|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
Technically there is no spell "summon monster", so there is no spell description to reference. Now if it said as though it were "summon monster I", it'd be a little more questionable.
Yeah, but we all know it refers to the "summon monster" line of spells.I don't think it helps to get into technicalities when we know what the intent of the wording(summon monster) was. The goal here is to find how the SLA is supposed to work, not to get into a "how pandemic can we get" contest.
Just to make sure you get what I am saying--> You are arguing against the words, and not the point that was presented. It does not help.
I don't think anyone is saying one evil spell automatically makes you evil. Many might say that repeated castings without balancing(determined by the GM) acts would make you evil by the rules. There is no hard number(X many acts changes your alignment) because it will always vary by table.
I think many times they are arguing from a rules-based perspective, and not necessarily how they would run it in a game.
The protection from ____ spells are an example of that. I know what the rules say, but I would never enforce.
PS: I know some would enforce it, but luckily I have never had to deal with it.
I'm fine with spells being evil (or other alignments), as long as why there is an explanation for why they are evil (or other alignments.) The protection from alignment spells are the biggest offender in this regard if you ask me.
Those make no sense to me either. If some bad guy planar binds an angel, and I cast protection from good it is an evil act. That makes no sense at all.
I have never seen it enforced. I am just saying that is what the rule is. I think many of the "this is evil/good" rules are in place to avoid opinion based ideas, and because the game assumes heroic fantasy, and the "hero" is supposed to make things right, even if he has to be less efficient.
Benchak the Nightstalker wrote:
Having the the fist be made of adamantine would make it logical, but its not stated anywhere.
Here is what I think should have happened
"Even though the admantine golem is not entirely made of adamantine it's natural weapons still overcome DR and hardness as if they were a manufactured admantine weapon."
That nonsense about there only being enough for one golem on a planet(Golarion) should also have never been printed.
If that is all he does then yes, but I am sure that for every spell he cast, he does enough evil to keep him on the evil alignment scale.
On the flipside, if a good caster spends a lot of time casting evil spells he can keep his good alignment if he also does good deeds.
The GM's role is not the same as the players so he is not as limited. I really don't see it as metagaming. As a GM you have to adjust the adventures at times. As an example I have GM'd for less than optimal parties. Had I ran the adventure as written it would have led to TPK's. I have also ran for superoptimized PC's who could have each had a good chance to solo the BBEG.
There are times a GM can give NPC's knowledge they should not have. That is different from adjusting the game for the good of the group.
While I tend to let the PC's have their own rolls I don't assume that every GM who rolls some dice for the players is trying to control them. Some people will metagame. Others will not. As an example, a disease does not show its effects until the next day after the save. If you roll a low number vs a disease carrying monster you should not be looking to cure a disease. The character does not know he failed the save.
DM Buckeye wrote:
Silence stops cackle. It doesn't stop all of the witch hexes. There is an FAQ on it.
I would argue that making bad decision in combat is actually poor roleplaying if you know better, and that is a hinderance to good gaming unless the GM is holding your hand.
I would also argue that my above statement does not promote good will between board members, but neither does calling someone a roll-player.
At the level the party is at they can use a scroll directly without UMD if they can get their hands on a scroll. The dragon is not likely to fail the save though since scrolls have the lowest possible DC.
You're ok. He probably read the title and thought you were trying to recruit people.
I thought the same thing until I read your posts.
With that being said there is a recruitment area for any game system here.
Here is the FAQ for nightsticks.
3.5 FAQ wrote:
He is basically saying no to the ioun stones, and a suggestion for the night sticks.
The night sticks could be used for shenanigans in 3.5, but there they were not covered under the stacking rules so he could not outright say no. Well he could have, but there is no rule support for it
edit: I just read the nightstick again. I was thinking of the wrong item. With the nightstick it can be read as
If you use interpretation 1 then several nightsticks could be used, but under interpretation 2 then only one should be allowed.
So that is ambiguous.
A better example is is carrying more than one rod of ________ metamagic which do the exact same thing. I see no reason why that would not work.
James Risner wrote:
That is not the same thing. At that point you are getting into stacking rules from the same source.
Now if each Orange Ioun Stone was 1/day then yes you could do it, but that is different from an ongoing condition which is what the actual version of ioun stone give.
Norman Osborne wrote:
Pathfinder gets most of its money from adventures. It seems as if 5E is trying the same thing. Paizo gives us options because we keep asking for them also, not as a prevailing strategy.
True. The circle of protection from <insert alignment> spell is the opposite of the alignment you are using to keep the creature trapped.
Milo v3 wrote:
That is right. I remember because I thought it was dumb that binding a good creature was a good act after a discussion on the boards.
Paladin: What is that creature with wings?
Good Sorcerer: It is an angel I just captured. I will hold him here until he decides to cooperate with us.
That quote is from Villians: Rebirth, which is a 3rd party supplement.
PS: I agree that it is evil. My point before was that no official rules support it.
I think the feat is more for people who go strictly by the book.
Player: Can I ask them to surrender. There is no way they will win.
GM: I would allow it, but the book says it would take one minute of you talking to them. Sorry, you must fight on.
Personally, I would just allow the NPC's to surrender if they were losing badly enough. A diplomacy check would not even be needed.
If you break the paladin code in any way it seems to make you lose your powers if you are going by the rules.
As a GM I would say you count as alignment ____ for effects such as spells, detection and so on, but you are still really LF. However, that is me being nice, not the actual rule.
Basically, the vigilante class does not work well mechanically with paladins unless the GM helps him out.
Different groups handle this differently. Some get mad(OOC) and not just IC.
Killing your current character won't stop you from doing it again, so it's better to discuss the social norms for this group.
Personally stealing from a bunch of people whose special talents revolve around ending life is a bad idea. If you can't afford the gems then ask the party can you just owe them. That way next time they just take the cost out of your share of the loot.
PS: Kender-like activities don't go over well with many groups.
If the feat says "as a one handed weapon" that means you can treat it as if it is a one handed weapon to include holding it in your off-hand. It would take a lot of linguistical gymnastics to interpret "as a one-handed weapon" to mean anything more than that.
This FAQ also backs up everyone saying it can be weilded in the off-hand.
Do you need for the text("so on") to specifically say "for everything a one-handed weapon counts for" instead? <----I am not being sarcastic/snarky/other negative term. This is a serious question.
edit: for clarification
True, but we all know what it means. Rather than telling him to not express the idea I would give him a better way to say it that was not so negative.
Anonymous Warrior wrote:
Stealth slows the party down so many people only stealth at certain times. Basically there is no pseudo-standard for every group that I know of. Every group and sometimes every campaign for the same group has different standard.
Blake's Tiger wrote:
I already knew where to find the skill just like everyone else does.Where is the rules text that says it's passive?
I will rephrase that. Could you quote the rules text that says it's passive?
Players always ask for it so I let it be something they ask for if the NPC is directly lying to them.
If the NPC is trying to pretend to be confident when he is really scared I ask them to roll the dice.
Unless Ultimate Intrigue has some clarification I don't think the rules cover it. What I typed above was just how I do it.
Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
That comment is about 6 years old. The OP likely won't even see it.
Yes, if a nonmagical bag of the same size could not hold the items.
What the players can do is get a make whole or greater make whole spell to fix it. However that option might not be immediately availible.
The bag contains an extradimensional space. I would say that if the bag(no longer magical) can no longer support the items in it, then the items fall out, and the bag ruptures.
There is no real rule, but that is how I would do it. That way there is still a penalty, but the players don't lose everything in the bag.
Since I seem to be the Ashiel Whisper today-->There is no bone to pick with variety, but as was stated before unnanounced major changes, and things that deviate too far outside the norm are an issue.
As an example of things outside the norm and that may be "whimsey:
A GM may want to make magic a mysterious and dangerous thing so the GM may have a rule that says "Every time you cast a spell there is a 2% chance you suffer a side effect. Roll a d20 to determine what bad thing happens". One of these bad things could be you aging 20 years.
I am going to take a guess here, but in the example in the above paragraph Ashiel would like for the GM to mention this variant magic to the group vs just saying, "this is how it will be for this game".
That is likely part of the "whimsey" factor.
PS: As an aside since Ashiel had admittedly run a game well outside of the norms <---Part of the reason I don't think Ashiel has a problem with variety.
There really is no hard rule for this.
What I would do is to call the creature in advance and try to convince it to help the next time you call it. The spell does say you can name a specific creature vs just calling out to a creature type. It shouldn't even require knowing the true name.
That way when you use Gate during the battle you will know it will cooperate. That assume you get it to help you the first time you call it.