|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
It is common knowledge that when an ability says it does X, and X contradicts a general rule then X wins. Maybe some people need an FAQ asking if specific overrules general.
Most likely they are just being jerks because they dont like the rule in PFS, if they try to say "I know what it means, but the RAW says differently". I am sure they dont have dead people walking around.
If you want a challenging fight then don't use one monster. A CR X fight using one monster, is easier than one with the same CR made up of multiple monsters.
Also the the creature roles are in the bestiaries, along with the rules for how they work. There is no need to explain it again in another book since they don't explain it in other published products.
I would not say they would not fly in real game. They might not be the game everyone wants to play however depending on what the suggestion was. Many of these "suggestions" are taking place at someone's table, even the suggestions that won't fly at my table.
Me too. I understand how it works now, but I am trying to think of a way to explain it without creating more questions. I am thinking it is easier to houserule the "in place of" and " add X to___" as working together, while only not allowing it on a case by case basis. I will inform the players it is a houserule so they won't expect it to work under another GM however.
Since poison is something that can be purchased you do have to be able to craft it. You show me the text that says something about "milking poison". I will wait.
However I do have this for you:
Milking the snake is something you do to the animal, not something the animal does, so it is not in the rules, and saying you can make an animal do something by pushing does not mean "it is in the rules".
I agree. To me the game is the mechanics. You can attach a story to several different mechanics, and the story might need some tweeking, but on many occasions the story can remain true to itself. If I say we are playing Pathfinder people will assume I am using the d20 rule set. If I run the same story, and I say we are playing Pathfinder, but I use the ruleset for Shadowrun the players will likely accuse me of false advertising.
PS: I also hate grinding. I am playing final fantasy 1 for the NES, and I want to advance the plot. To make this easier I am using a cheat which gives me more XP than normal, and does not split XP between party members.
I think the previous interpretation by many in the community was better. Just add in a special rule to stop double dipping. Yeah I know levels nor nothing has been identified as another source, but with this issue of unknown rules it just means they have not been noted yet.
If there are any other sources we don't know about I would like to have them noted now while this is still a hot topic. If another hidden/unknown source comes up I don't think it will go over well.
The system will always be criticized, especially by those of us that like it. I don't really worry about it. If they are on the Paizo boards instead of the other forums then they have not really left yet. :)
After seeing your link and each bullet getting its own attack roll, assuming I am not misreading the author, then I would give SA to both, but I would have also given Scorching Ray sneak attack to every ray. As for the the PDT team will do, they might also make the double barreled gun also only allow SA once. I am thinking that is what they will do once a ruling comes down.
I did not say when you use Manyshot every attack for that full round can not use sneak attack. I am saying that the "free" attack made as part of one attack roll would not count for sneak attack.
Bane Wraith wrote:
Sorry mate. Unconvinced, and thus at a standstill. By your logic, Anyone that Fails a saving throw should be able to identify whatever hit them every single time, regardless of knowledge checks, because there's no text that explicitly states they can't.
That is not his logic so that is not what he is saying. He actually said a knowledge check is needed. Yes, I am aware this wont change your mind, but this post should clear up any misunderstandings, and avoid derailing due to misapplications of ideas.
Bane Wraith wrote:
I was not saying you dont have to roll the knowledge check. I was saying that you do not need to be aware of the spell being cast to make the knowledge check. Once you are targeted you can make the knowledge check.
PS: I think you just had a typo, now that I am reading it again, but I just want to be sure.
Chess Pwn wrote:
The problem is that it won't be said, even if they see us constantly doing it incorrectly on the boards until someone makes an FAQ. The inquisitor double dipping was a common tactic here, and so was flurrying with a single monk weapon. They even had it in official products.Since they are saying this is not a rule change, the ability stat taking over as a primary source was the rule before they said something, so them not saying does not mean it is not the rule. It just means we don't know about it.
Any bonus from a level is an untyped bonus, and a level itself is not a bonus. However any number you get by virtue of a level could possibly consider the level as a source, which is why I think that is the better question. Hopefully however when they (PDT) do an expansion on the FAQ they can answer that question also.
Pretty much. Ah,I see TOZ had provided the link I was about to provide.
Why is that hostile tingle not grounds for a knowledge arcana check? So far by RAW it only comes from spells, and a knowledge check just means you know something. As an example if someone describes something in my field I can recognize it without being told what the topic is. Why would someone who is knowledgeable about magic need to see a spell being cast?
I would not say it does not work. I would say it does not work for everyone's game. One also has to consider that PF changes at certain levels, and that is part of the problem. It needs to be the same game from 1 to 20 for the most part, if the intent is for it to work for more people's games, while still allowing for playstyle differences. However in its current state the game changes enough that certain people are better off not going above or below level ___ depending on what they want.
+1. That is why we need language that is more clear on what a source is. If they want to say spells/feats/etc can become secondary sources then they need to let us know what else can push them to be secondary sources. Is it levels, HD, etc etc?
Chess Pwn wrote:
so far the rule is there is only source changing if something is giving an untyped ability bonus so that it's not a ability source instead of what it was previously. There are no unwritten rules, and there are no other source hierarchy. Unless they say something this is the only time the source can change. So there aren't multiple nested sources, and no other sources have changed. Stop trying to make this seem like a bigger issue than it is. I feel like you're just trying to cause problems by willfully "misunderstanding" what is being said. If this isn't the case it's how you're coming off. So if you have unaddressed concerns please share those.
Questions have been popping up a lot, and with some abilities I definitely understand. This explanation(FAQ) is muddying the waters a lot. I understand that they don't want double dipping for an ability score, but I think there was another way to do it than by saying ____ is a source except for when ____, however a bonus equal to X stacks with a bonus from X.
I have a good idea for how this works out, but I still think it can be written so that it is easier to understand.
Bane Wraith wrote:
Per RAW no. The knowledge arcana section only says that you have to be targeted. It does not say that you have to see the spell or SLA being cast. Maybe tje sensation you feel when you are targeted is enough to say what the spell is.
RAI, I am not sure if the limitation is supposed to be a general rule which is overwritten by knowledge arcana or if you can use knowledge arcana on mental, but not physical spells or something else.
I do think this is worth an FAQ however.
Fair enough. I was just thinking of the base warpriest.
Bane Wraith wrote:
I thought I handled that in my last post, but I will try to explain it again in a slightly different manner. For knowledge arcana it does not say you have to witness the saving throw. It only says that you have to be targeted.
You know you are targeted when that hostile tingle comes into being.
Going back to the magic chapter the "can not deduce" restriction is only on spells that do not have physical affects. It is not on all spells.
The knowledge arcana check does not repeat this restriction so I can see it as intending to bypass it, but even if it works with the rule in the magic chapter then it only stops spell with no physical affect.
Restating a previous claim--> RAW you could not use knowledge arcana to identify a spell such as charm person since it does not have a physical affect.
It is clarifying when ability based bonuses don't stack, from what I understand, but the "level based damage" is a good question.
I still think they are better than the warpriest overall, and that is before I started to stack ability scores. :)
I have always looked at knowledge arcana as you needing to see the spell in some form. If it was something like charm person you could not identify it. If it was a fireball then you would be able to identify it.
Also from way way I read the OP's question you could not identify the spell even if you saw the spell and had spellcraft, which is why I looked at it as a thought exercise.
I just noticed the "Identify a spell that just targeted you Arcana 25 + spell level" for knowledge arcana. I did not know the line existed until now. I only knew about the "Identify a spell effect that is in place".
The magic chapter says no if it has no obvious physical affect. The fact that you succeed on the spell does not mean that the spell does not do physical damage. It only means that you did not take any physical damage form the spell. As an example finger of death does physical damage whether you actually take damage from it or not. Before anyone reading this gets off topic I know that finger of death causes damage even if you make the save, but for this conversation I am pretending it does not have a secondary affect.
In addition on a made save you do feel something hostile so you should get a knowledge check. Now if the spell does no physical affect such as charm person, and it otherwise fits the 2nd to last condition set, then I agree that you do not get a knowledge check.
If they are not going to stack then they might as well be typed bonuses. My RAW reading of them before was the only reason I said they were not typed, but they are behaving that way. I would rather see them as a typed bonus, than as a source.
I guess the PDT team does not want to do it because an errata in the CRB may cause problems with keeping things on the same page. <---just a guess on my part.
This ruling is not as intuitive as many of us were used to dealing with. If I get a new player I will probably explain them as behaving like a typed bonus to avoid confusion.
which is just like the FAQ saying "a deflection bonus equal to your Charisma modifier".
A "bonus equal to" and "a bonus equal to" are the same thing.
There is no difference between "dealing it a number of points of damage equal to your Strength modifier" and “a deflection bonus equal to your Charisma modifier” and your Charisma modifier.", for the purpose of stacking.
Both of them reference the ability score by using equal to, which according to the FAQ stacks with the ability modifier(which can be a penalty or bonus). For weapon damage it calls out the bonus.
The rule in the magic chapter means you dont automatically know it. The DC's for knowledge arcana and spellcraft allows you to know it, but with some effort.
For those who are new around here RD sometimes ask hypothetical questions when RAW does not agree with RAI, but he does not often(almost never) tell you that this is a thought experiment. So if you ever find yourself thinking, "This answer is common sense", then it is likely one of his thought experiments.
I already know that. That is what my last two posts said.
BBT did not ask about DR. He only asked if the two abilities stacks or if he would only get damage from one of them, and Merciless Rush adds damage equal to your strength mod. That is why I quoted since getting a bonus equal to an ability mod is a determination on whether or not something stacks.
So, the normal strength to damage dealt with a Shield Bash, does not stack with the damage done by Merciless Rush, when using Shield Slam, or are these considered separate attacks(Bull Rush/Shield Bash), and both damage is applied?
This is a good chance to test my knowledge so I will give you an answer and we will see if Mark agrees with me tomorrow.
The FAQ says " you can still add, for instance “a deflection bonus equal to your Charisma modifier” and your Charisma modifier."
Merciless Rush says "... you deal damage equal to your Strength modifier to that target."
A shield bash is a normal attack and the equipment chapter says.. "Add the wielder's Strength bonus to damage rolls for melee attacks with a one-handed weapon"
Now going back to the FAQ you can add the modifier/bonus and a number equal to the bonus so these two should stack. Now if Merciless Rush said to add your strength bonus instead of "damage equal to" your strength bonus then they would not stack.
Mark Seifter wrote:
I think I get it, but I still expect for others to be confused. I know you are going to sleep so I wont expect an answer until tomorrow.
My interpretation of what you said:
Feats/spells/etc are normally the primary source however if the feat/spell/etc grants you access to an ability modifier that now becomes the primary source. That stops the same abilities such as fury's fall and agile maneuvers from being used together.
PS: I understanding "calling" in computer programming so I get it. I am trying to make it easier to understand in case someone else is having trouble understanding it.
Mark Seifter wrote:
So how are we supposed to know what a "source" is? I always thought it was a spell/feat/class feature, not the bonus itself. Just to be clear I am not upset, but unless I am reading the FAQ incorrectly I have no idea on how to identify a source. If that will be in another FAQ I will be happy with that answer.
From the way I read the FAQ a source is the ability score, not the feat/spell/etc that grants tells you to use the ability score, or are ability scores an exception to what the designers intend for us to use as sources?