The intent of this thread is to keep track of a list of questions for which people desire an official ruling, because the debate can't be resolved satisfactorily by player discussion. I am starting with the ones below. Please add more, BUT DO NOT DEBATE HERE -- instead post a link to the debate thread (I can't figure out how to make the links active though, the html tags get escaped).
1. Can you disarm a shield?
http://paizo.com/paizo/messageboards/paizoPublishing/pathfinder/pathfinderR PG/rules/disarmAShield
2. Can a monk take Greater <combat maneuver name> at level 7, as it seems the iconic monk, Sajan, must have done?
http://paizo.com/paizo/messageboards/paizoPublishing/pathfinder/pathfinderR PG/rules/paizoIconicMonkTypo
3. Whirlwind, combat maneuvers and AoOs
a) Does Whirlwind Attack allow AoO from Greater Trip?
b) Does Greater Trip permit AoO from all creatures threatening the tripped target?
c) Does Lunge effectively increase reach by 1 square (as monster reach)or does it displace the reach by 1 square (as reach weapon reach).
http://paizo.com/paizo/messageboards/paizoPublishing/pathfinder/pathfinderR PG/rules/whipWhirlwindGreaterTripLunge
4. Does the monk ki extra attack stack with haste?
http://paizo.com/paizo/messageboards/paizoPublishing/pathfinder/pathfinderR PG/rules/massiveAmountOfMonkAttacksRulePleaseHelp
This should help:
The intent of this thread is to keep track of a list of questions for which people desire an official ruling, because the debate can't be resolved satisfactorily by player discussion. I am starting with the ones below. Please add more, BUT DO NOT DEBATE HERE -- instead post a link to the debate thread (I can't figure out how to make the links active though, the html tags get escaped).
3. Whirlwind, combat maneuvers and AoOs
a) Does Whirlwind Attack allow AoO from Greater Trip?
b) Does Greater Trip permit AoO from all creatures threatening the tripped target?
c) Does Lunge effectively increase reach by 1 square (as monster reach)or does it displace the reach by 1 square (as reach weapon reach).
I'm not sure what you expect to resolve here, generally even when James or Jason pop onto a thread and give some sort of official answer it's promptly ignored and people continue debating, or try and debate Jason or James.
Just play it the way it makes sense to you.
I'm not sure what you expect to resolve here, generally even when James or Jason pop onto a thread and give some sort of official answer it's promptly ignored and people continue debating, or try and debate Jason or James.
Just play it the way it makes sense to you.
I'd be very interested to hear what they say. Unless I 100% disagree (which would be very unlikely) I'd rule with the way the designers intended and just ignore the inevitable debate.
I'm not sure what you expect to resolve here, generally even when James or Jason pop onto a thread and give some sort of official answer it's promptly ignored and people continue debating, or try and debate Jason or James.
Just play it the way it makes sense to you.
Think of it as
a) a starting point for a mini-FAQ -- I believe that there are lots of people who are interested in finding official rulings only, and this could be a handy way to find out if something's been answered as well as save time reading and searching. Let others keep debating if they want.b) It could be an attention getter if you're afraid that your issue will be ignored or missed, perhaps because it came up later in a long thread that they don't have time to read. Do Paizo staff really read all the posts to give answers when requested within all threads, and never miss any? I assumed that they have other things to do.
It's nice to be organized. It's common good practice to have a "bug" database, except this is for us the players (I'm sure Paizo staff have their own means of tracking things). If there's a better way or if this duplicates some other effort, I'm interested in knowing. It would be much handier if it could be updated with a status field stating whether the issue has been answered or not, but we do what we can.
a) a starting point for a mini-FAQ -- I believe that there are lots of people who are interested in finding official rulings only, and this could be a handy way to find out if something's been answered as well as save time reading and searching. Let others keep debating if they want.
Their is fan based rules FAQ already that does list if the answer came from an official paizo member. Its located on the d20 PFSRD wiki.
Their is fan based rules FAQ already that does list if the answer came from an official paizo member. Its located on the d20 PFSRD wiki.
Nice, thank you for the information, I didn't know. Thanks also to Cephyn for fixing the links.
I'm not sure what you expect to resolve here, generally even when James or Jason pop onto a thread and give some sort of official answer it's promptly ignored and people continue debating, or try and debate Jason or James.
Just play it the way it makes sense to you.
Not acceptable at all. I dont expect for them to come down and answer every question since some people read rules as they would like for them to be, but if the wording of a rule is definitely unclear, and was not clarified from the 3.5 to Pathfinder transition a ruling should come down.
PS: This is not an attack against you Dennis, but I dont think clarifying certain debatable topics is to much to ask.
PS2: To those at Paizo I am not asking for answers over night. Even if means waiting a few months(hopefully less than 6, looking at 3) that would be fine. Something is better than nothing.
[Their is fan based rules FAQ already that does list if the answer came from an official paizo member. Its located on the d20 PFSRD wiki.
Nice link, but none of the questions posed here are answered in the link or have been adressed by designers.
And many of the answers in that link are not official!I would like an official answer to these questions as well, Understanding of the ACTUAL rules of the game make it easier to make correct adjudications when questions arise mid game.
[EDIT: For JASON and JAMES: If you would please answer these questions I can once again get a decent nights sleep!]
I'm not sure what you expect to resolve here, generally even when James or Jason pop onto a thread and give some sort of official answer it's promptly ignored and people continue debating, or try and debate Jason or James.
Well those people are easily ignored. We have all run into them and know that they are more interested in asserting themselves than in anything else.
Well those people are easily ignored. We have all run into them and know that they are more interested in asserting themselves than in anything else.
I read this twice before I realized you weren't talking about Jason and James. :D
Creative Director
|
[EDIT: For JASON and JAMES: If you would please answer these questions I can once again get a decent nights sleep!]
Jason is on the other side of the planet right now, at Gen Con Australia. He won't be back in the office here (and thus able to read the boards and answer) until next Tuesday or Wednesday.
I'm in the process of shipping our fourth and fifth printer files this week, at the tail end of a super frantic week of catchup, and thus my participation on the boards here has been more random than usual.
One of us will hopefully be able to address these rulings... and that person SHOULD be Jason, since he's the lead designer and knows the rules even better than me... but since things are crazy and weird at this end it's not gonna happen fast.
I am, as always, happy to assist as well. Though James has yet to set up my 'nethys@paizo.com' email account yet.
Your God of Knowledge,
Nethys
***Wishes he knew who Nethys was*** :)
[EDIT: For JASON and JAMES: If you would please answer these questions I can once again get a decent nights sleep!]Jason is on the other side of the planet right now, at Gen Con Australia. He won't be back in the office here (and thus able to read the boards and answer) until next Tuesday or Wednesday.
I'm in the process of shipping our fourth and fifth printer files this week, at the tail end of a super frantic week of catchup, and thus my participation on the boards here has been more random than usual.
One of us will hopefully be able to address these rulings... and that person SHOULD be Jason, since he's the lead designer and knows the rules even better than me... but since things are crazy and weird at this end it's not gonna happen fast.
At any rate it is a bit reasuring to know you have seen this post and know we really appreciate your oppinions. For now that will do.
[Their is fan based rules FAQ already that does list if the answer came from an official paizo member. Its located on the d20 PFSRD wiki.Nice link, but none of the questions posed here are answered in the link or have been adressed by designers.
And many of the answers in that link are not official!I would like an official answer to these questions as well, Understanding of the ACTUAL rules of the game make it easier to make correct adjudications when questions arise mid game.
[EDIT: For JASON and JAMES: If you would please answer these questions I can once again get a decent nights sleep!]
Sorry I was not clear, but I didn't saw that the exact questions asked where in the FAQ. I was mentioning that the project of having a FAQ which is frequently asked questions with answers (most officially) could be found at the said link.
If the questions above get answered officially it will get added to the FAQ, but questions that don't have a clear RAW answer are not part of the FAQ. It seems a little weird to have a question with an answer of "answer not clear check back later." =)
I think its GREAT that paizo guys are willing to give official answers on these boards and I removed the not nice thing I was going to say about every thread ending with asking for an official answer....
Not acceptable at all. I dont expect for them to come down and answer every question since some people read rules as they would like for them to be, but if the wording of a rule is definitely unclear, and was not clarified from the 3.5 to Pathfinder transition a ruling should come down.
What ever did you do before there was an Internet where you could demand answers?
"Oh no, this is confusing, lets stop gaming and write letters until we get some sort of response from the publisher!!!"
Don't get me wrong, some things are a bit confusion and can use a bit of clarification but most of the issues I've seen is just plain common sense which someone is trying to rules lawyer into a loophole.
Edit: Tried to self flag my post as curmudgeony but couldn't find that flag.
...
Don't get me wrong, some things are a bit confusion and can use a bit of clarification but most of the issues I've seen is just plain common sense which someone is trying to rules lawyer into a loophole.
Please take your arguing to your own thread and leave this one for identifying and listing issues for which we'd like official rulings please? I don't care if you personally don't find it useful -- just ignore it then. There are enough people who do, please don't ruin it for us.
Not acceptable at all. I dont expect for them to come down and answer every question since some people read rules as they would like for them to be, but if the wording of a rule is definitely unclear, and was not clarified from the 3.5 to Pathfinder transition a ruling should come down.What ever did you do before there was an Internet where you could demand answers?
"Oh no, this is confusing, lets stop gaming and write letters until we get some sort of response from the publisher!!!"
Don't get me wrong, some things are a bit confusion and can use a bit of clarification but most of the issues I've seen is just plain common sense which someone is trying to rules lawyer into a loophole.
Edit: Tried to self flag my post as curmudgeony but couldn't find that flag.
I did not start playing until after the internet.
Your sarcasm was not funny at all. Of course I did not stop playing. I made a houserule until errata came out. If you had read my post you would have noticed the part where I stated ignore the people who intentionally read the rules as they want, but answer the ones that are not clear.
I will even be nice enough to post it for you again. I even bolded it for you.
Not acceptable at all. I dont expect for them to come down and answer every question since some people read rules as they would like for them to be, but if the wording of a rule is definitely unclear, and was not clarified from the 3.5 to Pathfinder transition a ruling should come down.
|
***Wishes he knew who Nethys was*** :)I am, as always, happy to assist as well. Though James has yet to set up my 'nethys@paizo.com' email account yet.
Your God of Knowledge,
Nethys
The answer to this one is easy... let your resident malicious Chelaxian dwarven librarian point you to *THIS* page! ;P
bump
|
Do characters with Uncanny Dodge retain their Dex bonus to AC against invisible attackers? Or does UD only protect against being caught flat-footed? The wording is confusing, unless I am missing something.
Yes they do, however the invisible creature still gets its invisible bonus to attack the target. The rogue only loses her Dex if immobilized somehow or successfully targeted by a feint.
|
|
Does an elf need to be evil and go through a ritual to become a drow in Golorian, or is it something that can even happen to a paladin who is doing nothing but minding his/her own business?
The way they become drow in Golarion as presented in the second darkness campaign is to become irreversibly evil. A good elf will never become a drow without some very powerful (wish/miracle level) magic interference. Also note that not only do they have to be evil it is still a very rare occurrence, it happens twice over the course of the campaign and is mentioned to only have happened very rarely throughout their history after the Cataclysm.
|
Creative Director
|
Does an elf need to be evil and go through a ritual to become a drow in Golorian, or is it something that can even happen to a paladin who is doing nothing but minding his/her own business?
We purposefully left rules vague for what an elf has to do in order to turn into a drow, so that the transformation is left to the GM to say yes or no to as the campaign's storyline requires. The transformation shouldn't happen too often though; it should be pretty rare. Merely being evil is not enough. You have to be VERY evil, you have to worship a demon, and you have to THEN do an act of great evil on top of that before there's even a chance of the transformation kicking in. There are, after all, an awful lot of evil elves who aren't drow.
Do characters with Uncanny Dodge retain their Dex bonus to AC against invisible attackers? Or does UD only protect against being caught flat-footed? The wording is confusing, unless I am missing something.Yes they do, however the invisible creature still gets its invisible bonus to attack the target. The rogue only loses her Dex if immobilized somehow or successfully targeted by a feint.
I was unsure because UD in PRD doesn't specify that you don't lose your Dex to AC it only states that you can't be caught flat footed, there is a slight difference I thought.
So you are saying that with UD if you were attacked from an invisible attacker you would keep your Dex bonus to AC and would not be vulnerable to SA. However, the invisible attacker would still get the +2 to attack from being invisible. Is that right?
*Copied/Pasted*
I do not know if this has been adressed previously. But here I go.
PRPG p.184 Cast a Spell action states:
PRPG p. 184 wrote:
To cast a spell with a somatic (S) component, you must
gesture freely with at least one hand. You can’t cast a spell
of this type while bound, grappling, or with both your
hands full or occupied.
While p. 201 states:
PRPG p. 184 wrote:
Instead of attempting to
break or reverse the grapple, you can take any action that
requires only one hand to perform, such as cast a spell or
make an attack with a light or one-handed weapon against
any creature within your reach, including the creature that
is grappling you.
While p. 567 states:
PRPG p. 567 wrote:
Grappled: A grappled creature is restrained by a creature,
trap, or effect. Grappled creatures cannot move and take a –4
penalty to Dexterity. A grappled creature takes a –2 penalty
on all attack rolls and combat maneuver checks, except
those made to grapple or escape a grapple. In addition,
grappled creatures
can take no action that requires two
hands to perform. A grappled character who attempts to cast
a spell must make a concentration check (DC 10 + grappler’s
CMB + spell level, see page 206), or lose the spell. Grappled
creatures cannot make attacks of opportunity.
While p. 568 states:
PRPG p. 568 wrote:
Pinned: A pinned creature is tightly bound and can take
few actions. A pinned creature cannot move and is f latfooted.
A pinned character also takes an additional –4
penalty to his Armor Class. A pinned creature is limited
in the actions that it can take. A pinned creature can
always
attempt to free itself, usually through a combat
maneuver check or Escape Artist check. A pinned creature
can take verbal and mental actions, but cannot cast any
spells that require a somatic or material component. A
pinned character who attempts to cast a spell must make
a concentration check (DC 10 + grappler’s CMB + spell
level) or lose the spell. Pinned is a more severe version of
grappled, and their effects
do not stack.
My assumption is that since only the pinned condition makes any mention of somatic or material components, page 184 should have read as follows:
Quote:
To cast a spell with a somatic (S) component, you must
gesture freely with at least one hand. You can’t cast a spell
of this type while bound, pinned, or with both your
hands full or occupied.
Any thoughts any one?
|
|
Do characters with Uncanny Dodge retain their Dex bonus to AC against invisible attackers? Or does UD only protect against being caught flat-footed? The wording is confusing, unless I am missing something.Yes they do, however the invisible creature still gets its invisible bonus to attack the target. The rogue only loses her Dex if immobilized somehow or successfully targeted by a feint.I was unsure because UD in PRD doesn't specify that you don't lose your Dex to AC it only states that you can't be caught flat footed, there is a slight difference I thought.
So you are saying that with UD if you were attacked from an invisible attacker you would keep your Dex bonus to AC and would not be vulnerable to SA. However, the invisible attacker would still get the +2 to attack from being invisible. Is that right?
Yes, You don't lose your Dex because you are not flatfooted. Remember that this does not include immunity to sneak attack until it gets to the improved version, since although the invisible rogue can't get you, the flanking rogue still can.
|
|
OK here goes,
It says you cannot cast spells with somatic components because although you can cast while grappled a single knock to the arm would ruin the spell no matter what, luckily most teleportation magic is Somatic component-less. The concentration check is to cast it while the guy is shaking and harassing you anyways due to the grapple, and only for spells that have no Somatic components since those are impossible, the difference between grappled and pinned is that while grappled you can get to Material components, while pinned you cannot.
Hey there folks,
I do intend to start an FAQ here relatively soon, but I need to get some things off my plate first. Hang in there, we are working on a way to resolve questions in a more permanent, and easily referenced manner.
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing
This would be awesome, looking forward to it.
I don't mean to press this, I know it wasn’t the intent of this forum to hold debates, but I am having trouble understanding how the rules interact here. Perhaps I am just reading it wrong, or reading too much into it, but I will try to illustrate exactly what I mean and I will throw everything under spoiler veils so the post isn't HUGE.
Relevant Items:
To me this doesn't say that all attacks against you from an invisible attacker make you flat-footed and therefore you are safe. It just says you can't be caught flat-footed even if your opponent happens to be invisible.
It doesn't say though that an attack from an invisible opponent renders you flat-footed.
Again, it doesn't say that the invisible attacker renders you flat-footed but rather that they ignore your Dex bonus to AC.
So my issue with the wording is this: (Warning: this is REALLY long and I apologize ahead of time but I really want to make sure I understand this correctly. Thank you in advance.)
I think the Blind Fight feat is worth mentioning in this post. Its wording actually does imply that normally you lose your Dex bonus to AC to an invisible attacker. It specifically states that invisible attackers don't get the +2 to attack nor do you lose your Dex bonus to AC to their attacks. But UD doesn't say anything like that, it just says you can't be caught flat footed.
Something else of note would be this post by Nethys:
This is something that needs clarifying in a PRPG FAQ. Until then, I recommend going with the 3.5 ruling, which *was* clarified in their FAQ.
3.5 FAQ wrote:
If a rogue has successfully hidden behind some bushes and fires an arrow at a target less than 30 feet away from her, does she deal sneak attack damage?
Yes. The rules don’t come right out and say this, but a character who has successfully hidden from an opponent is considered invisible for the purpose of rendering that foe flatfooted, and thus deals sneak attack damage.Your God of Knowledge,
Nethys
This would seem to indicate that invisible attackers do indeed render their opponent flat-footed and gain a +2 to attack rather than simply ignoring their opponents Dex bonus to AC and gaining a +2 to attack. In this case I could see UD working against ANY attack from an invisible attacker rather than only attacks that would normally render you flat-footed (IE: before you act in combat).
The reason I believe this is important is that IF any attack (whether before you act in a combat or not) from an invisible attacker renders you flat-footed and gives them the +2 to attack, then yes, UD protects you from losing your Dex bonus to AC and you only suffer from their +2 to attack you. However, if invisible attackers don't render you flat-footed but rather ignore your Dex bonus to AC then the following scenario could apply:
Invisible Stalker - the first attack would normally catch an opponent flat-footed, but not the case with the Rogue because he has UD (however, if the invisible attacker ignores the Rogue’s Dex bonus to AC he will still be just as easy to hit as if he were flat-footed). If the Invisible Stalker went first in the first round of combat he would normally catch an opponent flat-footed again, this time with a potential full attack, but again not so with the Rogue because he has UD (however, if the invisible attacker ignores the Rogue’s Dex bonus to AC he will still be just as easy to hit as if he were flat-footed). After that the combat continues and the Rogue is no longer facing the problem of being flat-footed but rather that his attacker is invisible and still gets to ignore the Rogue’s Dex bonus to AC even though he isn’t flat footed (unless an attack from an invisible attacker renders you flat-footed and gives a +2 to attack, but that doesn’t seem to be how the rules read). I thought both were addressed under UD in 3.5 because I thought it specifically stated you could not lose your Dex bonus to AC, and then Sage came in and said that Feint could cause you to lose it but otherwise you were generally safe. But in the PRD it only says you can’t be caught flat-footed. An invisible attacker though ignores your Dex bonus to AC even when you aren't considered flat-footed. So, is invisibility all it takes to overpower UD now?
The other part to this question is: If an attack from an invisible attacker renders the opponent flat-footed and gives a +2 to attack them (or if the opponent in fact loses their Dex bonus to AC) then a Rogue using Invisibility would gain Sneak Attack when attacking an opponent, which is exactly how I always thought it worked. But if an invisible attacker merely ignores the creatures Dex bonus to AC that wouldn’t qualify for SA because it specifically states in SA that your opponent must either be flanked or lose their Dex bonus to AC. They don’t really lose their bonus if you are simply ignoring it; you are just bypassing something that is still in effect.
There are four ways I can see the rules interacting but if there are rules that explicitly support one of these over the others I have not seen them or am reading them wrong. Please point this out to me. Method A is how I always viewed it before but now I am not so sure. Here they are:
A) UD protects you both from being flat-footed and from losing your Dex bonus to AC to an attack from an invisible attacker. Blind Fighting only protects against the additional +2 that an invisible creature gets to attack you.
B) UD protects you from being flat-footed. Attacks from an invisible attacker render you flat-footed to that attacker and give them a +2 to hit you. UD protects you from being flat-footed but they still get the +2 to hit you. This is what it sounds like you (Christopher Van Horn) are suggesting in your post above, and it is really effectively very similar to option A. Blind Fighting only protects against the additional +2 that an invisible creature gets to attack you.
C) UD only protects you from being flat-footed. Invisible attackers can deny you your Dex bonus to AC even without you being flat-footed and so UD doesn't work against them and they can SA you if they have SA. UD will protect you from being flat-footed but Blind Fighting is the only way to protect you from being an easy target and taking a lot of SA damage from an invisible foe.
D) UD only protects you from being flat-footed. Invisible attackers can ignore your Dex bonus to AC even when you are not flat-footed so they can still just as easily hit you as if you were flat-footed but they do not qualify for SA because you do still have your Dex bonus to AC they are just ignoring/bypassing it. UD will protect from being flat-footed but Blind Fighting is the only way to protect from being an easy target for an invisible foe.
Hey there folks,
I do intend to start an FAQ here relatively soon, but I need to get some things off my plate first. Hang in there, we are working on a way to resolve questions in a more permanent, and easily referenced manner.
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing
Thank you Jason. I am looking forward to it.
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
when James or Jason pop onto a thread and give some sort of official answer it's promptly ignored and people continue debating, or try and debate Jason or James.
Just play it the way it makes sense to you.
If we use your advise ("play it the way it makes sense") we can't use the forums to help build characters.
We need Paizo to publish an FAQ (or errata) document. One that has a line at the beginning:
"consider everything in this document errata to the rules as written."
That one action (a step WotC never took) would solve all the trouble of online discussion of the rules. It would eliminate Pun-Pun concepts, allow elaboration on the rules for those wanting the more detailed rules, allow them to make errata without worrying about making the book bigger than the maximum allowed.
Well in spite of my previous grouchiness I think it would be a good idea to get some clarification on the changes to tumble (acrobatics). I've already seen three threads on it (here's the most recent) and there is a lot of misunderstandings about the new rule.
#1 If you fail your acrobatics check to move through an opponents space can you still move through an opponents square?
#2 Do you make an acrobatics check for each opponents threatened square you pass through or just one check then compare that check to the CMDs of the opponents (adding +2 for each subsequent opponent)?
Question #1 seems pretty obvious to me but as I said there have been at least 3 threads asking about it so it must not be too obvious.
If we use your advise ("play it the way it makes sense") we can't use the forums to help build characters.
Nice job on the necro, note I dropped it when requested. For some reason I thought they were asking for something other than a simple FAQ. Regardless, as I said, I dropped it, let it rest.
I'd like some clarification on the Favored Class mechanic. As written all characters get a choice of a Favored Class at 1st level which does not have to be their 1st level class taken but cannot be a prestige class. With that in mind I'd like to know:
1) Do NPC's get this option as well or is this meant for play characters only?
2) If NPC's do get this option can they choose an NPC class like Expert as their Favored Class?
3) Do Monsters get a Favored Class?
4) If Monsters do get a Favored Class can they choose their racial hit dice as their Favored Class?
5) If racial hit dice can't be a Favored Class do Monster with hit dice and no class levels still get this option even though there is nothing to apply it to or would they only get this option upon adding class levels?
Thanks.
|
Their is fan based rules FAQ already that does list if the answer came from an official paizo member. Its located on the d20 PFSRD wiki.
Nice! Thank you for the link. Most handy.
I think somewhere it should say, "Those Sp abilities clerics/sorcerers/wizards may take at 1st level are the equivalent of 1st-level spells." Similarly, I'd like some errata clarifying whether spell immunity works against all spell-like abilities, including those class-based Sp abilities.
And maybe some more guidance on Hide in Plain Sight.
Their is fan based rules FAQ already that does list if the answer came from an official paizo member. Its located on the d20 PFSRD wiki.Nice! Thank you for the link. Most handy.
I think somewhere it should say, "Those Sp abilities clerics/sorcerers/wizards may take at 1st level are the equivalent of 1st-level spells." Similarly, I'd like some errata clarifying whether spell immunity works against all spell-like abilities, including those class-based Sp abilities.
And maybe some more guidance on Hide in Plain Sight.
Was there something specific in the Hide in Plain Sight thread you had a question about? Or didn't agree with? I re-posted the question that I posted on this thread on the HiPS thread HERE as well but haven't gotten an answer other than Christopher Van Horn's, which I tend to agree with but would like the way the rules interact explained in a little bit better detail. Not sure if that was the clarification you were referring to or not though.
|
***Wishes he knew who Nethys was*** :)I am, as always, happy to assist as well. Though James has yet to set up my 'nethys@paizo.com' email account yet.
Your God of Knowledge,
Nethys
Nethys is the Golarion God of Magic.
Apparently Nethys is making a move on Irori's portfolio. Should be fun times to watch Irori take on the newcomer to that portfolio.
lol
It would eliminate Pun-Pun concepts...
No it wouldn't. There will always be ways to break the game. It is just up to the DM to set limits on power obtained by loopholes. Once Paizo has a few splatbooks out it will be game on again. I dont think it will be as easy as it was for 3.5 but a smart player with enough free time can find a loophole.
The real problems are things that are on the borderline as to what may or may not be allowed, and it is written in such a way that its possible to be interpreted in more than one way. The Extra Spell feat was an example of this.
Edit: I forgot to elaborate on the FAQ as errata comment.
That would be good idea as long as the answers dont flip-flop or go against future rules. If two rules conflict because it was not caught before a book was released then editing both rules would not be an issue, or just getting rid of one rule until a solution can be brought about.
|
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
I think somewhere it should say, "Those Sp abilities clerics/sorcerers/wizards may take at 1st level are the equivalent of 1st-level spells."
This isn't a good idea and it doesn't match 3.5 precedences. In other words, not all those effects make sense as 1st level spells.
No it wouldn't. There will always be ways to break the game.
The Extra Spell feat was an example of this.
That would be good idea as long as the answers dont flip-flop or go against future rules.
It would fix Pun-Pun. It might not fix broken stuff. There were still lots of "only one way to read the RAW, and it is broken" rules in 3.5 games.
The problem come from the "multiple ways to read RAW, one leads to broken beyond belief, the other leads to not even remotely broken."
The Extra Spell was an example of willful disregarding of many other rules by intentionally interpreting a rule in a way it clearly wasn't written. In other words, thinking that Extra Spell provided a spell from any class list without the words "from any class list" in the text nor any rules for how to handle (what spell level to make the spell) when importing from another class.
The final point is the 3.p FAQ needs to say "this is official errata" so there is no argument about "the FAQ isn't official so by RAW I can still take actions while dead." If the FAQ says that, you also fix the "but that conflicts with this rule" because when in conflict, use the FAQ answer and ignore the conflicts because you would use the FAQ as a more specific rule.
The Extra Spell was an example of willful disregarding of many other rules by intentionally interpreting a rule in a way it clearly wasn't written. In other words, thinking that Extra Spell provided a spell from any class list without the words "from any class list" in the text nor any rules for how to handle (what spell level to make the spell) when importing from another class.
Yeah, in my games the 3.5 FAQ was always considered to override RAW/RAI, unless the GM said otherwise.
As to Extra Spell, I agree there as well. We always used it as it gave the Wizard an Extra Spell in his book (really almost never used, except at low levels where the wizard couldn't afford a new spell and needed more than he could get with just his per level alotment), or for 'Spells Known' casters like Sorcerers, Duskblades, etc to give them another spell known from their spell lists.
I think somewhere it should say, "Those Sp abilities clerics/sorcerers/wizards may take at 1st level are the equivalent of 1st-level spells."This isn't a good idea and it doesn't match 3.5 precedences. In other words, not all those effects make sense as 1st level spells.
It would fix Pun-Pun.No it wouldn't. There will always be ways to break the game.
The Extra Spell feat was an example of this.
That would be good idea as long as the answers dont flip-flop or go against future rules.
I thought you were using Pun Pun as the representative of all the other broken theoretical concepts, that is why I said it wouldn't
|
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
I thought you were using Pun Pun as the representative of all the other broken theoretical concepts, that is why I said it wouldn't
Nope, I was just using it for the "I don't think FAQ/Intent/etc matters, if I can twist this rule to mean I rule the world you can't tell me it isn't RAW!!!!" crowd.
1# What spell level is all the different cleric domain powers?
In order to calculate the concentration check when casting stuff like Dimensional Hop you need to know how to calculate the DC.
2# USM using UMD to caststing an arcane scroll, lets say haste to you cast it as a Wizard scroll or as a bard scroll or is it just an arcane sroll? If it just is an arcane scroll can a rogue Emulate the bard feature of casting arcane spells in medium armor? If you find a bard scroll, lets say Good Hope. Do youn cast it as a bard or do you have to Emulate the Class Feature and cast it as a bard i light armor.
3# "Use a Scroll: Normally, to cast a spell from a scroll, you
must have the scroll’s spell on your class spell list. Use
Magic Device allows you to use a scroll as if you had a
particular spell on your class spell list." If you don't have a spell list do you have to Emulate that to? We don't and we never had but I've seen questions about it.
4# the errata: Combat casting. Do you still get a +4 bonus when casting spell-like ability on the defensive?
|
|
1# What spell level is all the different cleric domain powers?
In order to calculate the concentration check when casting stuff like Dimensional Hop you need to know how to calculate the DC.
While certainly important, Dimensional hop doesn't provoke as swift actions don't. At least that was my understanding of the rules.
2# USM using UMD to caststing an arcane scroll, lets say haste to you cast it as a Wizard scroll or as a bard scroll or is it just an arcane sroll? If it just is an arcane scroll can a rogue Emulate the bard feature of casting arcane spells in medium armor? If you find a bard scroll, lets say Good Hope. Do you cast it as a bard or do you have to Emulate the Class Feature and cast it as a bard i light armor.
I believe there is no distinction or restriction on armor when casting a scroll. The idea is that reading the scroll is enough to be fine. I doubt you have to actually roll arcane failure for reading a scroll, and am interested how you came to that conclusion. Otherwise I have no clue what exactly you're asking.
3# "Use a Scroll: Normally, to cast a spell from a scroll, you
must have the scroll’s spell on your class spell list. Use
Magic Device allows you to use a scroll as if you had a
particular spell on your class spell list." If you don't have a spell list do you have to Emulate that to? We don't and we never had but I've seen questions about it.
Its all built in, when you emulate having a spell on your list, it acts like you have a spell list AND the spell. No need to over complicate as even 3.5 doesn't make such a distinction AFAIK.
4# the errata: Combat casting. Do you still get a +4 bonus when casting spell-like ability on the defensive?
I believe so as it counts as casting on the defensive.
Not exactly official but I tried to help where I could.