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

Skylancer4's page

4,173 posts. No reviews. 1 list. No wishlists.


1 to 50 of 4,173 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

Murdock Mudeater wrote:
Skylancer4 wrote:
It actually says "sword scabbard" not polearm, covering or anything else, just to point that out.

According to PFS fighter weapon groups, the Scythe is a Heavy Blade, not a polearm. I know, I would consider it a polearm, but that isn't supported by the rules.

You are correct, it does say sword scabbard. That said, Seems vague on that point, as swords are not really a defined term. Came up in another thread, too. The term, sword, is thrown around a lot, but rarely defined directly. I would argue the intention is for a sword shaped scabbard, but I see nothing suggesting that this is intended purely for swords. It is, however, clearly for Heavy Blades only.

A heavy blade is still not always a sword, when categorizing things to simplify and speed up game play, items will get put into categories that best fit, instead of making new categories for every item that doesn't fit perfectly.

Being in the heavy blades category doesn't automatically make the item a sword, nor does it mean it has a sword scabbard. A sword scabbard is a pretty particular "object" and not all swords have sword scabbards on top of that (case in point that sword with all the protrusions off of it or the monk sword with the rings through the blade etc). If not all swords have scabbards how are you "logic'ing" that non-swords have sword scabbards?

Not judging, but for better or worse, this is at best a try at twisting the rules to do something they aren't meant to "because similarities". Just to reiterate that isn't an accusation, but this is exactly the type of behaviour/thought proccess that any GM who has had a problematic player in the past will raise an eye brow and wonder what you are trying to pull.

Driver 325 yards wrote:
Skylancer4 wrote:
Driver 325 yards wrote:
Skylancer4 wrote:
Chess Pwn wrote:
awaken the dogs and have them take class levels.
This is known as the "Leadership feat".
Awaken in part says,
You awaken a tree or animal to human-like sentience. To succeed, you must make a Will save (DC 10 + the animal's current HD, or the HD the tree will have once awakened). The awakened animal or tree is friendly toward you. You have no special empathy or connection with a creature you awaken, although it serves you in specific tasks or endeavors if you communicate your desires to it. If you cast awaken again, any previously awakened creatures remain friendly to you, but they no longer undertake tasks for you unless it is in their best interests.
So you don't even need the Leadership Feat. You do have to be able to cast awaken though, since the benefit seems to only go to the person who cast the spell. Use Magic Device + a scroll maybe?

You do if you want to "control" it like an animal companion. That line effectively says "new NPC is friendly to you, it will help like a charmed NPC" which is a completely different situation, opposed to a loyal and always around animal companion/follower from Leadership. Basically it is around and the GM runs it, not you and there is no "staying power" to said creature, it isn't going to be or meant to be around indefinitely.

Or are you suggesting that one spell renders a rather powerful feat redundant and useless?

Well I don't know what the difference is between "controlling something" and the quoted language that says "it serves you in specific tasks or endeavors if you communicate your desires to it."

To me there is no difference. The spell says what it says. Plus, you don't "control" a Co-hort, if what you mean by "control" is to dominate them like the Dominate Person spell. After all, Co-horts are NPCs.

What the awakened spell does not say is that the "new NPC is friendly to you, it will...

Intelligent Animals

Source: Animal Archive

One of the surest ways to complicate the relationship between an adventurer and her animal companion is to cast awaken on the beast. The moment the spell takes effect, an animal companion ceases to be a class feature, and instead becomes a person—an NPC whose Intelligence has increased by 3d6 (potentially making it as smart as or smarter than the caster), and who has an increased Charisma score and knows at least one spoken language.

An adventurer considering awakening his animal companion should keep in mind the awaken spell's potential drawbacks. Most pointedly, awakened animals can no longer serve as companions, and the character must follow the rules for Leadership if he wishes to take the animal as an official cohort. Further, an intelligent animal can be difficult to manage. After awakening, animals are predisposed to be friendly toward whoever cast the spell— in this case, presumably their masters. Yet if an animal was mistreated during its time as a companion, or is treated poorly after its awakening, that friendliness is mixed with a sense of confusion that can last anywhere from a few moments to a few hours as the animal reconciles the abuse with the great gift it's been given. Since awaken is not a charm or mind-control spell, there's nothing to prevent awakened animals from resenting mistreatment in the same way a normal person of their intelligence level would, and they're no more inclined to be automatically servile than anyone else. More than one careless druid has found her awakened animal companion refusing to follow instructions, leaving to pursue its own goals, or even seeking vengeance for its former “enslavement.”

It becomes an NPC, not a slave despite what you think the words mean. It starts out as "friendly", see Diplomacy for what that entails. Obviously enough people have made the same mistake you have and thankfully they have expanded on the complex concept that was forced into a tiny little spell description.

The Black Bard wrote:

But if you use create undead with a dash of enervate in the mix, you can get a bloody skeletal champion awakened tiger. Which gets two extra HD to boot, stacking with the two from awaken! Make sure to maximize/empower the awaken spell to get a good Cha boost!

That said, the baseline Cha of 6 for the tiger makes them glass cannons since barring a lucky roll with Empower on awaken, they have a Cha of 7-9. Expect a charging pounce or two then wait for bloody to get it back together.

A solid choice for skeletonizing is actually the heavy horse. Since pathfinder just applies the advanced template, they have a baseline Cha of 11. Better than almost any other cheap and easily accessible creature.

Regarding the OP, I've seen a houserule (which I had no problem with personally) of spending a week of training and a small fee to grant a pet an extra HD. I would probably use the retraining rules from Ult.Campaign as a price baseline, and likewise implement a cap on how high you could train the HD (like Character level -2 or such, no level 1 animal handlers with 10hd dogs).

We can't "see" the mechanics here in the real world, but I'd beleive police dogs are effectively "higher HD" than regular dogs due to their training. I don't think tricks alone can justify the difference between a "civilian" german shepherd and a police trained one.

This is usually covered by templates in game.

Driver 325 yards wrote:
Skylancer4 wrote:
Chess Pwn wrote:
awaken the dogs and have them take class levels.
This is known as the "Leadership feat".
Awaken in part says,
You awaken a tree or animal to human-like sentience. To succeed, you must make a Will save (DC 10 + the animal's current HD, or the HD the tree will have once awakened). The awakened animal or tree is friendly toward you. You have no special empathy or connection with a creature you awaken, although it serves you in specific tasks or endeavors if you communicate your desires to it. If you cast awaken again, any previously awakened creatures remain friendly to you, but they no longer undertake tasks for you unless it is in their best interests.
So you don't even need the Leadership Feat. You do have to be able to cast awaken though, since the benefit seems to only go to the person who cast the spell. Use Magic Device + a scroll maybe?

You do if you want to "control" it like an animal companion. That line effectively says "new NPC is friendly to you, it will help like a charmed NPC" which is a completely different situation, opposed to a loyal and always around animal companion/follower from Leadership. Basically it is around and the GM runs it, not you and there is no "staying power" to said creature, it isn't going to be or meant to be around indefinitely.

Or are you suggesting that one spell renders a rather powerful feat redundant and useless?

Chess Pwn wrote:
awaken the dogs and have them take class levels.

This is known as the "Leadership feat".

Murdock Mudeater wrote:
CyderGnome wrote:

Here's a picture of one: rman-or-swiss-war-scythe-97-1034-wfl072
Yeah, does look more like a bladed spear, but that would certainly have a sheath/scabbard. Yeah, guess I'll go with this. Thanks.

It actually says "sword scabbard" not polearm, covering or anything else, just to point that out.

The two requirements being a sword scabbard and being part of the heavy blades group, that would (at least to me) mean that it wouldn't work with a scythe. It doesn't meet both prerequisites, at least as far as the rules go. If you want to houserule/homebrew things, obviously do as you like, but you should at least be aware of the actual rules preventing it as far as what we have in the write up (this being discussed in the Rules Forum).

Driver 325 yards wrote:

My question was about gauntlets - not brass knuckles.

I know brass knuckles are not unarmed strikes. I already stated so above.

It is still a distinct weapon and because the game is an exception based rule set, you need a specific rule allowing you to "stack" them. Something to the effect of "abilities that alter your unarmed strike also apply to the gauntlet" would be required for the AoMF to be viable. There has never been anything like that introduced for the base weapon in all the years the game has been out.

You are either using your actual unarmed strike which allows for the AoMF to work or the gauntlet which functions like, but isn't exactly the same as, an unarmed strike. They are two separate and distinct instances of statistics.

Basically what a gauntlet does is say "when using this weapon, copy the table's unarmed strike entry and make the damage lethal." That is completely different from "this is interchangeable for all instances of unarmed strike" which is what you are attempting to use it as to get the AoMF to work.

It is either the +1 gauntlet or the AoMF, not both.

I've only done it once intentionally too. More because the psionic and the psicrystal were bickering and got tired of it and wanted to make it stop. When questioned by the party about it (I think we were having lunch at one of the character's houses trying to decide on our next move) "It's me, if our positions were switched it would have done the same thing, and I'd understand why too." It also helps the character is an Elan lol.

Brass Knuckles

These close combat weapons are designed to fit comfortably around the knuckles, narrowing the contact area and therefore magnifying the amount of force delivered by a punch.

Benefit: Brass knuckles allow you to deal lethal damage.

Drawback: You may hold, but not wield, a weapon or other object in a hand wearing brass knuckles. You may cast a spell with a somatic component while wearing brass knuckles if you make a concentration check (DC 10 + the level of the spell you’re casting).

Note: Monks are proficient with brass knuckles.

Light Melee Weapon Cost Dmg (S) Dmg (M) Critical Range Weight Type Special
Brass Knuckles 1 gp 1d2 1d3 x2 — 1 lb. B monk
Editor's Note
This reflects the most recent version of the brass knuckles, which differs from the version in the Advanced Player's Guide.


They now have a stat block, so you no longer "get to use" the unarmed strike.

Don't go expecting people to read dates....

It comes back after 24 hours after being destroyed. If you need it to be full for some specific reason, destroy it the first day of downtime you get. Problem solved.

Or if you have body adjustment, just heal the crystal using share power.

BlindBadger wrote:

One additional question:
In the burning club example where a player hits a target oil soaked creature and catches it on fire, I understand that the player gets the +1 bonus only once, but can the player choose where to add the +1 damage, in this case to either the club melee damage or the fire damage? This might make a difference if the target has damage immunities or takes bonus damage from different types of attacks. (Such as if the target was immune to fire or could only be damaged by fire.)

Unfortunately no.

If the club didn't hit, would the fire still burn the creature?

As the answer to this mechanically is "No" the fire isn't the attack, it is the rider effect.

The club being the "attack" limits where the bonus is applied.

However, this doesn't keep you from using another weapon (such as that flask of alchemist fire) which would get the added bonus in the most beneficial way (all fire damage). And this is where "system mastery" (aka knowing the in's and out's of the rules and how they work) comes into play. "Knowing the right tool for the job" and all that jazz.

Slightly off topic:
As a good rule of thumb, if you are asking if something is allowed, it probably isn't (you could be called out as "fudging the rules"). And this comes from the rule set being "exception based." All that means is, the rules tell you what you can do, then some other rules tell you can do "other" things in certain situations OR that these other rules allow for exceptions to established rules.

If you want something to happen, find the rule or mechanic that specifically allows that to happen (or you character to do that thing). Sometimes that leads to "homework" as you go look through the books or PRD for the best fit sadly :(

Incorporeal wrote:
Incorporeal (Ex) [/i]An incorporeal creature has no physical body[/i]. It can be harmed only by other incorporeal creatures, magic weapons or creatures that strike as magic weapons, and spells, spell-like abilities, or supernatural abilities. It is immune to all nonmagical attack forms. Even when hit by spells or magic weapons, it takes only half damage from a corporeal source (except for channel energy). Although it is not a magical attack, holy water can affect incorporeal undead. Corporeal spells and effects that do not cause damage only have a 50% chance of affecting an incorporeal creature. Force spells and effects, such as from a magic missile, affect an incorporeal creature normally.

I'm with DM Blake, no body to get into. The above and that it takes the time to point out incorporeal and non native outsider's bodies are their souls means even if you cast the spell, when you do you imprison their soul (and thus the body) inside you. Which means what you were going to occupy is now gone when the spell is successful.

Basically they are valid targets for the spell, but it will fizzle if you cast it on them.

Alignment check, not loss of class abilities, for sure. It isn't a "nice" thing to do, and if it becomes common practice should have ramifications, but as pointed out above nature isn't particularly nice either. Survival of the most fit, etc.

Unless there was an over abundance of those animals in the area (aka deer hunting season) in which case, everything would be on the up and up.

As many times/as often as you can before the Kender steals it.

Then you kill the Kender and get your stuff back again. It magically becomes like a brand new item at that point.

Apparently everyone was wrong and Kender were good for something after all....

Numarak wrote:

I lean towards the interpretation that sightless means unable to see because "Pattern: Like a figment, a pattern spell creates an image that others can see" and on Figments: "A figment spell creates a false sensation. Those who perceive the figment perceive the same thing, not their own slightly different versions of the figment. It is not a personalized mental impression."

The part that says that patterns are mind-affecting could be interpretated in many different ways, but has nothing to do with the first part, and the reason I rise about this is "but a pattern also affects the minds of those who see it or are caught in it".

I rationalize it like seeing a mandala. It can affect your mind, but you must see it in order to be affected by it.

I admit that the only part I can't explain is the 'or' between "those who see it" and the "are caught in it".

Unfortunately, the rules don't always make logical choices or follow "rational" thinking. It isn't the first time a rule "doesn't make sense" to someone. Nor will it be the last time people throw their hands up in the air screaming "science doesn't work that way!!" in regards to how the mechanics function, I'm sure.

They make approximations and make the game world a semblance of the real world. And by no means does that mean parallels should be drawn. Because the closer you look at it, the more it falls apart.

If they meant blind, they had an in game mechanic, fully fleshed out and described. They didn't use it. Word choices mean something. If they meant blind, they would have stated blind. There is absolutely no reason for them to have not done so. Instead they used a term that has context beyond the most simplified description that happens to be shared with another term (which they knowingly didn't use) as well. It amazes me that in a game where there are so many "similar to, but not the same" mechanics people argue over it when it comes up. Just because something is functionally the same, doesn't mean they are interchangeable in this game.

Goth Guru wrote:
The GM can always ban any spells that make their brain hurt.

PFS doesn't allow GMs to be that lazy... No banning of spells because you don't want to think.

And if a GM actually said they were banning a first level spell "because it made their head hurt...(or for any reason really)" I would genuinely politey excuse myself and leave the game. There is no possible way it will be a fun and enjoyable game, sorry.

Because the rules don't parse that finely to keep the book keeping down and save time.

I guess the best way to explain it is, some attacks have "rider" effects. Rider effects don't benefit from the additional damage. The are just something extra tagged onto the attack when it occurs. This also prevents the damage from being applied twice (once for the attack, once with the rider), to prevent double or triple (or more) "dipping" making the ability more powerful than it is intended to be.

The club hits, it gets the bonus damage. The additional fire is a "rider" the damage doesn't apply as from that point on it is basically an environmental effect, having nothing to do with to the character.

The damage from the torch is the damage from the "weapon" and is the only damage that will be done with that attack so it isn't a "rider" effect, it is the attack. That is why it gets the bonus on the initial hit.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kobold Cleaver wrote:




And here I was thinking I was being helpful .-.

Kobold Cleaver wrote:

Is this a science argument about Pathfinder

am I in a g%$$+*n science argument about Pathfinder


(I believe is what you meant)

_Ozy_ wrote:

Unfortunately, sometimes you have to be.

Since pathfinder rules aren't 100% comprehensive, science provides a good tool to answer stuff that isn't covered and maintain at least a semblance of verisimilitude.

That is, unless you're specifically running in a world where science doesn't actually work. My guess is that would be a very wacky place.

I'm just going to disagree that scientific discussions have anything at all to do with rules in pathfinder, unless we are talking logic for the statements. Adding science into the equation seriously just convolutes the issue beyond measure.

Unless making a complete mess of things is the point.

We are parsing rules that have a semblance of what happens in real life, not enforcing real world standards on the mechanics like would happen in a simulationist game rule set. Science pretty much means nothing beyond what the rules tell us is important in this respect. At least for this game system.

Murdock Mudeater wrote:

Though regarding rogues, this would be a situation where having a clever disguise would be really handy. Since Suffocation only works on living creatures, disguising as a creature type that isn't alive would make you highly unlikely to be targeted.

A bit silly, but this is the sort of thing that does work so long as the GM is actually role playing their NPCs.

As opposed to the players metagaming their way through the game?

Not saying you are wrong, but there are A LOT of assumptions and outside knowledge a player would have to have to get to the point where you are taking things.

Besides, the OP was setting up a situation to understand the spell, it doesn't seem like it was a real situation. A therotical "how does this work"? Not a "how do I screw the rogue over"?

Murdock Mudeater wrote:

For starters, that is a really nasty turn 1 move.

But, yeah, fails the fort save and immediately begins to suffocate.

On their turn (initiative step 10 of the same round), they take a second Fort save, and if failed, go unconscious and are reduced to 0 HP.

Next round (round 2), they take yet another Fort save, which if also failed, they become -1 HP and are considered dying. If they passed the previous turns fort save, they are "merely" unconscious and reduced to 0 HP as the step above.

And the next round (3rd round), they take another Fort save, with death being the final result (assuming you've failed 4 Fort saves for this one spell).

Spell only lasts 3 rounds, so if you pass any of the Fort saves, it can't kill you. Though, being reduced to 0 HP and unconscious with only 2 failed Fort saves makes it pretty likely to kill you, anyway.

Only if the other 3 (assuming typical party size the game accounts for) are incapable of dealing with the encounter (which is pretty much never the case, the game is stacked in the players favor).

You might feel useless, but you are far from dead.

Samsaran, mystic past life trait.

Once a "permanent" magical effect has been dispelled, it is gone. It ceases to exist.

Opposed to magical items whose effects are surpressed.

felinoel wrote:

Now onto the issue of monsters, am I allowed to instruct where to find stats?

Something along the lines of:

4 orcs (See "book title" page 42)

I am POSITIVE this will be a no when using this below but I wanted to check.

If you are sticking with the OGL everyone reading will have access to the PRD. And given the ability to insert hyperlinks into documents you would be better served doing that. No need for book names.

Typelouder wrote:
Sorry if this was answered before, but will the Path of War be compiled into 1 rule book much like Psionics Expanded? If so do you know whwen that might happen?

It has been, they have no time frame.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

How about this. If they meant blind, why didn't they use that term?

It is a game mechanic. It is in the glossary (and has been through 3.x).

They didn't use it though now did they?

They used sightless, which has connotation beyond "effectively blind" and has definitions (which I pulled from a Google search) that show context and meaning beyond the "simple" blind you keep pointing to. It want just one, but two and three of those "definitions" which emphasize a meaning beyond simply "effectively blind" to actually being unable or totally lacking the ability to see. Physical inability (lacking eyes or pathologically inability from disease) is what the several definitions I provided stated.

They didn't use blind or blinded, it being a mechanic that was easily available to reference in the same book, they used sightless. That should tell you something.

This is where knowledge checks come in.

If you have the appropriate skill you can make a check to identify these particular defenses or vulnerabilities. It is pretty much what they are there for and why certain types of creatures are part of the skills.

As for DR if you didn't make the check, we play it as "the attack didn't seem as effective", and that is even part and parcel to the ability explanation. But beyond that, we don't really get into the numbers, just if it worked. Reason being the randomness of the die. DR 5 fire, might as well be immunity against a d6 fire damage. So the attack either works (they roll a 6) or it doesn't, and that is all that is said. How are the characters supposed to know if the extra damage is effective or not (besides meta gaming by watching the roll)?

Concealment would only matter for targeting... Unless you are stating that if someone is in a darkness effect and another person outside cast a fireball into the effect, it would miss everyone inside because of total concealment.

If you are in the cone, barring other stipulations, you will take the effect of the color spray.

Terquem wrote:

Oh, and outside of the strict interpretation of the rules, you can close your eyes to avoid the spell Color Spray

Its called a saving throw and no specific explanation of exactly what the saving throw means is given, so if you make the save it could mean, you are mentally strong, or, you blinked, whatever you want it to be.

Except in the places where those are legitimate ways to avoid the effects and are explained. In such cases they actually give bonuses or explicit effects when such is done.

This isn't one of those. It doesn't say you can close your eyes and be immune or have a bonus to resist.

It states sightless creatures, creature who have no sight at all, are immune.

Being able to see isn't sightless, no matter how you shake it. You have sight, you are just unable to make anything of it.

Being effectively blind isn't the same as sightless.

Doomed Hero wrote:

Alright, patterns can't make light according to the rules. That helps.

So, in an area of Magical Darkness, would only creatures with Darkvision be effected by Color Spray?

No, any creature who was not "sightless" in the area of effect would be hit by the spell. The flavor text mention light etc, the mechanics however are mind effects and no mention of darkness or such blocking the effect. Mechanics trump flavor text.

They don't give an option for closing your eyes to avoid the effect (unlike another spell or ability I've read before so the precedent is there). And the spell makes no mention of being blind as a defense (which is what darkness is doing), but stipulates sightless.

The creature is still able to see, it just is unable to make note of differences in the environment due to poor optics.

That is completely different from being sightless. Or having the complete inability to see.

Blinded condition is not the same as sightless.

Agreed, being sightless is a distinctly different situation then being unable to see light due to darkness. Having the capability temporarily suppressed versus the inability. In some situations the end result may be similar mechanically, but that doesn't mean the starting point or even the path to the end result are the same.

A creature who is blind is sightless, a creature who closed its eyes is not. They might both be "blind" at that moment, but one is definitely not sightless.

Also the quote above mentions being in the area of effect of the spell, so it stands that regardless of the darkness, if you are in the effect it would work on you.

Also notable, they didn't actually say blind creatures were immune, but sightless. This means you are unable to close your eyes (or other ways to impose the status) and blind yourself to avoid the effect. Which is effectively what darkness is doing.

Or in this case they couldn't, as nothing allows them the ability to do so.

Which makes "extrapolating" a non issue. Because there isn't a reason to do it. It isn't allowed regardless.

That isn't to say there isn't an ability out there that could allow it. But we aren't talking about that ability right now are we? Or if it exists, someone hasn't brought it up in all this time maybe?

We have a mechanic, that has reference words that match up with other real mechanics. And then we have people trying to show horn in other "stuff" because the wording matches up. Strictly speaking, I'm going to use the "mechanics" definition. Because it exists. It is simple and it is clean, and best of all it functions without issue.

The game uses a language, and some times the mechanics are going to cross with words, used in that language, it doesn't mean the "general" use of those words is what was referred to. When there is an actual mechanic, it becomes very unlikely that the "general use" had anything to do with it. Yet here we are debating that very situation.

We have a mechanic, refer to another mechanic and it functions. Why debate more or past that point?

James Risner wrote:
Skylancer4 wrote:
A mentioned in the post above, items that grant armor bonuses stop functioning.
The OP can expect table variance on this, as I've nearly universally seen non-armor items that grant an armor bonus to remain due to the other rule stating that continuous magic items still function.

That just means the "near universe" was ignoring a particular section of the rules for one reason or another.

That doesn't mean they were right or running the game as stated in the rules.

Texas Snyper wrote:
My guess would be no since the spell didn't actually go off.

Unfortunately the other side of that is, I made an attack but missed. Does that mean I'm still invisible?

I'd have to think on this particular situation further, but just because it didn't occur doesn't mean the action shouldn't count as an attack. Intent is a very real part of the game (command word activation requires intent and action cost, instead of just saying the word as a free action).

jonhl1986 wrote:
im actually asking about the oracle's lunar ability form of the beast which acts as beast shape spells but for 1hr per level.

A mentioned in the post above, items that grant armor bonuses stop functioning. That portion is in the Polymorph section of magic schools so would be in effect for your Oracle ability as well. Also Wild armor wouldn't do anything for you because it not being actual Wildshape.

Confusion does remove the targets ability to act however. It is forced to do what the spell says (depending on the roll) unless it gets the "act normally" option.

Also confusion isn't mental control, you aren't controlling it, you just placed an effect on it. Something like Dominate or possibly Charm are where conflicting commands would come in.

As for the resolution, I think Confusion would still take precedent. Murderous Command makes the target try to attack it's ally, or at least move close to it. It basically makes the creature's decisions for the round.

Confusion is a conflicting effect and higher level spell (not that that really means much). It also has specific resolution for pretty much all scenarios. It actually removes the creatures decisions in just about all situations. It dictates what the creature will do unless it gets "act normally".

I personally think the second spell would be wasted unless it got the " act normally" option.

As long as it doesn't provide any sort of mechanical advantage, let them detail to hearts content (at least that is my personal view on fluffing things). If on a plane where magic doesn't work, it doesn't work (barring any exceptions, normally some sort of portal out of the plane etc.) no matter what reasoning they made up. Because that would be a mechanical advantage and not just fluff/flavor.

It is usually much more fun when the players are getting to make those choices about the characters, but you have to be wary of the type of players who will try to take advantage of the situation and try to reason benefits from the explanations they come up with. Just be upfront and tell them they can put any explanation they want as long as it follows the rules and guidelines already established. That way if anyone tries to pull the "well it should work this way because..." You have already nipped it in the bud. Allow them to be creative, not to bend or break the rules.

Intimidate is a CHA skill, so it isn't totally out of place.

Usually it depends on the caster/archtype. Sometimes it is from "within" like a sorceror or repetition and intense focus like the wizard. Then it can also come from something more specific, like blood, or a link with other casters, or multitude of various other reasons like the numerous archtypes.

Why do you need to know/what purpose does nailing said workings down serve?

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.

CampinCarl9127 wrote:
_Ozy_ wrote:
Plus, realism-wise, I don't see how you could manage the extra draw on a weapon twice the normal size.

Now that's an argument I can get behind. Draw strength is important, but a large bow is going to have a significantly larger draw length that medium sized creatures simply can't do.

However things like crossbows are still up in the air. Because who doesn't want to tote a ballista around?

Only if you ignore the fact the game has split weapons into very distinct and comprehensive categories like simple/martial, one-handed, two-handed and ranged.

"Could be taken as..." is when you have to stop yourself from making assumptions or taking things for more than they are stated in the rules 99.9% of the time.

All two handed weapons need both hands to make use of, not all weapons that need both hands are mechanically "two handed" however.

The write up is irrelevant. The FAQ as well.

Characters have two "hands" of effort. This has been stated (and often complained about by some) ever since it was explained.

Due to these metaphorical hands, you are unable to take advantage of 2h and TWF/off hand fighting styles. This is intentional and meant to prevent mixing both styles, taking the best of both worlds and negate the drawbacks of each.

Even using the magic staff isn't "fuzzy", it just allows you to use your own CL instead of the items set CL. You are still using the item to create the effect opposed to actually casting a spell.

Activating an item isn't the same as casting a spell. You would be unable to modify the item effects with your class ability.

PossibleCabbage wrote:

This is sort of inherent to the issue when a player has some idea about what the campaign is about. I mean, if players know in advance they're going against a pale gentleman with a pronounced widow's peak named Vlad expect to see a lot of Paladins and Clerics, if the players expect to be in a nautical campaign, expect to see merfolk and hydrokineticists. There's really nothing you can do about it, and you want to give players some idea about what the campaign is about since you don't want someone to end up completely useless by accident.

The real problem with "OP" characters is twofold:
1) They hog the spotlight so that the other players feel superfluous
2) They render combat uneventful.

I sincerely doubt an OP ranger is going to damage either in a meaningful way, so I would allow it. I mean, it's the nature of the "favored [foo]" class features that you are going to try to guess the thing that you're most likely to encounter.

APs specifically have players guides so they know what they will be going up against. It is actually intended for them to have some sort of idea what is coming so they can plan characters accordingly. Nothing like making a ranger with favored enemy (insert the thing you will never see in the AP) and being bummed about never using half your class abilities.

Quite honestly, if the ranger making a decent choice for their class abilities is a legitimate concern and OP, you may want to reconsider running a game. A certain amount of system mastery is pretty much required to GM and if having class abilities online and useful is a problem, you may want to wait until you are a little more comfortable with the game before running.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

The vast majority of rules tell you what is allowed/what you can do. When the rules are silent on things, it is because they aren't allowed unless an exception is stated (as in using a standard action to make a move action). This is what an exception based rule set is. If they were to do it the other way (telling you what you cannot do) the game rules would literally be a collection like an encyclopedia set. Obviously that isn't a good idea for a game, for numerous reasons.

In order for an "action" or "event" to be allowed, you need to provide a rule to show you can do it. There is no such rule for using move to free or swift as a blanket statement (there might be a class ability or such that does in very narrow circumstances, I haven't looked as it isn't pertinent to the OPs question).

Basically if you want to do something you need to find the rule that allows you to do it. That is just the way the rules set is made/set up. And it is why the argument of " the rules don't tell me I can't " is so obnoxious, because once someone gets to that point you have to realize that the person saying that doesn't really understand the core fundamentals of the game mechanics/rules.

It absolutely isn't that the rules are "unclear" it is that people want something from the rules for whatever reason, and the rules don't allow it. And because there are no rules regarding it, they try to work in the action they want either with "it doesn't say I can't" or "they obviously meant to allow it and didn't say anything", when it is plain as day that the rules don't have any way to allow the action/event.

1 to 50 of 4,173 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

©2002–2016 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.