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

729 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists.


RSS

1 to 50 of 729 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

Rhedyn wrote:
StabbittyDoom wrote:
Rhedyn wrote:
FrodoOf9Fingers wrote:

Also, your familiar gains your armor proficiency :)

Heavy Armor Prof. wrote:
Special: Fighters and paladins automatically have Heavy Armor Proficiency as a bonus feat. They need not select it
That language is not used for martial weapon prof. though, sad day.

The distinction that proficiencies are not feats was done in a 3.5 rules clarification.

I see no such reason to think proficiencies are not feats in pathfinder.

I see no reason why we should've ever treated them different. And in my home games, I don't. Though this is the first case I've seen where it might actually matter.

There was a spell that would let you turn one feat into another in 3.5

Obviously you wouldn't want a caster to transform the fighter into some sort of infinite feat beast (which would have mattered in 3.5, and no the new feat did not have to be one you would have qualified for when you got the old feat).

As a remember, elves were useful for this spell because their extra weapons explicitly came from feats.

One could gain infinite feats with those spells through other means. From what I could see the deal with elves was that they provided a limited enough number of bonus feats that more DMs would allow the trick to work where as infinite feats were much less likely.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
deusvult wrote:
TriOmegaZero wrote:
icehawk333 wrote:
Explosive runes.
Requires reading, not just looking.

if they're written in a language the looker comprehends and he sees them, the way language centers in the brain work is the looker cannot "not read" them.

If you see it, the brain automatically processes it. You can NOT turn it off and see "I prepared Explosive Runes" as a series of nonsignificant scribbles if they are in fact the written form of a language you can read.

Huh, you've never, say, looked at the written word out of the corner of your vision, at an extreme angle, or from far enough away that you can see that something is there but can not read it.


Celanian wrote:
WWWW wrote:
Right, they may be better then fighters and what not, but I was already aware of that. I was wondering about a comparison to the vanilla summoner (hence the extra character's worth of actions comment) which does not seem to be directly addressed in your analysis.

The 2 big advantages of a synth over a regular summoner are:

1) MUCH more durable. The sample synth I posted would only have 26 HP for the eidolon if they were separate. That's not much when facing CR 6-8 enemies

2) No shared item slot problem. No need to divide your money over 2 entities and both entities share the benefits of each magic item.

Whether these are worth the loss of an additional action is debatable, but these are pretty sizable advantages.

The sample I posted has 59 HP, AC 28, and 4 attacks that average 20 damage each with some money unspent. A regular 5th level martial is probably going to fall short on all 3 metrics compared to the synth.

Ah, now that you mention it I can certainly see how this could depend on the group. In groups that are unable to protect their supporting casters it would be better to trade out a character's worth of actions instead of losing the summoner along with your sorcerers or what have you.


Nocte ex Mortis wrote:
WWWW wrote:

Eh, it really depends on where one puts the bar for brokenness. As I don't generally ban wizards and the like for being too broken I see no reason to ban the summoner.

LazarX wrote:
Milo v3 wrote:
Magda Luckbender wrote:
I'd say a certain point has been made. Note that the obvious worst offenders, Synthesist and Master Summoner, are both banned in PFS play.
Why is synthesist banned actually? It's more balanced than a standard summoner.
The hell it is. It's Druidzilla reborn. Look up the term.
Hmm, are the advantages of the synthesist over a bog standard eidolon really worth the loss of a whole other character's worth of actions.

In a word? Yes. Tank the everloving crap out of your physical stats, because they no longer matter, bump up your casting stats, your Wis, and then, wear your Eidolon.

Suddenly, your physical stats are as good, or better than, the martials, with a better to-hit chance, gobs of abilities, and spells to back it up.

Right, they may be better then fighters and what not, but I was already aware of that. I was wondering about a comparison to the vanilla summoner (hence the extra character's worth of actions comment) which does not seem to be directly addressed in your analysis.


Eh, it really depends on where one puts the bar for brokenness. As I don't generally ban wizards and the like for being too broken I see no reason to ban the summoner.

LazarX wrote:
Milo v3 wrote:
Magda Luckbender wrote:
I'd say a certain point has been made. Note that the obvious worst offenders, Synthesist and Master Summoner, are both banned in PFS play.
Why is synthesist banned actually? It's more balanced than a standard summoner.
The hell it is. It's Druidzilla reborn. Look up the term.

Hmm, are the advantages of the synthesist over a bog standard eidolon really worth the loss of a whole other character's worth of actions.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

You know, I was going to say something about the class not being so great, but then I remembered when assassins lost their spellcasting and I decided that they had suffered enough already.


BigDTBone wrote:
kikidmonkey wrote:
i didnt limit it, i did say "or something" but those other things DO require a UMD, which will be restrictive based on the level of the martial.

One of the big points in the mythic fighter vs wizard thread is that people seem to think fighters would never take UMD (or at least don't concider it to be a typical thing.) when magic is real you learn to use it. Fighters have the opportunity to put their feats to work for them.

Skill focus/magical aptitude/class skill trait/14 CHA/1 rank will give a 55% to activate a wand at first level. Add in a +5 item, headband, and 9 more ranks will go upto a +31 at 10th level. That is a 75% chance to activate a CL17 scroll.

Eh, fighters taking UMD in a class comparison can be a perfectly reasonable thing for objection. Depending on how it is used, it may fail the commoner test. Or if the gold expenditure is too high that may mean a character is only useful for too short of a run of challenges and thereafter is useless which can be considered a problem.


Steve Geddes wrote:

They definitely both require reading.

However a citation of book and page number provides an explicit, textual statement. An inference does not - any textual reference is generally implicit (unless a citation is also provided).

The book and page number provides the explicitness.

Oh, is it still about that. I already apologized for my mistaken assumption that you would understand that when I said scrolls I meant the section of the rules covering scrolls. What more do you want.


Steve Geddes wrote:
WWWW wrote:
Steve Geddes wrote:

Yeah, I think I see the argument. I just thought that when one argues RAW, it is customary to grant greater weight to explicit textual statements rather than inference.

It's not my usual neck of the woods though.

What do you mean. I left open the possibility that there are no scrolls that contain arcane spells.

I mean that when I asked you for a definition of "arcane spell" I was asking for a book and page number. That's how I thought RAW arguments worked.

It's not an area of the boards I frequent often though.

What do book and page numbers have to do with whether or not we grant greater weight to explicit textual statements rather than inference. Both cases are going to require reading some text that is in a book on a page.


Anguish wrote:
Steve Geddes wrote:
Perhaps I misunderstand the RAW game. Never mind.

I think what he's saying is "because an arcane scroll of cure light wounds exists per RAW, cure light wounds counts as an arcane spell."

Doesn't change that there are about five different portions of shaky-ground RAW that have to be deliberately interpreted in a particular fashion for this to be allowed, regardless.

That's basically it, but in light of the argument that spells are not arcane or divine unless they are being actively cast by someone it's every arcane spell really (magic missile, wish, etc). The idea is to allow for arcane spells to exist at all at times other then when a caster is in the middle of casting one of them.

Steve Geddes wrote:


Yeah, I think I see the argument. I just thought that when one argues RAW, it is customary to grant greater weight to explicit textual statements rather than inference.

It's not my usual neck of the woods though.

What do you mean. I left open the possibility that there are no scrolls that contain arcane spells.


Steve Geddes wrote:
WWWW wrote:
Steve Geddes wrote:
WWWW wrote:
Steve Geddes wrote:


No, I didn't miss the bit where you said scrolls. I obviously didn't explain myself well enough.

I meant is there some section of the rules where "arcane spell" is defined, other than the CRB section I quoted?

Hmm, so you're saying that scrolls do not constitute a sufficiently strong exception to the general rule and as such can not ever contain arcane spells, meaning that arcane spellcasters can never use scrolls.

No, I'm not making any such claim. I'm asking a question.

Okay then. By scrolls I meant the section of the rules covering scrolls. I apologize for being unclear as to what part of the rules I was talking about when I said scrolls.

It doesn't appear to define arcane spells in the scrolls section of the CRB. Where it mentions the type of spell (on page 490):

"To have any chance of activating a scroll spell, the scroll user must meet the following requirements:

  • the spell must be if the correct type (arcane or divine)...

(Etcetera)..."

it relies on the concept being previously defined.

There are either scrolls with arcane spells or there are not. If yes, then those spells are arcane spells. If no, then arcane spell casters can not use scrolls (and arcane surge is probably unusable by everyone for the most part).


Steve Geddes wrote:
WWWW wrote:
Steve Geddes wrote:


No, I didn't miss the bit where you said scrolls. I obviously didn't explain myself well enough.

I meant is there some section of the rules where "arcane spell" is defined, other than the CRB section I quoted?

Hmm, so you're saying that scrolls do not constitute a sufficiently strong exception to the general rule and as such can not ever contain arcane spells, meaning that arcane spellcasters can never use scrolls.

No, I'm not making any such claim. I'm asking a question.

Okay then. By scrolls I meant the section of the rules covering scrolls. I apologize for being unclear as to what part of the rules I was talking about when I said scrolls.


Steve Geddes wrote:
WWWW wrote:
Steve Geddes wrote:

I was basing it from the CRB, page 206:

"Spells come in two types: arcane (cast by bards, sorcerers and wizards) and divine (cast by clerics, Druids and experienced Paladins and rangers."

Is there somewhere else where "arcane spell" is defined?

Did you miss the part where I said scrolls. Well if you did, scrolls. It's actually rather useful that spells on scrolls can be arcane, as it keeps the ability from being unusable by everyone (which would exclude fighters but at a great cost).

No, I didn't miss the bit where you said scrolls. I obviously didn't explain myself well enough.

I meant is there some section of the rules where "arcane spell" is defined, other than the CRB section I quoted?

Hmm, so you're saying that scrolls do not constitute a sufficiently strong exception to the general rule and as such can not ever contain arcane spells, meaning that arcane spellcasters can never use scrolls.


Steve Geddes wrote:
WWWW wrote:
Steve Geddes wrote:
FWIW - I think the objection I repeated that someone raised earlier (that a spell is not inherently "arcane" but becomes so based on the class of the caster - if the fighter/Archmage tries to cast wish it won't meet the definition of an arcane spell, since it hasn't been cast by a sorcerer, wizard or bard) is a decent RAW rebuttal. It's certainly the best I've been able to come up with.
Eh, it would seem that scrolls can be used to classify spells. That at least allows for classification of all spells that have ever been made into scrolls even if one objects to generalizing that to all spells.

I was basing it from the CRB, page 206:

"Spells come in two types: arcane (cast by bards, sorcerers and wizards) and divine (cast by clerics, Druids and experienced Paladins and rangers."

Is there somewhere else where "arcane spell" is defined?

Did you miss the part where I said scrolls. Well if you did, scrolls. It's actually rather useful that spells on scrolls can be arcane, as it keeps the ability from being unusable by everyone (which would exclude fighters but at a great cost).


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Steve Geddes wrote:
FWIW - I think the objection I repeated that someone raised earlier (that a spell is not inherently "arcane" but becomes so based on the class of the caster - if the fighter/Archmage tries to cast wish it won't meet the definition of an arcane spell, since it hasn't been cast by a sorcerer, wizard or bard) is a decent RAW rebuttal. It's certainly the best I've been able to come up with.

Eh, it would seem that scrolls can be used to classify spells. That at least allows for classification of all spells that have ever been made into scrolls even if one objects to generalizing that to all spells.


Steve Geddes wrote:

I think there are two distinct ways in which we might conceive of the meaning of a rule: what the developer intended to convey when they wrote it and what the words mean by the usual conventions of language (basically RAI and RAW). The situation I think we're discussing is where the latter is inconclusive - where two or more interpretations can be argued, based on usual, English usage.

If our expectation is that it must be an objectively, "settleable" question, then I think you're right. The only way to truly learn The meaning of an ambiguous phrase or term is to discern what the user of the phrase intended.

However, in the case of rules of an RPG, I reject such an expectation. I don't consider "the rules" to be an objectively determinable list of statements. I think they are a subjectively adjudicated set of guidelines. Some things are clear and unambiguous and others not. In my mind that's a feature, not a bug.

I think we draw it based on the needs of the players in each, individual group. I don't think there's "One True Answer" I think it's a fundamentally messy thing, where we each adopt what seems best to us. Nobody's right and there isn't any way to settle it once and for all (imo).

Yeah, fine. But that just means that if there are two equally valid interpretations choosing one is not an attempt to figure out what the rules mean as one is rejecting an option that may in fact be the correct one for reasons unrelated to correctness. Nothing has changed in my assessment.

So in the end we have gone nowhere. We are right back at the rules are too vague and ambiguous for anyone to ever hope to get their meaning. Discussion is pointless as we can not ever get any closer to an answer and there is no point to talking about what to do in a particular group since it would be better to, you know, talk to the people in the group about that.

Unless you have something new to add I believe I will end my participation in this particular tangent. We have covered the same ground more then enough for my liking, and I see no point in doing it again.


Steve Geddes wrote:
WWWW wrote:
I see, so your argument is that the rules are so vague and ambiguous that it is impossible to even hope to understand their meaning, except by trying to guess the minds of the designers

Not at all. In fact, in the post you quoted, I specifically said that I preferred a different way to arbitrate in ambiguous situations.

My argument is that the rules are ambiguous in places - making pursuit of RAW a meaningless endeavour in those situations. I think RAW is mostly useful in straightforward places in the rules (like "what's the benefit of cover?" and so forth). I don't think it's useful when you encounter a situation where knowledgeable players disagree about the rules. All that happens is a lot of back-and-forth sprinkled with quotations of snippets of rules or fragments of dictionaries. None of which actually helps, in my view.

I think a better approach, when such ambiguities arise, is to acknowledge that there are multiple interpretations and discuss the pros and cons of accepting each.

Right, but I was talking about meaning not about how one might chose to rule regardless of what the meaning is. Only guessing at developer intent seems to satisfy that from the methods you listed.

Okay, so even if the rules are too ambiguous to ever derive a meaning, are there interpretation that are too out there, or must we consider all of them. If we can exclude some of them, then why could we not attempt to exclude all but one. Where do we draw the line and why do we draw it there.


Steve Geddes wrote:
WWWW wrote:

When I say what it means I am talking about the meaning of the words, as that is what this discussion was presumably originally about, and not the implied developer intent that one might read into things.

So anyway, am I to take this to mean you do not care to continue. If so I am perfectly willing to drop things.

It may not be fruitful or interesting to you (I'm going to keep posting until it's not fruitful or interesting to me and wont take offense if you decline to respond).

However, to expand on my position somewhat. When you say:

Quote:
When I say what it means I am talking about the meaning of the words......not the implied developer intent that one might read into things.

I think this is a false dichotomy of sorts. In my view there is no, unique "meaning of the words" since "any arcane spell" could be limited in some fashion (To illustrate: does this, specific rule grant one the ability to cast an arcane spell with a vocal component when gagged? Can you cast a spell if you dont meet any of the other requirements? If you think "any spell" is unrestricted then it should, shouldnt it? Specific trumps general and all that.)

It seems to me that interpreting rules sometimes involves determining which meaning of some word or phrase should apply - "any spell at all", "any spell which you meet all the other pre-requisites for" (ie have the material components, can see the target, etcetera) or "any spell you can already cast". One way to do this is to try and discern what the designer intended, however that's not the only way (I prefer to take the meaning which my table will enjoy the most, even if I know it's against RAI).

To provide another illustration of my position. It seems to me that someone following BigDTBone's approach could point to the move action of "drawing a weapon" and argue that:

"All it says is that the weapon has to be within easy reach. It doesnt specify that it has to be within easy reach of the person taking the action though, so I'd...

I see, so your argument is that the rules are so vague and ambiguous that it is impossible to even hope to understand their meaning, except by trying to guess the minds of the designers


Steve Geddes wrote:
WWWW wrote:

While one must at times step outside the rules, that does not necessarily mean that it is impossible to ever follow any part of the rules.

Now, if you wish to argue that this specific instance is too vague and ambiguous for anyone to even hope to understand what it means, that might be a different matter.

My position is actually that the context makes it very clear what it means but that semantic arguments tend to be made in the absence of context (or with selectively quoted context).

However, I'm still interested in BigDTBone's rebuttal. I'm not really arguing the OP - at my table, you need to be a spellcaster to be an archmage, so that's all that's relevant to me.

I dont think that BigDTBone really believes the OP is how things should work though, so resolving the specifics doesnt seem important, to me.

When I say what it means I am talking about the meaning of the words, as that is what this discussion was presumably originally about, and not the implied developer intent that one might read into things.

So anyway, am I to take this to mean you do not care to continue. If so I am perfectly willing to drop things.


Steve Geddes wrote:


My point is that the OP is predicated on the idea that it's possible to play strictly RAW, whereas I dont think that's the case. However, if one is to try to do so it seems to me you have to be cosistent in that application - you cant insist on strict "but the rules say..." interpretation for Arcane Surge and then say "Oh well, even though it doesnt grant you the ability to choose, that's implied...."

Admittedly, I may have missed BigDTBone's point.

The point for the spoiler wasnt to indicate that I'm not trying to have a discussion but that I wasnt having a go at Tacticslion and bookrat (on the off chance they thought I was).

While one must at times step outside the rules, that does not necessarily mean that it is impossible to ever follow any part of the rules.

Now, if you wish to argue that this specific instance is too vague and ambiguous for anyone to even hope to understand what it means, that might be a different matter.


Steve Geddes wrote:

*shrug*

I guess (if you take this extreme "the rules are literal and complete" view). It's hard to know, since it's all an intellectual exercise that only Tacticslion and his disciples would actually take at face value*. I'll be interested to hear BigDTBone's response/rebuttal.

Personally, I think the lesson is that "following RAW" is a fruitless endeavour, since the rules are neither complete, nor consistent.

** spoiler omitted **

I'm not really sure what to say. The whole of the rules are very clearly not complete given that they explicitly call for DM ruling in cases. Or perhaps you are not actually trying to have a discussion at all (as per your spoiler). Either way, discussion on whether or not the rules cover all circumstances seems fruitless at the moment and so I will end my involvement in that for the time being.


Steve Geddes wrote:
RJGrady wrote:
Steve Geddes wrote:

I'm no rules lawyer, but how does this go as a "It's not really RAW" counterargument:

A fighter trying to cast a spell has to go through the "Casting a Spell" process. Step one of which is choosing which spell to cast - it spells out how different classes do that in the core rules based on whether you are a prepared or a spontaneous caster. (There's only a subset of the classes listed, but subsequently released spell casting classes stipulate specifically how this step is performed).

As fighters arent in either of these categories, they can't actually fulfill this step of the process.

But they aren't casting as fighters. Arcane Surge takes care of choosing which spell to cast: "any one arcane spell." Arcane Surge replaces all those operations, even for the wizards and sorcerers for whom the ability was intended. For instance, wizards ordinarily expend an unused spell. With Arcane Surge, they don't expend any spells or slots, but instead can cast a spell they have prepared that day.

I'm obviously intending the "casting a spell" section to be read as literally as the OP is suggesting Arcane Surge be read. It's obvious what was intended, but we're restricting ourself to what was explicitly spelled out. As such, the arcane surge power failed to grant the power to fulfil a pre-requisite step: before you can cast the spell, you have to choose it and although spell casters can all do that (which is pretty much why it wasn't mentioned), a fighter can't. Allowing wriggle room there by falling back on "what it obviously means" destroys the whole premise.

As such, I don't see any such dispensation in the Arcane Surge power for bypassing the step of selecting your spell. The fighter/Archmage can cast any arcane spell, sure. Now how does that work in practise? (Using the same extremist-RAW approach the OP did):

First step is to choose a spell - the rules give pretty clear guidance on how you do this and the fighter has no spell list and no prepared...

Hmm, is that rule expanded upon for non-core casters, or are cleric, druid, experienced paladin, experienced ranger, wizard, bard, and sorcerer the only classes that can chose which spell to cast.


BigDTBone wrote:

Your hypothetical rule doesn't provide the mechanism by which one could determine the amount of sneak attack damage. If it said, "Your attack deals 4d6 sneak attack damage even if your opponent is neither flanked nor denied its Dexterity bonus to AC," then there would be no doubt that you are granted the SA ability as described by that feature. It's awkward, doesn't progress like SA does in any other place, doesn't work like SA in any other place, but it is clear as day that you get it.

Similarly, the arcane surge ability doesn't say "you can cast a spell," it specifies the bounds of spell access by saying "you can cast ANY ARCANE spell." Not only that, but it provides a mechanism for it; "As a swift action, you can expend one use of mythic power to cast any one arcane spell without expending a prepared spell or spell slot."

As it stands, you have to house rule CL of that ability anyway because even if you are a prepared or spontaneous caster the ability specifically and explicitly isn't using your standard casting ability.

All of the issues with casting stat and CL actually exist for anyone who takes this ability at all, so those arguments against the ability don't hold water; because it's nothing special against my proposed use.

Nah, there's a general rule for the appropriate stat to use for save DC for core caster classes (and probably specific ones for the splat casters).

Edit: I suppose you might mean the minimum stat level to cast a spell. But that would seem to be handled in the class descriptions and so would not be a problem either.


Yeah, it's been that way since 3.5. Even in 3.0 it was kind of the same thing, except that, as I recall, characters were capped at one AoO per enemy regardless.


Tacticslion wrote:

And doing it at a CL of --, which, in game-purposes, is always treated as 0-ing out, whenever it comes into play.

That means time stop (fighter isn't doing anything fightery with that), shapechang into huge dragons for 0 minutes (I suppose you could count it as half a minute, like 0-level spells count as half a spell level for various purposes?), and making a simulacra with a maximum of 0 hit dice.

... not really that impressed, so far, so what else you got?

EDIT: I mean, the time stop thing is impressive insomuch as it allows a fighter to self-buff with those spells, which is nice, I suppose. Although come to think of it, there are precious few buffs that don't rely on the caster level in some regard or another, so...

Eh, if we're being technical then it might work in the sense that one can cast the spell, but it probably doesn't work in the sense that trying to resolve the spell makes everyone's head explode due to undefined values and the battle mat is ruined as the smouldering remains of their bodies slump forward spilling mountain dew and cheetos across the table. Well that, or the DM has to make something up which lies outside of the rules.


kestral287 wrote:

The general rule I was able to find:

Saving Throw Difficulty Class wrote:

A saving throw against your spell has a DC of 10 + the level of the spell + your bonus for the relevant ability (Intelligence for a wizard, Charisma for a bard, paladin, or sorcerer, or Wisdom for a cleric, druid, or ranger). A spell's level can vary depending on your class. Always use the spell level applicable to your class.

Other classes specifically add onto this, but without a specific addition and nothing the general rule covers, Fighter 1/Archmage 1 doesn't have a relevant ability bonus by any general rule I can find; if anyone actually can quote such a rule then go for it.

They certainly don't by the specific text of either the Archmage or the Fighter. Barring any general or any specific, 10+spell level and even the "+spell level" gets wonky if you really start looking into what's meant by "any arcane spell". Can one make a distinction between a Bard's Shout and a Wizard's, for example? If not, why not? Normally I would point to the general paradigm that one walks down the casting lists, but that's listed in places totally unrelated to Arcane Surge, and thus not helpful if we're actually making the "ignore all rules not definitively related so we don't need a caster level".

Yeah, spell level might be an even bigger problem with regards to the game spitting out a null value. Though if we're just ignoring that kind of thing by setting it all to zero then I suppose we could just do that here too.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
kestral287 wrote:
WWWW wrote:

Hmm, this is a neat trick.

Though what would be the attribute for the save DC calculation. I am unaware of where, if anywhere, pathfinder might have listed casting stat DC priority.

That comes from individual class features. At best your DCs are looking at 10+spell level.

Hmmm. Now that you mention it, I suppose one could interpret the parenthetical in the saving throw difficulty class subsection of the magic section as modifying "your bonus for the relevant ability" so that it actually reads, your bonus for the relevant ability (if any). That would probably be the easiest way to adjudicate the situation.


Hmm, this is a neat trick.

Though what would be the attribute for the save DC calculation. I am unaware of where, if anywhere, pathfinder might have listed casting stat DC priority.


Gisher wrote:
WWWW wrote:
Gisher wrote:
FrodoOf9Fingers wrote:

@WWW

Just a sidepoint, but you have mentioned, or alluded to that light isn't affected by gravity... It's actually one of those weird characteristics of particle/wave duality, it is affected by gravity. Thats how we can see (detect) black holes, by looking at reflections of stars. Once again, just a side point.

As another aside, the relativistic interpretation is that light is not directly affected by gravity. Photons always travel along the shortest path through space-time (the geodesic). Gravity distorts space-time itself, making the "straight" path in four-space be a curved path in three dimensions. From this perspective gravitational lenses don't bend the light, they bend the space through which the light passes.
Though if we're allowing for interactions mediated through a non-mater source then the other forces probably start to work again given the nature of their force carriers and we're dealing with a different set of problems.
I'm not sure what you are saying. What does "mediated through a non-mater source" mean? And when did I suggest that the other fundamental forces stopped working?

Oh it wasn't that you said the other forces don't work, but rather that your mention about gravity brought to mind the idea.

But anyway, you know force carriers, like the gluon.


Gisher wrote:
FrodoOf9Fingers wrote:

@WWW

Just a sidepoint, but you have mentioned, or alluded to that light isn't affected by gravity... It's actually one of those weird characteristics of particle/wave duality, it is affected by gravity. Thats how we can see (detect) black holes, by looking at reflections of stars. Once again, just a side point.

As another aside, the relativistic interpretation is that light is not directly affected by gravity. Photons always travel along the shortest path through space-time (the geodesic). Gravity distorts space-time itself, making the "straight" path in four-space be a curved path in three dimensions. From this perspective gravitational lenses don't bend the light, they bend the space through which the light passes.

Though if we're allowing for interactions mediated through a non-mater source then the other forces probably start to work again given the nature of their force carriers and we're dealing with a different set of problems.


FrodoOf9Fingers wrote:

But... the significant portion that's turned into light weighs the same...

Before we make the claim that being affected by gravity is "not ignoring", let me remind those wishing to tread this part that we do not know what gravity is. For that matter, we don't even know how attractive forces work, although we have solid theories about repulsive forces.

That, and there's also a good chance that the druids are right: The planet is alive, although it's made of non-living material, and hence the planets gravity is important to note.

For all we know, gravity comes from some random alternate dimension in which a living creature is sucking all existence into it's vile mouth, and that each particle is really a small portal to that monster's realm.

Eh, are you saying that brilliant energy weapons don't ignore forces originating from non-living matter.

Ah, the old "carved from the living rock" deal I mentioned before. If we're going down that route then we're basically saying that we have no idea what non-living matter even means and the whole discussion falls apart there.

Bah, for all we know reality is an illusion.


FrodoOf9Fingers wrote:

@WWW

Just a sidepoint, but you have mentioned, or alluded to that light isn't affected by gravity... It's actually one of those weird characteristics of particle/wave duality, it is affected by gravity. Thats how we can see (detect) black holes, by looking at reflections of stars. Once again, just a side point.

No, the light part just isn't affected by gravity that comes from non-living matter, just as the non-light part is also unaffected, gravity from living matter works just fine. However living planets, much less living black holes, are sufficiently rare that in most cases it's not going to matter.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Gaberlunzie wrote:
WWWW wrote:


Er, right. So you're saying that the non-light parts disintegrate since there are no forces holding them together.

Are you saying that the description says these things? I'm not sure if you're trying to put words in my mouth or if you're wondering what I'm saying.

My claim is this. The whole description of Brilliant Energy is as follows:
** spoiler omitted **

I think everything here applies. But to shorten it down, if I remove the parts that only deals with very pure mechanical terms and that are not disputed anyway, this is the disputed parts, what's left:
A brilliant energy weapon has its significant portion transformed into light, although this does not modify the item's weight. A brilliant energy weapon ignores nonliving matter.
I think all this applies:
1. A brilliant energy weapon has its significant portion transformed into light.
2. This does not modify the weight of the item.
3. A brilliant Energy weapon ignores nonliving matter.

That is the gist of it. That is what I think is relevant to the mechanical gameplay (in addition to the removed parts that deal with shining and AC bonuses etc that no-one contends).

Some people seemed to object to this by saying that it "doesn't make sense" or similar things. I then tried to come up with reasons on how it would not be contradictory. That is what I used the "magic" explanation for. Not to ignore any part, but to make it non-contradictory. Because I don't think it's _inherently_...

Oh, so you were talking about something unrelated to my comment. Well I suppose that explains that.

Well anyway, since you seem to have been discussing something else I have nothing more to say. Unless there is something you wish to say to me I will consider this sub-discussion over for the time being.


Gaberlunzie wrote:
WWWW wrote:
Gaberlunzie wrote:
WWWW wrote:
Eh, the words in the description have meanings and thus those meanings are a part of the description. Since you are ignoring those then you are ignoring part of the weapon description.
What do you mean I am ignoring in the description? I have not meant to ignore anything, merely come up with an explanation for how the weapon works as it does, so quoting what you see as an issue would help me rephrase it so my intended meaning comes across.
The issue is everything. You are disregarding the original meaning of the description and inventing a new one. If you can't see the problem with saying that the words don't mean what they say they mean because of the unwritten rules of magic then I don't know what to say.
I'm saying the words mean exactly what they say - I just don't know what part you object to.

Er, right. So you're saying that the non-light parts disintegrate since there are no forces holding them together. That the light parts radiate away at the speed of light since they are light. That the weapon no longer follows the motion of the planet since there is no force from the planet causing it to do so. Or are you saying that none of those happen because unwritten magical rules say otherwise.


Gaberlunzie wrote:
WWWW wrote:
Eh, the words in the description have meanings and thus those meanings are a part of the description. Since you are ignoring those then you are ignoring part of the weapon description.
What do you mean I am ignoring in the description? I have not meant to ignore anything, merely come up with an explanation for how the weapon works as it does, so quoting what you see as an issue would help me rephrase it so my intended meaning comes across.

The issue is everything. You are disregarding the original meaning of the description and inventing a new one. If you can't see the problem with saying that the words don't mean what they say they mean because of the unwritten rules of magic then I don't know what to say.


Aratrok wrote:
WWWW wrote:
Aratrok wrote:
WWWW wrote:
Aratrok wrote:
You're over-thinking it. It's a fantasy lightsaber.
Yeah, but then brilliant energy ammunition would be a fantasy blaster bolt, which doesn't fly through cover.
...are you suggesting that shots from a brilliant energy bow don't ignore non-living cover because blasters in Star Wars don't?
No. I'm suggesting that your "It's a fantasy lightsaber." claim is an oversimplification of the matter at hand.
I was responding to your discussion on the brilliant energy weapon destroying the handle and flying off. It's a magic lightsaber that only harms living matter. It just works, exactly how the text says that it works.

Look, brilliant energy weapons are not the same as lightsabers. For starters lightsabers can harm objects like rocks and trees, while brilliant energy weapons can damage neither since they can not damage objects. And so on and so forth. Brilliant energy weapons work exactly how the text says that they work, but they don't work like lightsabers.

Ashiel wrote:

The funny thing is, you're right WWWW. Lightsabers don't ignore objects, they tend to destroy them (ignoring massive amounts of hardness no doubt, or dealing massive damage), but brilliant energy weapons pass through them as though they weren't there, not harming them, not obstructing them.

"Ignores" again. It just is as if it weren't there in the first place. Too bad they can't harm undead, it'd be nice to be able to take stabs at those pesky incorporeal undead.

That they do, and of course the part made of light flies off at the speed of light, the non-light part falls apart since it has nothing holding it together, and the weapons don't follow the motion of the rest of the planet since they feel no force from it unless it is a living planet or something. I mean, sure the light part and the fragments of the non-light part might fly through non-living stuff as they zoom off, but that is little consolation.


Aratrok wrote:
WWWW wrote:
Aratrok wrote:
You're over-thinking it. It's a fantasy lightsaber.
Yeah, but then brilliant energy ammunition would be a fantasy blaster bolt, which doesn't fly through cover.
...are you suggesting that shots from a brilliant energy bow don't ignore non-living cover because blasters in Star Wars don't?

No. I'm suggesting that your "It's a fantasy lightsaber." claim is an oversimplification of the matter at hand.


Aratrok wrote:
You're over-thinking it. It's a fantasy lightsaber.

Yeah, but then brilliant energy ammunition would be a fantasy blaster bolt, which doesn't fly through cover.


FrodoOf9Fingers wrote:
WWWW wrote:
Artanthos wrote:
WWWW wrote:
Pshaw, if we're using "it's magic" to just ignore part of the weapon description then that kind of invalidates the whole discussion.

When we are getting pedantic enough to argue the weapon cannot exist because of the abilities text, we need to more closely examine our arguments.

If Brilliant Energy weapons could not exist, there would be no entry for them in the weapon creation rules.

The weapons can, and do, exist within the context of the rules.

Of course they exist in the context of the rules, but at no time do the rules say how long they exist and how functional they are much like the rules do not say whether or not brilliant energy weapons can fly through cover. Both are extrapolation, so for consistency either all are acceptable or none are.

And thats fine. But remember to follow the rules that are already present:

** spoiler omitted **
...

Uh, you realize I was talking about the part where when you try to use it the material part loses cohesion and the light part radiates away at the speed of light. And anyway since brilliant energy weapons aren't subject to the gravity of non-living matter they wouldn't necessarally fall through the planet in the first place, rather they would stop following the motion of the planet, solar system, etc. as those things no longer exert any force on the weapon.


Gaberlunzie wrote:
WWWW wrote:


Pshaw, if we're using "it's magic" to just ignore part of the weapon description then that kind of invalidates the whole discussion.

We don't use it to ignore, we use it to explain.

Ignoring it would be acting as if it isn't there (kinda like how BE ignores non-living materials), not using it to explain how it would work.

Eh, the words in the description have meanings and thus those meanings are a part of the description. Since you are ignoring those then you are ignoring part of the weapon description.

I mean, in a sense it is impossible to intentionally ignore anything if ignoring something means to disregard it intentionally, since you can not choose to intentionally disregard something without admitting it exists. Thus you are not ignoring it as you must be considering it enough to choose to disregard it. But anyway, disregarding a part of the description intentionally.

Artanthos wrote:
WWWW wrote:
Pshaw, if we're using "it's magic" to just ignore part of the weapon description then that kind of invalidates the whole discussion.

When we are getting pedantic enough to argue the weapon cannot exist because of the abilities text, we need to more closely examine our arguments.

If Brilliant Energy weapons could not exist, there would be no entry for them in the weapon creation rules.

The weapons can, and do, exist within the context of the rules.

Of course they exist in the context of the rules, but at no time do the rules say how long they exist and how functional they are much like the rules do not say whether or not brilliant energy weapons can fly through cover. Both are extrapolation, so for consistency either all are acceptable or none are.


Gaberlunzie wrote:
WWWW wrote:
Gaberlunzie wrote:
WWWW: as the name implies, a brilliant energy weapon is made of energy, not matter :) (and yes i know matter is energy too but it doesnt have to)
It occupies space and has mass so it would seem to be matter. Or perhaps you are saying that your interpretation is that the weapons don't do those things. I suppose that could work. Since a portion of the weapon is transformed into light (which has no mass) that part would not be matter. As this does not effect the weight of the weapon presumably the extra mass is somehow placed in the part of the weapon that isn't turned into light (which would still disintegrate and fly off into space). Of course that presents its own problems what with the light part of the weapon also shooting off into space rendering the whole thing useless.

Or, it's magic, and has weight even though it isn't matter.

I mean, it's not like the first time pathfinder is iffy about changes in mass.

Pshaw, if we're using "it's magic" to just ignore part of the weapon description then that kind of invalidates the whole discussion.


Digitalelf wrote:
thejeff wrote:
So, do people in your game worlds know about classes? Are they actually things people talk about in game? Bob & John both know they're Fighters, even though one is an archer and the other a front line melee sword and board type.

Yes. So if you were a person living within the game world, and you asked Joe what he does, he'd reply something to the effect of being a fighter (e.g. fighter, warrior, etc.).

As I've mentioned before, there are various academes, schools, and colleges within my games for each of the various major classes that teach and train the class they represent...

Oh, that makes much more sense then exclusive equipment lists for every class. You just whip out a diploma and that's how people tell the classes apart.


Gaberlunzie wrote:
WWWW: as the name implies, a brilliant energy weapon is made of energy, not matter :) (and yes i know matter is energy too but it doesnt have to)

It occupies space and has mass so it would seem to be matter. Or perhaps you are saying that your interpretation is that the weapons don't do those things. I suppose that could work. Since a portion of the weapon is transformed into light (which has no mass) that part would not be matter. As this does not effect the weight of the weapon presumably the extra mass is somehow placed in the part of the weapon that isn't turned into light (which would still disintegrate and fly off into space). Of course that presents its own problems what with the light part of the weapon also shooting off into space rendering the whole thing useless.


Gaberlunzie wrote:
James Risner wrote:

LoneKnave, basically four:

  • It doesn't harm the wall when it strikes.

That would be the wall ignoring the arrow, not the arrow ignoring the wall.

That would be reacting to non-living matter, not ignoring it.

Quote:
  • It hits the wall and bounces off harmlessly.
  • That would be the wall ignoring the arrow, not the arrow ignoring the wall.

    That would be reacting to non-living matter, not ignoring it.

    Quote:
  • It phases out when pressed against non-Armor and non-Shield non-living matter.
  • That would be reacting to non-living matter, not ignoring it.

    Quote:
  • It passes through everything including walls, planets, hands, etc.
  • That would be ignoring it, except it doesn't state it ignores living matter (like hands).

    Eh. unless the weapon itself is made of living matter it is necessarily reacting to non-living matter. But actually that brings up a good point. Brilliant energy weapons should be unaffected by any force originating in other bits of non-living matter and would then presumably disintegrate as they fly off into space.


    Artanthos wrote:
    WWWW wrote:
    Eh. Is there any source that I am unaware of that specifies what "ignores nonliving matter" actually means, as, if we're being really technical, it is incorrect to assume that ignores non-living matter must mean pass through non-living matter just because the weapons pass through armor (including living armor).

    Sometimes you just have to use a dictionary and knowledge of the English language.

    The alternative would be a glossary larger than the CRB.

    ** spoiler omitted **

    Carved from the living rock?

    But anyway, the point being that if you're going to claim that someone is wrong for no other reason then that one is making an interpretation, it would be a good idea not to be talking about something that requires an interpretation.


    Eh. Is there any source that I am unaware of that specifies what "ignores nonliving matter" actually means, as, if we're being really technical, it is incorrect to assume that ignores non-living matter must mean pass through non-living matter just because the weapons pass through armor (including living armor).


    Digitalelf wrote:
    WWWW wrote:
    Huh, you actually manage to keep mutually exclusive sets of equipment for every class
    It's not that difficult. Every class except the warrior classes have very limited weapons and armor available that they can use, and the limited number of weapon proficiencies available to each character (warrior classes included) limits the number of weapons a character can use even further; with custom classes are no different... And as for multi-class characters, even combined, the available weapons and armor they can use is still very limited.

    Right, when I said mutually exclusive I meant that the available set of equipment in one class does not intersect with any other class. And that's all before we even get into things that could change those lists.


    Digitalelf wrote:
    WWWW wrote:
    so how do characters tell the the classes apart in game.

    You ask the person (but that person is not obliged to answer truthfully however).

    Though in my games, because I play 2nd edition, there are more subtle "tells" than exist in other editions just by what armor a character is wearing or what weapon he is wielding because the skill system is different in 2nd edition, and feats just do not exist; it's not always an accurate assumption, but it is a decent enough starting reference (i.e. it is better to assume that mace wielding enemy coming towards you is capable of casting spells than to assume he can't and then get blind-sided when he does start casting spells at you)...

    And yes, that thought process can back-fire occasionally when that leather armor wearing, dagger or short sword wielding fighter comes along that you assumed was "just" a thief.

    But it is, as they say, "close enough for government work".

    Huh, you actually manage to keep mutually exclusive sets of equipment for every class including the custom ones that you create for every new concept. I must say I am impressed. Especially with dual/multi classing, available equipment, custom magic items, and so on mucking that up in the 2e games I participated in without adding a bunch of custom classes.


    1 person marked this as a favorite.
    Digitalelf wrote:
    Rynjin wrote:
    Why does a Ranger need only refer to himself as a Ranger?

    For me, personally, the answer is because I view classes similar to professions or careers...

    I see them this way, not only because that is how classes are viewed in 2nd edition, but because IRL, when someone is asked: "Hey, what do you do?"

    More often than not, in my experience, the answer is: "I AM a Biologist!" (or whatever it is that they do for a living), and is seldom answered: "I work in biology."

    Your experience may be different than that...

    Right, so how do characters tell the the classes apart in game. Is there some sort of diviners guild that hands out ID cards for this or something.


    3 people marked this as a favorite.
    Ashiel wrote:
    WWWW wrote:
    So why did becoming evil make the character an NPC. Is it some sort of arbitrary no evil PCs rule. That would make the anecdote relevant as that is another example of why the alignment system is terrible.

    What I find most disturbing was the utter disregard for the character the PC had constructed. The character's ways were so much an ingrained part of the character that the PC would rather make an entirely new character that was conceptually different rather than change him, and then Aelyrinth took the character, made him his own NPC, and then began changing him in front of the player to boot.

    If I was even going to consider using a former PC as an NPC in a similar fashion, I'd get the express permission of the player in question an run any changes and directions past the player beforehand because it's not my character, I'm not invested in it like (s)he would be.

    Ugh...I have no words.

    It is certainly disappointing but not so surprising, considering how often people, even the writers, use alignment as a straightjacket despite the statement that it should not be so. Alignment being used for the DM to take control of a character is just another reason why alignment is terrible.

    Admittedly in this case it would seem that there is an element of the DM just banning characters because he doesn't like how they are played and using alignment as scapegoat. But alignment being used as a scapegoat to justify disruptive actions, e.g. my character does that because alignment, is also something that makes alignment harmful.

    1 to 50 of 729 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

    ©2002–2015 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.