|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
Wizards casting from a rod is not a spontaneous caster. The rod does not change that. The spell is still prepared even if the wizard used a rod to modify the spell.
PS: I am not arguing what is fair, but what the rules is. In fairness the spontaneous casters were assumed to get more out of metamagic rules than they actually get, and the rules never changed when PF came into existence after 3.5.
The weight is not a factor. He might be thinking of how he thinks it should work in real life, but no rules support his stance.
Here is how it goes for this case.
The penalty will be -4 for the main hand, and -8 for the offhand. The chart supports this.
The rules state that having a weapon in the main(primary) hand and one in the offhand causes the penalty. It never calls out one-handed or light weapons so that means both are penalized. They never say that "only one-handed weapons" cause a penalty when in the primary hand.
In order for your friend to be right that would have to be the rule.
I actually think stealth should go back to move silently and hide.
I also think perception should go back to listen and spot(this can also include search).
Part of the problem with the stealth rules is that they dont differentiate between which modiers are sound based and which ones are skilled based.
Example: An invisible person in the same room is harder to detect than a non-invisible person behind a wall in another room even though I can see neither one. For all that it matters both of them are invisible.
Zelda Marie Lupescu wrote:
Well, yes but another example of a time it's told to me the most is when I am looking for advice on how to balance something in my own games that I have created or such, and even after I make this intent clear (more so lately), someone will usually tell me to ask my GM... it's like... didn't I just say that I am the GM looking for advice and opinions?
Sometimes people just jump to the newest comment, and/or they don't really read what you said. The number of times I have had to repeat something, especially in long conversations is astounding.
I agree. I misread the spell the before.
You don't really rise up so there should be no crushing. You should appear in the place you stood before the pit spell, but two things can't occupy the same space.
The teleport spell pushes you into the next open space, but you take damage. There is no rule for this situation because the rules don't cover every possible situation, so I would use the teleportation rule.
There are no rules for crushing at all so that is 100% on the GM if he wishes to decide which gives way between a person and a wall of force. I think the wall of force would win, if it were an actual force. It is more durable than a wall of stone, and I dont see a person winning against a wall of stone.
Hayato Ken wrote:
It depends on the person. Some people get mad just because you disagree with them, and them find another reason/excuse to use for them being upset.
Basically no matter what you do or say here someone will almost always be offended by it.
Even once they understand your intent they still complain.
Sometimes you just have to realize no amount of talking to them will make things better.
I think the intent would be to save once, not every round. The save for the damage should be a will save in my opinion, since the reflex save is for something entirely different.
I really think this is something that there is no actual rule for since it is a corner case, but that is how I would run it.
RAW did not give me enough info to make a "read by robot" statement so I just gave my interpretation of what I thought the PDT would say.
edit: After reading again since it says "When a creature takes damage from this spell.." then that would mean every time the spell does damage the save would be made<----- most literal interpretation
I know that disguise checks are supposed to be rolled in secret by the GM, what other skill checks would be reasonable for a GM to roll behind the screen to prevent metagaming?
perception, sense motive, knowledge checks, spellcraft to create magical item in case it is cursed.
With that aside there are many times a player can have conditional modifiers so unless the players have a problem metagaming, and you really have no other solution I would not tack on the extra work.
That is fine. When someone says something like "You are a moron", and put a smiley face at the end the the mods just ban you for a few days.
After enough bans, they just get perma-banned.
That is a self correcting problem.
Next time I accidently offend someone I will explain what I meant. If they get my point, but dont like how I said it, that is enough for me. Some people read too much into things, and it doesn't help that text does not carry emotion well.
Thomas Seitz wrote:
I thought you were a guy. I was informed otherwise. I apologize. How may I make restitution?
I didn't know either. I have only seen women called Chris as a short version of Crissy or Christine. If it was a female as their full name I always saw it spelled as "Kris". I guess even old wraiths like me can learn new things.
Lazlo.Arcadia consistency is important for immersion. Many GM's try to let players know there is no floating PC tag over their head. If they do something stupid they go to jail just like an NPC would, and when it comes to feats and spell they are normally held to the same rules. If the PC's just get to ignore random rules it can hurt the story more than it helps it.
It actually affects the game. That is why I spoke up.
If you hit me with ability damage my spellcasting with regard to being able to cast a level 4 spell, as an example, is not affect.
If it had been an issue of only semantics, and ability damage actually stopped you from being able to cast spells of a certain level then I would have stayed quiet.
Chess Pwn wrote:
You do know that was a hypothetical situation created only to make a point right?
Maybe it has already been mentioned, but the Dawnflower Dissident's Secret Caster ability doesn't work under the new ruling: it's an automatic failure when the "Spell has an observable effect that clearly emanates from the caster". Which apparently has always been the case.
That will need an FAQ also, so it can be fixed then. This FAQ ruling is going to lead to a few erratas it seems. Someone else mentioned feats that it affected.
Per RAW it never says they have to be sight based. I don't think that is the intent to do non-sight based ones as of the FAQ, but the lack of clarification is why I am avoiding this rule until they spell everything out. It's not worth the trouble with a "by the book" person.
Player: Well Jason said I can change my breathing. You can't actually see breathing so no spellcraft.
GM:But the FAQ says use the artwork.
Player: That was a suggestion, not an absolute rule. Show me where it says it must be that way.
You might want to talk to your group about how to handle rulings with holes in them. That is all of the real advice I can give you.
Sometimes waiting is betting than pushing the new rule on the group immediately.
Ok, I was being extraordinarily difficult, but I still think that we need an explanation on how they work. Do I need line of sight to the caster? Can the manifestations be audible? As pointed out by myself in another thread, nothing says they have to be visible, and Jason's old post said a change in breathing counts.
Honestly I see this as new rule due to the psychic magic, otherwise the lead developer's original ideas would still apply. However with the FAQ not really defining anything it is legal to have a manifestation that can not be seen(in several ways), and therefore not satisfy spellcraft.
RAW: The FAQ is so wide open that there are ways to get around the intent. There are examples in the other thread so there is no need to repeat them here.
My opinion of what RAI is: The idea is to have a visible element, but I don't think they will let it trump being invisible in any way at all.
Now of course you are free to disagree with the automatic spellcraft check, but I have no problem creating an FAQ for that also.
I saw no proof that noticing equals free spellcraft.You are assuming that seeing a spell being cast equals see the manifestation.
The FAQ exist to prevent casting in plain sight. It never says it counts for spellcraft. It might be the case, but I am saying there is no direct correlation written in specific terms. Since RD plays by RAW inference shouldn't count.
Prove that the entirety of your statement is true. So far nobody has been able to do so.
Mark Seifter wrote:
I think I know the feat because it came up in another discussion. If it is the feat I am thinking of it also does not mention manisfestations, and it has an actual mechanical benefit.
Basically you choose a theme, and spell you cast that you think of a thematically linked visual noticable effect can be affected by the feat.
Basically it was up to the player to come up with something if he cast a spell such as haste which unlike fireball has no automatic visual effect attached to it.
The benefit of the feat was that the ability to spellcraft your spell increased by 4.
It doesn't say that anything about manifestations being there if the spell would not automatically have a known visual effect though.
When I said manifestations were not a thing in 3.X I was saying there was no reference with regard to the general rules for spells having manisfestations.
I was not including the appearance of the fireball in the fireball spell, as a manifestation which this feat from 3.X does.
In Pathfinder the manifestation itself is separate from the fireball itself.
Ravingdork there is nothing in that FAQ about being able to spellcraft based on manifestations. The FAQ is only for the purpose of noticing a spell taking place. If that is you wish to run the game then just make it a houserule, but there is no real rule for what you proposed.
Noticing a spell is being cast does not mean "I get to identify it".
Quantum Steve wrote:
It isn't a rules change yet because there is no "this is exactly how it works" language. That is why I worded the comment the way I did.
If they say something like "manifestations appear and give away your location even when invisible" that would be a change.
The question is will they keep the idea that the "something that is noticable" will still be something like your breathing rate changing, or something more like fireworks that shows up even when invisible. The 2nd part is will these fireworks give away your square if they exist.
PS: fireworks is a reference to glyphs or any other "light show".
PS2: I agree that there is no official rules change yet, but I think people are talking about the potential rules change when this is clarified.
So which side of my question do you fall on?
Once again for Steve
"This FAQ isn't a rule change. If the devs go ahead and attach mechanics to the fluff of manifestations, that would be a rule change, but the devs haven't done this yet. All the FAQ does is make clear that you can identify, interrupt with a readied action, counter, take an AoO, and otherwise notice when someone is casting."
My reply is really a copy and paste from what you replied to, and that is below
Copy and paste: "It's a rules change depending on how they finalize it."
That means that people are waiting for more clarification, and that clarification will determine if the FAQ is a rules change or not.
You misunderstood a few other things also, but those can be understood if you choose to go to the link I gave you in my above post.
*No, I am not accusing you of anything. It is just me saying this may be why you do not know why I said what I said without going into more detail.
I like the 3.5 construction rule description better. It was an adamantine golem that was more than 5% adamantine. It also would have gotten rid of Paizo's flavor text that tried to limit how much adamantine was on the planet before someone had to travel to another planet or plane to get the rest of it.