|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
It works by strict RAW to me if the other one works. Of course this just highlights the point that you(general statement) can't go around shouting "RAW" because the words will still mean different things to different people. Maybe if it is something such as "you get a +1 to attack", which is very direct, but other than that RAW does not hold as much weight as many think it does.
PS: Not directed at BigT. Just making at point
I said you were annoyed. This is about the 3rd time you have misread something I put in this thread. What I should do is what I am doing now, and if annoyance is a reason to avoid martial-caster disparity threads then you should avoid them, since you are the one making passive-aggressive topics.
edit: The people that do this won't care about your counter arguments because they are likely just trying to "win" the argument. They will likely misrepresent anything you say.
I guess it is not required that you read it either or you would have understood the point of my last post.
Marroar Gellantara wrote:
I agree but from what I understand of Big T's earlier argument is that he thinks they are being dishonest when they use "but its RAW", and it annoyed him into making this thread.
Reason WERE given. There is a difference between nobody cited and rules, and nobody citing rules that YOU agreed with.
Dishonesty is not appreciated here.
Mark Hoover wrote:
I was speaking for when I used to do homebrew adventures and published modules.
Normally a module will say _____ has X,Y, and Z activated, but I would not have them with every buff in place if they were less than hour/level spell if they did not know the PC's were in the building.
If an enemy escapes, an alarm spell, or the PC's are detected by other means then the BBEG gets more buffs.
I sometimes have the fully buffed version statted out, along with 1 or 2 more versions. That allows for me to make less on the fly adjustments.
CL for supernatural abilities tend to be equal to your HD. I don't think that's a RAW rule, but it's how the math breaks down for most any SU ability with a save.
SU does not have CL's. If they replicate a spell they will sometimes(such as the monk's abundant step) tell you to treat your HD as CL. In this case however you are actually casting a spell so you the HD would not work anyway.
So a spell with a caster level of 0 has no duration or a duration of instantaneous?
For the sake of the above question we will assume the duration is something like invisibility that is based on caster level
For certain damage spell we can use fireball which does 1d6/level.
I guess you could argue that the spell is cast, but nothing happens. Anyway this is my last RAW based argument. Everything else I say here will be based on why this thread exist. That is more interesting to me anyway that RAW that most people will know is not RAI.
That is an SLA. I asked for spells, and my bolded quote says spells need a minimum caster level to be cast or are you going to provide a quote saying that is no longer true?
I see no reason not to. This is a silly debate otherwise. If you have an issue with people saying "but RAW..." and then covering their ears and sticking their tongues out then that should be the issue.
It sounds like you are accusing them of dishonest debating which annoys me also, but if so just call them out instead of doing the same thing they do.
However you should also realize that some actually thing the wishbinding and other things are also RAI.
That is why I often ask people are they arguing RAI or RAW in debates so we can be on the same page.
So you are saying you dont need to be a certain caster level to cast a spell by the general rules?
No I didnt. How about you quote exactly what I bolded.
Really we are all way off topic as the OP has admitted its not RAI. His point was to call people using strict RAW in debates when they know or at least he beleives they know its not RAI.
So I guess the question is "How do all of you feel about this?"
I didn't bold the part about lowering CL.
This one is --> "You can cast a spell at a lower caster level than normal, but the caster level you choose must be high enough for you to cast the spell in question, ..."
The fighter does not even get to choose a caster level.
Then the question is asked how do we know what your caster level needs to be for a certain spell?
Well that depends on how your spell list is constructed, and this fighter does not even have a spell list.
I have yet to see anyone dictate how you can cast any spell without expending a slot translate into "you can bypass every other requirement also."
It would be like a feat that said "You can use any weapon, even those you are not proficient in without taking penalties", and someone tried to say "Oh, now I can use gargantuan weapons", while ignoring the size restriction.
The entire time focusing on the "You can use any weapon.." part.
I generally find that monsters are much easier when one plays them as if they don't have intelligence. For example, even mythic characters should have a tough time fighting Cthulhu, because he would never go into a straight on slugfest against someone stronger than himself. I have a sneaking suspicion that WotR may not be as easy as people say simply based on so many people playing the bad guys to the PCs favor rather than as thinking and mean/vicious real non-player characters. I've been running planescape campaigns for years, so I'm well experienced with the meanness of Demons and Devils - even with mythic, they shouldn't be easy if played well.
From what I have read PC's are one rounding bosses and doing +125% of the boss's hit points at times. Now unless a lot of people are blatantly lying tactics is not the problem.
You must be referencing a board theory combo I have not run across yet.
Can I get the long description? <-----Serious question.
The difference is that one case is actually against the rules(RAI). The other can be legal with due RAI, but the combination of certain abilities can lead to things that were not anticipated, and also not good to use.
That is why I brought up the issue of +10 caster levels and Gate. If someone is going to say CL's are not meant go past ___ then they have to list the cap on CL's which does not exist. Or maybe they will argue that you can only use your native CL's with Gate or some other reason why they don't like it. In the end of that really matters.
Then you stack it with Gate which is powered more by CL's when calling creatures and you have people gating in CR 22 and higher titans at a level when that titan should be a boss fight for them.
Sometimes rules are just really poorly written and they allow things that should not be allowed, and sometimes they just interact in such a way that the GM has to decide if he is going to allow it.
Does A work with B?
Now it may also be possible for some reason the A+B+C is going to be frowned upon, but that does not make them against the rules.
Yeah, but "outside of dev intentions because nobody bother to write a /feat/spell/etc better" and "against the rules per RAI" are not the same thing. That is the point I was making in my last post.
As an example in a post a while back I think I saw a way to get +10 to your caster level. It is done with various feats and magic items that stack legally. Doing that could allow you control over really strong monsters with gate(the spell).<---This is more in line with the sno-cone.
Now most likely this combination is not going to fly at a table because you just cast gate and win, but all of the various caster levels stack legally per RAI. <----Falls into my "yeah this is rules legal, but you still should not do it" category.
I get the point you are trying to make, but what you are proposing is very different from the things you are against.
For the sake of argument let's say I agree this is 100% RAW, but not RAI:
You are taking one reading of the ability that you know is not going to work that way and comparing it to abilities that may or may not work a certain way.
Simulacrum as an example reads like many people argue for it. It is RAI to me, however it is also terribly written in such a way that it needs a rewrite. I have been intending to rewrite for my own games, but I have never gotten around to it.
This argument you are making is more into the "You know this is not RAI" camp. Just like the "dead" condition per RAW.
It is almost as bad as the poster who recently tried to argue that you can take AoO's against yourself recently.
I agree with that, but what if it is perfectly legal(per RAI) but still potentially overpowered enough that most GM's still wont' allow it?
I still don't think it is RAW because even RAW must take other RAW into account. See my first post here to see which restriction has not been bypassed.
You would need RAW stating "You can even cast spells if you have no spell list" or something similar, for it to really be RAW and bypass all restrictions from other parts of the CRB.
Basically you only get to bypass the rules that an ability says you can bypass if one is to be really technical about it.
Since you know this is not really supposed to work this way, what was the point of this thread?<----What I am really curious about.
Actually some of those are RAI and RAW, but getting them to pass a table is another discussion.
Some of those shenanigans are RAI, but RAI and "a good idea" are two different things.
What you proposed is not even RAI, and I don't think the issue here is that you posted it. The issue is that you posted it as if it was acceptable to do in a real game. You may have just meant this as a mental exercise, but it did not come across that way.
I don't know any GM's who will let you pass go with this idea.
There is also the problem of being able to cast a spell not on your list. This ability does not provide that. It only allows you cast a spell that you expending a slot.
"I can cast a spell and keep all of my slots" does not equal "I can cast a spell even if I have no spell list".
Do the rules for a warpriest's bonus feats that allow for their level to be their BAB also apply to the rules text of the feat?
Actually with Beast Shape you only get the special abilities that are called out. If it says you get grab, then you get grab as an example, but if not then you don't. The same applies with the death roll ability.
If you are building around grappling death roll can be nice to have, but if not then I would not bother with it.
With that aside monsters past around CR 10 and better have high CMD's so the ability to affect them with CMB based attacks gets a lot more difficult.
1. You do not cast any spells through your weapon. You just need to be handling the weapon to cast your spells as a wizard or sorcerer(assuming you chose that bloodline).
If you are asking can you shoot someone with the bow and cast displacement on them as if it was a spell storing weapon the answer is no.
If you are asking can you cast displacement an extra time per day because the race makes it a 1/day ability the answer is no.
If you are asking do you need the bow to cast displacement the answer is no because displacement comes from your race, not from your class, and your arcane bond only affects spells that come from that class.
Even if you were a wizard/bard(another arcane class) multiclass then you could not case more arcane spells from your bard.
2. SLA's are not spontaneous spells. They just count as spells for many functions. They have no interaction with the arcane bonded item, since it is not a spell from your class.
You can argue this all day long. The rules are not on your side by RAW or RAI. They specifically told you what you could do so by strict RAW you can only do that.
Also if your buddy is disguised as an enemy then your perception of him is as an enemy. You however never actually see yourself as your own enemy. You can trying something like "I dislike myself for all the problems I caused myself so I am my own worst enemy", but don't expect for a GM to allow that to pass either.
Even if strict RAW allowed it, which it does not say you can do this, he is under not obligation to use RAW over RAI.
You have two hills to climb, and neither one is going to happen by the book.
If you wanted to stab yourself during your turn I would allow that, but I am not your GM. However I would not allow you to do it as an AoO. Immediate action casting, which is basically what you would be getting is limited with good reason,
Can something be cheese and suboptimal at the same time? I can see it being useful in corner cases, but as an ongoing strategy someone not attacking or not casting spells is not going to bode well in many cases.
I guess I should also contribute a peeve or 2.
As a player, players who talk too much in character. You do not need to talk to every NPC in existence, nor tell them your life story.
As a player, GM's who show favortism. I don't mind the new guy getting a pass for not knowing a rule, but when a certain player has different rules than everyone else that is annoying.
As a GM, players who quit the game, and don't let anyone know they quit.
As a GM, when they do something nonsensical and then complain about the results. Most of the time I let a player live with their mistakes, but sometimes I let them know what they are about to do is very bad idea.
RL example which I may have used before:
Player-->I am going to dump constitution, make a melee character, scout way ahead of the party walk right up to the mid/mini boss and his minions and proceed to threaten them. Then when I will also be the one to start combat
Me--> <face palm>
Rest of the group--> <face palm>
Then they go save him, and I pretend like they somehow know he is in trouble, just to avoid him not being able to play for the next 2 or 3 hours.
Sorry, i make it a habit of ignoring rules lawyers. Precisely because they are rules lawyers. Now if they were to speak up only when needed, that would have been awesome.
We don't read minds so we assume we are always needed. :)
As a rules lawyer I shall also start to petition for the more PC term "rules advocate". :)
I think the devs assumed you would not to go outside of your natural class list because they gave no mention of how to convert spells over. However some people thought that the word "any", while not printed, was valid.
I think the intent is clear, even if the RAW is not. The ability is not stopping you from choosing a spell you can't use, but you still can't use it. I think it would be better if the FAQ just flat out said something like "you are limited to your class list for choosing new spells unless otherwise stated"<======Not the exact verbage I would use, but I think it is close enough for the purpose of intent.
The tower shield applies that -2 because it has it as a special rule that has nothing to do with ACP, and honestly they are not worth the trouble to have.
If you have a bucker, light shield, or heavy shield you would not take a penalty as long as you were proficient with shields.
A tower shield has an ACP of -10. If the penalty to attack was from nonproficiency then the penalty would be a -10, not a -2.
With the tower shield you take the -2 because of how big it is.
That benefit section you quoted only references the ACP penalty. It does nothing to save you from the penalty due to the shield's size which is where the -2 is form.
Here is the benefit section again.
Benefit: When you use a tower shield, the shield's armor check penalty only applies to Strength and Dexterity-based skills
As you can see the benefit does not say "the only penalties that count are from the ACP and they are for strength and dex based checks".
It is saying that any penalties that are from the ACP only apply to strength and dex based checked.
Those are two very different statements.
Did someone mention this already, because it sounds terribly fair? Allow everyone to use each others rolled arrays. So each player generates a set of 4d6 drop the lowest and then you can pick a set from any of the players in the group.
I mentioned it, and I think it is the best way to do it, but I think the idea of having different stats goes against this for many GM's.
JJ Jordan wrote:
A cleric has channel energy no matter what his stats are, so that does nothing to solve the problem the poor rolls are causing.I should also not have to make up new rules for a player when it is easier to just not roll for stats. That is just making things more complicated since no trap needs channel energy by the rules. Now if the group has nobody to disable traps, and nobody has dispel magic, and channeling is an alternate way to handle the specific trap that is different. So far this rolling and me having to do special things is not adding much to the game, at least not enough for me to deal with all of the problems that come with it.
I am well aware that the trap is just an example, but as I pointed out in my other comment the character in question may not be able to do something someone else can not do. Even so occasionally throwing him a bone might not work, especially if the problem is roll stat related.
Interesting is subjective*, and I see your point, but I have never seen rolling make anything more interesting. If things are interesting in the campaign with rolling the campaign as a whole would likely be interesting with point buy also.
*Yes, I am aware that this also means that varying stats can be interesting to some people, even if they are not interesting to me.
As for special items made for that character-->Many groups want the wealth to be evenly divided, so either the character does not get the special item, or it counts against his cut, which he may not want to happen. I have been in groups where we just give an item to whoever needs it, and never count coins, but I have also been in groups where anything you take is counted against you.
I don't think rolling for stats is a terrible thing for every group. I am just pointing out that not using it is not necessarily a lack of management skills for a GM. The problems it brings just are not suitable for every group.
The book suggest 2d6+6 as the default rolling option. To reduce the spread you can up the minimum, so the dice have less impact
10+2d4 or 3d4+6 or
Of couse that means no stat is worse that a 12 which ups the power curve.
Give them 15 point buy, and them let them roll 2d3 that they can add any where they want on a 1 for 1 basis, but still cap it as 18 before racial modifiers.
If they happen to roll a 6 they still wont be much better than a 20 point buy. If they get a 2 then they still at least have a 15 point buy with a little extra.
Another option is to have them roll 3 stats at 2d6+6, and use 10 point buy on the other 3 stats. That should give them at least two good/decent stats.
The amulet of natural armor provides an enhancement bonus to natural armor and replaces step 5 to a small extent, not step 2.
Personally I dont think taking a 3 feat chain is worth getting only a +3 AC, unless you have feats to spare.
I would use the Ironskin spell however. :)
PS: On a two-handed fighter type that nat armor can mitigate not having a shield however.
JJ Jordan wrote:
I hate to put more pressure on GMs, since their plate is already full, but the characters stat arrays shouldn't matter a lot if the GM is doing a good job managing the spot light of the game.
I don't plan spotlight time. I do put various situations in the game to make it so that unless you have built a character that is bad at everything that you should find something to do. Personally I don't think it is the GM's job to "spot light" your character. The game has social situations, combat of various types, traps, some problem solving, and so on. Between all of that you should have a character can contribute better in some way at some time. If not then planned spot light time won't help because someone else will be better at you in each of those situations anyway, even during time that was planned for you. The only exception would be something RP based that is written around your background story, but background story moments do not help a player fell less marginal if he has crappy stats, and super character" is doing everything else.Real life example: I tend to roll well, and I so with a druid whose primary goal was to be good in combat in animal form. Due to my high perception I found all of the traps, and bad hiding bad guys, and I killed them in melee, even in humanoid form. What I could not kill my animal companion did. Our scout had rolled terribly so did not want to really risk scouting. A few times I chose a mobile and/or small form and went ahead to check things out. Now you will probably reply with "It was a druid". I will admit using one of the game's best classes did help me do this, but if that player had better stats he would have had a higher perception, and hit points. He admittedly said that was what stopped him, so even if my druid who rolled well had not existed he still would have been reluctant to scout, and he would still would not have found those traps.
Of course not rolling for stats would remove have made this situation a lot less painful. This is how I manage spotlight time--> I make sure the player has the means to create his own spotlight time, and you give them a variety of situations to use what they have.
It might not be a +1 in the main stat. It might be a +2 or more, and the player will notice when. Also many times the rolls(for stats) create a much larger difference across the board that shows in the game.
It's all psychological to the players but the characters themselves would barely notice.
The characters most likely would not care, since they are not real people. They would likely be happy to have someone else who is great at ___. I know I prefer getting teamed up with talented people in real life. The players however might not be so happy playing Robin to everyone else's Batman.
I don't think it is so much a maturity thing since we all know someone will emerge as the MVP. However, most people at the least like to know they are useful at the table, and/or they get to do use their talents. Sometimes the difference in stats causes this not to happen.
Now of course you will likely say that if super character can do everything the other character can do that he should step aside and not use ability X*. However the player will know this is a metagame decision, and may not like it. Had they had equal stats this may not have been an issue.
*Another dynamic is that the other characters combined leave one character in a position where is not the best for any situation, so they have to step aside occasionally, if that player is the type to want the spot light.
Another real life situation: I was GM'ing and there was a player who was decent at many things, but good at nothing. After the game he came to me about times when he wanted to do _____. _______ came up at important times in the game, and being unsuccessful would have caused the party a lot of trouble, so they did not want to leave it to chance.
Rather than having the best man for the job step aside, and manage all of this spotlight time, if your players care about it, why not just use point buy?
Now if the players know you will create situations specially for them, and the other players will step aside, and that does not bother them, then rolls are fine.
I was slated to run an AP, and half of the group wanted to roll so I told them that everyone rolls and then records the stats. They can then choose any rolled stat array. That way we dont have someone being forced to use an 11 point buy while someone else has a 37 point buy. Everyone can use the 37 point buy.
PS: I don't think anyone rolled a 37 point buy. I just chose a high number to make a point. I think the highest was close to 30.