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

WWWW's page

587 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists.


RSS

1 to 50 of 587 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

meatrace wrote:
WWWW wrote:
meatrace wrote:
WWWW wrote:
You know I always found the biggest problem with nonproficiency was not the penalty to attack rolls, but rather the penalty to initiative.

It's funny, but I've never run into a GM that ran it that way, not even in PFS. Similarly, I've never seen a GM let bonuses to ability checks work on initiative.

You're right technically, of course, but that's a corner of the rules most people are unaware of.

Yeah, not everyone notices that particularity, but it can be a reason for choosing something like a mithral chain shirt over mithral full plate.
I'm just remembering this rule, and plan to abuse bonuses to ability checks to max out initiative on a foresight wizard. Hehe!

Heh, that does sound like fun.


meatrace wrote:
WWWW wrote:
You know I always found the biggest problem with nonproficiency was not the penalty to attack rolls, but rather the penalty to initiative.

It's funny, but I've never run into a GM that ran it that way, not even in PFS. Similarly, I've never seen a GM let bonuses to ability checks work on initiative.

You're right technically, of course, but that's a corner of the rules most people are unaware of.

Yeah, not everyone notices that particularity, but it can be a reason for choosing something like a mithral chain shirt over mithral full plate.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

You know I always found the biggest problem with nonproficiency was not the penalty to attack rolls, but rather the penalty to initiative.


Aranna wrote:
WWWW wrote:
Aranna wrote:

Your answer also covers mine the higher level manifested power is better than the handful of level 1 spells. I know you are thinking there must be SOME spell that isn't as good as a higher level manifestation... but I am fairly certain you can always find a better use via a higher level effect.

Blood money? that does strength damage and last time I checked that was a dump stat for wizards.

Just casting Gate one time via blood money will cost you 20 points of strength damage. Most wizards would be done for the rest of the fight lacking even the strength to move their tongue to command the thing they just summoned.

Seriously, this is a question; what are the things psionic classes have that are more powerful then the various heavy hitters their equivalent magical classes bring to the table? You know, stuff like blood money, simulacrum, planar binding, etc. I am asking you this question.

And I am telling you I am not a system master you would have to ask someone who was a system master, I am sure you would get an answer. But the spells you list Blood Money, Simulacrum, and Planar Binding seem balanced so I can't tell why you think they are overpowered?

Right...

So new question, if you admit that you lack system mastery why do you also believe that you can accurately rank classes by power level.


Aranna wrote:

Your answer also covers mine the higher level manifested power is better than the handful of level 1 spells. I know you are thinking there must be SOME spell that isn't as good as a higher level manifestation... but I am fairly certain you can always find a better use via a higher level effect.

Blood money? that does strength damage and last time I checked that was a dump stat for wizards.

Just casting Gate one time via blood money will cost you 20 points of strength damage. Most wizards would be done for the rest of the fight lacking even the strength to move their tongue to command the thing they just summoned.

Seriously, this is a question; what are the things psionic classes have that are more powerful then the various heavy hitters their equivalent magical classes bring to the table? You know, stuff like blood money, simulacrum, planar binding, etc. I am asking you this question.


Aranna wrote:

Also remember Gate costs 10000 gold to use. That means it isn't really very spamable unless you are very rich.

Blood money.

Also I am still waiting for the answer to my better phrased question.


Aranna wrote:

WWWW I answered this like three times already haven't you been reading? They can take the points that a mage has to devote to low level spells and use them for higher level effects this gives them more higher level effects than a mage of similar level. Let me ask you: Which is stronger a handful of magic missiles or an ~5th level dedicated combat manifestation?

Ah, that was bad phrasing on my part. I meant what are the things psionic classes have that are more powerful then the various heavy hitters their equivalent magical classes bring to the table. You know, stuff like blood money and planar binding.

As for your question, probably the 5 pp combat manifestation (I am assuming you don't necessarily mean direct damage), but only because those low level slots should be used for better stuff, like blood money or explosive runes or something.


Aranna wrote:

That is a bit confusing then because NOT ONCE have I said Psionics was overpowered. I have simply been saying it is better and slightly stronger in play. YOU ALL agree it is better anyway (well that one poster doesn't.) So you are all arguing about my view that it is slightly stronger. A view I doubt you are going to alter since it is so well founded. Overpowered? No... all casters are a bit overpowered by high level Psions and Mages alike. In fact by the time you add in all the sneaky uber tricks they can both be nightmares for a poor GM who isn't ready for them.

I am not even saying don't use Psionics. Just if you do use them, use them in a game without spell magic. That way they get all the focus and enjoyment you can squeeze out of them.

Hmm, you seem to believe that psioncs are more powerful, so why don't you field my question from earlier. What are the things psionic classes have that are more powerful then those of their equivalent magical classes.


137ben wrote:
WWWW wrote:
Azten wrote:
WWWW wrote:
Hmm, here's a question. For those that say that say psionic classes are more powerful then their existing magical equivalents, what tricks and stuff do the psionic classes have that match up to the various heavy hitters first party magic classes bring to the table. What is the psionic blood money, simulacrum, dazing spell, planar binding, etc. The psionic classes must have options at or above that level of power to really be considered more powerful and being forewarned would be useful should I ever have a player that wishes to use psionics.
It's called Ego Whip.
Ah yes, ego whip, that seems roughly analogous to a wizardly combat option. Probably made more powerful then in 3.5 due to the reduced number of ways to be immune to ability damage or mind affecting effects. So, anyone have anything else or is it just the one combat power.
One power which is still worse than comparable spells.

Well yes, but I was wondering more about the perception of power. What powers are considered so very powerful, whether or not they actually are, by those that feel psionics are more powerful. Often what players feel is powerful causes the most friction in a group.


Azten wrote:
WWWW wrote:
Hmm, here's a question. For those that say that say psionic classes are more powerful then their existing magical equivalents, what tricks and stuff do the psionic classes have that match up to the various heavy hitters first party magic classes bring to the table. What is the psionic blood money, simulacrum, dazing spell, planar binding, etc. The psionic classes must have options at or above that level of power to really be considered more powerful and being forewarned would be useful should I ever have a player that wishes to use psionics.
It's called Ego Whip.

Ah yes, ego whip, that seems roughly analogous to a wizardly combat option. Probably made more powerful then in 3.5 due to the reduced number of ways to be immune to ability damage or mind affecting effects. So, anyone have anything else or is it just the one combat power.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Hmm, here's a question. For those that say that say psionic classes are more powerful then their existing magical equivalents, what tricks and stuff do the psionic classes have that match up to the various heavy hitters first party magic classes bring to the table. What is the psionic blood money, simulacrum, dazing spell, planar binding, etc. The psionic classes must have options at or above that level of power to really be considered more powerful and being forewarned would be useful should I ever have a player that wishes to use psionics.


You know drdeth, I really don't think "A Wizard, who only can cast Fly" would be considered very powerful. Spell lists are a rather large factor in differentiating the wizard, the warmage, and the healer.

And really, solo PVP. Where did that come from.


Nathanael Love wrote:
Rynjin wrote:
I edited a bit after re-reading your description. Class as it was was a bit broken. Doesn't fit anywhere. It's either going to succeed in its goal, without fail, or it's going to die horribly.
Correct. Its an example idea of the most extreme non-combat class possible or the opposite of DrDeath's Dreadnought.

Eh, it is not like unclassifiable classes are any surprise or anything. The truenamer is also unclassifiable and it's not the ultimate combat/non-combat class or anything.


Peter Stewart wrote:
WWWW wrote:
Peter Stewart wrote:

Oh look, another tier thread with all the familiar faces. Color me surprised and put me in the 'tier is a bullcrap construct' camp.

You can also throw me in the 'narrative power is what you make of it' camp on both the caster and the martial PC side.

So I take it then that you feel that having full BAB should not be a major restriction on other aspects of the character.

Uh... sort of?

You can put me in the camp of people that align class balance strictly along a combat axis, and who toss all arguments about narrative power and 'campaign changing abilities' into the rubbish bin.

For all I care, from the perspective of balance, you could throw (for example) all major 'narrative power' spells on every single class in the game and not have it adjust my feeling about their balance a mite (though I'll point out that the majority of such powers, from scrying to teleport and beyond, are not nearly as powerful when run within the rules and world as some suggest).

Ah, all right. I think I understand what you were saying. Thanks for the clarification.


Peter Stewart wrote:

Oh look, another tier thread with all the familiar faces. Color me surprised and put me in the 'tier is a bullcrap construct' camp.

You can also throw me in the 'narrative power is what you make of it' camp on both the caster and the martial PC side.

So I take it then that you feel that having full BAB should not be a major restriction on other aspects of the character.

Nathanael Love wrote:

I think that any product from a smaller 3PP would only appeal to a niche market. I don't have the stats, but I think that the majority of PF players rarely purchase 3PP products at all, and the further majority of those who do purchase only 1. from known/established/trusted publishers or 2. at low price points.

People with strong negative reactions against previous attempts aren't going to buy it-- but those people are the ones who are by and large happy with Fighters as they are, and who gladly roll the fighter and ranger ect as written and don't care either way about "tier". (my fighter player doesn't like ToB because "it makes his fighter too much like a wizard" and "he doesn't want to deal with the options, just deal damage"). . .

But there's a history for polished 3pp products of alternate classes/systems/subsystems gaining a following (Dreamscarred Psionics, some of the Genuis games stuff) so if it really does solve the "problem" of martials/ full BaB characters being "tier 4" then it certainly has a chance of success.

But it all depends on exactly how many people you want/need to buy it to consider it a success.

So change niche market to a small segment of an already small niche market then.

137ben wrote:

Could someone please explain to me what "niche market" means in the context of an obscure, marginalized hobby which is collectively less popular than many individual books, individual movies, individual plays, and individual videogames?

Or, more to the point, could you point out a Tabletop RPG product that isn't an extraordinarily "niche" product?

I was assuming that people were just taking the current selection of people that consume tabletop RPGs to be all of the relevant people for the discussion. It saves the trouble of putting an extra niche market in front of everything.


Nathanael Love wrote:

People have disliked other attempts in the past, but others have liked them. Any/every class only has so many people who are in the target audience for it, but based on these boards there is definitely at least a niche target audience for this kind of class. . .

I can't spend other people's money for them, and I realize there are art budgets, ect to consider, but it seems like it would be profitable even if a lot of people ignored it. . .

Being from a 3pp its incredibly unlikely to get the kind of negative/derision/mockery that was heaped in Tome of Battle when it came out because the people who want it will read the description and get it and the people who don't will just not buy it.

So I take it that you feel that such a class would only appeal to a niche market and may, in fact, turn people off the product through negative association with previous controversial supplements.


Nathanael Love wrote:
what's the worst case people don't like it?

Well yeah, that is the worst case. Since this question would seem to be framed by a content producer's viewpoint whether or not people like it is super important.


Morgen wrote:

Indeed, quite outdated Cheapy.

The only reason one class is better then another in a game are because people decide to order them after all. Then to complain that one is on top and the other on the bottom. Obviously somethings are going to be on the bottom if you decide to place them in an order.

It's a relatively meaningless activity but far be it from me to stop others from having their fun. It has been getting a bit out of hand lately though. People play a character after all, not just a class.

I know the discussion has moved past this slightly, but I really would like to know how this is supposed to work. How in the world does ordering classes suddenly make one class better then another in a game. Does it suddenly make the DM institute a whole bunch of houserules for that particular game or take over the players minds and force them to play better or something.


Eh, people do overvalue full BAB. From a design perspective it is probably not worth arbitrarily restricting the evolution of class design to "protect" existing classes that very well may already be outclassed. Of course the problem is that popularity makes money, not necessarily good design.

So, I don't know, perhaps you just compromise by making a 3/4 BAB class and then give it something like an extra +5 to hit and an extra extra attack through its class features. Maybe level = BAB for feat perquisites or something but that might give it away.


aegrisomnia wrote:

@ Gustavo, wwww: Yeah, if only you could add a permanent planar portal to your demiplane which would allow for travel. It would be even better if it said so in the spell description.

Regarding planar binding, animated objects (iffy whether these would work in the land that magic forgot, but I'd grant Golems at any rate) an undead... well, I think there are definite practicality concerns, but grant that this seems like a reasonable strategy to beat the martial in the dead magic demiplane. Still, it feels a lot like beating a martial with a better martial, but I'll also grant that it's a bit different since a caster gets these things in a way that's uniquely different than a martial could.

So, the conclusion is that casters are, indeed, better than martials; they have absolutely no defense, short of having the wizard add the dead magic trait before the portal, followed by murdering the wizard. And that's sort of a hollow victory.

Eh, if you want a door so that the enemies can just walk in or flood the place with acid or whatever I suppose you can. It seems like kind of a bad idea but whatever floats your boat.

Actually, never mind all that. The whole point is fighting on the dead magic demiplane. Leaving the demiplace would negate the advantage of having one so the fighter wasn't going to leave anyway.


gustavo iglesias wrote:
aegrisomnia wrote:
Quote:
No what makes the disparity clear is that merely owning a dead magic plane is not going to help the martial in the slightest.
Meh, if I were a fighter with something to guard, hide or otherwise protect, I think I'd take my chances inside the demiplane. It may not be perfectly safe, but consider the alternative.

I hope you don't plan to do anything else with your life besides guarding that.

I say that, because it's terribly hard to cast Planeshift inside a dead magic demiplane, so once you got there, you can't get back.

He presumably has also prepaid a spellcaster to wish-o-port™ him out at specific times or something. A rather expensive solution though.


aegrisomnia wrote:

I love how the mere mention of antimagic field started an epic hurr durr over system mastery, when merely replacing "antimagic field" with "dead magic demiplane" makes everybody look silly.

But wait! Martials can't create dead magic demiplanes! Well, they can't create cloaks of resistance +5, for the most part. Is it really so far fetched to think of a high-level wizard working with a high-level martial? Anyway, this is tiring.

Huh, I was not aware that dead magic demiplanes were as portable as antimagic fields.


aegrisomnia wrote:
Marthkus wrote:
Yeah, a fighter without her gear becomes a mere mortal.
Yeah, I know. Brutal. I mean, it's not like a Strength 18 fighter could lift two casters over his head at a time, or bend iron bars, or anything outrageous.

Wouldn't it make more sense to just get a skeletal bear or something to do that stuff.


Rogue Eidolon wrote:
WWWW wrote:
So wait, how do creatures not originally native to the material plane work.
An excellent question, and never explained. But I suppose the answer to that question will be the same as the answer to why in the world all mephits speak Taldane, the common tongue of Avistan. Perhaps it's because those are just the mephits with the strongest connection to Golarion for some reason, and the same with the outsiders who plane shift there.

Ah well, I suppose that is about what I was expecting. It's still a bit disappointing though.


shallowsoul wrote:
WWWW wrote:
shallowsoul wrote:
Look, if you have to resort to using physics formulas then I would take that as an indicator that it wouldn't work.
I seem to recall that the objection to the boulder trick also used a physics formula. KE=m(v^2)/2 I do believe.
Actually, the old trick was to toss a pebble over someone's head and then dispel it so it would drop on them. It was never throw a pebble then suddenly dispel it so that instead of a small rock coming "at" you, it is now a boulder.

While "The Old Trick" may have been that it does not seem like the trick were were discussing.


shallowsoul wrote:
Look, if you have to resort to using physics formulas then I would take that as an indicator that it wouldn't work.

I seem to recall that the objection to the boulder trick also used a physics formula. KE=m(v^2)/2 I do believe.


Ravingdork wrote:
WWWW wrote:
But what about conservation of momentum.
Doesn't conservation of momentum assume that mass is constant?

Eh, if we start directly dealing with the change in mass then we need to consider such things as the rest energy of the system via something like E=mc^2.

shallowsoul wrote:


Ask yourself this question.

When an objects mass and weight suddenly increase, where does the extra energy come from that is needed to carry the object along?

Presumably the same place that the extra momentum comes from.


Aelryinth wrote:

Actually, it's exactly how physics works.

There's X amount of energy invested in the sling stone. If the sling stone suddenly weighs 1000x as much, the energy invested in it is not enough to maintain its speed, and it will instantly decelerate to match the infamous KE= .e mv^2 formula, where KE is constant and m just went to x1000. Velocity will drop like, well, a stone.

To see this in real life, put a rubber ball on top of a basketball and drop them on pavement. The basketball will bounce normally. The rubber ball will take off like a shot into the air, because the same amount of kinetic energy moves it much farther and faster then the basketball.

The sling stone is the rubber ball, and the boulder is the basketball, it just is operating in reverse.

That all said, it's magic, and it can work however the DM said it works. If we're using dimensional substitution and parallel phase-shifted mass that only tracks relative position and velocity and not kinetic energy, who cares?

In that event, Polymorphed Any Object spheres of acid changed into sling pellets work great, too. Or lava, if you've a volcano nearby. I'd wince and go paper airplanes of itemized lava, but the GM would likely kill me.

==Aelryinth

But what about conservation of momentum.


2 people marked this as FAQ candidate. 3 people marked this as a favorite.
Rogue Eidolon wrote:
leo1925 wrote:
Aelryinth wrote:

I don't mind the Greater Teleport nerf. Not having bar-igura able to kidnap 'port people to the Moon and leave them there, as well as the making the succubi spend a long, boring six months flying instead of teleporting, evens it all out nicely. SOme places you shouldn't be able to reach with an easy spell. Yes, Greater Teleport nerfs teleporting monsters more then wizards. Who'da thunk?

Worldwide range to places that have only been DESCRIBED to you is pretty awesome all by itself.

==Aelryinth

You know that even with the addition of interplanetery teleport (which bring rules issues since the greater hasn't been errata'd) you still don't need 9th level spell to travel to other planets, you just need 2 7th or 5th (if divine) level spells instead of 1. You plane shift from the material plane to another plane of your choice and then you plane shift again to the material plane and you are 5-500 miles within your intented destination; then you use whatever form of travel you wish for those extra miles, it's just that you have the scenic route instead of just going to your destination.
Distant Worlds explains why that doesn't work. The 5d100 miles is based on going back to an anchoring planet that resonates with the caster. If you are moving somewhere else, the error grows far larger and you will wind up in the Dark Tapestry, so far from anything that you will die.

So wait, how do creatures not originally native to the material plane work.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Samuel Stone wrote:

There's still a chance of melee getting through. A CR 5 Very Young Black Dragon has a +9 bite and +9 two claw. That's a 24.3% chance of one hit getting through.

Meanwhile, assume a 5th level monk with Crane Wing. The same dragon needs to hit twice in order for a single hit to actually get through. In order for the dragon to have a 23.9% of actually dealing damage to the monk, the monk needs an AC of 23. That's not difficult to reach, and the monk doesn't suffer armor penalties for movement.

Most importantly, though, can completely negate a critical hit. The fighter had a 13.5% chance of being hit by a critical, while the monk has a 0.7% chance. That's a pretty major difference.

And this is assuming a monster where all three attacks do not have status effects or combat maneuvers attached to them. A monster that relies heavily on grab, trip, swallow whole, etc. will have a much harder time getting any of those effects to hit the Craner.

I'm rather wondering why the dragon doesn't just fly around and breath weapon both characters to death. Do they not get one that young or something.


Eridan wrote:

Immediate and Swift actions appear first in a D&D 3.5 supply book (Complete Mage?) in the middle of the D&D 3.5 era. Before that it was not possible to take any action outside of your turn.

The wording of the 'Ready' action is the same as in D&D3 , D&D 3.5 and PF .. so in my opinion the 'Ready' action was not rewritten since non-immediate/swift-action days.

DM_Blake and his option #2 are RAI

It was possible to take the free action of speaking outside of one's turn. Also the feather fall spell could also be cast out of turn even before the advent of the immediate action.

Additionally I will note that, so far as I can recall, the rules compendium changed the wording of the readied action in 3.5 from before your next action to before your next turn.


Huh, that is interesting. Now I am wondering hos things works when using a two handed weapon and armor spikes, boot blade, etc. without using two weapon fighting.

If one is, say, using a reach weapon, kills one enemy with the first attack and then wants to use an unarmed strike or armor spikes on an adjacent opponent how would that work.

Or what happens if one gets disarmed of/drops the two handed weapon during an attack. Is it impossible for the character to thereafter use its boot blade or armor spikes on an enemy.


By the by, I am rather sure that partial charges are a 3.0 thing not a 3.5 thing. As I recall they presumably got their name due to being one of 3.0's partial actions. In 3.5 charging as a standard action would seem to be listed as just a normal part of the charge special attack as opposed to a separate action. I suppose the term just stuck because "partial charge" sounds better then making a charge as a standard action due to being unable to take a full round’s worth of actions on your turn.


Drachasor wrote:
WWWW wrote:
Now that people mention it, how many spells are actually called out as being simultaneous.

Blinding Ray, Scorching Ray, Deafening Song Bolt, Contagious Flame.

Note Contagious Flame implies you'd get sneak attacks on later rounds when the bolts shoot out from the targets as if you fired them. Timing on the later bolts is not specified.

Huh, that is a rather short list. Well anyway thanks for doing the legwork.


Now that people mention it, how many spells are actually called out as being simultaneous.


Quandary wrote:

quite. somebody else asked about manticore's, but that seems to be in the same boat at 17th level Archer Fighter Volley: NOT A SPELL, thus not subject to the FAQ restriction.

clearly, those abilities are much more restricted to gain than a random 2nd level spell, while also picking up signifigant sneak attack. (17th level fighter, Beast Shape IV grants Spikes, but that's a 6th level wiz/alchemist spell and Druid Wildshape only goes up to BSIII and they only gain BSIV via a 9th level spell).

Eh, I was more going for the idea that if consistency is the main goal, as opposed to numerical balance, it would seem to be better to make a more general rule that applies to all sorts of non-full attack actions. Having such a ruling would mean that future abilities would remain consistent without having to be individually dealt with.


Anyway, I think the real question here is what happens when say a manticore takes some rogue levels and attacks the party with its Spikes (Ex) ability.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Rudy2 wrote:

Well, I asked because I'll be DMing a game where this might come up, and I wanted to ensure I had a defense against something truly ridiculous happening.

None of the casters in my game will be getting to 50 strength, and I wouldn't allow the Restoration trick either, so the worst is averted.

However, the witch could still use this trick to easily cast Raise Dead at a small fraction of the price. That's only 10 strength damage (just borrow your buddy's belt of strength if you're under 10).

I'm honestly surprised that such a blatant gold economy violation was allowed in the first place.

Eh well, unless using those expensive spells permanently handicaps the characters they were going to get the money back anyway.


Malachi Silverclaw wrote:

When I said that I could not see where Skip used 'an' instead of 'the', I was looking at the FAQs I cut & pasted, which were Skip's FAQs about Spring Attack and Shot On The Run.

I earlier posted about the dangers of yes/no questions and answers, and illustrated the potential mis-use of such answers. I used the question, 'Do you like girls?' to illustrate that whether you answered yes OR no to that your answer could be used against you. The question should be framed as either, 'Do you like girls as opposed to boys?' or 'Do you like girls as opposed to women?'

I was wary of answering his seemingly innocent yes/no question for fear it would be taken out of context and used against me, no matter if I said yes OR no!

So I provided a fair context and did my best to answer his questions so that my answer could not be misunderstood.

Since Skip was talking about 3.5 and his FAQs were about 3.5 feats I answered in 3.5 rules. In 3.5, there is no difference between attack and attack action. If a weapon attack must be taken as a standard action, then that ability is called out as a standard action and not an attack action.

The rules in this section have not changed from the 3.5 PHB to the PF CRB, and there was no reason to believe the rule had changed.

Until, that is, JB made some posts about Vital Strike. On an Internet forum. A place which I didn't even know about until recently. How can the players of PF be expected to know the rules have changed? It's not credible that Paizo think that scouring these threads is a pre-requisite for play!

Although I think you are sincere in your beliefs, I find it astonishing that you can see 'attack' as 'attack action' without seeing 'cast a spell' as the 'cast a spell' action, and therefore require a standard action to use the 'attack action' while not requiring a standard action to use the 'cast a spell action'!

If it wasn't for JB 'fixing' Vital Stike using the words he did, then this thread would not exist, and nor would the dichotomy of...

Oh, don't worry about the answer being taken out of context and used against you, that wasn't really the point in the end. I was wondering if a conversation had a hope of going anywhere and your inability give an answer answers my question. Sorry, but if you won't take a stance on anything we can't actually discuss anything.


Malachi Silverclaw wrote:

Thanks for being patient with me; I think I've got it now. : )

I'll try to be as precise as I can.

There are two things happening simultaneously here. The first is that the attack action is not any old action you can use to attack your opponent. You can attack your opponent by casting Polar Ray or you can use a breath weapon or you can use Cleave. But none of these use the attack action as defined under 'Attack', which lists the things which are attack actions, like melee, ranged, natural, multiple attacks, etc. Polar Ray is an attack but it is not an 'attack' action it is a 'cast a spell' action; a breath weapon is an attack but it is not an 'attack' action it is a 'use supernatural ability' action. Using Cleave is an attack but it is not an 'attack' action it is a 'use special ability' action.

The second thing is that, whatever the action is (attack, cast a spell, use special ability, etc), it burns some kind of action type (in terms of swift, free, standard, full-round, etc). Just because a kind of action may be able to burn different types of actions, that doesn't mean they break action economy! If you only have a standard action to burn then whatever kind of action you choose to take (attack, cast a spell, etc) must burn that standard action; you can't use multiple attacks or spells with a casting time of 1 round, because you only have a standard action to burn!

So, what's going on with Spring Attack/Shot On The Run?

Two things: one, you cannot take any kind of action you want just because you have a standard action to burn. The feat only allows attack actions.

Second, you only have a standard action to burn, so the attack action you take when using these feats must be both an attack action and a standard action at the same time! Not because all attack actions must be standard actions but because the limitations of the feats mean that you only have a standard action to burn (as well as a move), and that standard action can only be used to take an attack action.

That is what Skip is saying!

Does this answer your question? Please say yes! I'm trying my best!

Sorry, but that does not answer the question. Perhaps you are over thinking things. As far as I can tell it should not really require basically any explanation for the answer.

But let me rephrase the question slightly, In this one particular passage there is a series of words that are used. those words are "an attack action". The feats, however, do not contain "an attack action" but rather "the attack action". In this passage does "an attack action" mean "the attack action" and only "the attack action", or in other words are "an attack action" and "the attack action" equivalent in this one particular case.


Malachi Silverclaw wrote:
Grimmy wrote:

I don't have a question.

WWWW had the question about the interchangeability of the articles.

Yeah, I was directing my answer at him. : )

Thanks, though. I was really finding it difficult to grasp exactly what he wanted, and I do want to answer him. He was very polite and I appreciate that. : )

Okay, allow me to try and explain the question again. In the following passage "The Shot on the Run and Spring Attack feats only let you use an attack action (that is, a specific kind of standard action) in conjunction with their allowed movement, not any kind of standard action." there is a particular term that is used. The term that I am wondering about is "an attack action" as in "The Shot on the Run and Spring Attack feats only let you use an attack action"

Now the two feats that are referenced in the passage both function only "When using the attack action" and this means that the feats only let one use "the attack action."

So my question is, when Skip uses the term "an attack action" in the aforementioned passage is that term equivalent to "the attack action" that the two feats restrict one to using. Or to put it more simply, in this one particular case are "an attack action" and "the attack action" completely equivalent.


Malachi Silverclaw wrote:

Skip is saying that although in this case the attack action is burning a standard action, that you cannot use any type of standard action during a Spring Attack, only attack actions (the types of attack listed under 'attack' in the combat chapter).

The warlock invocation Hideous Blow says, 'As a standard action you can make a single melee attack'. (then tells you what happens if you hit)

It's a single melee attack, right? So I can use it in a Spring Attack, right? And fold it into a full attack, right?

No. They were much more careful using attack action/standard action in 3rd ed. Every time it said 'attack action' it meant that this was the type of attack that could be a single attack (burning a standard action) or multiple attacks (burning a full-round action-Pounce excepted) or at the end of a charge (the charge itself burns the action, not the attack) or as an AoO (which is not an action). If an ability (like Hideous Blow or Manyshot) is described as a standard action then it may not be folded into a full attack or used at the end of a charge or as an AoO.

Or used during a Spring Attack, and that is was Skip is saying. It also means that you can't use Manyshot during a Shot on the Run, as Manyshot is a standard action not an attack action. Abilities described as standard action are their own actions as opposed to attack actions, at least in 3.5.

I hope that answers your question.

No, it completely ignores my question. But let me rephrase for clarity.

The spring attack feat restricts characters to "the attack action". The FAQ entry says that spring attack restricts characters to "an attack action". Are "an attack action" and "the attack action" completely equivalent in this case?


All right, if you will excuse my presumption, I am going to assume that you know the 3.5 rules. Now as someone who knows the 3.5 rules, you, of course, know the shot on the run and spring attack feats. And as someone who knows those feats you, of course, know that they say "When using the attack action with a ranged weapon," and "When using the attack action with a melee weapon,"

So please tell me when Skip says "The Shot on the Run and Spring Attack feats only let you use an attack action (that is, a specific kind of standard action) in conjunction with their allowed movement" would you say that Skip is using "An attack action" and "The attack action" interchangeably. Meaning that Skip is saying that the attack action is a type of standard action.

Now if you disagree with the idea that Skip was using the two terms interchangeably then please explain to me how we can consider someone who does not even know the rules of the PHB a reputable source of rulings.


Hmm no answer as to how you know that Skip is not saying what he is saying. Ah well I suppose I shall have to take the absence of such a post as tacit agreement that you agree that Skip Williams has ruled that the attack action is a standard action. Huh, who would have guessed that you would change your mind about this.


Malachi Silverclaw wrote:
A recent example is when I conflated the two FAQs from Skip Williams. I knew that he had made clear that sunder could be used in a full attack because it replaced any attack, and I knew that he had said that an attack action could be folded into a full attack (paraphrasing) but that a standard action could not. My memory contained both these facts, but had not retained that they were from two different FAQs. But my conclusions were still correct.

Oh by the by, I am still wondering how you know that when Skip says the attack action is a standard action he does not actually mean the attack action is a standard action. Is it telepathy, That's what I'm betting on?


Malachi Silverclaw wrote:

Your previous post regarding Spring Attack does not show any error on Skip's part. He is saying that the only type of standard action allowed during a SA is an attack action, not that attack actions are always standard actions!

Sometimes attack actions are standard actions! Sometimes they are not! The attack action during a SA is a standard action.

So when Skip says that the attack action is a standard action he is not actually saying that the attack action is a standard action. Huh, well how about that. Personally that would make his rulings even more suspect if he doesn't actually mean what he says in them.


Malachi Silverclaw wrote:
Skip Williams wrote:

Can a warlock use Rapid Shot to fire two eldritch blasts simultaneously?

No. Using eldritch blast requires a standard action, not an attack action (unlike using a weapon). If something requires a standard action (as opposed to an attack action) to use, you can’t use the full attack action to gain extra uses of that ability, even with the Rapid Shot feat.

Can you seriously tell me that the above doesn't show that, in 3rd ed., attack actions can be folded into a full attack?

When it says, 'If something requires a standard action (as opposed to an attack action) to use, you can't use the full attack action', it implies as strongly as it is able that, 'If something requires an attack action (as opposed to a standard action) to use, you can use the full attack action'!

And the wording of attack actions has not changed between editions.

I apologise if my memory conflated the two FAQs. : )

Well that depends. Would you prefer that I say the above shows that attack actions can be folded into a full attack. But be aware that it means that we have two contradictory FAQ entries and thus the whole of Skip's rulings for 3.5 are thrown into doubt. I mean I am fine with that but you seem to like using him as a source so I am leaving it up to you to decide if you wish to demonstrate that his 3.5 rulings are unreliable.


Malachi Silverclaw wrote:

Here it is!

Skip Williams the 3rd edition 'rules guy' wrote:

Is sunder a special standard action or is it a melee attack variant? It has its own entry on the actions table, but the text describing it refers to it as a melee attack. Is sunder a melee attack only in the sense of hitting something with a melee weapon, or is sunder a true melee attack?

Sunder is a special kind of melee attack. If it were a special standard action, its description would say so (as the descriptive text for the Manyshot feat says).
If you make a full attack, and you have multiple attacks from a high base attack bonus, you can sunder more than once, or attack and sunder, or some other combination of attacking and sundering.
Sunder does indeed get its own entry in Table 8–2: Actions in Combat in the PH. It needs one because unlike a regular melee attack, sunder provokes an attack of opportunity (although not if you have the Improved Sunder feat).
You can also disarm, grapple, or trip as a melee attack (or attack of opportunity)
That's how it was in 3.0 and 3.5. Altough the combat manoevre mechanic changed in Pathfinder, the wording of attack actions did not.

So tell me, how does a FAQ entry that does not contain the term "attack action" demonstrate anything about the "attack action".


Malachi Silverclaw wrote:
Snip

Ah so you are arguing that Skip Williams is not actually an absolutely valid rules source for 3.5. If you don't understand what I mean, showing that Skip Williams has given two contradictory rulings means that he is not actually right all the time. If you demonstrate that Skip can be wrong then you demonstrate that any of his rulings can be wrong. If you really want to cast doubt on one of your sources, please feel free, but be aware of what you are doing.

Oh and by the by here's a little quiz for you. Which of these is the wording of the benefit section of the spring attack feat.

1: "When using the attack action with a melee weapon, you can move both before and after the attack, provided that your total distance moved is not greater than your speed. Moving in this way does not provoke an attack of opportunity from the defender you attack, though it might provoke attacks of opportunity from other creatures, if appropriate. You can’t use this feat if you are wearing heavy armor.

You must move at least 5 feet both before and after you make your attack in order to utilize the benefits of Spring Attack."

2: "When using an attack action with a melee weapon, you can move both before and after the attack, provided that your total distance moved is not greater than your speed. Moving in this way does not provoke an attack of opportunity from the defender you attack, though it might provoke attacks of opportunity from other creatures, if appropriate. You can’t use this feat if you are wearing heavy armor.

You must move at least 5 feet both before and after you make your attack in order to utilize the benefits of Spring Attack."


Malachi Silverclaw wrote:
WWWW wrote:
Malachi Silverclaw wrote:
• His understanding of 'attack action' exactly matches that of the 3.0/3.5 'rules guy' Skip Williams, and JJ's post was both recent and succinct.
Hmm, Skip was he the guy that did the 3.5 faq. I never can remember if he was responsible for that.

Skip Williams, AKA 'The Sage', was responsible for the Sage Advice column in Dragon Magazine, from which the FAQ in question was gleaned.

He also authored one of the original three core rulebooks for 3.0, either the DMG or the MM, I can't remember which.

So, yes, he was a rules guy! : )

Oh I am not questioning if he was a guy that made rules. He clearly was given credit for some books. No I was just wondering to whom I should attribute this sentence from the FAQ.

"The Shot on the Run and Spring Attack feats only let you use
an attack action (that is, a specific kind of standard action) in
conjunction with their allowed movement, not any kind of
standard action."

1 to 50 of 587 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

©2002–2014 Paizo Inc.®. Need help? Email customer.service@paizo.com 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.