I had a witch join my campaign and stated that her familiar is hers to do with as she wishes. However, in the case of a perception check, I expect her to roll both herself and her creature. If she fails, but her creature passes. I will say something like, "You notice that Snap Dragon is peering intently in the bushes, his claws dig into your shoulder." I would never do that for another PC, but I wouldn't see that as inappropriate for the familiar.
Our group handles this differently but overall I wouldn't disagree with this.
I do see a marked difference though between your DM using RP to have your familiar detail to you something it knows, compared to your DM deciding to have your familiar or AC just go careening off without you even having a chance to prevent it.
I think its the "without having a chance to prevent it" that would irk me more than anything.
Sure, if I was a druid and had a bear that bear might just try to do its business where it sees fit. But, assuming I'm a good druid, I'm paying attention to it and should get an attempt to stop it.
If my wolf does try to jump ahead and pee on the princess' shoe its not so much the attempt that would have me glaring daggers at the DM. Its the absence of opportunity to stop it.
If I roll HA to have my animal stay by my heel during a specific time frame (while wandering through the palace) and the DM decides the animal in question is going to break free it shouldn't get all that too far away before I get to at least try and reign it in. Now the raw steak in the pocket of the princess might just be a circumstance penalty to my roll vs the wolf tackling her or something but I should at least get the attempt.
If my familiar or AC (or whatever) is so poorly trained that I don't at least get the attempt to stop it, then that creature isn't intelligent or well trained enough to accompany me in places where thats an issue.
So to me it *should* be:
DM: "you notice your wolf moving towards the princess."
PC: "I tell it "Heel, Wolfie" and *rolls dice, adds mods* I get a 32"
DM: "Ok he tucks his tail and comes back to your side, though he still looks at the princess with some angst and low growls"
verses
DM: "your wolf runs over and pees on the princess"
PC: "GAH! but I told it to HEEL!"
If the DM wants to use any given AC, familiar, Eidolon, or even just a trained animal, for RP then really- thats fine. But they need to remember we took our skills and class features for a reason and we expect at least the opportunity to use them as we deem fit.
(i.e. the opportunity to make rolls where appropriate or issue commands where appropriate, depending on the creature in question).
And assuming the creature hasn't been dominated or otherwise magically compromised, we have the expectation that the rules will allow those commands or rolls to work. (assuming yuo roll high enough- if applicable).
But what rationale to disallow him to understand the language?
they have *int 6* just for being a familiar.
Thats like, 1 point lower than the average fighter. :P
I have, indeed, been tempted to point out that if your druid wants a mindless automaton with no personality or ability to act on its own, he doesn't want an animal companion, he wants a construct, a zombie, or a fighter.
Well, I'm mainly talking about the familiar in this specific instance, as it was argued that they somehow don't get the benefit of the base class's linguistic ranks. (to understand the languages of course, not to speak them).
And that with int 6 base line there's no reason other than houserule why they couldn't understand any language you took a skill point in.
But really- if the player wants to RP their familiar as relatively quiet and shy, then thats their business.
Myself- I do. for two reasons: one, the familiar I selected isn't a combat jock and prefers to work from behind the scenes rather than jump into the thick of things. And two- its my spellbook and replacing it is super expensive and annoying so its first action in combat is <-- run that way and hide- usually while flying out of reach.
I'm not against RPing her during the down times- its just not come up. We usually spend time trying to further the story than to Rp things that don't.
I doubt that the familiar speaking a language you learn through linguistics is RAI, though it may well be RAW. Not sure what I'd do with it.
There is really no doubt.
It has any skill ranks that you have.
It also has an int of 6.
If you take linguistics (draconic) then it can understand draconic.
Note- that doesn't mean it can speak it. Just that it can understand it.
That- and any other language you take as a linguistics point.
If you take a skill point for 1 languauage- any one you want really- they can understand it. Now at level 5 they can talk back to you (though not in that language).
But the point is- if you have Linguistic (orc) you can tell them in orcish "leave that squirrel alone, we have better things to do" and it'll...
Again, I agree that it may to be RAW, though I suspect it's an unintended consequence, thus not RAI.
Here's my argument against it being RAW:
Linguistics wrote:
Whenever you put a rank into this skill, you learn to speak and read a new language
and
Familiar's skills wrote:
For each skill in which either the master or the familiar has ranks, use either the normal skill ranks for an animal of that type or the master's skill ranks, whichever is better.<snip>Some skill may remain beyond the familiar's ability to use.
The last line gives the GM carte blanche to refuse to allow this. Even without that, you get a language when you put a rank in linguistics. The familiar is not putting ranks in linguistics, but using the master's ranks to make checks, therefore it does not get the language.
If it does get the language, by RAW it can speak and read it. A GM could rule that it can't speak, but I'm not sure what the RAW justification would be. I also don't see any requirement that they be the same language. Obviously having one in common makes sense, but if you put more ranks in, you might as well choose different ones, getting almost twice the value out of linguistics since the familiar can translate...
By RAW there are some skills a familiar may not be able to use.
I can see him disallowing a frog to disable a try, or to use your fly skill- for example.
But what rationale to disallow him to understand the language?
they have *int 6* just for being a familiar.
Thats like, 1 point lower than the average fighter. :P
Can it speak it? Most likely not. Not because it can't understand the language but because nothing about the familiar allows it to speak if it otherwise can't do so. (until level 5, anyway).
So you take a frog, you learn Orc with Linguistics, your ranks in the skill are imparted to it- presto it knows orc, and you can talk to it. it can understand anything you say up to and including whatever an int 6 would allow it to comprehend.
It can read it, it can understand it, ot could speak it (if it could talk- most can't.) and if it has the capability to write then it can write in it too. (DM adjudication there- i probably wouldn't push it as a player but in theory anything with a digit can draw/write in the dirt or dip a paw in ink and scratch out a message though as I said- that could be pushing it).
A Dm can disallow it, sure. he can houserule anything. But its not exactly some far fetched use of the skills. Its exactly what it says you can do.
Take a skill, impart skill to the familiar.
Houserules are all well and good but its clear that by raw it works just fine.
True, but I've only ever seen one player (other than me) take linguistics ranks. :P
Wow. Games that I've been in seem to turn in to contests of who can have the most languages not spoken by others in the group. Different tables, different styles - I guess.
That's what happened the one time I saw someone else taking Linguistics. I was a player in that game, and it ended up being a contest between his wizard and my fighter to see who could know the most languages. He won, though he was a playing a tengu, who are suited to being linguists.
We ended up knowing 20-something languages by 4th level. Rarely needed to use comprehend languages or tongues in that campaign.
But a lot of the players I know will assume that any NPC worth talking to will speak common, and anything "not smart enough" to speak common is clearly a monster to be killed.
...I've got to turn that against them one of these campaigns...
Thats.. so sad :(
I'm not sure about the fighter or cleric in my current group but I know between myself, the rogue, and the wizard, that we have a ton of languages covered.
We found a book recently written in 3-4 languages and it took the lot of us to decipher the dang thing. Was fun- and made the languages useful.
It is good to note though that for familiars anyway- assuming the master has a rank in any language skill (linguistics: draconic, for example) that the familiar automatically has it too.. and thus the master at least can talk to the critter even if it can't talk back yet.-S
True, but I've only ever seen one player (other than me) take linguistics ranks. :P
really? wow. I think half my current group speaks at least one other language. Between the lot of us I don't think there's a language we don't speak.
Regardless though- any one taking a familiar should learn at least one language if for no other reason than to be able to chat with it prior to level 5.
And the more the merrier. If you are the type to use a familiar as a scout- (I'm not) then the more languages you/it knows, the more effective it is.
it being able to actually listen to the orc guards can be quite useful.
-S
Lots of people know more languages through higher int. Taking linguistics is rarer.
I doubt that the familiar speaking a language you learn through linguistics is RAI, though it may well be RAW. Not sure what I'd do with it.
There is really no doubt.
It has any skill ranks that you have.
It also has an int of 6.
If you take linguistics (draconic) then it can understand draconic.
Note- that doesn't mean it can speak it. Just that it can understand it.
That- and any other language you take as a linguistics point.
(myself, I love learning languages that way but not due to the familiar thing. My familiar speaks all languages anyway. Imp familiar is awesome- the ones in the Bestiary II especially so).
If you take a skill point for 1 languauage- any one you want really- they can understand it. Now at level 5 they can talk back to you (though not in that language).
But the point is- if you have Linguistic (orc) you can tell them in orcish "leave that squirrel alone, we have better things to do" and it'll 100% understand you.
It is good to note though that for familiars anyway- assuming the master has a rank in any language skill (linguistics: draconic, for example) that the familiar automatically has it too.. and thus the master at least can talk to the critter even if it can't talk back yet.-S
True, but I've only ever seen one player (other than me) take linguistics ranks. :P
really? wow. I think half my current group speaks at least one other language. Between the lot of us I don't think there's a language we don't speak.
Regardless though- any one taking a familiar should learn at least one language if for no other reason than to be able to chat with it prior to level 5.
And the more the merrier. If you are the type to use a familiar as a scout- (I'm not) then the more languages you/it knows, the more effective it is.
it being able to actually listen to the orc guards can be quite useful.
It having its own personality doesn't mean that personality isn't in the control of the PC it belongs to though. And if a DM wants that enforced they need to let the PC know it. (then if the PC refuses to, or just flat out doesn't ever do it, then the DM can enforce it by doing it himself or by whatever other means come to mind.. just like enforcing any other rule).
But hey, maybe I want my familiar's personality to be shy and quiet and outta the spot light.
Shy, quiet, and not bothering everyone all the time /is/ a personality type too- afterall.
I have a situation in which my players will run into a creature that may be either a raksasha or a kitsune and I am going to be very ambiguous about it. The players are likely to try and metagame which I like to counter by allowing their metagaming confuse or misslead them.
Its likely the following argument will happen.
upon meeting the creature I will describe or show a picture that shows a fox headed woman. possibly with kukri for weapons.
They will metagame and roll a perception to see if the hands or any other body part is backwards.
I will say that if they are assuming its a raksasha thats metagaming they have no reason to assume so.
they will say something like raksasha are a known danger in the world with animal heads that they would reasonably be wary of.
I will say that there are many animal headed humanoid races in the world such as goat men, kobolds, catfolk, ratfolk, and as many other animal headed races you can add to this list other than kitsune and raksasha.
any additions?
ultimately I will not confirm their guesses until they have an in game reason to make the proper knowledge checks or other information helping them pin down the creatures race.
Just to clarify-
are you saying that you will not allow a perception check to notice that a creature's hands are turned backwards just because the PC in question who is asking may be metagaming?
cuz.. I mean, really. /you/ should be doing the roll before they even ask and notify anyone who passes (whatever the DC may be) of it in the initial description.
Its like
"I'm not telling yuo the lizard man has a tail and if you ask you are metagaming"
or whether an elf has pointy ears, or something.
Sure depending on the exact circumstances it may not warrant an immediate thing but quite frankly- if I was talking to someone and their /hands were facing the wrong way/ I would most likely notice.
(unless you are using spells to hide it or something).
I mean we're not talking about something thats easy to hide. their hands go in the wrong direction. it'd be especially obvious if they were holding an item at the time (rather than standing with their fingers/thumbs straight).
I mean I get where you are going on the metagaming bit- they might very well (and should) notice the hand bit but where they go from there is really the metagame issue. Its knowledge checks to determine what they know about the creature. (i.e if they recongize the backwards hands for what they are).
PC: "Do I see clawS"
DM: "You are metagaming, you can't ask that"
PC: "....."
However metagamey it might be- asking to see if htey can tell or asking for a perception check to notice a gross physical quality of anything they meet is what perception is for. To deny that is to deny them the ability of their characters to see.
DM: "You see a large winged creature land in front of you. Its as big as a good size house"
PC: "Does it have scales?"
DM: "You can't ask that. thats metagaming."
PC2: "what color is it?"
DM: "You can't ask that, thats metagaming."
sure, dragons are identified generally by being reptilian and specifically by scale color but that doesn't mean you telling them its a green dragon (or them asking about the presence or absence of scales or color) is metagaming.
As a GM, I will occasionally control a familiar or animal companion at low levels, but the players will know ahead of time that this is a possibility.
Generally once they acquire the ability to speak with their companion my control stops, and passes entirely the player. For familiars, that's generally 5th level.
For animal companions I'll always allow a player to handle or push (depending on the situation) their companion to not do something if they don't want it to do what I'm making it do. A failure represents a failure on their part to control the companion. It's not a mindless tool to be ordered around after all.
Eventually their handle animal skill will get high enough to be an auto-success. At that point I generally stop taking control of animal companions altogether.
It is good to note though that for familiars anyway- assuming the master has a rank in any language skill (linguistics: draconic, for example) that the familiar automatically has it too.. and thus the master at least can talk to the critter even if it can't talk back yet.
And with a 6 int, it understands the commuication as well..
(sadly the int issue with AC's has been FAQ'd into the ground)
Well it seems to me that there are two camps of thought. Some say no the GM cant controll my Animal companion, Eidolon/ familiar only I the player can decide what the companion does.
I suppose I am of the school of thought where the GM can use the animal companion/ Familair/ Eidolon to further the plot of the story.
Ie the wolf digging up a corpse, so the PCs get involved in a murder mystery,
Or the Imp familiar engaging in playful bantor with the PCs and others, and of course doing what the Imp is ultimately there to do, to tempt others towards the path of damnation, and making sure his master is firmly on that path by subtlely encouraging him to do morally questionable things.
But during a combat situation, I let the PCs have complete control of their Animal Companion/ Familiar / Eidalon.
I'm going to split a hair, just to show where, to me, the difference is:
1) DM "your wolf is digging in the ground and has discovered a corpse."
2) DM: "you notice your wolf has stopped and is pawing at the ground, as though starting to dig. what do you do?"
#1 is playing your companion for you.
#2 is using an action to show you that your companion has found something. He'd doing this instead of just saying "hey your companion found something under the ground with scent". it leaves /you/ the player, with the choice: investigate? call off the hound and ignore it? or whatever you want to do. The choice is yours.
Compare:
A)the DM says "you see a secret door there and when you try to open it you find a trap and it hit you and does 32 damage"
B) DM: "you find a secret door here *marks it on the map* what do you do?"
One is giving information. One is giving information and depriving you of the ability to choose how- or even if- to act on that information.
I don't think folks have an issue with the DM using the companion (or familiar) to inform them of something the AC or familiar has found using their senses that the master/owner/character has failed to find. The issue is the action that invariably goes along with it- that failure of the DM to allow the PC to take whatever action they deem appropriate.
To me, the DM is just figuring a way to communicate the message to you that the tiger smelled out something.
I think (though you can feel free to correct me) that if your tiger had gone careening off into the underbrush to solo the dragon (without your say so, or even getting a skill check to avoid it) or if it had just gone wandering up to some unknown creature to nuzzle it (assuming it hadn't cast some spell or had some other special effect of that nature to take control away) you would have been abit more upset.
Personally I have no issue with what you posted- either for an AC or a familiar. the DM has leeway to contrive interesing ways for your AC/familiar to say "yo, boss, somethin's up". thats just good atmosphere and far more interesting than "your familiar detects something with scent but you don't know what".
But having your AC actually /doing/ something to some other person or creature without you having so much as a "hey wait a minute, don't I even get a say before he goes charging off into nowhere" is what I think most people have an issue with.
There is a difference to me between your DM having your critter interact with you to tell you something (whether thats it talking to you, stopping and growling or "behaving oddly towards you") and your DM having your animal run off to do things /to someone else/ without any ability on your part to so much as take a free or move action in attempt to prevent it.
There is a marked difference between your pet growling to alert you of a Scent hit, and your familiar hiking its leg on the princess's pointy shoe because the DM thinks that makes for an interesting story tell.
-S
Selgard, I just used the most recent "hey, what are you doing with my AC?" moment. There have been others. My AC never peed on a princess's leg, but my GM has had my AC "run off without my leave" on more than one occasion. He also sometimes has me roll handle animal checks with hidden circumstance bonuses when he thinks it is appropriate.
I'm...
To me, the difference is that..
the barbarian is controlled by his player. Not you. Now you may talk to him afterwards "bad Ug! no run off without talking to us first! no treat for you!" or whatever but you never really expected to have control over him in the first place. "Barbarian" isn't on the wizard's list of class features, afterall.
The familiar is.
Just as the AC is listed for the ranger or druid.
Contrast those to say, a riding dog or a horse- even a war horse, that you buy at the store.
These are things that aren't class features. They are just.. animals that you buy.
While I'd not be happy (in character) of a dog I bought went careening off into the wilderness, in the end I bought a dog. A dog does what a dog does.
AC's are supposed to be more than that though. They are magically empowered creatures who come to assist you and help you in battle and they are a part of what balances (or imbalances, dependign on your pov) your class against the other classes.
Your DM deciding that your AC is bored and goes to pee on the red dragon's favorite painting or something is effectively taking control of a class ability that you have, and using it to screw you.
Just like if he suddenly declares that the cleric decides now is a good time to channel energy.. or not channel energy.
Sure, Dominate spells and all that are fair and apart of the game- but the discussion I think isn't about those. its just about the DM taking it into his head to decide to take control of someone's class feature. Not to give information on behalf of the AC (it whimpering or standing point or something) but to actually take off and do smoething contrary to the will of the class and character that created it.
Thats the issue I think most folks are having with it.
How much leave does the DM have to control your animal companion or familiar?
About as much as he has to tell you what spell you have to put into your spellbook when you level up, or which specialization you take at first level, or which feat you have to take, or how or even if to take any given skill when you level up or whether or not you cast a spell this round, swing a dagger or run away or whatnot.
I'll try to be concise here, but I'm not very good at it here on the message boards. :)
When a PC selects a class, they expect to have full control over the hows, ifs, and ands, of each of those abilities- within the bounds of the rules. Yes, you have to use handle animal for AC's and no, your familiar can't talk to you before 5th level- but as long as you are following the rules and not cheesing it out then you have the full and ready expectation that your class features are at your control.
Just like the cleric's channel energy or the barbarian's rage or the bard's music.
Now there is some give and take involved here. The DM has to have some method to convey information from the AC/Familiar to the player. A whimper, bark, growl, going on point, refusing to go forward momentarily are all welcome ways for the DM to do this.
I think there is a line though when you go from using Rp means to convey the senses of the AC/familiar onto the PC's to using the AC/familiar to taking control away from the player to have the AC/familiar do something contrary to the wishes of the player without giving that player any means to stop it.
So to me:
Acceptable.
Barking, pointing, growling, etc.
Acceptable:
"Your Ac seems to be getting antsy at something and looking towards a nearby tree as though to spring."
PC: "I look at the tree"
DM: *rolls perception/asks the PC to do it, whatever* Yuo see a squirrel in the tree.
PC: I make a HA roll to have it attack/stop it from attacking/whatever
Unacceptable:
DM: "Your AC goes ape)(*@$# and leaps up into a tree, ripping into a squirrel."
You say "its a squirrel, who cares".. sure. but it it'll do it to a squirrel it'll do it to a goblin or gnoll or .. well, whatever.
The point being-
the DM envolving the AC/Familiar in Rp is good. but it also need to be remembered that they are just as much a part of our character as every other thing listed for our classes. Sure, there is some fudge room since they are creatures but the DM ought not to just snatch total control away from us because they think it'd make a nice scene.
the DM may see "hey, it was a cat, it ate a squirrel" while the PC is thinking "crap, I have to kill/incapacitate/collar/tie up my familiar/AC to make sure it doesn't go attacking anything else I may not want slain since apparently I don't even get a skill check or time to say HEY DON'T DO THAT".
While the ongoing discussion about the "technical" correctness of the GM running an AC or familiar is fun to read, there is another issue in this case that interests me. And that is all about setting GM/Player expectations.
I'm not talking about "I might run your familiar for role playing purposes" expectations. I'm talking about something more fundamental than that.
I'm talking about "As the GM I might occasionally do something that surprises you. You need to trust that I am doing it for a good reason and that it is not because I am on some power trip."
For example... I play a druid. As with most druid players I routinely control my animal companion. I almost never make a "handle animal" check, the GM and I just naturally assume that the tiger is going to do what my druid wants.
One game we were playing the GM suddenly took control of my tiger. It wasn't even some unusual situation. We were just moving through an area. Suddenly my druid's animal companion refused to proceed.
My immediate reaction? "Hey, look guys, something's strange, Thorn doesn't usually act like this."
Now, it turned out that the tiger had gotten a sniff of dragon smell. The GM decided that, based on a very borderline roll, the tiger had sniffed something that raised the AC's hackles, but was not specific enough to say "dragon." So he just role played the tiger for a few rounds until we figured it out.
Was I upset?
I thought it was awesome.
To me, the DM is just figuring a way to communicate the message to you that the tiger smelled out something.
I think (though you can feel free to correct me) that if your tiger had gone careening off into the underbrush to solo the dragon (without your say so, or even getting a skill check to avoid it) or if it had just gone wandering up to some unknown creature to nuzzle it (assuming it hadn't cast some spell or had some other special effect of that nature to take control away) you would have been abit more upset.
Personally I have no issue with what you posted- either for an AC or a familiar. the DM has leeway to contrive interesing ways for your AC/familiar to say "yo, boss, somethin's up". thats just good atmosphere and far more interesting than "your familiar detects something with scent but you don't know what".
But having your AC actually /doing/ something to some other person or creature without you having so much as a "hey wait a minute, don't I even get a say before he goes charging off into nowhere" is what I think most people have an issue with.
There is a difference to me between your DM having your critter interact with you to tell you something (whether thats it talking to you, stopping and growling or "behaving oddly towards you") and your DM having your animal run off to do things /to someone else/ without any ability on your part to so much as take a free or move action in attempt to prevent it.
There is a marked difference between your pet growling to alert you of a Scent hit, and your familiar hiking its leg on the princess's pointy shoe because the DM thinks that makes for an interesting story tell.
"my companion has the attack trick and I rolled a 20 for a modified 42 handle animal check. I have it attack the goblin"
DM: "He won't attack the goblin"
PC: "Why not?"
DM: "He doesn't like goblins."
PC: "...."
Wait, if he doesn't like goblins wouldn't he all the more want to attack them?
I dunno, sometimes.
Some folks hate spiders and refuse to go near them- much less raise a shoe to squish 'em.
It was just a random example though. the DM could just say " you don't know why" and move on. The point was- the DM telling you that despite your successful skill check the animal refuses to do as you say.
Sunrod: This 1-foot-long, gold-tipped, iron rod glows brightly when struck as a standard action. It sheds normal light in a 30-foot radius and increases the light level by one step for an additional 30 feet beyond that area (darkness becomes dim light and dim light becomes normal light). A sunrod does not increase the light level in normal light or bright light. It glows for 6 hours, after which the gold tip is burned out and worthless.
From the PRD, equipment section:
http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/equipment.html
Remco I think we're saying the same thing different ways. This might get long, but bare with me.
I think, and please do correct me if I'm wrong, what you're saying is that outside of combat you use the animal companions and familiars as ways for the characters to interact with the imagined world. You aren't "controlling" them, you are "describing" what they act like. There's an important distinction. If you say "your wolf suddenly runs off into the distance" and the player says "I yell 'heel.'" As a good GM, you make the player roll a handle check, and if they are successful the wolf heels, right? You weren't "controlling" the animal, you were using it to try and convey something.
Same example looked at a different way. As the GM I am the only window the players have into the world. I should not be actively hiding things from them. If a wolf smells the trolls that are coming, I need to convey that somehow. I roll a perception check for the wolf, taking into account its scent ability, and if it makes the check I might say, "your wolf suddenly lifts its nose into the breeze, then crouches, muscles taut, and growls a low menacing growl." Again, I haven't "controlled" the wolf. I simply let the PCs into the secret store of knowledge that I have about what is coming up around the proverbial corner.
As you say, once combat is initiated you let the PC direct the animal. Of course you do, you're a good GM, and the player needs that animal companion as part of its attack strategy. It is a class feature, and if they didn't have the full use of it, they would be at a decided disadvantage.
So again, I believe we're saying the same thing. Just looking at the semantics a bit differently. When I hear (or in this case see) the word "control" I think complete domination of every action. Perhaps that's where some of the minutiae of our arguments is being placed.
I would definately agree with this.
Not so much the "runs off into the hills unless you make a roll to stop it" part, but the bit about how you communicate to the PC that the wolf notices something.
(standing up, growling, or otherwise interacting with the PC).
While the AC and Familiar generally do as you ask- you have to be able to tell them what you are asking.
Handle Animal and the tricks, for the AC at least, is what governs this mechanically.
If you want your AC to do X but don't have it trained for it or you botch a HA roll for it- then its not the DM taking control away from you. Its the rules working as the rules.
Its not the DM stopping you anymore than rolling a 1 on a sword swing is the DM telling you that you can't attack it.
You Have tried to do what you wanted it just didn't work.
I think the thread OP was more talking about
"my companion has the attack trick and I rolled a 20 for a modified 42 handle animal check. I have it attack the goblin"
DM: "He won't attack the goblin"
PC: "Why not?"
DM: "He doesn't like goblins."
PC: "...."
Granted thats an extreme case- but generally its the overall idea of it.
Now the rules don't explicitly state who controls the familiar or the AC.
However, they are the class features of the character.
If the DM can control that aspect of your class features, they can control the others.
It was posited that its a strawman argument to ask if the DM gets to pick the wizard's spells or the sorc's spells or to elect not to allow the Paladin to smite that particular creature yet- but I really do ask: Why is that a straw man argument?
If I select some inherent feature of my class why does the fact that it says "familiar" suddenly imbue the DM with the right to steal that away from me and do with it what he or she wishes?
If I select the ring instead- can the DM elect to select which spell per day I cast with it? Can they mandate which abilities I enchant it with? (not as a matter of houserule but as a matter of "oh no, you want a ring of wizardry IV not a ring of sustenance, so thats what you get whether you like it or not!".
The issue isn't really the familiar or AC but of the character generally. The DM controls the world. The PC wants to control the PC and the aspects of that PC that involve the character class. We do want excitement and we do want challenge but I want the DM to take my familiar for a joy ride just about as much as i want to fail a will save on a Dominate Person spell. We have one thing to control in the world- our character.
I say that this isn't a strawman argument. This isn't some optional feat like leadership that advises strong caution. This isn't in some far fetched part of the book. No, its in the section on character classes and the options for them. Its no more appropriate for the DM to take control over them than it is for them to select your spells for you or dictate what weapon groups the fighter chooses or the domains of any given particular cleric (assuming they choose ones legal for their alignment and deity, of course).
Sure, the DM has the ability to exercise FIAT and ban some things.
"guys I've removed the bastard sword from the game". Fine.
But does he have the right to erase "longsword" from my Weapon Focus feat and write in "great sword" just because he thinks thats mechanically superior? Can he? Can he make a cleric memorize heal today, or to cause them to expend it to heal 1hp just because he's the DM?
Sure, those are extremes. But the fact is- absent a Dominate effect (or something like it) the DM can't take control of our characters. They don't get to pick what we do with our PC's- outside of the character creation guidelines that they impose for that particular campaign.
If my DM really wanted to start playing with my character, I'd want to know why. Generally, I trust my DM's. (if I don't, then they aren't my DM for long). If it was to do something dangerous, it'd definately spawn a long discussion. If it was something harmless then it'd spawn an e-mail after game to ask about it. If the DM wants to have my familiar do something cute or quirky occasionally I'm not 100% against it but for the most part, its part of my character. Its part of my witch thats irreplaceable and inseparable from the class. If the DM is going to seriously take it upon himself to dictate what my familiar will or won't do from moment to moment, then I'm going to take it upon myself to change classes. Not because of trust- but because I chose the witch, in part, because of the neat aspects of the familiar and the interaction thereof with the witch. If I am spontaneously denied that, because the DM gets a wet hair in his shorts and wants to start screwing with my character features, then I'll just elect to choose a class without that issue.
The RAW however is silent on it, unfortunately. My advice then is for PC's and DM's alike: Discuss it before it becomes an issue. When you get an AC or familiar or Eidolon or whatever chat it up with the DM and the rest of the group. Make it known your wishes- on both sides of the fence- so that everyone is armed with the knowledge appropriate to their style when they create any given PC.
Don't just spring it on the PC's in mid campaign "oh yeah guys I reserve the right to co-opt your familiar whenever I feel like it".
Making it a command word activated item would reduce is price by 10%, so
it will cost 91.125 gp. At that price level we could even round it to a neat 90.000 gp.
Ahh the cultural difference between the period and the comma, in dealing with numbers. :)
They'll remember the bad-ass manticore fight and need never (and should never) know how you built it.
"How did he do that?!"
The PC's *do not know the answer*
The PC's are not privy to all the knowledge in the univese. How you build your NPC's is certainly among the secrets of the universe, to them.
Want an NPC Druid spell slinging with its tail spikes?
/then make one/ and have fun with it.
(though no reason you can't just have a manticore with arcane archer levels mixed with some adept or witch, depending on the exact spells you are planning to lob with the spikes.)
The only "right" answer is to talk to the group about it. Let 'em know you are already privy to part of it, and see what they think.
It only becomes unethical when you know you've played it, and neither the DM or the Players know it. Then you are essentially cheating and if they do find out they may have a very dim view of it.
Point buy works for discussions (and arguments) on the intarweb because it lets us have a common ground for discussion.
Its also handy for groups that want to "hit the ground running" rather than taking up a game session to hammer out character creation.
Myself, I really do prefer die rolling.
It isn't so much "min/max" as it is the reason why you have the stats.
It may just be nostalgia but I remember a time when a guy had a 7 stat and everyone patted 'em on the back and wondered how he was going to Rp it. Or the pat on the back with the guy who got a high score or two- also wanting to see how he'd both Rp it and what class he'd end up with, because it was bound to be good.
Now days everyone starts with a 16 or 18 before racials and rather than feeling sorry for someone with a 7 in a stat I just shake my head and wonder which stats they felt were so important they had to ditch another to achieve it.
Its true PB puts everyone on the same footing. half the group running around being the dumbest or least deft or weakest or smelliest person in the whole village.
Is PB bad? Not really.. alot of people adore the heck out of it. I'm just not one of them.
So yeah, making sure exactly what the rules are is a very important part of the game.
An interesting side note to this:
Dave Arneson once told me that the more rules you create, the more impossible game balance and play becomes. He claimed that Rock, Paper, Scissors is still the ultimate example of perfect game design.
I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you, but it's dangerous to open a can of worms stating that everybody should have the same understanding of a rule system that is meant to replicate an entire universe. This generalization works at upper levels, but can spiral down a dark path into the abyss of "nuance".
I don't disagree.
But even if you and I hash the rule out up one way and down the other and come to different conclusions, at least we're both- at minimum- educated as to the other side of the argument.
So if we do feel the need to houserule it one way or another, we have a better grasp of the entire issue.
More rules can be bad- but sometimes you need a rule. Even if your rule is only to say "this rule works X way not Y way".
Just out of curiosity, what are some races or classes or even weapon types or spells that you just never play as or use? I was thinking about it as I looked through the Core Rules the other day. I realized I never have played as a Halfling, Gnome, or Half-Orc. I would like to one day uses a Half-Orc but the Halfling and Gnome have no appeal to me, too child like I think.
I also have never desired to be Druid, Bard, Summoner, Witch, Cavalier, Paladin, or Gunslinger (don't have them in our campaigns anyway). Other than the Bard I have no real cause for not liking these classes, they just don't appeal to me as much as others.
When it comes to other ancillary stuff, I am usually a pretty straight up light/medium armor sword/shield/bow guy. I do like a good battle-axe once in a while but any large/long two-handed weapons are usually not my taste.
Looking forward to hearing your opinions!
I've not played a cleric in several editions. Never done a paladin at all, ever. Ditto for the druid.
Out of the APG I've played the witch alot, and a one-shot oracle. otherwise none of those classes.
Never going to do the samurai or ninja- unless we do some oriental themed campaign, which seems unlikely.
never playing a gunslinger unless we play an old west style campaign- which seems unlikely.
I also haven't played a barbarian though I'm not against it- there've just always been reasons to play other things.
May do one next campaign.. or a cleric (or oracle) or something like that.
I said no such thing. If you want, you can play a fighter without a single magic item. You aren't going to get very far, and the game assumptions are that you are a christmas tree of magic items as you rise in level.
Ah, I see the problem here. I was using "that" to refer to a specific piece of equipment as a singular object, since that was what we were discussing, but it was easily interpretted as me refering to all equipment. Damn pronouns.
me wrote:
LOL. So you say that<was refering to GoD> equipment is mandatory for a fighter to get through an encounter for which that equiment (and the fighter even) wasn't written yet.
Let's do this a different way Caineach.
Look at the fighter builds on this board. They aren't all dpr olympics builds.
Tell me how many don't have Gloves of Dueling? The item is so ubiquitous you aren't going to find many without them.
Do you remember natural spell and druids in 3.5? It's the same thing in this edition with the fighters and the Gloves.
1) There is nothing wrong with uber optimizing your characters to the extent of everything else. Good DM's will just uber-optimize everything you encounter, so its a wash.
2) There is nothing wrong with /not/ uber optimizing to the extent of everything else. In fact, the AP's assume that you don't. They also assume a relatively low point by, and only 4 folks at the table with the DM.
IF you went through RotL with super-optimized stuff, the DM didn't change anything, but you used Pathfinder rules and magical items.. well, you were probably bored out of your mind. Especially if you have more than 4 people at the table and/or used a more generous point buy.
Note also that their point is that the gloves of dueling didn't even exist when RoTL was written so you aren't finding any inside that adventure unless the DM is changing it, or you are crafting it yourself.
But you are stating that anyone who doesn't super optimize is being coddled by the DM (something you call "sand bagging") and thats really the issue most folks are having with your posts.
A normal party of not-optimized people who instead engage their brains and use moderate tactical awareness can probably deal with every encounter written in most if not all AP's. Sure, there will be exceptions. There are alot of encounters that alot of folks think need to be retuned. (The bell tower you mentioned in RotL is one such).
But I have to ask- if your DM didn't change a *thing* and you are super uber optimized for the bell tower- how bored you were before it? and after it?
Because I've been through that book and the one before it and the one after it and if you are super uber optimized out the wazoo and the DM isn't changing things- you "won" the encounter only to be bored out of your freaking mind the rest of the time.
What you need to realize though is that while your method of playing isn't wrong/bad/evil- the rest of us aren't playing wrong/bad/evil either. We're just having fun.
Quit trying to write it off as though we're a bunch of noobs and you are trying to educate us as to the "correct" way to play- as though both we and our DM's are a bunch of twits.
Of course not. You can smash an arrow on the table, but not in mid flight.
You can pick up an arrow on the table, can you pick it up in mid flight?
Technically there's no rules that say you can pick an arrow off the table. I find this an interesting emphasis to the line being drawn.
In the end, every GM allows things to happen that aren't specifically talked about in the book. Otherwise you wouldn't be able to pick up objects, stand on your head, or maintain a healthy and consistent heart rate.
All of these things are irrelevant and ludicrous. I'm not bringing them up to emphasize my point about allowing unwritten rules, but I am using them as extreme examples of drawing the line.
At one point, a GM draws a line in the sand based upon his own perceptions of reality, and says that players don't need to concentrate on their heart to remain alive. He also draws a line in the sand saying that you can't use the Disguise skill to convincingly walk around as a colossal giant as a medium creature without help or mechanical/magical assistance, no matter how high you roll.
Some things not in the book are assumed to happen, while other things not in the book are assumed to be impossible.
What I find most interesting about this discussion is the topic at hand is completely in the grey area. Obviously it is on one side of a GM's "sand-line", while being on the opposite side for another. The book isn't clear enough to really make a solid argument (and trust me, these "Of course you can/can't because I say so" arguments are not solid).
So, the real question is, why are people so SURE about their opinions to state things so matter of factually?
Edit:
ImperatorK wrote:
Answer is "you can't".
Case in point.
Both sides getting their say, hashing it out, making sure they know what the rules say (whether they agree with them or not) is the first step in making an effective, efficient houserule in case 1) the rule is actually a grey area or 2) the rule is a rule that's just stupid and needs to be changed. (stupid, or doesn't adequately cover the issue at hand, or whatever).
So yeah, making sure exactly what the rules are is a very important part of the game.
I am going to ignore the stuff about feats because as I said before the existence of a similar feat is irrelevant, but at least now, we are getting somewhere. We are talking about the RAW, not the existence of some similar feat.
One thing I would point out to add to your analysis. If the arrow is magical, then each +1 of enhancement bonus adds +2 hardness and +10 hp. A mundane arrow shot from a +3 bow gains a +3 enhancement bonus, and becomes magical. That would make it 6 hardness with 35 hp.
I think the problems with treating the arrow as wielded is bigger than that. A wielded arrow would still exist in the wielders reach and space, so unless you were in melee range of the archer you couldn't sunder it.
That brings up an interesting tangent. If you were threatening an archer, you could use a readied action or an AoO to sunder the arrow before it left the bow. That is pretty clearly allowed by the RAW.
So that leaves us with an unattended object. Which is stuck in an ambigious rules loop. Now if you can't sunder unattended objects, then you can't split logs for firewood. So lets assume that the RAI is that you can sunder unattended objects.
That just leaves us with the ridiculously low AC that unattended objects have. As the rules say, "Objects are easier to hit than creatures because they don't usually move, but many are tough enough to shrug off some damage from each blow." The rules assume that unattended inanimate objects are not moving. That is where the low AC comes from. Since we are dealing with a moving object, a circumstance modifier to the objects AC is entirely appropiate.
You can split logs for firewood because they aren't weapons or armor. You'd use the guidelines as written for objects and go from there.
That's the problem.
In order to use the rules for objects you have to say the arrow isn't a weapon. In order to say the arrow is a weapon you potentially provoke and have to use the CMD of the archer when you try to sunder the arrow.
Keep in mind CMB includes things like the /archers/ deflection bonuses, dodge bonuses, insight, luck, and all those kinds. As well as your strength modifier and your dexterity modifier.
So you have an arrow flying through the air from potentially hundreds of feet away that gets to use the *dodge bonus* and *dexterity bonus* of the shooting archer in order to resist your attempt.
I mean seriously- this is what RAW says on it. You use the *creatures* CMD bonuses to try and sunder the arrow.
The "other feat" is completely relevant because it shows the only actual logical ruling on how to treat anything even close to what you are trying to do. Or do you really truly think the ruling is that the dexterity and dodge bonus of an archer 200 feet away make it harder for you to sunder an arrow just before it strikes you?
I mean thats what we're talking about here. Strict Raw? yes. Makes any sense *at all* given the way the rules are worded? Not hardly.
Which is why there is a feat that coveres it *so* much more nicely.
Right I got to page 3...but if no one brought it up..
Can I ready an action to cast shatter on an arrow coming at me?
Yep.
Oddly enough, the only "weird" thing comes up if you use the AOE version.
Does an arrow in flight count as attended or uanttended? :P
If you use the "single target" version though it just does flat damage (d6/level). Whether you allow the fort save or not is irrelevant- if you are high enough to cast the spell you do enough damage to automatically destroy a normal arrow.
Of course- if the arrow is magical the spell falls. (though you still cast it, and still waste both the spell and your action).
I didn't have anything specifically to quote from you, so my usual way of responding from quotes leaves me with just saying your name!
Anyway this is perhaps how I'm reading it, and it's surprising that the RAW is this ambiguous, but the section on Smashing an Object seems like there's an additional intent.
Smashing an Object wrote:
Smashing an Object
Smashing a weapon or shield with a slashing or bludgeoning weapon is accomplished with the sunder combat maneuver. Smashing an object is like sundering a weapon or shield, except that your combat maneuver check is opposed by the object's AC. Generally, you can smash an object only with a bludgeoning or slashing weapon.
Armor Class
Objects are easier to hit than creatures because they don't usually move, but many are tough enough to shrug off some damage from each blow. An object's Armor Class is equal to 10 + its size modifier (see Table: Size and Armor Class of Objects) + its Dexterity modifier. An inanimate object has not only a Dexterity of 0 (–5 penalty to AC), but also an additional –2 penalty to its AC. Furthermore, if you take a full-round action to line up a shot, you get an automatic hit with a melee weapon and a +5 bonus on attack rolls with a ranged weapon.
When reading the entire thing as a section, it may not SAY it, but I'm getting the impression that the inanimate objects that don't usually move refer to the object being smashed as a generalization. It may not actually say "unattended object", but even in the Saving Throw section it differentiates the objects by Magical, Non-magical Unattended, or Attended.
This says to me that an unattended weapon is subject to the Sunder, despite the logical loop where it refers you BACK to the Sunder section where it says otherwise. In a way, this looks to be a contradiction within the book, but I could just as easily be wrong and reading too much into this.
The problem is that in Pathfinder "inanimate object" is contraditrory to "animated object" which is a defined term. An Animated Object is something that's been enchanted and can act on its own. I think that is the distinction they are trying to make. (trying to use the "break object" rules on an animated object when you should just be trying to attack it or something"
An animated object vs an inanimate object vs an attended/held/wielded object and all that.
Now I could very well be wrong too. This could be a case of them meaning a generally inanimate object rater than to make the distinction between the magical kind and not.
The problem still though is that using those rules you end up with an AC 10 object. They don't give you any solid info on where to go for an animated object (if we assume an arrow is one). I personally think they didn't go into animated objects because.. those have their own rules in the Bestiaries rather than sundering/attacking an object.
Really, just about from any angle you try to come at it, the arrow-in-flight is an oddity that doesn't quite fit into any of the rules.
Ok am gonna come at this from a different direction- not because I think its right, but because.. well, I wanna work it out.
The question is "can you ready an action vs an arrow flying at you, and sunder/knock it out of the sky". Ok.
The question has also been posited that if you can RaA to attack someone's sword then yuo can also do so to attack their arrow in flight.
So- is there any difference in this?
if Bob the Barbarian and Roger the Ranger are fighting each other:
RR can, if he's within melee range of BB, just flat out sunder his weapon. I think everyone agrees with this.
He can heft his great sword and attack BB's great axe, making the appropriate checks vs the CMD and all that jazz. Success depends on hitting it, getting through hardness, and all that.
In fact- sundering /anything/ BB is wielding is essentially resolved in the exact same fashion. They close to melee, you attack their (item), and go on.
Now:
Can RR ready an action to attack BB's Axe if BB gets in range?
I think so.
He can ready an action to attack (specifically allowed) and you can swap a sunder attempt for a melee attack (specifically allowed).
So AA readies an attack, BB closes to melee, AA attacks his weapon, its resolved normally. If its destroyed, BB is hosed. (or can draw another weapon, fight bare handed, whatever) and if the weap isn' destroyed BB gets Chopped Andy for the cookpot.
Whether we like this rule or not, it seems to be fairly clear in the rules that this is possible.
Now:
The ready an action rules seem clear that you can ready an action to sunder something or attack someone.
But what does sunder say about attacking the object? This is where things get bizarre.
If you go straight to the Sunder rules- its impossible to do. Flat out.
Sunder requires you to attack something wielded by an opponent. Right outta the box, the answer is NO.
"You can attempt to sunder an item held or worn by your opponent.. " very first sentence. (edited for relevancy).
An arrow in flight is neither wielded or worn by your opponent.
But, its not a slam dunk.
If you go to the rules about unattended objects (named Breaking and Entering) it says:
"Smashing a weapon or shield with a slashing or bludgeoning weapon is accomplished with the sunder combat maneuver (see Combat)."
I did not edit that sentence. At all. Straight outta the PRD.
So sundering a weapon or shield requires you to use the Sunder rules, which say you can't do it but its not worn or wielded so you come back to these rules and.. Ok you see the problem.
The problem is that, the /rules do not answer the question/. They actually send you into a never ending rules loop. The only way out of the rules loop is to:
1) treat it as though its wielded.
2) treat the arrow as though it isn't a weapon.
so lets explore 1.
1) If its wielded: the defender gets an AoO if you don't have the feat (err arrow stabs you as you swing at it? wth?) and you use the defender's CMB to try and defeat the attempt.
I think most folks would agree though that this is clearly a houserule situation. Why? Because the arrow, when its close enough to hit you, is no longer wielded by the defender.
Ok, so 2)
2 is supposed to work for things that aren't wielded- but its also /specifically/ not supposed to work against weapons or armor either. In fact- nowhere in the "Smashing an Object" subheading does it reference it being unattended *at all*.
It just says if its a weapon or armor, use the sunder rules. Otherwise, use these rules.
Spoiler:
It leads to an oddity where technically speaking there are two sets of very different rules for attacking an object that isn't a weapon or shield. You can choose either the (extremely easy) rules for just smashing an object, or the (much more difficult) sundering rules. Go figure. (yes, I think its sunder for attended/worn objects and "smashing" for the other.. but it'd have been nice to see a sentence to that effect somewhere).
But back on track here- if we assume the arrow isn't a weapon but is instead an object that isn't wielded or worn by someone to defend it then what do you have?
You have an AC 10 object to attack an object that probably has no hardness at all (at 5 H for every 10 inches of thickness) and most likely fewer HP (or at least as many) as 1" of rope. or 2. TWO hp. If you really wanted to be generous you could give it as much as 5- but that would be as much /as a length of chain/.
So assuming this even works at all, you have an arrow in flight with an AC of 10 and a hardness of zip with 5 hp on a good day with the blessing of the Arrow gods on it to give it just that much HP.
This means that a 1st level commoner wielding the one simple weapon he knows how to, with an average ability modifier of 0, can *hit* the arrow 50% of the time. (though granted, he will most likely not obliterate it). If he can do a whole 3 points of damage to it though it takes a further -2 to hit. However, if it has its actual likely 1 or 2 HP then he can almost certainly break it if not destroy it out right, thus taking no damage at all.
This is an arrow fired by the most accurate archer ever to grace Golarion with absolutely perfect conditions, against Farmer Frank wielding his trusty hoe. All he has to do is invoke the magic words "I ready an action to attack the arrow" and he has a 50/50 shot of winning the day.
Keep in mind, this is all assuming the arrow isn't a weapon.
So you have:
Pretend a flying arrow is wielded vs pretend the flying arrow isn't a weapon.
Either way you are slamming on the ole House Rule sticker and praying for the best because in order for either to work you /have/ to declare the arrow to be something that it clearly isn't.
It Is Not wielded and it Is a weapon.
No need to try again. I just fall back to what I've been saying all along.
/go back to the feat/. Its what its there for.
You are splitting hairs for nothing. Nobody is interested in getting around the feat, and we've already pointed it out how it doesn't, in fact, do such a thing.
Fighting defensively doesn't replace combat expertise and so on, we've been here before.
And I've said this already, but deflect arrows doesn't cover anybody but yourself. There are feats printed outside the CRB that help protect others, but that doesn't mean the feats are needed to accomplish such a thing, only making it a lot easier to do.
And that's the whole point. It's not stepping on the toes of those with deflect arrows because those guys are a whole lot better at it, regardless of the odds in favor of the action.
And so I'll go back and ask the same question I've asked several times.
What other feats are there that you can just tack extra time onto, and then do it without the feat?
Quicken Spell allows you to cast a spell as a swift action at the cost of a feat and spell levels. This is irrelevant, because by RAW you can always cast a fireball as a standard action.
Further, there are numerous examples of feats that allow you to do actions that you already able to do with less penalties or with bonuses. Improved Disarm allows you to disarm without provoking an AoO. Does that mean you cannot disarm without that feat?
If you think of the readied action requirement as a penalty, how is deflect arrows any different from weapon profiency, improved sunder, improved disarm, or any other feat that removes a penalty to an action that you can already do?
Quote:
Is it some arbitrary determination that makes this one special or can we go through the feats that have a similar format to this one and apply that rule as well?
I have to tell you- I want to be a caster in a campaign wherei can add a day or two to the crafting
...
The difference between wep proficiency is that you /can/ wield it without the feat. You just take a penalty. Its right there in the feat, description. I already posted about this.
Feats are either listed with a /normally/ clause(when you can do what the feat describes anyway but with some listed penalty or without some effect or whatever the feat grants).
Or they are listed without the "Normally" line.
The distinction is rather simple.
Feats that allow you to do something that you can't do at all without the feat don't have a normally line. Because it'd say "Normally you can't do this without the feat". It'd be wasted print.
They dont need to write at the end of Quicken spell "Normally you can't cast a spell as a swift action by adding spell levels to the spell" because.. magic doesn't work that way. Its self evident. Without the feat, *you can not do the described action*.
You can't add Maximize to a spell and cast it as a full round action to avoid the feat. You can't add a round to Summon Monster IV and tack Augment Summoning on it, and avoid the feat (and the annoying preq).
Why not? Because without the feat your character lacks the ability to utilize what that feat gives you.
And the Deflect Arrow line is the exact same way. Why?
Because without the feat you can not do it.
There is no
"Normally you can do this as a standard action using the Sunder rules"
or "normally its a free action but you have to roll AC 13"
Why?
Because /normally you can not do that action at all/. The feat grants the ability to do it.
We have Breaking and Entering rules (AC 10 to hit the arrow) with a sunder attempt that provokes an AOO against /the target/ (the arrow) which is perposterous (arrows can't take AoO's- they aren't even creatures). The B&E rules direct you to a rule that says you can only sunder something wielded by a creature. (which an arrow, by its very definition, is not).
Or you can treat it just like an object (rather than a weapon) which gives it an AC 10 and an HP rating so low a mosquito could bench press it (hard to say exactly since the object rules list wood in increments of 10 inches of thickness, unless there is a specific arrow-hp/hardness rule i can't find).
You can almost kinda sorta get there with the arrow stuff but not quite.
If you rule its an unattended object the rule gets so stupid so quickly it can't possibly be the rule as intended. (it becomes as easy to break an arrow in flight as it does to break one that's sitting on the floor in front of you) or you rule its attended and try to figure out how the arrow gets an AoO against you. (unless you have Imp Sunder- but you still have to figure out how it works for the cases where the "attacker" lacks the feat) and even then you are applying the CMD of someone potentially hundreds of feet away to attack an object moving some thousand feet per second..
Whichever way you go with it you have to apply rules that clearly weren't intended for it. You have to houserule either direction. Pick your favorite and go with it, and work out the kinks.
Or face the fact that its most closely covered by the feat, and the feat is the appropriate rule to follow. (even though that STILL requires house ruling, because you want to break the arrow not deflect it. but deflect vs break is really just a fluff distinction since the arrow busts when hitting someone- and either way, the arrow is hitting something).
Clearly the feat isn't perfect. there should be some room inbetween "free action" and "automatic success". But absent some house rules there just isn't. You have to bend the rules so far to come to some resolution that you aren't even on the Rules Forum anymore- but the Advice or Houserules forum...
Can you attempt to sunder an incoming sword attack? If so, how? If not, why not?
Yes, I don't see why not. A readied action should be able to do this. It is wielded and must use the sunder rules as such.
Adamantine Dragon wrote:
So... if you can sunder incoming arrows, bullets, swords, axes, clubs and assorted other weapons or ammunition, what about natural attacks? Can you sunder the claws of an attacking dragon?
I'd say no on natural attacks. Why?
RAW wrote:
Sunder
You can attempt to sunder an item held or worn by your opponent as part of an attack action in place of a melee attack.
RAW wrote:
Smashing an Object
Smashing a weapon or shield with a slashing or bludgeoning weapon is accomplished with the sunder combat maneuver. Smashing an object is like sundering a weapon or shield, except that your combat maneuver check is opposed by the object's AC.
The object is used by an opponent and is animate, therefore you cannot use the smashing rules. The object is also not an item held or worn, and therefore you cannot use the typical Sunder rules.
There are, however, house rules that could make it possible. You could simply allow a wielded Sunder despite it being against the rules stated. I personally am uncertain how I'd feel about it, but would probably allow it and make it extraordinarily difficult. In fact, it should be difficult enough that even if you do succeed, it was a terrible idea to try.
I think it's hilarious this whole debate is still going on. I agree with you Green, I'd probably allow it, using one of the GM discretion techniques listed above, but it would be difficult and would only work to attempt to sunder a single incoming projectile. Even if successful, additional ranged attacks would be made normally. So the whole thing seems remarkably unwise to me, but hey, there are some situations where the sheer coolness of the endeavor could make it worth attempting.
My...
Which is even /more/ amusing when you take into account that by raw the bullet, the arrow, the sling stone, heck a throw alchemist flask- all take exactly the same amount of time to pull/draw/throw and travel from the person to the target. :P
(which gets even sillier when you start tacking on more attacks in a round..)
No need to try again. I just fall back to what I've been saying all along.
/go back to the feat/. Its what its there for.
You are splitting hairs for nothing. Nobody is interested in getting around the feat, and we've already pointed it out how it doesn't, in fact, do such a thing.
Fighting defensively doesn't replace combat expertise and so on, we've been here before.
And I've said this already, but deflect arrows doesn't cover anybody but yourself. There are feats printed outside the CRB that help protect others, but that doesn't mean the feats are needed to accomplish such a thing, only making it a lot easier to do.
And that's the whole point. It's not stepping on the toes of those with deflect arrows because those guys are a whole lot better at it, regardless of the odds in favor of the action.
And so I'll go back and ask the same question I've asked several times.
What other feats are there that you can just tack extra time onto, and then do it without the feat?
Is it some arbitrary determination that makes this one special or can we go through the feats that have a similar format to this one and apply that rule as well?
I have to tell you- I want to be a caster in a campaign wherei can add a day or two to the crafting and make things without the feats. Or the summoner where I can add a round to the casting time and apply the summoning feats to my summons without blowing feats on them.
And I know it may seem like i'm trying to split hairs here, but I'm really not. This is the rules forum. If you are saying its fine by the rules to ignore this feat by adding extra time to accomplish it, then you are saying the rules work that way for every other place like it.
And there are /alot/ of feats that share that format.
Can you attempt to sunder an incoming sword attack? If so, how? If not, why not?
Yes, I don't see why not. A readied action should be able to do this. It is wielded and must use the sunder rules as such.
Adamantine Dragon wrote:
So... if you can sunder incoming arrows, bullets, swords, axes, clubs and assorted other weapons or ammunition, what about natural attacks? Can you sunder the claws of an attacking dragon?
I'd say no on natural attacks. Why?
RAW wrote:
Sunder
You can attempt to sunder an item held or worn by your opponent as part of an attack action in place of a melee attack.
RAW wrote:
Smashing an Object
Smashing a weapon or shield with a slashing or bludgeoning weapon is accomplished with the sunder combat maneuver. Smashing an object is like sundering a weapon or shield, except that your combat maneuver check is opposed by the object's AC.
The object is used by an opponent and is animate, therefore you cannot use the smashing rules. The object is also not an item held or worn, and therefore you cannot use the typical Sunder rules.
There are, however, house rules that could make it possible. You could simply allow a wielded Sunder despite it being against the rules stated. I personally am uncertain how I'd feel about it, but would probably allow it and make it extraordinarily difficult. In fact, it should be difficult enough that even if you do succeed, it was a terrible idea to try.
The problem is that the arrow isn't animated. its an arrow. To be animated it'd have to be capable of self adjusting its flight- as per the Animate Object spell, or even a construct (arrow, I guess?)
An arrow isn't animated whether its in flight, in your bag, drawn on the bow, sitting on the ground, or whatever. Its just an object.
If you assume it isn't talking about Animated Objects (capital letters there) then the words actually mean nothing since it doesn't also go into telling you how it being animated changes anything. To do that, you have to go to the Animated Objects rules to figure out the proper AC for the item.
The arrow is no more animated than the bow that shot it, or the sword trying to hit it.
No need to try again. I just fall back to what I've been saying all along.
/go back to the feat/. Its what its there for.
So you are trying to use the rules on sundering an unattended object to attack someone's weapon in mid flight, and you wonder why people are objecting to this?
There's a reason they made this into a feat, Talonhawke. Not just some feat but a feat with two barriers to entry. (another feat, and an ability score requirement)
This isn't something they failed to take into account. They took it into account by making a feat for it. You are now trying to get around that by using a rule that doesn't really fit. Its not an unattended object (its a weapon) but it also doens't fit the weapon rules (because for that split second its in flight, its not in their hand either)
If its on the ground? no problem. If its in their hand? no problem.
if its in that in-between point- there is a problem. Its not un attended but its also not wielded.
Because it specifically isn't wielded (how can it, be? its in mid-air?) but the unattended rules yield absolutely /ludicrous/ results.
(like it being about as easy to knock an arrow out of the air as it is to smack a chest with a club..)
(an arrow is base 18 -5 for inanimate -2 for just existing apparently, so AC 10).
The average commoner has a better chance to *knock an arrow out of the air* shot from 2 feet away than he has *to smack a goblin with his hoe*.
Or by the rules- he has the same chance to smack it with his hoe on the ground as he does to do it in mid flight.
While it says "Objects are easier to hit than creatures because they don't usually move" it fails to back that up by any rules to apply when an object is actually moving when you are trying to hit it- while still being inanimate. (sadly, throwing or flinging an object from a bow doesn't make it animated,. that requires magic.)
Its the inherent absurdity that the situation creates, that causes folks to say "thats crap, use the feat."
Because..well.. its crap.
Thats why there's a feat. They made a feat to specifically address this issue because /without/ that feat you have to wiggle around the rules abit just to come up with an answer whereby its easier to knock an arrow out of the sky than to split a goblin's skull.
(and don't think I didn't notice you are using a source of reference thats designed for doors and chests and such (aka, breaking and entering, the heading for that topic) and applying it to a weapon-in-use, as your method for even getting it this far..)
Use the feat! Thats why it was created. Quit trying to get around the feat. It doesn't work.
You can attempt to sunder an item held or worn by your opponent as part of an attack action in place of a melee attack. If you do not have the Improved Sunder feat, or a similar ability, attempting to sunder an item provokes an attack of opportunity from the target of your maneuver.
If your attack is successful, you deal damage to the item normally. Damage that exceeds the object's Hardness is subtracted from its hit points. If an object has equal to or less than half its total hit points remaining, it gains the broken condition (see Conditions). If the damage you deal would reduce the object to less than 0 hit points, you can choose to destroy it. If you do not choose to destroy it, the object is left with only 1 hit point and the broken condition.
You can't sunder an arrow in flight regardless. Its not held or worn by someone/thing. (i.e. an opponent).
And yes I would, Talon. The rules specifically provide for it.
You can 1) ready an attack 2) when someone attacks you to 3) attack 4) their weapon.
Or you can ready an attack to sunder their shield or armor or ring or, well, you get the idea.
The arrow thing isn't covered, however. That requires the feat.
Keep in mind also the relative velocities involved here. Swinging a sword is /not/ the same thing as an arrow flying across the room at you.
Which is probably why they provided for the one and not the other.
(keep in mind the AoO though if you don't have imp. sunder).
Its an object, its an attack, its an object used to make an attack..
who cares?
Call it a q-tip for all it matters. Its a flying thing someone is using to attack someone else with, that there's arleady a feat to take out of the air and avoid the attack.
You are still attempting to just skip the feat chain by tacking on a little extra time to accomplish something the rules don't otherwise allow.
When you have a feat that substantially does what you are trying to do, you go to that feat to find out how to do it- or the rule(s) that the feat is based off of. The feat here is clear. The rules are clear.
What you are trying to do is add time to what the feat says, in order to do what the feat gives without taking the feat.
Seriously- list off feats you'd let the PC's ignore by just taking on a little extra time to it.
I'd Love to get in on a campaign where I can just add time to actions that require feats, and get to pull it off anyway. It just opens up so many more possibilities.
I have to say I disagree with your notion that disallowing this cheese attempt to avoid a feat equates with RP being dead.
Feats exist for a reason. Advocate for it being banned or something but don't just come in trying to find some back-door way to do it anyway.
I'd like to remind you that a readied action against an arrow is still, drastically, different than the Deflect Arrows feat.
I take it that your point is more to do with it's similarity to the feat, and therefore possibly about taking away from Deflect Arrow. It's fine to say that you dislike the similarity and can explain why, but please don't say that it's the same as the feat. It is not.
You'll get more focus and strength to your opinion/argument if you can keep from deflecting the reader's thoughts to this equated fallacy.
I don't consider it a fallacy at all.
You are trying to say that by making it take a little longer that you can do something that only a feat lets you do. i.e. deflect an arrow outta the sky. Deflect, attack, sunder, whatever you care to call it.
The game has several ways already to do this.
1) take the feat.
2) total defense
3) combat expertise
There are multiple ways to do what you are asking to do- I just don't think that readying an action to negate someone's attack like that is one of them.
if someone wanted to go total defense and say "if it misses me I'd like to say it swung and knocked it outta the sky". No prob.
The same with combat expertise.
or even just normal ole AC. Archer misses, defender says he knocked it outta the air. No problem.
But readying the action to make sure you defeat the single attack thats most likely to hit- I just disagree with.
What other feats can we invalidate by just making the action take a little longer?
Can I craft stuff I don't have the feats for by making it take a little longer to do? How about metamagic feats? Can I use those if I just take a little longer to cast the spell?
If you scroll (or flip through) the feats you'll notice there are two types:
Type 1. A feat that alters how something works (aka something you can already do) into something else.
Like Die Hard.
You can tell because after Benefit it says "Normal:" and then tells you what would happen without the feat.
Exotic Weapon prof is another very good example of this.
You can wield a weapon without the feat. And if you do, you take a -4 hit. You know this /because it tells you/.
Now there are other kinds of feats.
Type 2. These are feats that give you something you wouldn't have without it, or let you do somethign you wouldn't have without it. For these things there is no "normal" because "normal" is "you can't do it at all."
Crafting feats, metamagic feats, alot of the +X bonus feats, these all work that way.
Without the feat, you don't get the benefit of the feat.
Not if you take a round to do it not if you take four rounds or three years- the you either have the feat and can do it or you don't have the feat and can't do it.
Go read Deflect Arrows.
Prequesite.
Benefit
No "Normal" line.
Why not?
because Normally- you /can not deflect an arrow/.
If you could deflect an arrow by taking some special action without the feat, then that's where it would be listed. It would say
"Normally, you can take a full round action to deflect an arrow"
or "Normally, its a swift action to deflect an arrow"
or "Normally.. xyzbbqsauce" or whatever the rule is.
This is something that requires the training of a feat to do. Without it- you can not do it.
Now you might argue the feat is stupid. Bad written. Has silly preq's. That its something that you shouldn't need a feat for.
And really- I'm all for a discussion about those things.
But as the rules stand now there is exactly one way to do anything /close/ to what the OP described: and that is by taking this feat.
How on earth could this possibly be considered cheese? Somebody essentially wastes their round in the MERE HOPE that physical projectiles will come THEIR way just so they can ATTEMPT to sunder ONE of them.
That strikes me as the absolute opposite of cheese! Though not terribly effective in the vast majority of situations, it has infinite value as a mood setting maneuver.
And it in no way invalidates the Deflect Arrows feat. Deflect Arrows allows you to do this more efficiently (automatically) without a readied action (no wasted turns) and allows you access to other cool things later on like Snatch Arrows.
You may be right about unfair statements Selgard, but saying that "allowing it is cheese" or "the rules clearly don't allow for it" when that is obviously unclear is equally unfair.
It's pretty clear that it doesn't and shouldn't work, to me. I can also understand though that folks disagree. Disagreement isn't a bad thing to me, however. Folks can read the rules how they want and play it how they want.
I am absolutely astounded at the resistance against the idea. I myself came up with it years ago in v3.5 and don't believe there is ANYTHING in the RAW that would prevent it, only people's assumptions and the personal limitations they impose on their (and others' creativity). It's not even broken as it accomplishes very little (except for sheer entertainment value of everyone at the table).
Can't help but think roleplaying is dead for some of these naysayers.
I would treat it as a sunder attempt against the archer's CMD. That's the wonderful thing about combat maneuvers, they are modular, easy to use, take into account varying skill levels of those involved, and the GM can apply the mechanic to all kinds of crazy fantasy-fighter moves without too much thought or time wasted.
I once had a GM who allowed me to pick up a heavy table and flip it over onto a pair of thugs with a combat maneuver. It was glorious.
I have to say I disagree with your notion that disallowing this cheese attempt to avoid a feat equates with RP being dead.
Feats exist for a reason. Advocate for it being banned or something but don't just come in trying to find some back-door way to do it anyway.
A DM letting you flip a table over onto a pair of thugs sounds like fun to me- but far astray from the question asked in this thread.
Improv is good. It should be encouraged- but not when its just a feeble attempt to skip something that requires two feats and an ability score requirement to do.
Clearly my opinion isn't the only one- but saying those of us who dislike this idea can't or won't RP or allow others to do so just isn't a fair statement.
I don't necessarily disagree- i'm just trying to get it all hammered out.
Since you interrupt the action before it happens then technically Bob hasn't stopped his movement yet.
If it were actions in tandem then bob runs up and andy runs back before bob stops moving so.. bob has the rest of his movement to go.
since its happening before he attacks (he effectively never attacks at all) wouldn't he automatically get to choose to use the rest of his movement?
It'd be like if he moved 20 feet, stopped for a moment, then chose to move the next 10 or do something else.
Since the RA happens before the actual action that spawns it- this seems like a valid way to go.
(similar to how you can't trip a prone person standing up.. because your trip happens before they try to stand, so effectively it never happens at all- a non action.)
With Bob not capable of doing his action though- what are his new options?
1) anything he can do with the movement he has left?
2) attack if he can but if not stand there like a lump?
Since the "move" happens befor the attack the attack doesn't actually happen. couldn't he just.. move (up to the rest of his move) and swing anyway (assuming he could close the distance anyway)
Readying an Action: You can ready a standard action, a move action, a swift action, or a free action. To do so, specify the action you will take and the conditions under which you will take it. Then, anytime before your next action, you may take the readied action in response to that condition. The action occurs just before the action that triggers it. If the triggered action is part of another character's activities, you interrupt the other character. Assuming he is still capable of doing so, he continues his actions once you complete your readied action. Your initiative result changes. For the rest of the encounter, your initiative result is the count on which you took the readied action, and you act immediately ahead of the character whose action triggered your readied action.
You can take a 5-foot step as part of your readied action, but only if you don't otherwise move any distance during the round.
Initiative Consequences of Readying: Your initiative result becomes the count on which you took the readied action. If you come to your next action and have not yet performed your readied action, you don't get to take the readied action (though you can ready the same action again). If you take your readied action in the next round, before your regular turn comes up, your initiative count rises to that new point in the order of battle, and you do not get your regular action that round.
This came up in another thread and didn't wanna risk derailing it.
Can you ready an action to move if someone comes up and attacks you?
If you can- what are the ramifications for the attacker?
The rule says:
"Assuming he is still capable of doing so, he continues his actions once you complete your readied action."
So
Archer Andy readies a move action vs Bob the Barbarian taking a swing at him.
Bob does a single move up to Andy and takes a swing.
Andy steps back.
Bob.. does what?
can Bob finish his move (assuming he has movement left to get in range of Andy) and take a swing anyway?
Is Bob stuck where he's at, unable to do anything else since he was interrupted by the readied action?
Can Andy even ready an action vs getting attacked- or can he only do it vs getting closed in on?
(I don't see any rule against it- but thought I'd throw it out there anyway)
And for those who can use the feat its great. As I already said in my games its covered by Kirthfinders built in parrying.
However for a TWF or a THF Deflect arrows is not only 2 feats in to a group they probable don't want but neither can use it anyway do to lack of free hand.
I can actually ready several actions to stop him from hitting me including a sunder or disarm. OR even a move action to not be there when he swings. All of which work just as easily as saying that I ready to attack the first arrow to come into my threatened range. At no point is this massive reduction in what I could do on my turn stepping on the monk or shield guys ability to ignore that arrow and still pummel something.
I do agree that it would be better if there were a feat to deflect with a weapon or better rules for attacking moving objects but nothing in the rules disallows this.
On the subject of getting around feats one thing I hate to hear is that something can't be done because a feat exist that "allows"it. Allows is in quotes because there are things that no one would disallow you to then sometimes a feat comes out that says you can do it and it gets banned.
For instance Blinding Flash. Before this feat this would be something you would do with Dirty Trick or even something you DM might let you do for a penalty of some sort(this is what the floating GM +/- 2is for) however now a GM would be justified in denying the dirty trick user from blinding his foes with his sword because a new feat "allows" you to do it.
Then delete the feat and say "anyone can do it". Problem solved.
But don't include the feat /and/ let folks do it- or something substantially equivalent to it- without the feat. That just makes the feat a trap.
I'd be really curious as to how readying an action would work as
"I ready an action to move 5 feet west if someone comes towards me from the east and attacks me". But thats really something for another thread.
You are right though that some folks have a hard time qualifying for the Deflect ARrows feat. This is more though because its a bad feat than anything else. I stated above how I'd fix it for everyone else.
(make it require wep focus, and have it work with any weapon that you had weapon focus for).
You are essentially house-ruling it to work anyway imo (the ready action vs arrow) so might as well just go whole hog and fix the underlying problem- make two feats one for monk/UA folks and one for weapon wielders.
Or remove the feat entirely and just make it a reflex save or attack roll or a freebie or whatever.
But don't keep the feat and make it a freebie.
-S
edit:
made a new thread about readying an action vs an attack generally:
http://paizo.com/forums/dmtz5rjw?Ready-Action-vs-Getting-Attacked#1
If he said he had a longsword instead of an appropriate weapon would you still let him ready it against the charge, using the ready against the charge rules- or any other weapon without the Brace feature?
Guy says "hey I'm an expert with the longsword, I should get double damage too, right? I mean he's charging me- moving quick.. I can ready my sword and just gut him like a fish. I deserve the 2x damage."
or do you say
"sorry, the rules say you need specfic weapons to do that, I'm not going to allow it."
No, because the rules support attacking him that way. Or even his horse.
Or you can sunder his weapon.
But you can't ready an action to stop him from hitting you. Which is what you are trying to accomplish with the arrow thing.
"I ready an action to use my shield to block the first hit"
is the same thing as saying "i ready an action to knock the first arrow to come at me out of the sky"
Neither works.
You guys didn't seem to like the DM just saying no, so I've given alternatives.
They all revolve around it not working without the same feat investment as Deflect Arrows, however, and my strongly dissuading the player from trying it without said feat.
Take the feat, or skip it. Don't try to get around the feat. It exists for a reason.
DM:
"So up ahead on the trail, you see a cottage.. maybe 200 yards away.. the forest around you seems to melt away , to be replaced by giant mushrooms."
us:
"we leave the trail to scout around, and get a better look at the cottage"
DM:
"You turn left and step off the trail, but all you see ahead of you is the trail and the cottage"
Us:
......
"we turn right and.."
Dm:
"You turn right and step off the trail, but all you see ahead of you is the trail and the cottage."
Now this would have ended it right there and then but we were all friends and he was a stand-in DM for the night so we continued.
Several (very long) hours later the group gets killed one by one by something in the dark while we slept.
We were none to happy, the DM says 'well I expected so and so to have the whatsit that would wake you up' and one guy was like "yeah but so and so wasn't here tonight".
So the whole night ended up being a pointless, boring, retcon that never actually happened because the DM didn't even pay attention to who was actually there.
Being Dominated by the bad guy makes this not PVP. Its really no different than the DM handing you the sheet of a monster and saying "here, play this for awhile".
Play yourself as intelligent as you are, knowing the relative strengths and weaknesses of your former-allies.
IMO: you'd knock the guys out who are still standing and then deal with the held person later.
The reason: The held guy is no danger for the moment but the other two are.
Remember, your *character* doesn't know your other guys are at 5hp.
The held guy is no threat, the other two are a threat, you'd go after them then the held guy.
At least, thats my 2 copper on it.
Does it suck? yes.
But thats what happens when you fail a will save :(
But nothing under ready actions says you can use it to cut an arrow outta the sky either. Actions have consequences. Stand in front of the arrow and declare you are gonna stand there and try to hit it? Have some up close and personal time with the medic.
Posts
