|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
Does ammunition fired from a magical projectile weapon gain the benefits of the weapons magical enhancement or abilities?
Michael Hallet wrote:
Kinda wondering on this myself now does this affect any other methods of only temp. boosting an item.
At what point did I claim I had an answer. I pointing what based on my opinion led to the current state of the FAQ. Your taking offense to this like I'm preaching some magic 5 step program to fixing it and there really isn't a way to do it. So guess what, we probably aren't going to see more FAQs or even more of the hard questions answered. Probably even less so once we have Starfinder.
Honestly I'm not sure what your expecting of me here Sissyl, so please if there is something I can do let me know.
I am speaking of the forums collectively when I say we. And while no we can't stop someone from posting we can create an environment that they don't want to spend their spare time dealing with.
Which sadly is mostly in part due to the posters. We used to have not only James but SKR and to a lesser degree Jason answer questions it might not have been 100% official but it gave clear intent as to how the people who adjudicate the rules would adjudicate it. But the people started being people and we had to have an official PDT account, which led people to telling SKR when he did still offer insight that he wasn't the rules account. Then we attacked almost every FAQ that was released looking for little cracks in the armor, or words that could be still twisted to our ends. So now we get 5-10 a year maybe. And I feel that has also affected what will be FAQ'd it's far easier to write bulletproof FAQ's for things that aren't super hotly contested, or are simple answers that just need someone to pick one.
Yeah I will gladly tone down encounters that might TPK my group. I might beef up face rolls but typically only if it is a major point of the adventure. Sometimes the party needs to show up and mop the floor with the bandits and just be big damn heroes.
I know the feeling the group i've had off and on for 8 years plays all kinds of board games and such on a regular basis where they are at. When the come over to my place to game it has to be pathfinder.
David knott 242 wrote:
Exactly, no offense meant to the OP on this but we see questions like this alot from players trying to game some benefit out of weird rules case. They will ask a general question that seems pointless or even better to their detriment if it works, but they are hoping it works so that some non-mentioned feat/ability/spell can be used to better effect.
So we have to ask what is the point of trying to charge without actually attacking?
Pathfinder Design Team wrote:
And we have an answer.
I agree wholeheartedly however once it gets an FAQ then your probably stuck that way. So do you want a rushed FAQ that makes Masterpieces effectively useless instead of table variation? Hell there are things that have sat on the FAQ for years that we all assumed were never getting an official ruling. And yes sadly the push the forums give with every ruling, (even ones that are cut and dry now turn into people trying to prove the devs wrong.) makes it so that instead of just writing a one sentence FAQ they need a paragraph triple checked and approved by deacons of Asmodeaus just to avoid the majority of that crap.
Yeah the rain is getting old Cal.
My greivance for today:
Why do people love to spend there time complaining about how bad things are to the very people who enjoy them and then derogatorily talk down to them for defending their preferences. That and people who just swap to veiled insult when they don't actually have an argument. I love the rules forums but would love and ignore feature lately with all the mind readers we have suddenly developed.
By that logic you trigger neither type of event. I have neither hit or missed by more than or less than any number.
Nope I'm actually one of the more vocal against bad rulings or the constant nerfs you can check my posting history on that. But I hated post "Hands of effort" every single rules thread having someone pop up and ask "Do you have enough hands of effort for that" or "Better ask about any unwritten rules" or just "HANDSSSS!!!!!".
Unwritten rules was the biggest steaming pile of crap we have ever seen in a ruling. Hands down. But that doesn't excuse people thread crapping and derailing every other thing on the message boards. If you don't like a ruling by all means write a good post explaining your position and the rules backing it, but don't get other threads not even related to your argument locked.
As for masterpieces no one said it's unfix-able it's an issues of preserving function and balance together as so many people have pointed out in this thread. The last thing we want is a massive nerf to masterpieces that make them unusable but some of them are measured in a way that makes running them at the same time as Bardic Music unrealistic.
If you like so many others lately hate Paizo so much why remain. Is it just to thread crap every single chance you get? Have you tried emailing them or posting in a customer service thread? Or do you just exist to be a thorn in other poster's sides?
Plausible Pseudonym wrote:
I'm gonna step in for a moment here. I have seen the figurative S@#$storms that come with high publicity FAQs. Every time they write one you have an upset vocal group the bigger the issue the bigger the group. And the more things in that ruling that don't quite make sense or sound off if it was rushed the more likely we end up with another flurry or "Meta-physical hands" situation where every thread that comes up has it brought up and argued there.
Clearly ones need to be a fumble of some sort can't have people still being competent when they hit their forced 5% miss.
So like asked before what about Shocking Image? I mean seriously is it well 2d6 might drop you so yep it pops an image but nah you have 180 hp nothing happens to the image?
Your making it way more than it actually is nothing about a Nat. 1 suggest its some sort of cosmic botch. It's there so that there is a chance of failure for attacks and skills regardless of actual bonuses not to be Schrodinger's dice roll where we have to check what the outcome of both sides of the roll would be vs all situations to figure out what the worse thing would be. It's real simply it missed it can still pop an image it can still trigger upsetting strike it can force a fort save vs jarring armor it can end your crane wing bonus all depending on modifiers what can it not do "hit".
What's funny I would be willing to put money down that if the first question asked had been about Jarring armor and not mirror image the question would have been an overwhelming yes you have to make the save vs sickened. But since the original question was a benefit to the attacker people started coming up with weird logic to make it work the way they wanted.
Enchanter Tim wrote:
I think there's an implicit thought that a natural roll of a 1 should never benefit the attacker. Likewise, a natural roll of 20 should never hinder the attacker. The idea that a natural 1 would help by destroying an image is antithetical to these ideals.
But in the case of certain feats and weapon properties rolling a 1 in this case would be more beneficial than a 2 since you would avoid AoOs and such by not checking the AC.
The issues with the other thread is it's being stated that a nat.1 or 20 is never compared to the targets AC/CMB and there for doesn't trigger such effects.
James Risner wrote:
Why would you still provoke?...........Oh dear god I see it gauntlets let you do lethal but lack language stating your attack is now "Armed." Why in the 9 hells do we have to hate on unarmed fighting so much.
I think a good example of not being able to follow thought processes is the monk.
We were told the reason fist like weapons that said they used unarmed damage didn't use monk unarmed damage because a monk was a martial artist and was strikning with multiple body parts and they didn't want monks just getting one brass knuckle and then flurrying with full enchanted unarmed damage with one hand.
But then we were told in an "FAQ" that monks can't use just one weapon in a flurry because it was just TWF with bonus to hit.
I think book two is cursed as we have been over 2 months without being able to start ours as well.
My actual grievance for today is that there is no real way to deal with people being overly stubborn and asinine in rules arguments even when they just keep going with incorrect beliefs and then don't want to talk about intent only exactly what is written even when people like Mark or SKR had given probable intent.
Dark Midian wrote:
What if we are all just characters in a novel and the Mandala effect is simply the Author re-writing some of the backstory.
So then your saying I can enter a room and from the door notice a trap across the room but only after enough time has passed that I would get to the area the trap is in to search it? Do I need to declare which section of the room i am starting in and which way my eyes move go to determine how long it takes.
Noting about going 10x10 tweedle dum.
So we know traps exist but we don't train to notice them? Even with trapfinding?
Like noticing the details of the slight bending in the air an invisible creature or the blades of grass he is standing on that make is so that its only a +40 to stealth for someone looking across a room? Those kind of details that a invisible creature gets noticed for but not any reasoning on the traps?
And pit traps with a DC 0 are still traps and on the trap list.
This is my concern with every new book that gets published. In an attempt to keep up with a slew of new options for martials without overpowering them to the point of complaints every new feat runs the risk of taking an option out of the players hands.
The Sideromancer wrote:
But the skill system doesn't represent that type of situation at it's baseline. When I'm looking at field with things hiding in it a +50 is better than a +5 even if the barbarian next to me has horrible B.O. And when looking at a monster I'm not going to forget that trolls are weak to fire and acid simply because I have more ranks in the skill than less.
I think you may have hit the crux of the argument in the bold area whether people realize it or not. No magic is in play. It's a Ramvord* situation. There is no magic involved so people limit it to what they believe reality should allow regardless of the lack of those same defining constructs on the Player characters as on a normal Joe.
Rules as my Views of Reality Dictate. Also known as the theory of martial characters can't have nice things because reality only ceases to exist in relation not to your actual level but only in relation to how many levels of caster you can possible manage. The audacity of some to think that it is broken that a well built fighter can go through door with a sword that ignores its hardness while next to him the mage is making a tunnel through the solid stone wall in a fraction of the time pains me.
Can you get all you need to grow that way? I mean you might live but will you really grow?
Once again in this case both reactive and passive mean no action is being taken to make the roll. Not that the words are synonymous. What graystone and others are sayings is that a reactive or passive perception check is the same thing from a standpoint of being not an action.
I agree but keep in mind we have seen enough issues with allowing vs disallowing T10 that you can't count on it to have you covered.
Replacing the d20 with 3d6 is a thing for a reason. (Need to rework the crit ranges though)
Check the 3.0/3.5 Unearthed Arcana if you have it, there was a section on doing that.
As to the OP my Kender rogue walked into a room that was full of various statues, holes in the walls, and other standard trap looking things. Rolls a 1 on his search check, now even though this isn't an auto failure I'm dubious as the the statement of "you find no traps". My Kender however proudly announces a trap free room and barely manages to reflex and tumble his way to safety with a cry of "I might have been wrong!"
You don't know if your party has butter? Outrageous how do you know if you can make toast then?
Paizo Inc., Paizo, the Paizo golem logo, Pathfinder, the Pathfinder logo, Pathfinder Society, Starfinder, the Starfinder logo, GameMastery, and Planet Stories are registered trademarks of Paizo Inc. The Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pathfinder Adventure Card Game, Pathfinder Player Companion, Pathfinder Modules, Pathfinder Tales, Pathfinder Battles, Pathfinder Legends, Pathfinder Online, Starfinder Adventure Path, 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.