|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
I support your efforts to get some clarity and consistency in the rules here. I'm just not entirely sold that strict cubes are a perfect solution. I do like their simplicity, but sometimes the results are odd.
I am not trying to get a perfect solution. I am trying to get official word on intent. The game is full of situations where things are abstracted for ease of play. Facing is one example.
I will reword my last comment. It is the intent, but it is not actually written. The point of me asking for this FAQ is to prove intent. Most people just accept it when they ask, but since it is the intent I do think it should be actually stated somewhere.
What the combat chapter actually says is how far your reach from your squares. It never really says if those dimensions refer to height, length or width so someone could argue their length gives them more reach, and the change it to height if it is convenient.
If you(not you specifically) really want to say they are squares, well once could say squares have no height or that you can only attack 10 feet from the ground as a large creature. The square is not 10 feet above the ground so you can't assume your point of reference for attacks comes from there. <----I am sure(99%) nobody would really do it though.
I found this out in Star Wars Saga, but I immediately applied it to D&D /Pathfinder after getting jumped and jacked up. ---> Do not ignore perception even if you do not intend to max it.
I had died before in a 3.5 game from getting jumped by rogues. For some reason I didn't get the hint the first time around.
The cube is actually the rule, but it is not actually written.
If a monster is huge and you are 20 feet over his head he can't reach you even if he is 20 feet tall since game goes by squares. Otherwise the same leniency would be applied to length or width since there is no rule saying height is not the dimension left out someone could easily say the length is the undefined dimension and get extra reach that way.
Just to ask, why Captain America is used as example of "Test is bs!"? <_< Like, are all the LG the same and what does superhero that symbolizes American's "thing" with freedom have to do with that?
It has nothing to do with America. Cap much like Superman is presented as having very high moral standards. That is why he was chosen for the example.
Knight Magenta wrote:
You can assign values to anything. I was not saying it was impossible. I was saying they won't be accurate across the board.
In the book and on grids the monster's dimensions are done in squares which are 2-dimensional. However most of us apply it so that the monster is a cube shaped.
I figured since this is a fairly easy rule I could FAQ it and get an official answer.
Question is bolded below:
Is the 3rd dimension of a monster on a map equivalent to the other 2 dimensions? As an example if a large* giant is listed as 15 feet tall would his space on the grid be 10x10x10 or 10x10x15?
*That was referring to the size category applied to creatures in the game.
It definitely needs to be written. I found a few other times it has come up, but most people kind of accept it when they are told unlike some things which turn into big arguments. I think I will start an FAQ on it. It should be an easy, and hopefully quick one to resolve.
I agree, but I was saying that there is no GM adjudication since that was a question you asked. As for the cube thing I will see if I can find a dev(people who make the rules) quote to show that "reaching up" or "reaching down" works the same way or at least say "yeah, its a cube". This would matter for a flying creature because it would be fighting something below it as well as something beside it.
Every archetype I have seen has said Ability X replaces Ability Y that you would have gained at level Z or something similar. Sometimes an archetype will trade out several abilities or an ability that will come later, but that is also stated.
Bonethrall is actually an example of this.
Bonethrall (Su): At first level, a gravewalker can take control of an undead creature within her aura of desecration by forcing her will upon it .......This replaces the witch's hex gained at 4th level.
Technically it is possible they forgot to put "At 1st level", but they could have also forgot to put "at 8th level". I think it is worth an FAQ.
Dark Die High wrote:
The game rules disagree with you, and so do the game designers. It is not really about telling someone how to play something. The gameworld assumes that deities only grant power to those who further their goals.
If deity X is the god of happiness, life, and all things good then some psychopath out killing random people, or <insert other bad thing> is not going to be doing what the deity wants so there is no reason to give said cleric/inquisitor/paladin/etc any more power. Let him go to some other deity to get it.
The same would apply to a deity of death and carnage granting powers to someone who is out kissing babies, and walking old ladies across the street.
In the game the monster's statblocks determine reachs and how many squares it takes up. They stat blocks will tell you how many squares it takes up and the reach. If you run a PFS game you are not allowed to change the monster, or any other rules. This is done so that no matter if someone plays scenarios under you or another GM the have the same experience.
Neal Litherland wrote:
I had forgotten about Extra Rogue Talent. Not a bad idea.
It requires you to multiclass as a rogue, at least 4 levels of it.
Major Magic (Sp): A rogue with this talent gains the ability to cast a 1st-level spell from the sorcerer/wizard spell list two times a day as a spell-like ability. The caster level for this ability is equal to the rogue's level. The save DC for this spell is 11 + the rogue's Intelligence modifier. The rogue must have an Intelligence of at least 11 to select this talent. A rogue must have the minor magic rogue talent before choosing this talent.
Knight Magenta wrote:
Feats don't normally have objective value. The campaign, build and other factors will matter. Power attack for the guy who has dealing damage as his primary thing will get more out of it than the secondary damage dealer, as an example.
Yes, it is still your job. The PC should understand his deity even if the player does not. Players may also think the have leeway they do not have, and since only the GM knows where this ends and every GM is different only that GM knows 100% how it works in his gameworld. The player is not a mindreader. This is not comparable to traps because there are hard rules on that, and they are taken care of with dice rolls. You could of course allow a knowledge religion check for the player/PC to know he is messing up, but I would not advise it.
Some abilities are obviously written to help teammates(people who are not you). In those cases you do not get to benefit from you own abilities.
In this case the feat's flavor and mechanics do not support it helping "you".
I am the first to say flavor is not the rules, but they can give a hint toward the intention of the rule.Don't expect for a GM to allow this to work on "you" at his table.
I used to say this also, but then I was challenged to find the supporting rule. Do you have a quote?
The vampire does not have the "with every successful pin" language because maintaining more than once was not even an option. As written all you have to do is maintain the grapple to activate it. As written the feat allows you more than on maintain, but the question is was it intended for you to be able to maintain on the same creature more than once. The feat does not specifically say you can.
I am going to press the FAQ button since it would also answer the question of can you maintain on the same creature more than once in the same round.
Normally the maintain check allows you to harm or move or pin them. What greater grapple does is allow you to harm them twice, move them twice and so on. This makes grappling more dangerous especially if the creature has constrict. :)
PS: I guess you could get two maintains, but since failing the "maintain" check sets them free I am not sure that is the intent. That is a good FAQ question though, since the feat does not specifically say "You can fail the 1st attempt to maintain a grapple or pin and the target is not automatically set free".
Maintaining the pin or grapple is the check you make so they don't get away. There is only one of those a round so if you have two grapple checks a round the first one is to maintain because even if you fail the 2nd one they are not set free. That makes it "not a maintain" check so it doesn't qualify.
Now if the vampire ability said "every time you made a successful pin" or something similar that would be different.
Mark Seifter wrote:
It is referenced in the Unchained book also, and since the core book doesn't cover it, it really should be FAQ'd* or noted as a "this is the intention, but we ran out of words in CRB" type of thing. Not everyone has every book or knows to check book X.
*I made one a while back, but it might not have gotten enough FAQ clicks to get priority, but there are a lot of people who do not run the game this way in and out of PFS because they don't know they intent.
PS: Personally I will just do one check for the entire room from where the character stands, but some people do like to follow the actual intent.
The player might know what mummy rot it. The character might not.
As an example of not knowing if you try to make a diplomacy check you might get a 10 on the dice, and have a great or poor score depending on your modifiers still pass or fail depending on the person you are "working". You do not know if you did a great job or not.
I guess we will have to agree to disagree though.
I think we are assuming the GM has given permission to not track it. Now if the GM has not given permission to not track it closely then I agree it is cheating.
I would simply counter that if the 5-ft step is not changing the game why is he bothering to change his game by removing it?
Honestly I think he is lying to himself. It makes no sense to say I will make a rule that does nothing. Archers also benefit from a fight 5-ft step, and casters such as rangers and paladins are less likely to make the concentration check.
As a DPR based combatant I would suggest you up your constitution to 14 at a minimum. That would give you more hit points, and if you do anything meaningful the enemies will attack you. Those +'s add up over several levels. You also have low strength so that also hampers you.
PS: If your GM is not going to allow you to rework(not reroll) your ability scores then finding a way to get dex to damage and/or going with a ranged style such as archery will likely be better. Throwing weapons are more feat intensive than archery and TWF if you want to be decent at it.
Blue Nova wrote:
If you horse moves more then 5 feet you only get a standard action for yourself.
Basically the CRB rules give you more leeway than the feat suggest you are supposed to have.
Expect table variation until Paizo fixes the mounted rules, which may never happen.
You move at its speed, but the mount uses its action to move.
This feat shows that if your mount move more than 5 feet the intent is to only give you a standard(attack) action.
I have always done 5d4+5 and then empowered the total result, but since each missile could strike a different target it is probably correct to actually empower each missile. <---likely the correct way if the PDT weighs in on it.
For the sake of convenience I will just do it by target, instead of by missile. <---convenient way
PS: For some reason I have always empowered scorching rays separately even if they all hit the same target. With that said I think my first paragraph is the correct way by the ruels.
The Shaman wrote:
This is basically what I wanted to say, but nothing I thought of came out as not sounding negative, and I wasn't trying to be the negative guy.
Thanks for wording this request better than I could.
Slithery D wrote:
I thought I fixed that. Oh well.
Technically there is no spell "summon monster", so there is no spell description to reference. Now if it said as though it were "summon monster I", it'd be a little more questionable.
Yeah, but we all know it refers to the "summon monster" line of spells.I don't think it helps to get into technicalities when we know what the intent of the wording(summon monster) was. The goal here is to find how the SLA is supposed to work, not to get into a "how pandemic can we get" contest.
Just to make sure you get what I am saying--> You are arguing against the words, and not the point that was presented. It does not help.
Basically, the Wendigo's spell-like ability allows it to do things creatures can't do with the normal version of the spell, such as grapple someone it has used windwalk on.
Wind Walk wrote:
The initial casting is only a standard action. The 5 rounds is for when you are changing form after the spell is cast.
Your link is broken.
So your argument is "it's not me, it's my spell that is attacking", with a spell that is totally linked to you and does nothing if you don't direct it or you can't see your enemy. The way I see it, is like i'm just swinging my sword, not my fault you were in the way.
I will answer your question when you answer mine.Is spiritual ally attacking after the cleric is dead your way of saying the dead cleric is attacking someone?
I don't want to attribute an argument to you that you are not making so I am asking for the 3rd time.
If you change them they will either get better or worse.I didn't know bloodragers got full BAB so that kills that idea.
I don't know what to tell you really. Barbarians being able to beat things in the face while having some utility is their main appeal. Maybe you should ask your players what they would be willing to accept in exchange of what you are taking away.
I think spectral hand is actually the caster making the attack, going off of memory.
There is a difference between the caster attacking and a spell effect using his stats.
As an example, black tentacles is not the caster attacking anymore than spiritual ally or spiritual weapon is.
By the way if the caster dies after casting spiritual ally are you saying the caster is still attacking?
PS: I will look up spectral ally and interposing hand and not be lazy about it.
spectral hand wrote:
The spell gives you a +2 bonus on your melee touch attack roll, and attacking with the hand counts normally as an attack.
The spell says it is your attack roll so the caster is attacking.
interposing hand wrote:
The hand makes saving throws as its caster
That shows that it is not the cast, but gets his saving throws.
Maybe you were looking for a hand spell that does attack.
crushing hand wrote:
This spell functions as interposing hand, except that it can also grapple one opponent as grasping hand. Its CMB and CMD for grapple checks use your caster level in place of its base attack bonus, with a +12 bonus for its Strength score (35) and a +1 bonus for being Large (its Dexterity is 10, granting no bonus to the CMD). A crushing hand deals 2d6+12 points of damage on each successful grapple check against an opponent. The crushing hand can instead be directed to bull rush a target (as forceful hand), using the same bonuses outlined above, or it can be directed to interpose itself, as interposing hand does.
I would say it is just like spiritual ally or spiritual weapon, and that the caster is not attacking. Basically unless the spell says the caster is attacking then the caster is not attacking. To avoid any attempt to twist what I am saying I am referring to when the caster creates something that can attack on it's own.