|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
As would a million other things that are not perfectly crystal clear with the rules in any RPG system but who is going to want to buy a $400 rulebook that is 2000 pages long, full of endless tables.
I've played several RPGs with tables for damage die laid out ad nausem, or that gave you a "use this method to determine what's next" much how with str and carrying capacity they tell you what to do with what's beyond the table...
Oh and those rpgs I mentioned, were the same or cheaper than a core pathfinder book and around the same page length.
I know the feeling...
hey, what's the damage do
"I think it does this based on this"
Exceptions exist. Don't base your patterns off of exceptions.
The point of it all is that there is no established pattern, regardless of what you think, it's clear there isn't based on the fact there are "outliers"
Hence it needs something official said, either a revision of the table to make it actually have a pattern or an extension of the table to include variations all the way out to colossal ++ for every base damage die.
someone doesn't believe in math or science apparently as fact rather than fiction...
at any rate for this game we can prove patterns or not, we know this does not have pattern we can reasonably infer, so we need the designers of the game to tell us what happens or we have table variation of 6d12s, 12d6s, 8d8s... etc
lets look at the d10 issue.
(small to med to large)
we see that so far the monk table is following the weapon table perfectly (and the monster table) as far as single die progression.
Now neither the monk nor the monster table have anything for what happens from 2d6 past large but if you look at the weapon table we see tiny 2d6 goes to 2d10 (med) to 4d8 large..
which does not fit a pattern of just doubling the existing creature table. (because if we look at 1d6 increased two sizes we see it's simply 2d6 so we can't simply say it's 8d6 and call it a day for a colossal monk @lvl 12)
I personally believe they hosed the table and didn't give it a true pattern, but one that's largely based off an idea of how they felt things should progress.
what I've shown is that depending on where you look you can extrapolate it several ways, none of which have any clear guide to how to extraplote them beyond what's in the table.
You could take one of three different stances and get different numbers.
There is also no general rule that explains how to do this.
Going off of extrapolation my way the end result could be 6d12 (6-72)
All of which are fairly different values.
We can find inconsistancies with either of the above three methods by comparing them to a different source. To be condescending and declare your way correct is a bit rude to say the least. The idea was to get an FAQ on this... not "look at what we've already said even though we're not rule sources and clearly have errors"
we see 1d6 to 1d8 to 2d6 to 2d8 to 4d6 (already a different progression)
we also don't see a table that progresses beyond that.
So it's clear the assumption of increases to the die are incorrect going from one size to two sizes larger.
we could say
2d6 ->2d8 ->4d6 ->4d8 ->8d6 -> 8d8
Or you can look at the existing weapon table and realise tiny weapon (2d6) goes to medium (2d10) to large (4d8)
Neither of the above examples hold a consistant "only d6" pattern
I'm asking other than an unreasonable extrapolation (it's much more reasonable to assume that for going up two sizes you'd find a table that matches it to some degree and extrapolate from there... in which case you discover tiny (2d6) to large is (4d8))
Constantly harping that it stays at d6s and just doubles doesn't make logical sense when you look at the tables provided for monk and equipment.
I've used the search function, but at the same time nothing ever comes up other than extrapolation. It was actually one of the posts that prompted me to put this one up.
My own guess is that in this hypothetical you go as follows
med (2d6) to large 3d6
yeah and if you go with the "enchancement bonuses to ac are negated" there's zero point to having an armored coat beyond wanting to wear a coat.
So clearly there needs to be an explanation of how this works that's easier to understand for all (as you can tell by the varied responses)
My own take is this:
Take the highest armor (including enhancement bonus to ac) and then any other effects are only calculated from the armored coat.
exactly, it's I guess a clarification for the purposes of the coat what over rides what exactly.
If you were a moderate forticiation coat over +5 chain mail, do you get moderate fortification and the +5 chain mail ac or +1 and moderate fort (what's on top) and the chainmail ac =D
It's not terribly clear.
If I had an armored coat
Price 50 gp
Armor Bonus +4
This sturdy leather coat is reinforced with metal plates sewn into the lining. An armored coat is more cumbersome than light armor but less effective than most medium armors. The advantage of it is that a person can don it or remove it as a move action (there is no "don hastily" option for an armored coat). If worn over other armor, use the better AC bonus and worse value in all other categories; an armored coat has no effect if worn with heavy armor. The only magic effects that apply are those of armor, clothing, or items worn on top.
that was enchanted to be say a +5 armored coat and wore it over a +1 heavy fortification Breastplate what would the ac bonus be?
Would the ac be +7 (+6 ac from bp +1 from enchancement) or +11(+6 from bp, +5 from armored coat (the higher effective bonus total)
To sum it up, is the enchancement bonus considered an effect for how the armored coat works, or just things like fortification/glamer/resists/slick etc...?
just because you're getting it else where, with the way you're creating this unique "because I said it is" looking for sorc spell known rather than spells known rule, it will forever be seeking this spells known by sorcerer rather than spells known.
If you let it apply any spell known from the class that picks up the feat you're saying that the ability merely refers to spells known by that character rather than by that class.
you treat your sorcerer level as yours minus two... that means for the purposes of that feat you're a sorcerer.
the faq about mount from cavalier and druid animal companion...
like the animal companion cavalier mount there's no actual ruling that prevents them from being two separate things unless the rule its self denies it (it only excludes familiar and arcane bond)
The text of the Arcane bond ability, when removed from the context of the sorcerer class will allow you to cast any know spell, but it is still pointing to a Know spell feature of a class, not to the spells know to a wizard/witch/magus because he has recorded then in his spellbook.
What you just did there is not part of the rules, you get it as if you were a sorcerer of your lvl -2.
You just created a rule out of thin air to make it give a benefit that you argue doesn't exist.
You cannot have the same class feature more than one time. We know that these are the same class feature because of that first quote. We know that instead of getting two copies of the exact same ability, our effective level stacks because of the second quote.
So how do you resolve it with the FAQ? How do you resolve the gunslinger and holy gun and big game hunter issue? (one battered gun, three? two?)
The wizard arcane bond does not say it stacks, so there for it doesn't stack... and it states cast any spell in your book 1/day
The sorcerer arcane bond does stack with wizard so it does stack... and it states cast any spell known 1/day
Therefore we have two different arcane bonds with two different but similar effects.
That's actually interesting that you bring that up.
I never noticed that item, but it seems like a possibility. The biggest problem is the magical effect clause. the +1 enhancement bonus to armor could be considered a magical effect as well and so you'd never see more than a +1. beyond the base armor.
Are you even reading anything now?
Or do you just not know how cavalier mount and animal companion works?
This mount functions as a druid's animal companion, using the cavalier's level as his effective druid level.
Much like a paladin, ranger, etc getting an animal companion/mount...
It's generally been assumed you always get just one animal companion/mount regardless of how many sources you have and that they all stack with each other. so that if you were say a 5pal/5 cavalier/5ranger/5 druid you wouldn't have 5 different mounts/animals at lvl 5, but you'd have one at lvl 20... Now we see there is an official source saying "well yes and no, take your pick basically"
So I guess if you want to use your sense of it has to be exactly different, we could have a bonded ring for sorc, and a bonded pinky ring for the wiz...
You have two abilities that grant you an arcane bond, that do not state they cannot work together, or that by taking both you only get one arcane bond...
hence you have permission for two bonds, and there is no restriction except that you can't get a familiar and arcane bond at the same time.
I have two rules that both say I get an arcane bond.
You claim incorrectly that there is something that prevents what the rules provide permission for.
If they wanted you to have a choice they would have said you can have one ....... or two........
It's interesting that they provided text in regards to not having a familiar and arcane bond, but not excluding two familiars or two arcane bonds.
And while I agree that the intent may have been to cause stacking issues and prevent people from having two familiars, two arcane bonds etc, there's no language that raw prevents two bonds.
I think you're assuming something that's not written into the rules of the game anywhere.
It's funny you mention the ediolon thing... ya know much like animal companions....
As an aside, this was already quoted on this exact same page...
same feature from two different classes essentially providing either one or two different companions... If we went with your logic this is impossible.
So we're told they stack if identical, but not if they are different.
the rules both state they give you an arcane bond.
This isn't a bonus to a stat/ability/save etc so the stacking rule doesn't apply.
There's nothing in the rules that prohibits you from getting two arcane bonds. If you want to quote a rule that'd be swell, as it stands I have two different class features providing an item each.
those items don't work because they say they only work with spontaneous spellcasters... "Once per day, a spontaneous caster can draw upon a runestone of power to cast a spell" It has little to do with what they know and everything with the restriction of the item.
The arcane blood line makes no mention of such exception, it specifically says spells known.
Question for you, what do you think would happen if through eldritch heritage a lvl 20 oracle picked up an arcane bond... just one magic item that's really cool and cheap to enchant or also 1 spell he knows cast through it...