbitant reward, wants to corrupt them later, to draw their faith away from a Good deity, etc). In these examples, the Good character's actions reinforce his alignment towards the cosmological force of Good because he is devoted to Good. But the Neutral and Evil character's actions would be neutral actions because they are done without commitment. But if these characters became, for whatever reason, committed to Good through their actions, that is very different.

That having been said, lets analyze the case at hand for an LE character using merciless tactics to pursue the "greater good". First off, merciless tactics. He has no qualms about killing his adversary or massively overpowering a weaker opponent. As stated above, the distinction will, necessarily, come from whether the "win" is seen as all-important (an Evil trait) or if "winning" is merely a necessary tool to achieve his goals (a Neutral trait). Second, is "greater good". Is this character devoted to "Good", or is he devoted to a personal concept of "good" as he sees it (note capitalization)? Being devoted to actual Good is, by definition, a Good trait. But being devoted to a personal standard that doesn't really line up with objective Good but, rather, is "good as I see it" may be called "greater good" but that isn't necessarily "Greater Good" because real "Greater Good" doesn't compromise; you don't need to use "Evil" tactics to promote Greater Good because Greater Good guarantees itself through your raw devotion. Not "Might makes Right" but, rather, "Right makes Might". So, lets look at the combinations and results:

1) Merciless as tool (N) + objectively, devotedly Good (G) = Good so long as he keeps winning. Remember, Greater Good proves itself so if the character is truly devoted to real Greater Good as well as Merciless as a tool without slipping into merciless for the sake of the win, but loses anyway, he'd necessarily need to re-evaluate "being merciless" as a valid tool. If he clings to "mercilessness", then he slips down into Neutral. If he decides to be less merciless to better emphasize Greater Good, then he stays Good.

2) Merciless as a tool (N) + personal, subjective "greater good" (N) = Neutral. He "claims" to be devoted to what he calls good, but it's not "Good", it's some set of moral guidelines that has no backing by the meta-verse, thus, Neutral.

3) Merciless as a rule (E) + objectively, devotedly Good (G) = Neutral. This is more of a "razor's edge" Neutral because it encompasses two opposed energies. He is honestly devoted to the concept of Good and, essentially, martyrs himself by using the power of Evil in order to fight Evil. The ends do not justify the means so even if he is actively working towards Good, his actions are actively working against Good so he represents a balance of forces rather than the "Neutrality of apathy" where character merely lacks commitment one way or the other. You can't have your cake and eat it too, though, so even though he "fights for Heaven" so to speak, he'll never get there himself.

4) Merciless as a rule (E) + personal, subjective "greater good" (N) = Evil. Since his goal is subjective, it bears no weight on his alignment unless his "definition" of "Greater Good" involves active Evil in which case this is very Evil, but his actions are already weighing his alignment towards Evil anyway so that's a moot point. In his mind, winning is all-important for the sake of something that isn't Good (no matter how much he calls it such) so his "greater good" is a matter of personal power at the expense of others more than anything else.

I don't know why this is all so confusing. Ok, technically I "know" why, but I don't "understand" why such a state would occur in the first place. Basically, the problem comes in viewing acts in combat as discrete and indivisible; kind of like the old (and obsolete) view of the atom as being a solid, indivisible marble. An attack action (for example) is not the solid marble that people make it out to be; you first declare that you are making an attack action, then you determine the outcome of said attack action, finally, you adjudicate the results of the attack action. Just as the atom is mostly empty space, there are plenty of gaps in what is mistakenly taken as a single point event. So, lets illustrate:

Player A: readies attack action w/ 5' step on trigger [is attacked in melee]
Player B: attacks in melee
- a) Player B declares attacking in melee (subsumes standard action)
- interrupt Player A executes readied attack
- b) Player B makes any applicable rolls for their attack
- c) GM adjudicates applicable results of Player B's attack

So Player B already spent their standard action in the process of declaring their attack action, but has not yet completed the full action so the action hasn't "happened" (ie. it hasn't completed). The readied action or AoO occurs before the triggering action "happens" (again, "happens" = completed), but not before the action is declared and, as a logical consequence of the rules, spending of action economy occurs during the declaration of an action/act. Regarding the infinite chain of readied attacks+5' step, the easiest method would be one of the following:
1) If the trigger is an opponent moving adjacent, then the readied attack only interrupts the move, it doesn't force it to end. So the opponent simply continues moving (up to his movement limit) and attacks.
2) If the trigger is an opponent attacking in melee, then move adjacent and just camp. You don't trigger their readied attack and you're a 5' step away from them if they try to ready another attack or you can AoO if they move away; their only other option is Withdraw, and that precludes another readied attack.

Skip gtwf and get tw-defense at lvl 10 instead. Then, get TW-Rend at lvl 14. Also, keep in mind that going Dex TWF Ranger is giving up a big advantage of being able to take TWF feats without investing heavily in Dex.

The Sword wrote:
You are equating liying with misleading/deceiving - they are different words with two different meanings of subtly so.

Misleading/deceiving is synonymous with lying. You claim you want to stick with the "Oxford and Cambridge" definition and reject definitions that come from other dictionaries. Well, lets see what Oxford has to say:

Oxford Dictionary wrote:

Lie (noun)
1. An intentionally false statement
1.1 Used with reference to a situation involving deception or founded on a mistaken impression

Well, Oxford seems to think that lies can be based on deception or mistaken impressions. Lets go to Cambridge:

Cambridge Dictionary wrote:

Lie (verb)
to say something that is not ​true in ​order to ​deceive

Cambridge, at first glance, may suggest that only explicitly untrue statements are lies and that to deceive by misleading or omission is something different; but how does Cambridge define 'true'?

Cambridge Dictionary wrote:

True (adj)

agreeing with ​fact; not ​false or ​wrong:

And wrong?

Wrong (adj)
not ​correct or not ​accurate:

Cambridge defines wrong as including both incorrect as well as inaccurate claims, to which true refers by negation. Thus, if the statement is both accurate and correct, it is considered true while, if it is either inaccurate, incorrect, or both, it is not considered true. A lie is defined, by Cambridge, as using not true statements, thus inaccurate but technically correct statements still qualify as being lies. What you are doing is cherry picking, selecting examples specifically to support your claim and ignoring any evidence that would contradict your claim. Not only that, but you're failing at it because the dictionaries you cherry-picked don't even support your claim.

So, at the end of the day, lies are defined by the intent to deceive more than anything else. It doesn't matter if that deception is due to blatant falsehoods, misconstruction, omission, or anything of the sort. And the Aes Sedai, as I said, were only prohibited from blatant and explicit falsehoods rather than lying, and this was a plot device. Robert Jordan never wanted people to believe that Aes Sedai cannot "lie" and this was repeated over and over in the books. He wanted people to know that just preventing them speaking untrue words (he apparently did not choose to use Cambridge's definition) does not prevent them from lying.

The only good way to play this is to be a small race and be on the run from the authorities: you'd be a small medium at large.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
The Sword wrote:

I always thought truth was dealt with very well in The Wherl of Time series where Aes Sedail have an unbreakable oath against lying. They are described as being able to make truth spin like the head on a coin. Ages Sedai cannot lie but the truth isn't always what you think you hear.

Lies by omission or answers to questions other than the one asked could still confound a truth spell. However I would still allow a sense motive - just maybe not sgainst bluff. I might allow such a character who uses logic to lie by omission to use diplomacy. The lawyeristic approach. 5th ed lets you substitute Stats so instead you could use a a Bluff with Int to lie this way. I like that.

Q " did a blonde girl just run past"
A "do you honestly think I have the time to sitand around in the street looking for your women"

Q. "You helped me earlier, if I help you get out are we even." (She hadn't helped)
A. "All debts to me are ended when you see me safe outside the wall"

Actually, the Aes Sedai do not have an oath "against lying", they have an oath "against speaking untrue words". That's a drastic difference and basically allows Aes Sedai to lie at will with careful wording. But to "lie" is to try to deceive and covers both explicit lies (outright falsehoods) as well as implicit lies (speak the truth but rely on misinterpretation). I think in Pathfinder, this would be a rules element that lets you make a Bluff check using Int rather than Cha to "lie with the truth".

On the other side of the spectrum is trying to convince someone that something unbelievable actually did happen. It's a simple DC20 Sense Motive check to get a hunch as to someone's trustworthiness.

"A lie that is half a truth is ever the blackest of lies" -Alfred Lord Tennyson

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I guess it all depends on how abstract vs simulationist you want your world to be. If you want it more simulationist, it does make sense that certain races would start off, say, one or two levels lower or higher on the "friendliness" scale based on race relations. If you want it more abstract, you can just hand-waive it and say it either does or does not happen in the background, but either way it doesn't appreciably impact the story at hand. Middle ground would be to throw in a few tidbits here and there, but nothing too involved to show that it is happening (and, face it, it is happening) but it's more of a nod than anything.

That having been said, I think my favorite is a Dwarven slur, "Trebek". As explained in character:

Dwarf: "Trebek is the most vile, impolite word in the Dwarven tongue. It means 'man with a moustache'."
Other: "Just 'man with a moustache'? What's so bad about that?"
Dwarf: "phah, don't you brats know anything about Dwarven culture? Dwarves take great pride in their glorious beards. Why, a Dwarf's beard is more important than his life. So how awful, how vile and crude it is to tell someone that they can't even manage to grow a beard, but only a moustache? It is certainly not a word one utters in polite company."
Other: "So... why did you call me one?"
Dwarf: "Well, you guys hardly count as polite company."

Standard Actions
- Attack
- Use Special Ability
- Use Feat

Full-Round Actions
- Full-Attack
- Use Special Ability
-Use Feat

Vital Strike uses the Standard>Attack action. The attacks allowed by Overwatch Style are subordinated to a Full-Round>Use Feat action. They are "raw attacks" contained within the framework of what the feat allows, rather than independent Attack actions. As such, they cannot be modified by rules elements that require the use of the Attack action (eg. Vital Strike, Overhand Chop, etc).

But Vital Strike, itself, is a modification of the Standard>Attack action and, as such, could be combined with other elements that do the same, though not with elements that rely on the Use Special Ability or Use Feat actions or any other such actions (such as Cleave or Charge).

Basically, if you want to TWF with two lances while mounted, you need something that allows you to wield them as one-handed weapons rather than just "in one hand". There are viable choices for this, such as Titan Mauler's Jotungrip. More round-about is Phalanx soldier who needs to use a shield in order to wield a polearm one-handed (use a Buckler since you can still wield a weapon while wearing a Buckler). Another thing to keep in mind is that TWF only applies to additional attack economy from wielding two weapons. If you wanted to wield, say, a +5 Merciful Defending Lance in one hand and a +3 Holy Flaming Lance in the other but still stick to your normal BAB iteratives without using TWF rules to gain extra attacks, you can still perfectly well do that; convert all the Defending Lance's bonus to AC and make a single attack with it, then make your remaining attacks with the Holy Flaming Lance.

@CampinCarl: You're misunderstanding the systematic component of the rules. You have a hand devoted to grasping, but you also have a mechanical system of "attack pools" which govern how many attacks you can make. When you TWF, your main-hand and off-hand weapon each have an independent attack pool, but when you use a 2-h weapon it subsumes the potential attack pool of your off-hand (whether the off-hand weapon requires a physical hand or is a non-handed weapon doesn't matter) as well as requiring the grasping component of your actual hand. To illustrate, you cannot use a Greatsword and also TWF with armor spikes or a boot blade because, despite the fact that those off-hand weapons don't require using your "hands", they still require use of your off-hand attack pool which is currently being suppressed by use of a 2-h weapon. Now, if that's clear, we'll move on to the distinction between "one-handed" and "in one hand".

One-handed is a category of weapons, alongside two-handed and light. In one hand, however, is a description of how many physical hands are devoted to wielding it. Two-handed weapons require both your potential off-hand attack pool as well as both your hands to grasp. If a rules element states that you may wield a normally two-handed weapon "one-handed" (or anything to equivalent effect), it is talking about a virtual change to the weapon category; you no longer treat it as if it were a two-handed weapon but treat it as if it were one-handed instead. This means that it only uses a single attack pool, it gets normal str and power attack damage, and cannot be used with special abilities like Overhand Chop or Pushing Assault which require you to wield a two-handed weapon. But the Lance is different; it does not say it is wielded "one-handed" but, rather, says it can be wielded "in one hand". This means it is still counts, for all things, as a two-handed weapon except for the requirement that a two-handed weapon needs two hands to grasp it; you can wield it in one hand, but it still counts as a two-handed weapon. The only function this plays is to free up a grasping hand for other uses, predominantly either using a shield (not bashing with it, though), or using your mount's reins to avoid guiding with your knees.

Beauty is subjective. It can't be converted to a number because different people find different things beautiful. An Orc likely finds other Orcs much more beautiful than Elves. A person can find animals beautiful. A painting or well-made pottery can be beautiful. You might find redheads more beautiful than any other hair color. What you find beautiful is subjective, based on your personal preferences. Charisma just measures how much so. If you find them beautiful, Charisma will measure which is more beautiful than the other. You might encounter two characters, both of whom you consider beautiful, but one has a Cha of 6 while the other has a Cha of 19. You still consider both beautiful, but the 19 is far more beautiful than the 6. Charisma is not a scale with Ugly at the low numbers and Beautiful at the high numbers. Take the above example again, but consider two characters both of whom you consider ugly. The one with 19 Cha, you would consider far more ugly than the one with only 6 Cha. Some of the most mind-breakingly hideous monsters in the system have extremely high Charisma. So first, you must consider what subjective quality your character would place on them and then use Charisma to determine how strong or weak a reaction they get.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Like and dislike would be, for example, Pharasma disliking the undead. She deals in death, but dislikes undeath. Diametrically Opposed, on the other hand, is literally defined as co-opposition; A is opposed to B and vice versa. So for Neutral to be diametrically opposed to the four corner alignments, the prohibition must be mutual. This is not the case. There are only two diametrically opposed pairs; Good vs Evil and Law vs Chaos. Good deities (regardless of LG, NG, or CG) are diametrically opposed to Evil and, thus, will not provide spells of Evil descriptor, and vice versa. That is it; they don't care if the spell has the Lawful or Chaotic descriptor or even no descriptor; the only thing that matters is if the Evil flag is checked. For a LG deity, they are checking two separate flags; Evil and Chaotic. If either one is present, they will not support the spell. If the spell lacks these two flags, it's good to go. Neutral checks for no flags; a Neutral deity doesn't care about alignment flags because they know that these are all valid tools and its only devotion to a single extreme that is bad.

Jokem wrote:

Maybe I ought to put this in a new thread, but since it seems to be partly related to this discussion I will place it here.

If an evil character tries to cast Dominate Person on a target warded by Protection from Evil the spell won't work, correct?

Protection from Evil will not help if the caster of Dominate Person is Lawful Neutral, but protection from Law will help?

Assuming the above it true, what if a True Neutral Caster invokes Dominate Person... There is no protection spell for that so the target better make the save?

Correct, though this places the onus of maintaining said neutrality on the caster; if their actions and beliefs shift them away from TN, then their spells will start being affected by said Protection From <...> spells.

CBDunkerson wrote:
Kazaan wrote:
Honestly, all the facts were laid out and if he still refused to accept the truth, then he has no business being a GM; he is completely unsuited for the task. He should either step down and let someone competent handle the responsibility, accept the advice of people who understand the rules and the fundamentals of logic far better than he, or you should leave outright. Being a GM isn't just about "I'm always right, screw your logic"; it is an important job in the game and a heavy responsibility to the group. The GM is a referee for the game, and referees are still obligated to make proper calls. Those that fail and fail consistently get fired.
Yeesh! People need to get a grip. I don't agree with the ruling either, but it is hardly the end of the world. GMs can, do, and should make house rules all the time. A house rule you dislike does not make someone a bad GM. In this case he seems to be trying to apply some 'balance' to the number of alignments each character can summon... RAW CE/CG/LE/LG can each summon 4, NE/NG/CN/LN 6 each, and NN all 9. He is changing that to NN being able to summon 5. Much more in line with the other alignments. I don't think it is necessary, but it also isn't a big deal at all.
PRD wrote:

The Most Important Rule

The rules presented are here to help you breathe life into your characters and the world they explore. While they are designed to make your game easy and exciting, you might find that some of them do not suit the style of play that your gaming group enjoys. Remember that these rules are yours. You can change them to fit your needs. Most Game Masters have a number of "house rules" that they use in their games. The Game Master and players should always discuss any rules changes to make sure that everyone understands how the game will be played. Although the Game Master is the final arbiter of the rules, the Pathfinder RPG is a shared experience, and all of the players should contribute their thoughts when the rules are in doubt.

The GM's role isn't just to make unilateral decisions and houserule all willy-nilly. And it certainly isn't to dismiss logical understanding and insist that his incorrect reading of the rules is actually correct. No one is arguing that he can't houserule that TN has these restrictions; the contention is that he is arguing from the point that these are default rules built into the game itself. You must understand the rules before you can bend the rules. If he pulls nonsense like this now, he's only going to do it more later. Furthermore, he isn't just changing TN to be able to summon 5; that would inherently force the four corners down to 3 so you'd end up with CE/CG/LE/LG @ 3, NE/NG/CN/LN @ 6, and TN @ 5; somehow, the "edge" alignments now have the greatest numbers and the corners have been dropped by 25% while TN was dropped by 44%. So even your contention that this change "isn't a big deal" is in error since it drastically changes the playing field by changing a 4/6/9 ratio (50% more at each step) to a 3/6/5 ratio (proportions be damned).

Nawiex wrote:

Checking everything you say here is actually useful, specially the guy who mentioned the ultimate campaign, it helps to clarify things. The main problem here was the summoning system. They dont want the neutral cleric to be able to summon all the possible monsters with "Summon Monster". This is a personal preference; there is no rule that explicitly states a neutral cleric shouldn't gain access to all possible monsters with Summon Monster

The GM statements are:

- A cleric gets his spells from their god (developer said this) this is accurate
- Neutral is against every "extreme", on alignment description (core rulebook) This is not stated anywhere in the rules.
- A cleric cant cast spells with alignment opposed to them or their deities. This is misconstrued; alignment is made of two components and a spell might be Lawful AND Good, but it is not Lawful Good

So TN cant cast summon mosnter to get an archon, because it becomes a LG spell and his god hates extremes, since LG is extreme, he cant do it.

That is what GM says and makes perfect logic for him, he even asked it on another forum and got some ppl supporting it, os now he proceeds to say that as a "rule", not a house rule.
Then your GM doesn't understand logic and uses the bandwagon fallacy to support his claim.

The statements from the players are:

- Ok, so alignment is a thing that can get messy, but there are some mechanics that the game itself says are defined on the stat blocks (like devils being LE), one of these things are spell descriptors.

- On the cleric entry Core Rulebook it says: Clerics cant cast spells with alignment opposed to their alignment or their deity alignment. Spells get their alignment as descriptors, it mentiosn 4 descriptors. Also in the magic chapters we can find the types of descriptros and it says that spells can have more than one descriptor.

- There is no "neutral descriptor", nor "Lawful good" descriptor. There is just [LawfuL,Good] as two descriptors.

And here is the point where we have the problem. Player says that if neutral is opposed to "extremes", then extreme should be opposed to neutral, so every "extreme" character from "extreme" deity shouldnt be able to cast any "neutral" spell. Gm says: that is why there is no [neutral] descriptor.

Again, the rules don't say "opposed to extremes"; they say "opposed to alignment descriptor". In order to be opposed, the spell MUST possess the appropriate descriptor. Absence of a descriptor proves irrevocably that neutral cannot be opposed to any other alignment.

The thing ended in "agree to disagree" but since the gm is the gm, we do what he says. I am 100% sure that this is not the actual ruling, nor RAW or RAI, but i needed actual reference from the rule set.
Gm said: When you GM, i will be totally ok if you say that neutral is not opposite to extremes, but if i am GM, i dont think so.

I hope some developers throw a hint on this or actually state what opposite means for characters like clerics and inquisitors, because apparently, what we play are interpretations, not clear facts.

Honestly, all the facts were laid out and if he still refused to accept the truth, then he has no business being a GM; he is completely unsuited for the task. He should either step down and let someone competent handle the responsibility, accept the advice of people who understand the rules and the fundamentals of logic far better than he, or you should leave outright. Being a GM isn't just about "I'm always right, screw your logic"; it is an important job in the game and a heavy responsibility to the group. The GM is a referee for the game, and referees are still obligated to make proper calls. Those that fail and fail consistently get fired.

I remember someone brought up a LN Inquisitor of Asmodeus who called himself, in character, a "Paladin of Asmodeus". He used bane to simulate smite and such and focused on combating Chaotic Evils (while supporting Lawful Evil).

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Also, remember that an ex-Monk keeps all his Monk class abilities and only loses the ability to take further levels as Monk. So you could start with however many Monk levels you want to take and then just stop being Lawful and start taking levels in Barb.

Lastly, there's a mythic ability Beyond Morality that lets you completely chuck the whole alignment system; you could be a Paladin/Barbarian/Druid if you so desired.

Oh, Ethereal... based on the description of "empty space", my brain mis-read that as Astral.

The Astral plane has "subjective directional gravity"

PRD wrote:

Subjective Directional Gravity: The strength of gravity on a plane with this trait is the same as on the Material Plane, but each individual chooses the direction of gravity's pull. Such a plane has no gravity for unattended objects and nonsentient creatures. This sort of environment can be very disorienting to the newcomer, but it is common on "weightless" planes.

Characters on a plane with subjective directional gravity can move normally along a solid surface by imagining "down" near their feet. If suspended in midair, a character "flies" by merely choosing a "down" direction and "falling" that way. Under such a procedure, an individual "falls" 150 feet in the first round and 300 feet in each succeeding round. Movement is straight-line only. In order to stop, one has to slow one's movement by changing the designated "down" direction (again, moving 150 feet in the new direction in the first round and 300 feet per round thereafter).

It takes a DC 16 Wisdom check to set a new direction of gravity as a free action; this check can be made once per round. Any character who fails this Wisdom check in successive rounds receives a +6 bonus on subsequent checks until he or she succeeds.

So, objects and non-sentient creatures will float inertly as if weightless. But a sentient creature, if they find a solid surface, can "imagine" gravity and walk normally. If you are floating, you can imagine a "down" directly to "fly" (more like falling with style) in that direction at falling speed (and take appropriate falling damage if you hit anything). So inhabitants of the Astral aren't just "floating aimlessly" in zero-gravity; they are all skydiving constantly, usually cruising at about 34 mph, with self-determined "down" directions that can be changed with a DC 16 Wisdom check that gets +6 easier each time you fail.

1) You need to adjust all handedness factors when you size stepup. This doesn't just apply to the default manner to wield the weapon, but "virtual" manners to wield it, such as wielding a Large Bastard Sword; if you have EWP, you may wield it as a 1-h weapon which steps up to 2-h if Large. But if you lack EWP, you must treat it as a "virtual" 2-h weapon which also steps up to "unwieldable" if Large. Likewise, a Heavy Crossbow is 2-h which steps up to "unwieldable" if Large and if it may be wielded one-handed at a -4 penalty, that steps up to two-handed if Large. Wielding a Large Heavy Crossbow in two-handed would be equivalent to wielding a Medium Heavy Crossbow one-handed; you can't say, "Oh, well, I'm wielding it in two hands so there's no penalty" any more than you can wield a Large Bastard Sword without EWP and say, "Oh, well, I'm wielding it in two hands so I'm fine". However...

2) "With one hand" and "one-handed" are two very different and distinct rules elements. To wield a weapon "one-handed" means it follows all the rules for one-handed weapons, including size step-up, rules for TWF, Power Attack and Str to Damage bonuses, etc. But wielding a normally two-handed weapon "with one hand", "in one hand", or anything of the like only excuses you from devoting two hands to the effort; it still counts as a 2-h weapon for all other purposes (see Lance FAQ). A Heavy Crossbow isn't, actually, wielded "one-handed" at a -4 penalty; it's wielded "with one hand" at a -4 penalty which takes it out of the scope of the "two-handed weapons one-handed" FAQ and into the scope of the "lance in one hand" FAQ. In other words, it isn't a virtual handedness category as with the Bastard Sword so it's still a two-handed weapon, one step up which places it firmly in the realm of "unwieldable".

3) There is no distinction between "wield" and "attack with" in Pathfinder; in fact, the two are intimately intertwined. To "wield" a weapon means actively using it to make attacks. So you can't justify anything with, "it doesn't say attack with, it says wield" because, in this system, the two are synonymous.

I had brought up in one of the original threads discussing the Haste issue regarding Spell Combat, after the FAQ was revised to allow Haste to work with Spell Combat, whether that was changing the rules on Haste and similar effects, or if it was changing the rules on Spell Combat, making it either "count as" a full-attack or, at least, contain a full-attack component. The reply I got from the devs basically boiled down to, "We're not sure, we'll get back to you on that" but they never have, to my knowledge, addressed the disparity.

Basically, it comes down to this: Haste (and other similar effects) state that they grant a bonus attack on a full-attack action (a distinct kind of Full-Round action; for the sake of clarity, Full-Round action will be in bold while full attack and other specific actions are in ooc). The original version of the FAQ stated that, since Spell Combat is a Full-Round Use Special Ability action and not a Full-Round Full Attack action, Haste (and, consequently, other rules elements that apply to full attacks) do not apply. But they reversed that decision because they felt it was overly pedantic and that, basically, if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it's a full attack action for all practical purposes so Haste "should" work on such a situation where you're getting "all your iterative attacks". So, does Haste et. al. now grant an extra attack "in all cases where you may make all your iterative attacks", which would mean that Spell Combat still isn't a full-attack? Or, is Spell Combat now entirely equivalent to a full-attack and can be used, say, with Pounce as part of a charge? Or is Spell Combat still a Full-Round Use Special Ability action which "contains" a full attack which means, while it isn't eligible to be part of a Pounce Charge, it is eligible for other rules elements such as fighting defensively? I never got a clear answer to this question.

Based on what I see of the style, I'd have to say 'yes'. It isn't being treated as an improvised weapon; it's being treated as a straight up mace. The rule of thumb is that you can use pretty much any weapon in an "improvised" manner, such as hitting someone adjacent with the butt of your spear, but it isn't a spear when you do so so you gain no enhancement bonus, no weapon training bonus, no nothing bonus (except stuff specifically directed towards improvised weapon). But if a feat or special ability is saying you can use the weapon in a particular manner, presume that it also benefits from any relevant bonuses unless the ability explicitly states otherwise.

1 to 50 of 5,043 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

©2002–2015 Paizo Inc.®. Need help? Email or call 425-250-0800 during our business hours: Monday–Friday, 10 AM–5 PM Pacific Time. View our privacy policy. Paizo Inc., Paizo, the Paizo golem logo, Pathfinder, the Pathfinder logo, Pathfinder Society, GameMastery, and Planet Stories are registered trademarks of Paizo Inc., and Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pathfinder Adventure Card Game, Pathfinder Player Companion, Pathfinder Modules, Pathfinder Tales, Pathfinder Battles, Pathfinder Online, PaizoCon, RPG Superstar, The Golem's Got It, Titanic Games, the Titanic logo, and the Planet Stories planet logo are trademarks of Paizo Inc. Dungeons & Dragons, Dragon, Dungeon, and Polyhedron are registered trademarks of Wizards of the Coast, Inc., a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc., and have been used by Paizo Inc. under license. Most product names are trademarks owned or used under license by the companies that publish those products; use of such names without mention of trademark status should not be construed as a challenge to such status.