|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
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.
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.
You obviously aren't playing the same game I am, because my PFRPG core rule book is definitely an exception based rule set, where general rules are stated and just about every spell, the majority of feats and class abilities, and pretty much every magic item is an exception to the general rules outlined in the game.
Is that the same game you are playing? Because my game runs pretty damn smooth with what we have in the book. It would take effort to not from what I've seen.
Hugo Rune wrote:
No the argument is it states it protects against combat effects. As it certainly reads as that is the implication.
Saying it protects against things beyond that is just taking the " well it makes sense to me" or thankfully not in this case, " it doesn't say it can't work that way".
There are NUMEROUS things that could make sense one way or another, but aren't intended to happen in the game.
You obviously don't like it, but that is the way it is, like so many other things people don't like about the rules. Someone not liking something isn't really a reason for the rules to all the sudden start working differently than written.
Being less valuable is subjective. They can sunder your broom, they have to kill you to get rid of the ring, etc.
Also the broom is a bad comparison.
A better comparison is Wings of Flying. Slotted, command word activated,60' average maneuverability. 54k gold.
So the ring should at least be around there. Flying is powerful and can trivialize a good portion of encounters. It tends to be very expensive if not counting against the character's daily resources pool.
At this point the question is contentious enough to need a FAQ. I believe the wording of the mythic version is enough to convey the intent of one designer, but it's not explicit enough for some, and may not be the ruling of the entire design team.
I'd rather the PDT didn't waste their time with something as silly as this. There are definitely things more important to sus through.
Which is great if you were actually using a scimitar, instead of something that allows you to add bonuses and abilities that work with scimitars.
Again, something wielded is not the same as being that something in all ways.
It is a spell, those normally have a 20/x2 unless specifically detailed otherwise. All the spell description does is state [b]wielded[/i] as. It doesn't say "treat this spell effect as a scimitar for all purposes" there is a distinct difference between those two. And there are spells and effects that do that unlike this one.
When I "wield" a defending weapon, it means I attack with it to gain the bonus. That is the games "definition" of wielding. It has nothing at all to do with the statistics of the weapon.
By stating it is "wielded" as a scimitar that means the spell effect has possible drawback of non proficiency penalties, as well as being able to benefit from spells/feats/abilities that would provide bonuses to said weapon.The game rules haven't told us to use the weapon specifications of a scimitar, and as it is an exception based rule set, we just do the bare minimum of what they tell us to. And as we have Dev explanation of what "wielded" means in context of the game, suggesting that the spell has stats of the weapon is actually going far beyond what the spell states it does.
We've long since gotten past that, we are now on the "my shield should help vs touch attacks, it makes no sense it doesn't help" argument.
You are ignoring that things can be subsets or "act" like something without being completely and totally the same. It happens constantly in the books, reference to something that is preexisting to save word count. That doesn't mean they are interchangeable.
As I recall it took quite some time before anything was said about Razor Coast. And it basically changed ownership to come out. I wasn't part of it, but I had kept an eye on it because our GM's wife loved pirate campaigns and we considering getting it as a gift.
Not getting the updates you want isn't treating you with "scorn and contempt" and disrespectful might even be a stretch. It is a kickstarter after all and the vast majority of them fail. Welcome to investing in a failed business opportunity that you thought was a great idea. It happens. It doesn't mean the person was out to get your money or being malicious, like you seem to be portraying them.
If it is a lot of money, you probably shouldn't have put it into a risky endeavour. Most anyone in business would tell you the same.
Not every warrior knows every move in the history of fighting.
Choosing maneuvers lets you customize how you fight, what your "style" is.
You are pretty much stating, the system is "rigid" because it makes you choose. News Flash: The game is all about making choices, quite literally everything you do every time you advance is a systematic choice, which in turn leads to more choices (feat chains, class abilities, you name it).
I can only imagine what your concept of "balanced" is if NOT having every option available and usable whenever you want it is, is unacceptable...
I can just state that it seems you are unwilling to see the benefits of the system, how it is balanced within itself (if not the core martial classes) and how your reasoning is rather flawed. Because making it the way you seem to want it would leave any semblance of "balance" weeping in the corner.
I'm by no means a fanboi of the system, I've been vocal about how it pushes too far past what the core rules have and so becomes a "bandaid" for a perceiced problem the writers see instead of a nice system that plays well in the game it was made for. But what you want is just... You are better off in another system honestly.
But not all initiators are doing "magic." For each discipline that is "magical" there is another that is basically "hit stuff do damage," so it doesn't have to be all crouching tiger hiddden matrix. You CAN make a character that is basically just "good with sword" like Conan out of PoW. And that is where the system is I guess "better", not just pure mechanically, but thematically.
Now, that isn't to say it isn't heads and shoulders better than core martials, as the second book started to introduce stuff that just plain makes core martials into NPC classes (the fighter basically becomes a dip class if you allow PoW). But by no means does it force martials into "poor man's casters" as you can still keep the flavor of "plain" swordsman by choosing the appropriate disciplines or even just particular maneuvers even in some of the more showy disciplines.
Saying PoW = wuxia campaign is taking and presenting the worst case scenario as the only option. And it isn't the only option. Conan is possible, knights of the round table are possible, and "basic" hero is possible. The options are there, but anyone complaining about the showy stuff isn't going to talk about that, because it doesn't help make their point. My only real complaints of the books have been 1) marked amount of power increase from the first book to the second and 2) it wasn't balanced against what exists in core rules, but what the writers believe martials should be like (AKA house rules so "martials don't suck like they do in core" to paraphrase the discussion). I believe that was something that should have been on the "label" so to speak.
It's a method to provide easy moral justification to kill without any other reason than their existence. If you're running a simplistic game where the good guys wear white and the bad guys are ostentatious and puppy kicking evil, then undead are always evil works great. If you want to tell a more complex story, ignore any "always evil" undead or otherwise, in favour of characters that have depth and personality instead of just a (stereo)type.
Complex stories can be told with those "restrictions" easily enough. Case in point, the entirety of Golorian with removal of any and all plots with exceptions in them. There is a HUGE amount of material out there, hardly any of it is "simplistic" due to not having the special snowflakes.
Darth Grall wrote:
1) A GM should have a handle on the party, if the amount of gold gathered is going to be a "problem," adjust it. This is nothing new, and why it only happens at lower levels in our group (and less of an issue as we tend to use the gold gathered for the party, not an individual).
2) If wealth is going to break the game, the GM is probably not the person who should be running the game. A certain amount of system mastery is necessary and expected if you are to perform that role. Wealth is something that the GM pretty much has complete and total control of, there is no excuse to let it ruin the game.
3) Repeat offenders are a completely different and probably unrelated issue. That is an issue of abusing the standing rules vs wealth issue typically.
The Goat Lord wrote:
I actually have a graveyard as well. Occasionally people who are GM'ing will grab it to use them as NPC/BBEG's as they tend to be well optimized (and the group generally is as well), so published AP/adventures are pretty "bleh" most of the time and need some "spicing up".
As for out groups "death" ritual, pretty much at lower level if someone dies and we aren't going to be bringing them back, we split their gear up amongst the party. The character comes in at expected WBL, but is behind the group now.
Did you look at the Path of War as suggested above?
A large red dragon's will save is +10. If you can't beat that your caster was built poorly and chose all the wrong spells. They don't even have SR at that point. Not saying it should be that easy, but if you are a caster who regularly deals with spells that allow saves, +10 isn't a particularly high bar. Especially if you are preparing for the encounter.
No you quoted things that say you get to to turn into the shape of a creature of that type. That is ALL it said. You are inferring the type despite the fact it is never mentioned to explicitly happen.
Usually niche stuff that isn't covered by the core rules.
So mostly classes & rule sets, only occasionally adventures (though I did buy Way of the Wicked and contributed to the Snow White KS that should be finishing up soon). We run in a homebrew world/campaign so usually it is just mining other material for things to be brought in or maybe as a basis for something we are working on, to be ripped apart and take the bits and pieces we find useful or like.
As for balance, it is in the eye of the beholder. A good GM can make anything work really. Some 3PP items are better balanced than Paizo products at times. But the reality is, even for Paizo. The more material you make, the more power creep will occur. It is the nature of the game. And the whole reason these people are in business is to sell more material.
Jeff Jutzi wrote:
Can anyone explain the rash of 4+ year old necro's lately?
Berti Blackfoot wrote:
Depends on the type of Dispel used. It could be used to target one specific use of Memory Modification or just target the subject and attempt to dispel one of the effects on them. Something like a Detect magic would let the dispel'er know how many effects were on the target and what school they are.
The blanket Dispel would possibly cause the other modifications to "fail" if they were chained together as they don't make sense anymore.
Not particularly, there are numerous storylines where memories are altered just to have the person find out later on after the effect was dispelled/removed they were deceived to whatever ends.
Making it instant would mean there was no recourse to "fix" important memories and someone ends up completely screwed.
Comatose characters FTW.
I typically say "Cr@p" and keep the money saved up until the next time we can try (either by traveling on or by killing time until we can attempt again) if it is something that is important. If it is a luxury item that I can do without I may try something else that could fit the bill, typically potions or consumables that are cheap and won't dent the savings to the point I won't be able to afford the initial item when I can try again.I play a game, part of it is "chance." The rules are typically stacked in the PC's favor, I have no problem rolling the dice and them coming up not in my favor. I actually have a notebook of characters who are dead because of crappy rolls and a GM who feels bad that I've lost so many characters to them. I'm not the type to cry over an unfortunate roll, I look at it like an unexpected challenge, which is part of I play the game in the first place.
Well then, I dislike Rule 0.
It gives crappy GMs justification for ignoring rules that are part of the basic assumptions that the game is written and balanced on, then forcing it down other people's throats in guise of a more "enjoyable" game or some such.
Do people actually not read store bought APs in advance so they know is what it is going on before running them?
Most of the "complaints" seem to be of the "oh crap, I read that out loud" type. Which would be a non issue if you took any sort of preparation prior to running, and read ahead a few pages. Given the depth of character and plot involved with APs, there is so much more information you need to have a handle on versus "normal" module.
Daniel Myhre wrote:
If I know the answer, I'm not of the opinion I should do the leg work for someone who hasn't got the time or can't be bothered to actually research themselves unless they continue to be adamant about it for several days. At which point it becomes apparent they truly don't get it and won't do it themselves and it becomes more time efficient to just prove them wrong than argue.
I am 100% "okay" with them spending time making material that keeps them in business opposed to fixing old stats blocks because people don't like an FAQ and want to call them "inconsistent"(to put it politely) for not doing so. It isn't like it would help, the people would just find something else to complain about once they did, all the way up until it was reversed. That is what people are like.
I'd actually suggest Oracle as well. There was a build using the Diefic Obediances, Mystery Cultist and Nature mystery IIRC. Push CHA for defenses and spell casting. Use spells for combat/utility as needed (spell pages).
The original build was maybe from Walter's Guide to Deific Obediances?
My build (a reconstruction of a 2E character for 3.x) was an Angelkin Aasimir 7 Nature Oracle/10 Mystery cultist/3 Oracle. (1) Noble Scion [War, CHA to Int], (3) Celestial Obedience [Arshea], (5) Power Attack, (7) Furious Focus, (9) Blessed (11+) open feats.
Medium BAB from both classes (14/9/4), 9/10 casting from Mystery Cultist (19th caster at 20), 6/6/12 saves. CHA to casting, initiative, CMD, as DEX and Armor to AC.
Divine Favor(1)/Might(4), Blessing of Fervor(4), Bestow Grace of the Champion(7) for more difficult opponents. Otherwise spells for utility as wanted/needed.
Ioun Stones weren't something I was unsure of, more we had people stating they would merge when polymorphed and continue to provide effects. I'm of the opinion they would still provide effects but would not merge into your form, just stay floating over your head. You aren't touching them, they aren't taking up a slot on your body, but flying willy nilly around your head.
The gloves I believe are use activated so wouldn't continue to function after polymorphed.
1) It removes part of the "fun" of the game (rolling dice).
2) it involves more calculations (which Paizo said they wanted to remove to streamline the game).
Who would probably be justified in doing it, to the type of players who try to weasel absolutely every advantage out of the rules and get anything they can for "nothing."
It is a two way street, sorry.
There is a reason the vast majority of people don't GM, if players had to deal with themselves in a game they were running... they'd probably be tempted to do such things too.
It's also as good an argument as bringing up minutia to prove a point, in a game that typically has to ignore such details in order to function even remotely well.
"I have all these real world possibilities to show how could maybe do it in game!!!"
"Damn shame the game doesn't work like the real world isn't it?"
Let us take the discussion where it really is headed.
Is paying an additional 3000gp for your weapon, justification for bypassing and trivializing numerous encounters, plot points and various other situations in the game?
My gut is saying no.
People hate misfires on the guns, most will not be interested in a class based around not working as a "feature" unfortunately. And if the abilities scale better than "normal" you can bet someone will figure out how to break it to take advantage of it.
Wilder has a mechanic that may fit your needs.
It doesn't matter, as the game deals with mechanics.
The fact that it is possibly a mental action, isn't enough to pass the Paralyze's exclusion requirement of purely mental. For it to work, it NEEDS to be a purely mental action. As it is not defined as a purely mental action, it cannot be used.
The fact you are making assumptions about a RAW mechanic... You know the old saying right? And that points to the main problem you have in this discussion. Don't make assumptions. Don't dismiss the fact that the spell actually references a physical based skill as "convoluted" to make your point some how more important. No mention of mental is mentioned, but you say it is. If it were, we wouldn't be having this discussion.
It could be all mental, it could be mostly mental, it could be just a tiny bit mental, it could be all physical, mostly physical, or a tiny bit physical. But it is not, by game rules or mechanics, a purely mental action. Other abilities are specifically called out as purely mental, those get to be used. An action that isn't defined, doesn't get past the requirement check, and so doesn't get to be used.
It is a stringent check, in an exception based game. If it isn't quantified, you cannot say it is or isn't. As such, it fails to meet the exception test. As a mechanic, we can ignore or include as needed, as was done in the writing of this spell and the status effect.
By being undefined, it is not a purely mental action and so the Paralyze write up keeps it from functioning. This is a pure logic problem, explicitly categorized "purely mental" actions work. Uncategorized actions don't make the cut unless you assume things, which is what you are doing, by your own admission.
That is what they call "reading into the rules"...
If there is a dress code that requires you to wear a tuxedo, you don't get to go in if you are wearing a T-shirt with the image of a tux on it. They are not the same thing. And that is the argument you are making.
In what ways does it make the game more "interesting"?
At best it seems to be "creative thinking" on how to avoid legitimate penalties enforced by status effects entirely intended to not allow what people are trying to say they are being allowed to do with no rules backing their opinion.
Also, it isn't supernatural. If we are going to discuss rules, words and terms are important. How they are used in the write ups and wording of effect, doubly so. Broken is doing something that isn't "intended" and or, doing something beyond what it states.
Allowing something to work as a purely mental, when it is not stated to be so explicitly, is at best bending the rules, and quite often "breaking" the rules. It may not be "overpowered", but that doesn't mean it isn't using it in a broken way.
Adding extra words or reading into it is also as much of an issue, and part of why people would not agree with your interpretation.
The real crux of the issue is the purely mental aspect. The game doesn't make any mention of the spell being so, and refers to physical checks when using it. To me, this shows it to at least not be purely mental. And yes, while it doesn't say it is physical, it most assuredly doesn't say it is purely mental. And that is what we need (logically and rules wise) to get it to work while under the paralyzed status.
Number of instances you've provided actual rules quotes to back up that Fly is purely mental: ZERO
Number of instances you've provided rules that imply that Fly is purely mental: ZERO
Number of examples from published material that might help to backup your creative interpretation of the rules (admittantly a stretch, but better than nothing): ZERO
Yet here we are going back and forth on the subject for some reason.
Actually, I think the point is, your example is horrible and doesn't work. The demilich is immune.
Hold undead specifically states the undead is immobile. And so, magical flight or not, held in place similar to the effect of Hold Person on a living creature, which should be some more food for thought... But you will probably dismiss that as well.
Rogar Stonebow wrote:
The fly spell doesn't give you magical wings that you use physically.
Nor does it explicitly state it is a purely mental action, but it does refer to (and therefore connect itself with physical action) the Fly skill. The game rules implicate that clearly. More so than the creative thinking of it somehow being a strictly mental action.
It is an exception based rule set. If something is a thing, it is stated to be such OR stated to be an exception of something explicitly. There is no rules support of the Fly spell being a purely mental action at all.
But the fact that the rules indicate you need to make checks involving physical attributes at all, it strongly implies that it isn't purely mental. If it were, would it not be based of mental attributes, like every other action that is mental?
To make a solid and reasonable argument, the onus is on you to show that it is without a doubt a purely mental action. Not by showing there isn't anything saying it isn't, but by showing there are rules indicating it is (the whole system is exception based after all). Even if tangentially. Saying it is purely mental "because" doesn't hold water. The rules point to it being at least somewhat physical due to referring to the fly checks. It may not be flapping your arms, it may just be small body movements and effort exerted. But it still refers back to checks influenced by physical attributes.
That doesn't sound "purely mental" to me... Sorry.