concerro's page

Here is the link

I will look it up. I was in that thread. I will post the link when I find it.

Midnight Angel, does that mean the a human Titan Mauler can't use a gargantuan-sized greatsword at 18th level? :(

No he can't. That was a common misconception with the class, but it does not allow you to break that rule.

A dagger that is made to be used by a medium sized creature would incur a -2 in this case.

It is an animal. They should have changed the text in the summon spells. I will FAQ it, and hopefully others will also to get it errata'd before the next printing.

LazarX wrote:

Robert Hawkshaw wrote:

As was mentioned above, pick one weapon to focus/specialize/train in. From the looks of things a reach tripping weapon is what you are interested in? EWP into Fauchard (Reach, Trip, 1d10 and 18-20/x2) or use a Guisarm. Then start working your way up the combat patrol and improved trip feat lines and have fun. When you get higher level if you are using a fauchard then the improved critical feats are great as well. This gives you a strong base - with your chosen weapon in hand you are frightening. With a back up weapon you can still power attack etc....

Two notes.

1. The trip property has been errattaed out of the Fauchard.

2. You can trip with anything. The only thing the trip property gives you is the optional immunity to counter trip by dropping the weapon.

3. Weapon enhancement bonuses apply for the trip cmb, otherwise they don't :-) this really is huge later when you have +x weapons.

Number 3 is no longer true. They changed that.

Note: This is a revision of this FAQ entry based on a Paizo blog about combat maneuvers with weapons. The previous version of this FAQ stated that using a trip weapon was the only way you could apply weapon enhancement bonuses, Weapon Focus bonuses, and other such bonuses to the trip combat maneuver roll. The clarification in that blog means any weapon used to trip applies these bonuses when making a trip combat maneuver, so this FAQ was updated to omit the "only trip weapons let you apply these bonuses" limitation.

My point is that the limitation is to the off-hand, and not just the first attack.
As an example the feats specifically call out the 2nd and 3rd attack.

The general TWF section in the combat section say the offhand attack because you only one off-hand attack at that time, but it never has any verbage limiting it to that particular off-hand attack like the feats do.
Once again I understand that it is singular, but you can't really apply penalties to attacks you don't have yet, and by the normal rules of the game you won't get. That bolded section is important because it helps to understand why the primary hand has both "attack" and "attacks". The reason is that by the default rules of the game you can potentially get more primary attacks. Without feats or some other special ability you never get more than that one off-hand attack.

That is why the "fight this way" verbage comes into play. By specifying the off hand attack(singular) the feats get kept out of the discussion, but it still keeps the penalty active whenever that type of combat(TWF) comes up. There would be no reason to include "fight this way" if not to allow it to always apply when that style of combat was being used. It could have just been left out. As I said before a literal interpretation would have to literally say that it refers to that first attack only.

Being literal: It says off-hand attack, but never says first, second, 3rd or 4th, and so on, so do I get to choose which attack to apply it to?

At least the feats specify attacks. The point is that if someone is willing to be obtuse enough nothing can be written perfectly. I have seen arguments for 9th level spells at level 1, and not as part of a thought exercise.

Bob either you or the OP already asked about that 2nd line, and we already answered it, but I will do so again.
Without TWF before the ITWF and the GTWF feats you get several primary off-hand attacks if your BAB is high enough, but you without the feats you never get more than one off-hand attack, however if you write out that entire phrase instead of snipping it then it reads "a –10 penalty to the attack with your off hand when you fight this way.".
Now we already know that fight this way refers to the TWF method.
When you bring the feats into it you are still fighting in that way. In order for your interpretation to be correct TWF would have to read that you only take that penalty to the first attack with an off-hand weapon which would also mean that the feats would have to be reworded, but the limiter is not there, and that is why it applies for TWF as a whole.

With regard to your side thought:
Most spells that require attack rolls are treated as weapons. As an example you can take weapon focus ray. A held spell goes off when you touch anything so if you were a monk cleric and you punched someone the first hit would also discharge the spell. I don't think you would be allowed to hit someone with two weapons at once so I would say a held spell is not a weapon, but you are armed which is why the touch spells don't provoke when you used them on their own, and unarmed attacked do unless have improved unarmed strike.
I will admit I don't know how your side thought works by RAW, and there is probably some loopiness in there, but the game is full of things that depend on figuring out intent at time to avoid it being written in legalese.

Bobson the Literalist wrote:

Either the penalties stack (-2/-7/-17) or they don't (-2/-5/-10). I can't see any other literal reading which makes sense.

Except that the penalties for ITWF and GTWF are especially called out as applying to that strike, where as the basic TWF penalties apply to all attacks a person makes.

Darn I was ninja'd, and with a lot less words.

So why is the third attack from GTWF not at -17?

I answered that one a long time ago. The -2 from "fighting in that way applies anytime you are using the TWF style of attacking.

The feats specifically call out which attack they apply too. ITWF calls out the second offhand attack meaning it is limited to that attack. GTWF specifically calls out the 3rd attack.
However they never put in verbage that supersedes the -2 from "fighting in that way", but by calling out the 2nd or 3rd offhand attack depending on which feat is in discussion the effect of the penalty is limited to that attack.

PS:I do like the name.

A chance to miss is not a "miss chance". "Miss chance" is a specific game term that refers to using the d100 dice when you have a certain percentile of automatically missing, which is normally 20% or 50%.

As an example of something that specifically helps to get past "miss chance" I will post a feat.

Benefit: In melee, every time you miss because of concealment (see Combat), you can reroll your miss chance percentile roll one time to see if you actually hit.

An invisible attacker gets no advantages related to hitting you in melee. That is, you don't lose your Dexterity bonus to Armor Class, and the attacker doesn't get the usual +2 bonus for being invisible. The invisible attacker's bonuses do still apply for ranged attacks, however.

You do not need to make Acrobatics skill checks to move at full speed while blinded.

The MT does not increase class abilities. All you get is the caster level of that class. There are not feats or magic items to bypass it.

The MT does not even allow the wizard to get his 2 new free spells when he levels up. If he wants new spells he has to buy scrolls or get them from another wizard's book.

The problem in the RAW (vs. the RAI) is that the feats both say you get an extra attack at a *specific* penalty. DONE! No mention of what to apply the penalty to. Rules convention is that attack penalties all base off the base attack bonus. Gaming tradition (going back to DnD 3.0) is that these penalties are off the second hand's attack (with the -x original penalty in place).

Not done. There is a general rule that says penalties stack. You are asking for the ITWF and GTWF feats to state that they add to the TWF penalty. I do understand that sometimes PF will repeat a rule as a reminder, but it is not needed. Should they either repeat all the time or never to stay consistent? For me the answer is not, but that would still be a valid arguement if someone said said. In order for the feat penalties to supersede the TWF penalties already in place that would need a specific rule, since it would mean penalties are not stacking like they normally do. I have already quoted where penalties stack. You would need to prove that the feat supersedes and does not stack by RAW or least list why the general stacking rule is not going to apply in this case.

Your arguement that the feats don't say what the penalty applies to is also false. If that were the case then nobody would know where to apply the penalty to at all. They would not know to apply it to AC, saves, and so on, but the feat does say.

In addition to the standard single extra attack you get with an off-hand weapon, you get a second attack with it, albeit at a –5 penalty.

The "it" refers to the off-hand attack so the break is that you get the penalty to the off-hand. You already have a -2 already for TWF'ing for fighting in that way. Since you are still fighting in that way the penalty still applies. Since penalties stack the answer is academic unless the "it" refers to something else. If that is the case I would like to hear what "it" is. No pun intended.

Fighting this way involves TWF'ing as a whole as written, which I already explained. The RAW is correct, and needs no adjusting.

edit:clarification

DR always eats up the first amount of damage that come after the "DR", of each attack.

The rest is passed on to the subject of the attack.

In short you are correct.

Yes. Unarmed strikes are light weapons. Any light weapon can be finessed unless stated otherwise.

It does not work well with every spell, but not metamagic feat does. Charm Person is a good candidate though if you are fighting high level humanoids.

The others are correct. Heighten spell increases the base spell level to another level. The other metamagic feats only take up higher level slots.

As an example if you fireball the base spell level is still 3, but the slot is a 7th level slot. You now add heighten to a max of 2 more levels for a 5th level base spell, and a 9th level slot.

If you look at it as adding heighten first, but you still want to quicken it can use heighten to push it to a 5th level base spell taking up a 5th level slot. That give you room for the 4 slots from quicken to come into play, but since quicken only affects the slot level used, and not the actual spell level then you still end up with a 5th level spell taking up a 9th level slot.

What you don't get to do is add a metamagic feat to make it take up a 7th level slot, throw heighten in to now make it a 7th level actual spell. If it did that then almost everyone would take it, and there would be no reason to even say metamagic feats only affect the slot level.

The ability score bonuses are based on HD. HD can be racial or class based, so every 4 HD get an ability score bonus.

I say that the wording on this is vague enough that there is no indication that this -5 penalty is supposed to stack with the -2 to the single extra attack. It doesn't say "an additional -5 penalty" or anything else to link them. And as previously discussed, the original attack penalty was specifically only for that attack.

Ok, after reading it again I see what you are saying since I am assuming the focus is on the phrase "attack with your off hand" which I am guessing you think should read "attack", but look at it like this. The "fight this way" is not referring to a single attack. It is referring to the TWF situation as a whole.

Normally the TWF situation as a whole only gives you one extra attack that occurs through the off-hand. I think we can agree on that.

The text also refers you to the table for what basically amounts to complete instructions in which it gives you the penalties for using the TWF style. For the sake of saving time, if the word "style" irritates you replace it or ignore it, only because I hate arguing semantics.

That penalty is being applied to the offhand because you are using TWF, otherwise you get no extra attack, and no penalty. If you disagree then please state why.

When obtaining the ITWF and GTWF feats you are still using TWF so the penalty still applies to the off-hand. The feat allows you additional off-hand attacks while using the TWF style, but with a penalty tacked on to it also. If you want to be rid of the penalty then one must no longer TWF.

"But that's exactly why it's a good example of how saying "the crowd is right" is bad logic. People could have argued (and probably did) "this is how everyone sees it" about Vital Strike, but then the devs said "Nope, that's not how we intended it. Here's official clarification."

I think it makes it a terrible example because it was a badly written feat.

As an example if I say go to Cairo, and only 1% of the people go to Japan looking for Cairo because I did not specify what country Cairo was in you can't compare it to me saying "go to Georgia", and having 99% of the people go to the state of Georgia when I meant the country because one set of instructions is clearly easier to get right than the other.

In the TWF example, and the Cairo example most people will go to the correct place, and get it done correctly(regarding the feat). With the Vital Strike action it was never spelled out as its own standard action. It was written similar to power attack which is a choice that can be added to another attack and is not an attack on its own.

Now when you read anything some level of interpretation will always be required. Even technical manuals which are written to be very precise confuse some people. The best you can do is write it so that most people understand it. There are not too many rules in the game that I have not seen confuse someone no matter how many other people had a clear understanding of how the rule worked.

It does not provoke. It is a supernatural ability and they don't provoke unless otherwise mentioned. It can choose when to activate the ability so it can stay or leave as it wishes.

The monster is very annoying since it is an ambush predator. The players normally catch on and start to ready actions against it though.

Thanks Sean.

TriOmegaZero wrote:

Subordinate, but not overridden. The text says the attack, the table adds all attacks. The text does not contradict the table.

But the table doesn't add all attacks. It just says "off hand", not "off hand attacks". In and of itself, that's not enough to draw any conclusions from. Compare to table 8-2, the "Actions in Combat" table. It has a column named "Attack of Opportunity". From that label alone, you can't tell whether it's saying that the specified actions provoke an AoO or can be done as an AoO. You have to refer back to the text to find out that it's the former rather than the latter.

In this case, referring back to the text tells you that it's in reference to the single off hand attack granted by fighting with a second weapon.

Ok. I see the issue now.

Time for another breakdown.

Two-Weapon Fighting

If you wield a second weapon in your off hand, you can get one extra attack per round with that weapon. You suffer a –6 penalty with your regular attack or attacks with your primary hand and a –10 penalty to the attack with your off hand when you fight this way. You can reduce these penalties in two ways. First, if your off-hand weapon is light, the penalties are reduced by 2 each. An unarmed strike is always considered light. Second, the Two-Weapon Fighting feat lessens the primary hand penalty by 2, and the off-hand penalty by 6.

TWF(the spell full round attack) before you add any feats gives you no way to drop penalties(with respect to feats), and no extra off-hand attacks other than the first one.

So with no feat you get one extra attack with an off-hand weapon, and a penalty for doing so. The TWF section then goes on to say that "when you fight this way", which can only be assumed to mean when you employ TWF Fighting that you take certain penalties since it is in the TWF section.
It then goes on to give you ways to reduce those penalties while fighting in that way.
It also sends you to the table for an example of intent that does not contradict the text.

The ITWF, and the GTWF feats give you extra attacks "when you fight this way", and also provide you with the consequences of doing so.

It is academic unless "when you fight this way" does not refer to TWF'ing.

PS: Vital Strike was a bad example since most people got that one wrong, and most people get TWF right.

Note this text which is not a part of the table but directs you to the table-->Table: Two-weapon Fighting Penalties summarizes the interaction of all these factors.

The text basically says refer to the table for more detail, which is where the "off-hand attack" numbers come in which apply to all off-hand attacks.

Not only that, but the text says

"Second, the Two-Weapon Fighting feat lessens the primary hand penalty by 2, and the off-hand penalty by 6."

Benefit: Your penalties on attack rolls for fighting with two weapons are reduced. The penalty for your primary hand lessens by 2 and the one for your off hand lessens by 6. See Two-Weapon Fighting in Combat.

At no point do I see a limitation that would apply only to the first off-hand attack. I just see a reduction to the off-hand attack penalty which applies to all TWF attacks.

The feat just says "...for fighting with two weapons...", which happens no matter how many off-hand attacks you have, therefore it should apply even up to GTWF.

concerro wrote:

Jak in 3.5 there was a special rule made in a splat book* to make someone else's spellbook your own. That rule does not exist in Pathfinder. By the rules someone else's book can not become your book. You must copy every spell from the other book into your book.

The 3.5 rule that is not in Pathfinder

Complete Arcane(splat book) page 140 wrote:

Mastering a Foreign Spellbook
Instead of laboriously copying each spell of interest from a spellbook into his own, a wizard might instead madke a dedicated effort to master the spell book's particular ciphers and notations.........Mastering a spellbook requires a successful Spellcraft check(DC 25+ the level of the highest level spell in the book) and takes one week plus one day per spell contained withing. If the wizard succeeds, he can use the foreign spellbook as his own, requiring no further Spellcraft checks to preare or copy spells from it...

That rule does not exist in Pathfinder.

That was sort of my point to Jak. He thought the Pathfinder rules allowed for that to happen even though the rules does not exist in PF. I was also pointing out that not variation of that rule exist.

This rule can't exist in PF becuase iirc complete arcane isn't published under the OGL.

There is no universal spell writing, as of now. I do wish there was fluff/flavor to explain the mechanics better though. I should not have to make a spellcraft check from a borrowed book every day to prepare a spell every time I prepare the spell that day if I look it from a realism(verisimilitude) point of view.

3. I would rule it fluffwise that there is a universal way to write spells so that no deciphering is needed, and that is how the ones from Ultimate Magic are written for my games if a player wanted one. but since most casters are secretive with spells they mostly have their own shorthand, and that is why the deciphering is needed.

1. A spell is not considered known until you record it into your book though. That does nothing to help you with another spellbook though.

Honestly I think that if the caster is on hand to really help me I should not need to make any rolls. <--This is my not a rules verdict, but how I think the rule should be.
If I kick the caster's but, and take his book then a rule similar to the one from 3.5 should have been made.
The counter argument might be that I would not have to spend the money to record the spells to my own book if it worked that way, but the cost to scribe a spell, if you are not paying for scrolls is really low anyway.

PS:I am thinking house rules are about to come into affect at my own table.

I will also add the book is full of rules that are not easy to read. An example is trying to figure out the damage to TWF weapons when using a double weapon. It has been read by many as applying the full damage to both sides, and even though that is not the intent I saw their points.

Now the thread Abraham made about monks and using TWF is something that needs to be fixed.

1. The spells in his book are his spells known by the rules for the most part.

2. You have a point. The read magic part can probably be bypassed with

To decipher an arcane magical writing (such as a single spell in another's spellbook or on a scroll), a character must make a Spellcraft check (DC 20 + the spell's level). If the skill check fails, the character cannot attempt to read that particular spell again until the next day. A read magic spell automatically deciphers magical writing without a skill check. If the person who created the magical writing is on hand to help the reader, success is also automatic.

That only refers to deciphering which you can do anyway with a read magic spell so that wizard still is not needed unless you did not prepare read magic, and I have never met a player who did not have it ready.

By the rules the helpful wizard is not really all that useful unless his spellbook is trapped.

3. I found them after I asked the question. The text reads as though the player should be able to read them, but does not come out and say you can bypass the normal rules.
It seems that section will need errata to make it so that those books are automatically usable. Otherwise I see no need for them.

What do mean by preconstructed spellbook?

By the rules the spells you prepare must be the ones you wrote down yourself. Even if another wizard said "the spell on page 34 of my spellbook is scorching ray", you still could not prepare it from his book. You would have to copy it into your spellbook.
Killing him, and taking ownership of the book also does not help.

To further enforce this:

A wizard can use a borrowed spellbook to prepare a spell he already knows and has recorded in his own spellbook

You can use a borrowed spellbook to prepare a spell, but only if it is one that is already in his book. I can't see this coming in handy though unless your spellbook is not availible, but even then success is not guaranteed.

The rules then go on to say:

but preparation success is not assured. First, the wizard must decipher the writing in the book (see Arcane Magical Writings, above). Once a spell from another spellcaster's book is deciphered, the reader must make a Spellcraft check (DC 15 + spell's level) to prepare the spell. If the check succeeds, the wizard can prepare the spell. He must repeat the check to prepare the spell again, no matter how many times he has prepared it before. If the check fails, he cannot try to prepare the spell from the same source again until the next day. However, as explained above, he does not need to repeat a check to decipher the writing.

So even though this other wizard is helping you to prepare a spell from his book that you already have in your book you still might fail, and that spellcheck applied to every spell from the borrowed(one that is not yours) book that you try to use.

I see I looked at it incorrectly. I will redo my analysis.

ITWF only refers to the second attack, and GTWF is only concerned with the 3rd attack by RAW.

so for GTWF it would be BAB(at least 11 -2(for TWF'ing with light weapons) -10( for 3rd offhand attack give to you by the GTWF feat.)

Benefit: You get a third attack with your off-hand weapon, albeit at a –10 penalty.

Note GTWF only references the third attack for its penalty.

and ITWF only references the 2nd attack for its penalty which is below.

Benefit: In addition to the standard single extra attack you get with an off-hand weapon, you get a second attack with it, albeit at a –5 penalty.

Going back to the TWF fighting style as a whole:

If you wield a second weapon in your off hand, you can get one extra attack per round with that weapon. You suffer a –6 penalty with your regular attack or attacks with your primary hand and a –10 penalty to the attack with your off hand when you fight this way. You can reduce these penalties in two ways. First, if your off-hand weapon is light, the penalties are reduced by 2 each. An unarmed strike is always considered light. Second, the Two-Weapon Fighting feat lessens the primary hand penalty by 2, and the off-hand penalty by 6.

Table: Two-weapon Fighting Penalties summarizes the interaction of all these factors.

Note the bolded section which says "when you fight this way". Then note that text that refers you to the table when fighting in that manner which gives you the penalties for you main and off hand attacks. It does not say for the first primary or off-hand attack only.

Now because you are fighting in "that way" you are at a -2. You then decide you want a second attack with the offhand so you take ITWF, so you to take the -5 and tack it on to the -2 that you are already dealing with.

Later you want a 3rd off-hand attack, but that off-hand attack is at a -10, but you still have to deal with the -2 from fighting that way.

Now the entry feat in this feat tree is TWF. It does not give a penalty, but reduces the penalties from fighting that way meaning it is always on.

Benefit: Your penalties on attack rolls for fighting with two weapons are reduced. The penalty for your primary hand lessens by 2 and the one for your off hand lessens by 6. See Two-Weapon Fighting in Combat.

TWF(the entry feat) never says for your first, second, or third attack. It only cares that you are using a primary and an off-hand.

By RAW, you're right, there's only the 'grappled' condition.

However, I can sympathise with those, such as your GM, who believe there ought to be a benefit when two people gang up, or a creature with multiple grappling appendages hits with two or more.

The most I can see by RAW is that each successful grab beyond the minimum of one, could apply a +2 Aid Other effect to the target escape DC of the highest CMD grabber involved.

TIme for an FAQ?

Do you really want things like octopi, spuids and krakens getting a bigger check than they already have.

I agree that for purposes verisimilitude it should work, but monster designed to grapple normally have high enough grapple checks anyway. I doubt that one gets an errata.

Jiggy wrote:

So it looks like we have two interpretations here: JohnBear's, and most everyone else's.

{snip}

So unless there's something I missed, the former makes everything work without contradicting anything else, while the latter creates two discrepancies which would then need to be reconciled.

I think this thread is done.

"Most penalties stack" actually means absolutely nothing because it is too vague. Thus we read into it what we want it to mean (probably "all applicable penalties stack").

I started this thread because the TWFing rules were extremely specific in how they were written (especially compared to the vagueness mentioned above) in that they talked about specific "attacks" with a specific hand. Not the style or "all attacks".

Apparently all of us (myself included) read into the rules what we were expecting to see based upon our past association with different flavors of the game.

The exact wording of the text implies that the penalties do not stack, thus the RAW needs to be updated.

Table: Two-Weapon Fighting Penalties is where the below information is from.

The TWF table says that when TWF'ing you get a -2 for your primary and off hand attacks when using a light weapon in the off-hand and TWF'ing.

I think we can agree you are already at a -2 penalty if both of these are met.
----------

Using ITWF gets you another attack, but with an additional penalty -5. Remember the -2 is already in play, and from a different source so they stack.
------------------------
Here is how. You are initially at a -10 just for trying to use TWF. You use a light weapon, and the penalty is reduced. You add in the TWF feat and the penalty is further reduced.

So lets look at this at his again your -6, -10 penalties have been reduced to -2,-2 due to a light weapon and the first TWF feat.

Later you qualify for ITWF with a -5 penalty, which is not the same penalty from TWF. The feats are in the same feat tree, but are still separate feats, and therefore different sources, therefore they stack, and not overlap.

How do we know penalties stack?

....a character taking two or more penalties of the same type applies only the worst one, although most penalties have no type and thus always stack.

So unless you can show where the penalties from the TWF feat tree are of a certain type and therefore don't stack, or you can show where a special exception to the rule is mentioned and it says they over ride each other no errata is needed.

Jak in 3.5 there was a special rule made in a splat book* to make someone else's spellbook your own. That rule does not exist in Pathfinder. By the rules someone else's book can not become your book. You must copy every spell from the other book into your book.

The 3.5 rule that is not in Pathfinder

Mastering a Foreign Spellbook
Instead of laboriously copying each spell of interest from a spellbook into his own, a wizard might instead madke a dedicated effort to master the spell book's particular ciphers and notations.........Mastering a spellbook requires a successful Spellcraft check(DC 25+ the level of the highest level spell in the book) and takes one week plus one day per spell contained withing. If the wizard succeeds, he can use the foreign spellbook as his own, requiring no further Spellcraft checks to preare or copy spells from it...

That rule does not exist in Pathfinder.

Malignor wrote:

Mirror image does not say that images can't be targeted intentionally.

Mirror image only says that attempting to hit the caster can result in targeting an image.

Don't confuse "if-then" for "if-and-only-if"
That's a failure of elementary logic.

As the philosopher Ludwig Wittgenstein himself realized when he abandoned the logical positivism of the logico philosophicus tractatus for the more interpretive understand of language presented in the philosophical investigations, language does not map perfectly onto formal logic.

Once again, the actual spell text:

"Whenever you are attacked or are the target of a spell that requires an attack roll, there is a possibility that the attack targets one of your images instead. If the attack is a hit, roll randomly to see whether the selected target is real or a figment."

One could easily argue that you only really attacked the thing that you targeted. In fact, in order to declare an attack, you have to declare the target of that attack. If the selected target was a figmant, it was never real.

The thing that trips people up (other than there desire for an easy defense for their wizards and/or vrocks), is that the spell says 'whenever you are attacked'. This implies that in order for an image to have been the selected target, you would have had to first been attacked. But you were not first attacked, because in order to have been attacked, you would have had to be targeted, and you were never targeted.

Your argument has also been presented already, well this one anyway. We are at a deadlock still.

I will be glad when the devs or freed up again so they can answer this one. :)

I know that we have hit an impasse of agree to disagree. The official input thus far has been that you can't, and you can argue how official it is, but I've got my answer! :)

Working for Paizo does not mean your answers are official on everything.

Just like Sean can't go and change things that are based on Golarion, James lacks the authority in the rules department to make any official decisions. It does not mean neither of them has knowledge of the other's department, but knowledgeable is not official. There is no argument on how official it is because the devs have clarified themselves that only 3 people get to make rules decisions.

PS:Of course I still think our decision is correct, but I have pulled the "only certain people can make rules" card enough times that I would be a hypocrite to ignore it now.

Sometimes they disagree with each other. :)

IMHO: If 98% of the community gets it the rule does not need to be adjusted.

The table(one for TWF) says use the -2 when TWF'ing, and the table is not contradicting any written text that I noticed. Therefore it is always on. Combine that with ToZ's post which is above this one and the results are correct.

You are flat-footed simply because that is what the rule is. It is a way to reward those with high initiative.

As an example some BBEG could give a long speech, and then combat starts, and you will still be flat-footed if he wins initiative.

Alright folks. This issue is getting a bit out of hand. Although I need to take a closer look at the final wordings, my gut is telling me that the images are not adjacent and that they count as the same target, meaning the Cleave would not work here.

Let's all just calm done. No need to get bent out of shape.

Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing

Also an old thread but thats leader designer jason bulmahn.

http://paizo.com/forums/dmtz18we&page=4?Sorcerous-Blog-Preview

Page 4 towards the bottom.

I found that one a while back. It is has been at least 2 years, and still no clarification. That was during the beta phase before the "adjacent" issue was finalized. Now adjacent is finalized, but the spell still has not been cleared up with regard to cleave.

Jason would have to rule that for the purpose of the spell that they do not count as adjacent.

The issue of the images being foes was also not brought up at that time though so now we have another wrinkle in the system.

I am personally convinced that none of us are going to budge on the issue, but if we create a black hole with this post we might get an answer. :)

While it's true that James is not the rules guy, the creative director is good enough for me for the purposes of PFS and etc. If you guys want to allow Cleave versus Mirror Image it's up to you, but the only official input thus far has been a resounding "no".

James's answers are not official rules answers. Even by Paizo's stance he can't do FAQ's. It has to come from Sean, Jason, or Stephen. He is a good inside man, but his answers are never official, which also means they don't count for PFS.

concerro wrote:

Tagion wrote:

oh my god , is this thread still going. Are you guys missing the fact that the caster and the images occupy the same square. Some thing in the same space IS NOT adjacent to itself. The target and intent and all that other stuff dont matter. In pathfinder ( and D&D ) adjacent to meens in the square next to. This entire thread is pointless.

Edit - As for the foe arguement , the spell stats that all attacks are directed at the mage and have a chance of hitting an image. The caster can not be adjacent to itself and you cant cleave the samge guy.

That is incorrect. One thing we did do at the beginning of the post was agree that the images and the caster were adjacent by RAW.

prd wrote:

Melee Attacks: With a normal melee weapon, you can strike any opponent within 5 feet. (Opponents within 5 feet are considered adjacent to you.) Some melee weapons have reach, as indicated in their descriptions. With a typical reach weapon, you can strike opponents 10 feet away, but you can't strike adjacent foes (those within 5 feet).

adjacent to YOU. Cleave says adjacent to each other. You guys are using a rule that doesnt apply.

I am pretty sure that if they are all in the same 5 foot square that they are all adjacent to each other, and the caster since you only need to be within 5 feet to be adjacent.

The -2 applies to the TWF fighting style, therefore it is always there.
The -5 from the improved and greater versions is tacked on in addition to that. I will explain it in detail later on if nobody else does it first.

PS:There are areas when the writing is not that clear. If this is bothering you go and check out the mirror image, and great cleave thread. :)

oh my god , is this thread still going. Are you guys missing the fact that the caster and the images occupy the same square. Some thing in the same space IS NOT adjacent to itself. The target and intent and all that other stuff dont matter. In pathfinder ( and D&D ) adjacent to meens in the square next to. This entire thread is pointless.

Edit - As for the foe arguement , the spell stats that all attacks are directed at the mage and have a chance of hitting an image. The caster can not be adjacent to itself and you cant cleave the samge guy.

That is incorrect. One thing we did do at the beginning of the post was agree that the images and the caster were adjacent by RAW.

Melee Attacks: With a normal melee weapon, you can strike any opponent within 5 feet. (Opponents within 5 feet are considered adjacent to you.) Some melee weapons have reach, as indicated in their descriptions. With a typical reach weapon, you can strike opponents 10 feet away, but you can't strike adjacent foes (those within 5 feet).

i guess by raw we just dont know how to deal with mirror image and cleave/great cleave at all :)

I admitted that long ago. :)

Most of me continuing the debate is out of fun and/or boredom.

concerro wrote:

My point is that you still have to roll the chance to see who your target is with your second attack, and there are no rules to cover what happens if the caster's number is called twice.

You can say reroll the dice, but there is no mention of rerolling if the same target is selected twice.

You are not reading what I wrote and this makes it obvious. Once the wizard is hit, you no longer even need to include him in the random chance to be hit. He is no longer a viable target for that round. You simply need to see if you could hit his AC and destroy one image for every attack that is high enough.

Instead of rolling dice, you could use simply use glass beads in a dice bag. Put in 5 green ones for an image and 1 red one for the wizard. Every time you would have hit the wizard, draw a random bead. Once you remove a bead, it is no longer a viable target for that round. You do not need to replace the beads unless you draw the red one and you only replace that bead at the end of the cleave/great cleave attempt.

I've already explained why rolling dice will result in a need to reroll at some point.

I remember your reroll idea. I just never agreed with it.

concerro wrote:

Bob_Loblaw wrote:

I am saying: your actual target is randomly determined for you. It is because of this that you can cleave. You have more than one target.

I agree that the target is chosen for you. I also think that cleave, if you leave the fluff aside, does not work due to this reason. My issue is that the fluff is trying to be used to enforce a rule, but fluff is never a rule.

As I said before the fluff of cleave/GC represents one swing.
The mechanics however does not, and if one were to read cleave without the fluff it would lead to a situation where the by RAW the caster is always a potential target just as much as the caster would be if he were the intended victim of multiple attacks due to a high BAB.

I haven't discussed the fluff though. Only the mechanics. I don't see cleave as one swing simply because it's more than one swing. It's one standard action, but it clearly is more than one swing. The caster cannot ever be a potential target more than once because cleave explicitly states that he can only be a target once.

I see that as a prohibitor, not an enabler. I think that is one reason we are at a crossroads.

How is it great? I can't see any tactical use for it except to cut people off, and even that is very circumstantial to me.

My point is that you still have to roll the chance to see who your target is with your second attack, and there are no rules to cover what happens if the caster's number is called twice.

You can say reroll the dice, but there is no mention of rerolling if the same target is selected twice.

Some feats are really weak. The only reason I would see to take it is so you can try to cut them off or use it as a tax feat for Step Up and Strike.

PS:I hate tax feats.