So, the FAQ is meaningless and the devs are wrong? Because that's how the Official Rules board works...
Edit: Think I'd best bow out of this thread. Getting way too frustrated.
No. The FAQ is the general rule where a two-handed weapon is being treated as two handed weapon with regard to the power attack rules.
When another rules says to treat it as a one handed weapon aka "not a two handed weapon" then common sense says it is not to be treated as two-handed weapon. This is not that hard.
Positions like: 'The FAQ about using two-handed weapons with one hand doesn't actually apply to using two handed-weapons with one hand."
No, the position is: "The FAQ about using two-handed weapons with one hand doesn't actually apply to using two handed-weapons as a one handed weapon(which is a clearly defined game term). It still applies to using a two-handed weapon with one hand."
See previous statements about rules-lawyering and hair-splitting. Or were you too busy quote mining to notice that part of my post?
If you need to argue obscure technicalities that go against the common sense reading the rules, then you've already lost.
That is not obscure. In the game whenever X is treated as Y it has to follow Y's rules.
That is how the game works. As an example if a weapon is a one-handed weapon, and a feat says to treat it as a light weapon then you would apply power attack as if it were a light weapon, and if it were in your off-hand it would be treated as a light weapon.
Following the same logic if a feat says treat a two handed weapon as a one-handed weapon, then you treat it as a one-handed weapon.
Treat as Y is another way of saying "ignore the normal rules and do what I say".
Positions like: 'The FAQ about using two-handed weapons with one hand doesn't actually apply to using two handed-weapons with one hand."
No, the position is: "The FAQ about using two-handed weapons with one hand doesn't actually apply to using two handed-weapons as a one handed weapon(which is a clearly defined game term). It still applies to using a two-handed weapon with one hand."
When a feat or other special ability says to treat a weapon that is normally wielded in two hands as a one handed weapon does it get treated as one or two handed weapon for the purposes of how to apply the strength modifier, and the power attack feat.
I clicked the FAQ, but it seems fairly obvious to me that if you are wielding a weapon with one hand, you don't get the two handed bonus.
The bonus comes from giving up your other hand, which could be holding a shield, other weapons, etc...not from the weapon.
I agree. The FAQ response was for a two-handed weapon being used in one hand without any language saying to treat it as a one-handed weapon.
When a feat says to treat it as a one handed weapon then it has to follow the one-handed weapon rules.
Specific trumps general all day long.
The FAQ was in response to the Lance. Non-two handed weapons can be two handed weapons at time.
But we shall see.
I agree it was bcos of the lance, but the FAQ never mentioned a lance, which is why we have the problem we have now. I don't know of any other two handed weapon that can be used in one hand normally. They should have called out the lance specifically. :)
With a 35 he see anything with the DC's you have listed. Some GM's requires to specifically say you are checking object X, but that is not in the rules.
You can get improved unarmed combat without going monk, and you can still use other body parts. I do suggest you try to improve your constitution if you plan to be in melee primarily.
Actually size changing effects from the polymorph school don't stack, but if one spell is transmutation then they would stack.
I believe that you are mistaken.
"In addition, other spells that change your size have no effect on you while you are under the effects of a polymorph spell."
http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/magic.html
I am not mistaken, and if you are going to provide a link it should go directly to your supporting text, not the entire magic chapter.
And I will be more clear. If polymorphing changes you into a creature that is larger than you then you still qualify for a transmutation spell that would increase your size since you are still at the normal base size for whatever you are.
Oh no I totally agree that it works that way for the Arcane Trickster thanks to the Surprise Spell ability (which is the capstone, because it's POWERFUL), but a regular old Rogue/Wizard should not be able to deal sneak damage with his magic missile or fireball spells, correct?
Correct. Fireball does not normally get sneak attack. I guess I should have given you an RAI answer before instead of going RAW.. :)
I dont remember saying "can't", but maybe I did. My point is that the itent is to pull monsters from the bestiary as they are not unique beings or anything with a template since that would bypass the idea that limiting HD helps limit the power of what you can call with the spell.
You said "only for stock monsters"... kinda count as "can't"...
Is it because you can pump the CR to absurd levels with templates without ever increasing the HD? Is it more for balance reasons like such?
Is it a balance issue which involves pumping CR without increasing the HD.
Who would call monster X if they can call an advanced half-dragon/half-fiend/etc version with 3 or more templates stacked on top of it?
edit: I did say "only", but I also assumed you knew about the fiendish and celestial template. I do apologize for not being clear.
I can summon a fiendish creature with Summon Monster, but not for Planar Ally/Binding...
Wraithstrike, you said that you can't summon unique beings and templated monsters. However, the planes are filled with more than just the outsiders presented. You can find panthers mangled with hellcats, wolves mangled with hound archons and of course, dragons inhabiting the planes and that have inherited the Planar traits. Half-fiends and half-celestials could easily breed through and have a huge growing number by the point the PCs are added to your game.
The templates are also made to create a huge fauna for a specific plane, so I find a bit odd not to be able to call a templated creature, when in the end, it's actually a brand-new creature.
Like I said, I can make my half-fiend dragon a "helldrake" and that it has the same stats as a half-fiend adult red dragon. There's a new creature that can be called.
In the end, it's not a huge houserule, but it's not illegal as well.
As for the fiendish template and the celestial one they can be called with planar ally and planar binding. It is a listed rules exception.
Quote:
Fiendish Creature (CR +0 or +1)
Creatures with the fiendish template live in the Lower Planes, such as the Abyss and Hell, but can be summoned using spells such as summon monster and planar ally. A fiendish creature's CR increases by +1 only if the base creature has 5 or more HD. A fiendish creature's quick and rebuild rules are the same.
I can summon a fiendish creature with Summon Monster, but not for Planar Ally/Binding...
Wraithstrike, you said that you can't summon unique beings and templated monsters. However, the planes are filled with more than just the outsiders presented. You can find panthers mangled with hellcats, wolves mangled with hound archons and of course, dragons inhabiting the planes and that have inherited the Planar traits. Half-fiends and half-celestials could easily breed through and have a huge growing number by the point the PCs are added to your game.
The templates are also made to create a huge fauna for a specific plane, so I find a bit odd not to be able to call a templated creature, when in the end, it's actually a brand-new creature.
Like I said, I can make my half-fiend dragon a "helldrake" and that it has the same stats as a half-fiend adult red dragon. There's a new creature that can be called.
In the end, it's not a huge houserule, but it's not illegal as well.
I dont remember saying "can't", but maybe I did. My point is that the itent is to pull monsters from the bestiary as they are not unique beings or anything with a template since that would bypass the idea that limiting HD helps limit the power of what you can call with the spell.
I think he is implying that sneak attack might require attack rolls.
However:
sneak attack wrote:
If a rogue can catch an opponent when he is unable to defend himself effectively from her attack, she can strike a vital spot for extra damage.
The rogue's attack deals extra damage (called "precision damage") anytime her target would be denied a Dexterity bonus to AC (whether the target actually has a Dexterity bonus or not), or when the rogue flanks her target. This extra damage is 1d6 at 1st level, and increases by 1d6 every two rogue levels thereafter. Should the rogue score a critical hit with a sneak attack, this extra damage is not multiplied. Ranged attacks can count as sneak attacks only if the target is within 30 feet.
With a weapon that deals nonlethal damage (like a sap, whip, or an unarmed strike), a rogue can make a sneak attack that deals nonlethal damage instead of lethal damage. She cannot use a weapon that deals lethal damage to deal nonlethal damage in a sneak attack, not even with the usual –4 penalty.
The rogue must be able to see the target well enough to pick out a vital spot and must be able to reach such a spot. A rogue cannot sneak attack while striking a creature with concealment.
Nothing in sneak attack mentions an attack roll. :)
"The rogue's attack deals extra damage..."
I was always under the impression that you could only get sneak damage with something that gives an attack roll, with the specific exception of the Arcane Trickster, who can apply it to any spell that deals damage.
Mr. Reynolds, is that not the case??
Surprise Spell wrote:
At 10th level, an arcane trickster can add her sneak attack damage to any spell that deals damage, if the targets are flat-footed. This additional damage only applies to spells that deal hit point damage, and the additional damage is of the same type as the spell. If the spell allows a saving throw to negate or halve the damage, it also negates or halves the sneak attack damage.
Other than that the RAI most likely intends for an attack roll.
I think he is implying that sneak attack might require attack rolls.
However:
sneak attack wrote:
If a rogue can catch an opponent when he is unable to defend himself effectively from her attack, she can strike a vital spot for extra damage.
The rogue's attack deals extra damage (called "precision damage") anytime her target would be denied a Dexterity bonus to AC (whether the target actually has a Dexterity bonus or not), or when the rogue flanks her target. This extra damage is 1d6 at 1st level, and increases by 1d6 every two rogue levels thereafter. Should the rogue score a critical hit with a sneak attack, this extra damage is not multiplied. Ranged attacks can count as sneak attacks only if the target is within 30 feet.
With a weapon that deals nonlethal damage (like a sap, whip, or an unarmed strike), a rogue can make a sneak attack that deals nonlethal damage instead of lethal damage. She cannot use a weapon that deals lethal damage to deal nonlethal damage in a sneak attack, not even with the usual –4 penalty.
The rogue must be able to see the target well enough to pick out a vital spot and must be able to reach such a spot. A rogue cannot sneak attack while striking a creature with concealment.
Nothing in sneak attack mentions an attack roll. :)
Manyshot: Can I fire two arrows with my shot, then cancel the full attack and take a move?
No. Though the rules for "Deciding between an Attack or a Full Attack (Core Rulebook 187) give you the option to move after your first attack instead of making your remaining attacks, Manyshot locks you into using a full attack action as soon as you use it to shoot two arrows.
I think this explanation shows you are not locked in unless a special ability locks you in.
You can inbox your reply if you have another interpretation/explanation of why it takes manyshot to lock you, if you are not locked into a full attack anyway.
I have inadvertently caused some confusion: SKR is saying that feats which are granted without the need to meet the prerequisites should be treated differently than those that require them. That's why he has a problem with the same word ('bonus') being used for both. If he didn't think they should be treated differently then he wouldn't have a problem with using the same word to describe both. This is simply comprehension of what SKR posted.
SKR wrote:
(I'd also like to go back in time and be consistent about the term "bonus feat" and whether or not it allows you to bypass prerequisites, i.e., if it's a bonus feat, you bypass prerequisites, if it's a [some other term], you have to meet the prerequisites.)
That means if its a bonus feat you bypass the prereq, otherwise you don't which supports what I said. Of course that assumes he could travel back in time and rewrite the rules.
Wraithstrike wrote:
Another problem with your ruling is that it allows the fighter to be a 1 level dip class.
Malachi wrote:
????
How? A fighter can only retrain at 4th, and even then he could have chosen the feats correctly the first time!
It does not say every 4th fighter level so I only need to be a fighter. This makes just as much sense as every combat feat equals bonus feat even though the chart and word say you only get bonus feat slots at certain levels.
PS:I have not gone crazy, and I dont think one level of fighter really allows that, but it I do think my argument makes as much sense as the "bonus feat can be at any level" argument.
edit:A ruling has been issued. You can ignore this post.
Picture a magical college. The students would be much like any other students, but they would all have a degree of magical talent and half would be desperately trying to research a hangover cure cantrip.
Although all would have a better than average Int, there is no correlation between intelligence and weakness! There is no reason to suppose that they would be universally weak. The normal ranges of strength scores would be distributed among them; the graph representing this would be the usual 3d6 bell curve. The same would be true of every other stat (apart from Int).
But picture the same college populated by wizards generated by point-buy! Can you see the difference? What a bunch of obnoxious weaklings, every single one of them!
Point-buy doesn't result in a realistic student body!
Rolled stats is still skewed, but much less so.
I'm intrigued by the suggestion on the first page that says use a 15-point buy, then make your character as normal. Then, at the end, roll 3d6 six times in order. If this new roll is better than the one you originally assigned to that stat, take the new score. If it's worse, leave it as it was. The exception is for stats you assigned as less than 10 to get bonus points; in this case take the average between the original score and the new roll, round down.
I like it! It would result in a wizard student body which is still more intelligent than average but is much closer to a realistic representation.
If I were to tweak it, I'd roll the stats after class is chosen but before skills and feats etc are assigned.
You are assuming that everyone will take the optimal choice. I had a strong(14) wizard once, just because, even though it is not something I normally do, and most people in real life fit this. What I mean is most people dont have great physical and mental attributes so that genius with a 200 IQ is not likely to also be able to bench press 400 pounds. Another example: Most RP'ers I know are not in great shape or great athletes, unless they happen to be in the military, but even then they are more likely to be in good condition than actually be a good athlete.
Not necessarily. You would just need to be on some other plane then the native outsider you want to call.
At that point when you are on "Another" plane it is no longer native with regard to where you are so my point stands.
As an example a demon is native to the Abyss, but not to the Material plane.
Being native to a specific plane and having native subtype are separate concepts. Native Outsiders are those who are specifically native to Material Plane with mortal-like traits: being viable subjects to raise dead or reincarnation spells and with need for food and sleep unlike regular Outsiders.
Demon in Abyss loses extraplanar subtype but does not become Outsider (native).
Quote:
Native Subtype: This subtype is applied only to outsiders. These creatures have mortal ancestors or a strong connection to the Material Plane and can be raised, reincarnated, or resurrected just as other living creatures can be. Creatures with this subtype are native to the Material Plane. Unlike true outsiders, native outsiders need to eat and sleep.
Good point. I guess I should say you can call an outsider from another plane, which is what planar binding says. Planar ally does not use that verbage, but I think the intent is clear.
RAW doesn't mandate specific ways to keep track of many things that obviously need to be kept track of. Yet we keep track of everything that is relevant to make the game work. Why would these 3 points be any different?
I find it wholly absurd to see these 3 points as problems. If there is an obvious requirement to keep track of something, you find a way that suits you.
How do you keep track of the number of spell slots a sorcerer has remaining for the day? I can't find a RAW-mandated way to do that.
I mentioned this point before. Strangely enough it was never addressed. Maybe you can get an answer from him.
I think that I would rule that you cannot be as silent as the night if you are in a mad sprint though. I mean, running slowly seems like a regular walk to me (stealth running for the whole round would be the same as a nonstealth double action move), which would be your standard speed, and thus incur penalties.
This is not entirely RAW, but the GM should handle the rules with at least some regard to such issues.
Moving at 15 for 3 second, and moving at 30 for 6 seconds is the same rate of speed.
The rules team does not answer just because you call them out. They also don't like to be called out. I have noticed that a post is more likely to be noticed if it gets a lot of FAQ's and comments, so telling people to not comment is detrimental to your cause.
Honestly, arguing that there's a difference between the lance's rules vs. Thunder and Fang's rules still strikes me as heavy rules lawyering. Given the FAQ's unpopularity in certain quarters, it comes across to me as a lot of people stretching to find any excuse they can to ignore it.
I don't have to rules lawyer anything. I am the GM. If my interpretation of a rule does not go along with what I like I can just houserule it.
When a feat or other special ability says to treat a weapon that is normally wielded in two hands as a one handed weapon does it get treated as one or two handed weapon for the purposes of how to apply the strength modifier, and the power attack feat.
I clicked the FAQ, but it seems fairly obvious to me that if you are wielding a weapon with one hand, you don't get the two handed bonus.
The bonus comes from giving up your other hand, which could be holding a shield, other weapons, etc...not from the weapon.
I agree. The FAQ response was for a two-handed weapon being used in one hand without any language saying to treat it as a one-handed weapon.
When a feat says to treat it as a one handed weapon then it has to follow the one-handed weapon rules.
If you use two move actions in a round (sometimes called a “double move” action), you can move up to double your speed. If you spend the entire round running, you can move up to quadruple your speed (or triple if you are in heavy armor).
Just move half the distance you would be allowed to avoid the penalty.
One of the players in my Skull and Shackles game recently leveled up to 7, took Leadership, and [he] rolled up a new witch cohort and put her on crafting duty.
His first order of business was to have her make a belt of physical perfection +2 for himself, without any of the requisite spells and with only a +13 Spellcraft modifier.
Later, in between games, I informed him that his new belt hadn't worked out. Fortunately though the witch, being an intelligent spellcaster, checked her work before passing it down to him and (with a high roll, identify, and an aiding familiar) found it to be cursed (-2 to all physical stats).
Saying he is upset is an understatement. He blames me, saying that I should have informed him of the impossibility of crafting such an item beforehand and that, if the witch was so smart, she never would have attempted it in the first place. He's pissed enough to quit the group (that he loves otherwise) over the matter. This is one of our best campaigns to date, and he is one of its biggest fans. I'd hate to lose him over it, but I don't want to give in just because it didn't go his way either--leaving me at something of an impasse.
As far as I know, I followed the rules as they are meant to be followed and have done nothing wrong, but I wanted to check with you to be sure. It just doesn't make sense to me to say that she would know she would fail. If that were true, then no one would ever accidentally craft a cursed item. It's rare enough as it is that it happens. Also, why am I suddenly the bad guy just because he wasn't familiar with his own characters' abilities and limitations?
Heck, he's even playing an evil pirate. He could totally sell it to some poor sap and get his gold back, or use it as a weapon against an enemy.
Hopefully he will cool down enough that we can talk about it meaningfully soon.
This is NOT a scenario. This is actually happening.
If he did not know about the rule I would show it to him in the book, and allow him to retro his action into not crafting the item, but I would not allow him another roll to create the item until he leveled again. I would also inform the gamer that next time he will have to deal with the curse.
When a feat or other special ability says to treat a weapon that is normally wielded in two hands as a one handed weapon does it get treated as one or two handed weapon for the purposes of how to apply the strength modifier, and the power attack feat.
Power Attack: If I am using a two-handed weapon with one hand (such as a lance while mounted), do still I get the +50% damage for using a two-handed weapon?
Yes.
—Pathfinder Design Team, 05/24/13
Quite clearly says "Yes"
The lance is never said to be treated as a one handed weapon, so of course the answer is yes for a lance. Being held in one hand does not equal "treat as a one-handed weapon".
Why are so many posters ignoring the FAQ in the Official Rules forum? Take house rules to the house rules forum.
Nobody is ignoring the FAQ. The lance, which is where that FAQ came from said you can use it in one hand, but it never said to treat it as a one-handed weapon. That is why there was a debate about it. Without language saying to treat it as a one handed weapon or similar language then it is effectively a two-handed weapon used in one hand so it still gets two-handed bonuses.
With this particular question the rules specifically say that is it effectively a one handed weapon. If it is effectively a one handed weapon then it has to be treated like one in all regards, not just certain ones, unless the rules list exceptions. No exceptions have been listed that I saw.
I think that's some pretty extreme rules lawyering. When in doubt on rules questions, always go with simple and easy to understand answer over the one that requires multiple paragraphs of linguistic hair-splitting to show that that two things that essentially the same don't really mean the same thing.
Honestly, the whole thing strikes me as: "We don't like the FAQ, so we'll bend over backwards to find an excuse to ignore it."
No it is reading what the book says. If the books say treat X as Y then X now follows Y's rules. They have ALWAYS worked that way.
Malachi you keep trying to bend the words to your will. The game does not work that way. Another problem with your ruling is that it allows the fighter to be a 1 level dip class, and that is something Paizo tried to stop by making it a disadvantage to multiclass.
So from a RAW, RAI, and philosophical standpoint you are in correct.
I think that SKR quote I provided should also be enough proof that they intend for those fighter feats to be tracked by us, even if they are not tracked by them, much like the ranger feats.
I am done for now unless I see a rules based argument. We will just have to wait on an FAQ or a dev to chime in.
Malachi SKR is only saying that he would like a term for extra feats that reqjire prerequisites and another term for extra feats that do not. He in no way hinted towards a rewrite of how the fighter works
Malachi: I don't really see how you got to "...may very well re-write the fighter's retraining shtick along the lines of 'retrain any combat feat'" from that quote you posted.
My posting time has been limited in the last couple of days, but I'll give some of these a shot. : )
Majuba wrote:
You said earlier that you read the rules as saying "Combat feats = Fighter Bonus Feats", and *not* saying "Bonus Feats = Fighter Bonus Feats". But you twist that around in your reading of the retraining paragraph to the exact opposite, that "Bonus Feats = Fighter Bonus Feats", and thus = Combat Feats.
In effect: yes! Not that all things described everywhere in the rules as a 'bonus feat' means it's a 'fighter bonus feat', but specifically in this section 'bonus feats' is 'fighter bonus feats'!
I'm on my phone, so I can't see any inquisitor stat blocks; do the ones published by Paizo include the 'latest' bonus teamwork feat in the general list of feats possessed by that inquisitor? I know that my friend who plays one doesn't write that feat on his sheet at all; he just chooses which one he wants each morning and notes it on the same scratch paper he writes his prepared spells, current hit points, etc. He changes it when he spends the standard action, or wakes up. : )
Thanks for the research, Wraithstrike!
SKR wrote:
(I'd also like to go back in time and be consistent about the term "bonus feat" and whether or not it allows you to bypass prerequisites, i.e., if it's a bonus feat, you bypass prerequisites, if it's a [some other term], you have to meet the prerequisites.)
You must meet the prerequisites for the extra feats you get a a fighter!
I suspect that while SKR is on his jaunt back to the past he may very well re-write the fighter's retraining shtick along the lines of 'retrain any combat feat'. Ask him! : )
1. Where is that quote from?
2. SKR cant rewrite rules alone. :)
3. What does that have to do with this debate?
Why are so many posters ignoring the FAQ in the Official Rules forum? Take house rules to the house rules forum.
Nobody is ignoring the FAQ. The lance, which is where that FAQ came from said you can use it in one hand, but it never said to treat it as a one-handed weapon. That is why there was a debate about it. Without language saying to treat it as a one handed weapon or similar language then it is effectively a two-handed weapon used in one hand so it still gets two-handed bonuses.
With this particular question the rules specifically say that is it effectively a one handed weapon. If it is effectively a one handed weapon then it has to be treated like one in all regards, not just certain ones, unless the rules list exceptions. No exceptions have been listed that I saw.
