This reminds me of that class where I had to write instructions on how to make a peanut butter sandwich. You have to assume the reader has a certain base understanding or it gets ridiculous. Expecting Paizo to bring the game down to the "How do I put peanut butter on bread" level is just silly. It is particularly silly since the game works equally well either way you rule it.
That's what a rulebook is. Combat doesn't 'simulate reality'. (otherwise, five iterative attacks in six seconds is kind of silly, hit points is kind of silly, etc.)
Pathfinder is a game that has rules for playing it on a board. I'm not asking that the DM be a robot, I'm asking what the intent was on some of these core systems so at least we know how it's supposed to work. Once we know the intent of rules, it makes creating house rules much more effective, cause rules that are understood are easier to break intelligently.
Oh for goodness sakes.The core rulebook doesn't say whether three arrows in a round are one attack or three either. Maybe the fact that you make three separate attack and damage rolls is the give away?That's one point of view. Another is that the ray is one damage source, so fire resistance only applies once. The issue is that it's not clearly specified anywhere. I know I can just make a judgment call. I have an expectation that the rules should be pretty clear on how fire resistance works against a spell.This is exactly the point.
--snip--
You rather conveniently left off Mdt's very clear, point by point, explanation of why it is three sources of damage. Which, btw, is more of a clarification than you will ever get from a Paizo staffer. Because, here's the thing, they didn't design scorching ray or 3.5 fire resistance.
Regarding trip, if you hadn't brought up the ten year history (which you'll note I support above), I would be with you. I looked it up in the PFRPG and it is shorter and less clear than the SRD.
However, this rule has been clearly stated in the 3.5 rules for a long time.
3.5 Player's Handbook pg. 159, last sub-heading of Trip:
"Tripping with a Weapon: Some weapons, including the spiked chain, dire flail, heavy flail, light flail, guisarme, halberd, and whip, can be used to make trip attacks. In this case, you make a melee touch attack with the weapon instead of an unarmed melee touch attack, and you don’t provoke an attack of opportunity. If you are tripped during your own trip attempt, you can drop the weapon to avoid being tripped."
It is also stated well in the 3.5 Rules Compendium pg. 145 under TRIP, 3rd and 4th paragraphs.
This is exactly the point. It's not that I can't make a judgment call. It's that these things are undefined and I *have* to make a judgment call. It doesn't say if it's one source or three - my DM for instance, rules the other way, because that's how it makes sense to him.I don't want to try to have to figure out how a core defined thing makes sense to me. Spring attack is undefined as to what it can be used with. Scorching ray is undefined as to being one source or three. Stealth and if once you are stealthed and you move out of cover or concealment, whether or not you maintain stealth is undefined. (along with a dozen or so other interactions and corner cases that /keep coming up in our game/. The perception check to notice an abjuration (or if an abjuration like forbiddance or desecrate is a magical trap) is undefined. Which attacks you can use, as well as what the purpose or intent of grapple is at best very unclear, at worst undefined. (specifically it seems like rake is supposed to simulate a full attack while maintain a grapple in response to robert's post - is this what is intended? Not extra attacks from the rake? What's with the added condition of 'who maintains the grapple'? That's very confusing.) As I said, there are other things that are unclear in this core system of grappling.
We have responses in our home game for all of these. I was just wondering what the official answers to these questions...
No, you are not wanting official answers, the rules are plain as written. You are, with all due respect, unreasonably asking to have everything explained to you as if you had an IQ of 10. No developer in their right mind is going to do so. First of all, it would insult every other person who bought the book besides you.
The rules are very plain about half the stuff you asked about, especially scorching ray and resistance. I walked you through it, with direct quotes from the rules. That is not 'I can make a judgement call' that is 'this is the rule, this is the spell'. It's as easy as Tab A goes into Slot A.
You will never have a rulebook that suits you, because you want the following:
Spherenexus : Please tell me how to make steel.
Developer : Ok, start with 9 parts refined iron ore. Then add in 1 part carbon black. Mix well. Place in a furnace and cook at 1700 degrees farenheit for 4 hours. Skim anything that is floating on top off. Pour the molten metal into a form and let cool. You will then have steel.
Spherenexus : No no no, you didn't tell me how to make steel. I have to use judgement calls too much with that recipe.
Developer : What do you mean?
Spherenexus : You didn't tell me how to make refined iron ore. You didn't tell me how to make iron ore. You didn't tell me how to make carbon black. You didn't tell me how to make a furnace. You didn't tell me how big the furnace has to be. You didn't tell me what iron ore is made of. You didn't tell me what carbon black is made of. You didn't tell me what farenheit is. You didn't tell me what cooking is. You didn't tell me how to make a form. You didn't tell me how to skim anything off. You didn't tell me what a form is made of. You didn't tell me how to turn the furnace on. You didn't tell me how to set the temperature of the furnace. You didn't tell me how to make sure the temperature is right. You didn't tell me what to do if the temperature is wrong. You didn't tell me what four hours are. You didn't tell me how to tell time. You didn't tell me how to read the clock. You didn't tell me how to read the thermostat on the furnace. You didn't tell me what to do while I'm waiting for the steel to cook. You didn't tell me why 9 parts refined iron ore and 1 part carbon black make steel. You didn't tell me not to stick my hand in the furnace, am I supposed to do that or not? Am I supposed to stand in the furnace while I do this? What do I put the refined iron ore and carbon black in, you didn't tell me that! How can I make this if you won't tell me how?
You will never have a rulebook that suits you, because you want the following:
Spherenexus : Please tell me how to make steel.
Developer : Ok, start with 9 parts refined iron ore. Then add in 1 part carbon black. Mix well. Place in a furnace and cook at 1700 degrees farenheit for 4 hours. Skim anything that is floating on top off. Pour the molten metal into a form and let cool. You will then have steel.
Spherenexus : No no no, you didn't tell me how to make steel. I have to use judgement calls too much with that recipe.
Developer : What do you mean?
Spherenexus : You didn't tell me how to make refined iron ore. You didn't tell me how to make iron ore. You didn't tell me how to make carbon black. You didn't tell me how to make a furnace. You didn't tell me how big the furnace has to be. You didn't tell me what iron ore is made of. You didn't tell me what carbon black is made of. You didn't tell me what farenheit is. You didn't tell me what cooking is. You didn't tell me how to make a form. You didn't tell me how to skim anything off. You didn't tell me what a form is made of. You didn't tell me how to turn the furnace on. You didn't tell me how to set the temperature of the furnace. You didn't tell me how to make sure the temperature is right. You didn't tell me what to do if the temperature is wrong. You didn't tell me what four hours are. You didn't tell me how to tell time. You didn't tell me how to read the clock. You didn't tell me how to read the thermostat on the furnace. You didn't tell me what to do while I'm waiting for the steel to cook. You didn't tell me why 9 parts refined iron ore and 1 part carbon black make steel. You didn't tell me not to stick my hand in the furnace, am I supposed to do that or not? Am I supposed to stand in the furnace while I do this? What do I put the refined iron ore and carbon black in, you didn't tell me that! How can I make this if you won't tell me how?
ROFL dude. That rocks.
+1.
Define "official".
Got a better one, define 'Answer'. :)
A magical trap is a normal trap with a magical improvement; an abjuration is a category of spells meaning that the DC of the spell caster applies; no, you cannot use Stealth without Cover, but if you began moving when no one was there to see you or if you ARE CAMOFLAGED or there is low light/visibility you can; and in general the rules themselves are written in general language so that any combination of trap + magic has a guide line and yes they could be writtenn better. BUT this would create a specific level which would be very high--be more patient and read the stuff in the boxes and at the end of the chapters too. The Compendium boggled me for weeks until I read sample NPC's and got a feel for how characters change as they advance.
You rather conveniently left off Mdt's very clear, point by point, explanation of why it is three sources of damage.
Regarding trip, if you hadn't brought up the ten year history (which you'll note I support above), I would be with you. I looked it up in the PFRPG and it is shorter and less clear than the SRD.
His explanation, however rational, did not point to the place in the book where it says whether it's 3 sources of damage or one. For what it's worth, I agree with his interpretation /however my DM does not/. There can be no consensus between us on the issue, because the rules are unclear on this point. If it was clear, I would have no problem with him saying, "We're not going with the rules on this one" - We don't know what the rules are supposed to *be* on that.
As regards to trip, Combat maneuvers changed, and until recently there was *no* clear verbage in the PF rulebook. It was cleared up in a post I missed and the FAQ was updated. Again - that's the one answered question.
Define "official".
A response from the game designers, or something printed in an errata.
Hence, James's flip flop response on displacement is clearly not official, whereas Jason's response regarding the trip issue is.
You rather conveniently left off Mdt's very clear, point by point, explanation of why it is three sources of damage.
Regarding trip, if you hadn't brought up the ten year history (which you'll note I support above), I would be with you. I looked it up in the PFRPG and it is shorter and less clear than the SRD.
His explanation, however rational, did not point to the place in the book where it says whether it's 3 sources of damage or one. For what it's worth, I agree with his interpretation /however my DM does not/. There can be no consensus between us on the issue, because the rules are unclear on this point. If it was clear, I would have no problem with him saying, "We're not going with the rules on this one" - We don't know what the rules are supposed to *be* on that.
As regards to trip, Combat maneuvers changed, and until recently there was *no* clear verbage in the PF rulebook. It was cleared up in a post I missed and the FAQ was updated. Again - that's the one answered question.
Wow, not only do you not read rules completely, you don't read posts completely, perhaps that is your problem.
No, you are not wanting official answers, the rules are plain as written. You are, with all due respect, unreasonably asking to have everything explained to you as if you had an IQ of 10. No developer in their right mind is going to do so. First of all, it would insult every other person who bought the book besides you.
Your extremely rude and childish response non-withstanding, I'm not saying that's not a valid interpretation of the rules. I'm not saying that I can't make an interpretation of the rules. I'm not saying I need a rules system covering every possible action within the game.
I *am* saying that within the actions that there are rules for, there are several things that are undefined. The issue I have with your 'responses' is that there are *completely different* and *equally valid* interpretations of these systems contained within the rules, under a thing that the rules are explicitly created to describe.
Just to be very clear, my DM says that since they are a single ray, and they are fired simultaneously that they count as a single source of damage and fire resistance is applied once.
This is a completely valid assumption based on the way the rules are written. There is no text that contradicts this statement. There are some things that might imply otherwise, but this is *undefined*.
Because I ask that this cleared up, you call me stupid and insult me in a long paragraph. I'm curious as to how you think that is helpful.
Wow, not only do you not read rules completely, you don't read posts completely, perhaps that is your problem.
ad hominem attacks are a great way to sidestep the issue, which is that he failed to point to any text in the PRD which definitively states how this works.
Ah, flame wars. They're so toasty.
Yeah, that'll teach me to have questions, eh?
Wow, not only do you not read rules completely, you don't read posts completely, perhaps that is your problem.ad hominem attacks are a great way to sidestep the issue, which is that he failed to point to any text in the PRD which definitively states how this works.
I was referring to the fact that you "sidestepped" my detailed rules references on trip in 3.5., and that I myself pointed out that the PFRPG made the issue less clear.
|
No, you are not wanting official answers, the rules are plain as written. You are, with all due respect, unreasonably asking to have everything explained to you as if you had an IQ of 10. No developer in their right mind is going to do so. First of all, it would insult every other person who bought the book besides you.Your extremely rude and childish response non-withstanding, I'm not saying that's not a valid interpretation of the rules. I'm not saying that I can't make an interpretation of the rules. I'm not saying I need a rules system covering every possible action within the game.
I *am* saying that within the actions that there are rules for, there are several things that are undefined. The issue I have with your 'responses' is that there are *completely different* and *equally valid* interpretations of these systems contained within the rules, under a thing that the rules are explicitly created to describe.
Just to be very clear, my DM says that since they are a single ray, and they are fired simultaneously that they count as a single source of damage and fire resistance is applied once.
This is a completely valid assumption based on the way the rules are written. There is no text that contradicts this statement. There are some things that might imply otherwise, but this is *undefined*.
Because I ask that this cleared up, you call me stupid and insult me in a long paragraph. I'm curious as to how you think that is helpful.
I don't think you're reading the same book as I am.
On page 337 in the Pathfinder book, under Scorching Ray it says: "You may fire one ray, plus one additional ray for every four levels beyond third (to a maximum of three rays at eleventh level). Each ray requires a ranged touch attack to hit and deals 4d6 points of fire damage. The rays may be fired at the same or different targets, but all rays must be aimed at targets within thirty feet of each other and fired simultaneously."
Then on pages 562-3 in the same book, under Energy Resistance you get: "A Creature with resistance to energy has the ability (usually extraordinary) to ignore some damage of a certain type per attack, but it does not have total immunity."
So Scorching Ray provides you with one or more touch attacks, that is you can fire one or more rays as seperate touch attacks, that deal damage seperately. They deal damage seperately because they are seperate touch attacks. Then, per the Energy Resistance heading we learn that creatures who possess it "ignore some damage of a certain type per attack".
I hope this is clearer now.
I was referring to the fact that you "sidestepped" my detailed rules references on trip in 3.5., and that I myself pointed out that the PFRPG made the issue less clear.Wow, not only do you not read rules completely, you don't read posts completely, perhaps that is your problem.ad hominem attacks are a great way to sidestep the issue, which is that he failed to point to any text in the PRD which definitively states how this works.
Then I apologize. There was a massive thread about trip waiting for official word to clear it up. I missed when it came (recently) and found the correct verbiage in the pathfinder FAQ.
I didn't sidestep the issue, I agreed and the point flowed to you - as I had done earlier in the thread where I pointed out that this issue was resolved to my satisfaction.
If you are resistant to fire you are resistant to fire! Where did you find that you are resistant to fire anyway? That is the rule to look for, not in the ray rules!
Perecption vs. Stealth works like this: My perception + 1d20 vs Your stealth + 1d20
In other cases, for example if you think it should be hard and I am level 19 it will be my perceptio + 1d20 vs 35
That might be too hard, there is a table in the 3.5 compendium, look it up!
p.s. 1d20 means roll the 20 sided die once, just like 5d8 means either roll the 8 sided die 5 times or roll 5 8 sided dice at the same time.
AND YET you will find tables that are numbered to 30 or damages such as 1-5!
I don't think you're reading the same book as I am.
On page 337 in the Pathfinder book, under Scorching Ray it says: "You may fire one ray, plus one additional ray for every four levels beyond third (to a maximum of three rays at eleventh level). Each ray requires a ranged touch attack to hit and deals 4d6 points of fire damage. The rays may be fired at the same or different targets, but all rays must be aimed at targets within thirty feet of each other and fired simultaneously."
Then on pages 562-3 in the same book, under Energy Resistance you get: "A Creature with resistance to energy has the ability (usually extraordinary) to ignore some damage of a certain type per attack, but it does not have total immunity."
So Scorching Ray provides you with one or more touch attacks, that is you can fire one or more rays as seperate touch attacks, that deal damage seperately. They deal damage seperately because they are seperate touch attacks. Then, per the Energy Resistance heading we learn that creatures who possess it "ignore some damage of a certain type per attack".
I hope this is clearer now.
Yeah, Mdt already referenced those exact things, and then spelled it out. That wasn't enough, so I doubt this will help.
I don't think you're reading the same book as I am.
On page 337 in the Pathfinder book, under Scorching Ray it says: "You may fire one ray, plus one additional ray for every four levels beyond third (to a maximum of three rays at eleventh level). Each ray requires a ranged touch attack to hit and deals 4d6 points of fire damage. The rays may be fired at the same or different targets, but all rays must be aimed at targets within thirty feet of each other and fired simultaneously."
Then on pages 562-3 in the same book, under Energy Resistance you get: "A Creature with resistance to energy has the ability (usually extraordinary) to ignore some damage of a certain type per attack, but it does not have total immunity."
So Scorching Ray provides you with one or more touch attacks, that is you can fire one or more rays as seperate touch attacks, that deal damage seperately. They deal damage seperately because they are seperate touch attacks. Then, per the Energy Resistance heading we learn that creatures who possess it "ignore some damage of a certain type per attack".
Thank you for this response. That was my argument. This was his.
"per attack" is not necessarily the same as "per attack roll"
I'm aware it's not the majority opinion, but for my money all of the rays from Scorching Ray are a single source of damage, one "attack."
My best supporting evidence would be the spell itself, which notes that all the rays are fired simultaneously. If you're being hit by 8d6 or 12d6 fire damage all in the exact same moment, I have a hard time imagining why it should all be resisted separately, even if you had to make multiple touch attack rolls to deal the full damage.
And my point is that this interpretation is equally valid to yours. It stems from some of the confusion introduced into pathfinder with the attack/attack action/attack roll verbiage. A simple official sentence or two could clear it all up.
Since that's the case, I figured I'd make a thread to find out when these things were getting cleared up. Silly me.
|
|
I don't think you're reading the same book as I am.
On page 337 in the Pathfinder book, under Scorching Ray it says: "You may fire one ray, plus one additional ray for every four levels beyond third (to a maximum of three rays at eleventh level). Each ray requires a ranged touch attack to hit and deals 4d6 points of fire damage. The rays may be fired at the same or different targets, but all rays must be aimed at targets within thirty feet of each other and fired simultaneously."
Then on pages 562-3 in the same book, under Energy Resistance you get: "A Creature with resistance to energy has the ability (usually extraordinary) to ignore some damage of a certain type per attack, but it does not have total immunity."
So Scorching Ray provides you with one or more touch attacks, that is you can fire one or more rays as seperate touch attacks, that deal damage seperately. They deal damage seperately because they are seperate touch attacks. Then, per the Energy Resistance heading we learn that creatures who possess it "ignore some damage of a certain type per attack".
Thank you for this response. That was my argument. This was his.
"per attack" is not necessarily the same as "per attack roll"
I'm aware it's not the majority opinion, but for my money all of the rays from Scorching Ray are a single source of damage, one "attack."
My best supporting evidence would be the spell itself, which notes that all the rays are fired simultaneously. If you're being hit by 8d6 or 12d6 fire damage all in the exact same moment, I have a hard time imagining why it should all be resisted separately, even if you had to make multiple touch attack rolls to deal the full damage.
And my point is that this interpretation is equally valid to yours. It stems from some of the confusion introduced into pathfinder with the attack/attack action/attack roll verbiage. A simple official sentence or two could clear it all up.
Since that's the case, I figured...
Well then you're DM is quite simply wrong. The spell clearly states that each ray is "a ranged touch attack". You have to make an attack roll for each touch attack yes? Well then each ray is one attack roll, therefore the damage is applied seperately.
EDIT for clarity: If what you and your group are going for is an official rule book answer then you're DM is wrong. Of course he can house rule this any which way he pleases.
Well then you're DM is quite simply wrong. The spell clearly states that each ray is "a ranged touch attack". You have to make an attack roll for each touch attack yes? Well then each ray is one attack roll, therefore the damage is applied seperately.
EDIT for clarity: If what you and your group are going for is an official rule book answer then you're DM is wrong. Of course he can house rule this any which way he pleases.
I see the above. When that was pointed out, it was mentioned that the spell was a single source of the rays, and since it was the spell dealing damage, all the damage was coming from one source. - the spell was the attack, the fact that some might miss is just a reduction in the total damage applied. There isn't anywhere that defines (clearly) 'attack' versus 'attack action'.
The point is, that what you are saying is understood. Both totally separate and opposite arguments are equally valid and correct.
Doesn't this seem like these issues deserve a passing mention in the errata to anyone else? Why crucify me because I'm the one to ask for it?
Well then you're DM is quite simply wrong. The spell clearly states that each ray is "a ranged touch attack". You have to make an attack roll for each touch attack yes? Well then each ray is one attack roll, therefore the damage is applied seperately.
EDIT for clarity: If what you and your group are going for is an official rule book answer then you're DM is wrong. Of course he can house rule this any which way he pleases.
I see the above. When that was pointed out, it was mentioned that the spell was a single source of the rays, and since it was the spell dealing damage, all the damage was coming from one source. - the spell was the attack, the fact that some might miss is just a reduction in the total damage applied. There isn't anywhere that defines (clearly) 'attack' versus 'attack action'.
The point is, that what you are saying is understood. Both totally separate and opposite arguments are equally valid and correct.
Doesn't this seem like these issues deserve a passing mention in the errata to anyone else? Why crucify me because I'm the one to ask for it?
Yeah.....goodnight.
Resistance is to Energy types what Damage Reduction is to attacks.
Look at Manyshot, functionally its the same as Scorching Ray in that it unleashes a volley at the target, but Damage Reduction counts against each and every attack made against the creature (EVEN IF BOTH SHOTS HIT THE TARGET DR IS APPLIED TO EACH ARROW). Energy Resistance works the same way - Scorching Ray requires you to make attack rolls - so the creature applies Energy Resistance to each and every hit. You may also critical with a ray spell by rolling a natural 20 (unless you take Improved Critical (Rays) if that option from 3.5 is still available) and you may apply sneak attack to the first ray in the volley vs that one target (or per target if more than one is flatfooted) if you have that ability..
There is no confusion about this, Resistance is not some kind of "buffer" thats fixed, otherwise the Damage Reduction would work that way. Its a permanent, ongoing ability that functions against every attack or spell thats damaging and meets the criteria.
|
|
Yeah.....goodnight.Well then you're DM is quite simply wrong. The spell clearly states that each ray is "a ranged touch attack". You have to make an attack roll for each touch attack yes? Well then each ray is one attack roll, therefore the damage is applied seperately.
EDIT for clarity: If what you and your group are going for is an official rule book answer then you're DM is wrong. Of course he can house rule this any which way he pleases.
I see the above. When that was pointed out, it was mentioned that the spell was a single source of the rays, and since it was the spell dealing damage, all the damage was coming from one source. - the spell was the attack, the fact that some might miss is just a reduction in the total damage applied. There isn't anywhere that defines (clearly) 'attack' versus 'attack action'.
The point is, that what you are saying is understood. Both totally separate and opposite arguments are equally valid and correct.
Doesn't this seem like these issues deserve a passing mention in the errata to anyone else? Why crucify me because I'm the one to ask for it?
I'll echo this, good night.
|
The point is, that what you are saying is understood. Both totally separate and opposite arguments are equally valid and correct.
Doesn't this seem like these issues deserve a passing mention in the errata to anyone else? Why crucify me because I'm the one to ask for it?
There's 4-5 delightful individuals on these boards that were somehow graced with perfect understanding of the rules but at the expense of any sense of diplomacy or interpersonal relationship skills. These individuals apparently maxed their Int and dumped their Cha.
I really wish there was an "ignore" feature on these boards because I could list 4 people immediately that I'd be only too happy never to hear from again.
|
Regarding your DM's scorching ray ruling, Occam's Razor is useful in cases like this. Fire resistance uses the same mechanic as DR in the game. If a spell summoned three real spears at a creature, their DR would apply to each one. Same situation, same mechanic, different object (fiery ray instead of spear). I do understand that your DM reads it differently, which obviously is why you are hoping for a ruling that spells it out specifically. Perhaps if you argue the DR comparison, he may relent.
PS - I do agree that some of the verbage in the feats section is confusing as regards attack action, attack, etc. meaning there is no exact words used the same for every feat. Some of these have been cleared up by Paizo staff though its a needle/haystack thing to find them sometimes.
Good Luck and hopefully you can get some of the official answers you seek!
Edit: Ninja'ed by Princess of Canada, so.. what she said.
|
Seems like what you really want is for Paizo's employees to take their valuable time away from producing books to end a bunch of pointless Internet arguments for you.
That's the jist of it.
Further posting to this thread is pointless, as the OP is just going to argue and no answers are going to be suitable because they aren't coming from an "official" source, which is another way of saying someone like Jason, James, Sean, etc.
-Skeld
|
|
Doesn't this seem like these issues deserve a passing mention in the errata to anyone else? Why crucify me because I'm the one to ask for it?
Not really, because it seems quite clear to everyone here that's been trying to point this out to you in bullet format with page references. I think your getting a little beat up because other posters feel like your being unnecessarily argumentative and stubborn. Also the bang-bang-bang of the "I have to have a developer officially answer my questions" is frankly kind of annoying. The testy comments you're getting now are just a reflection of frustration being felt by people that have been trying to help you out by answering your questions.
-Skeld
James recently answered in a different thread that you can only trip with a trip weapon or an unarmed attack. He stated that was an "official" response.
Am I reading this correctly? You officially can not trip with a quarterstaff, or even a long spear?
Huh.
That is a weird ruling...
James recently answered in a different thread that you can only trip with a trip weapon or an unarmed attack. He stated that was an "official" response.Am I reading this correctly? You officially can not trip with a quarterstaff, or even a long spear?
Huh.
That is a weird ruling...
nothing prevents you from tripping while holding a quarter staff or Longspear in your hands, the rules don't say anything about needing to have your hands free to trip somebody... you just don't get the extra bonuses from using a masterwork or magic weapon on trip attacks if the weapon isn't a trip weapon... feel free to describe your trip however you want... "I shove my staff behind his leg and shoulder block him back over it, attempting to trip him" etc.
|
That's what a rulebook is. Combat doesn't 'simulate reality'. (otherwise, five iterative attacks in six seconds is kind of silly,
actually... this part does simulate reality...
I have met a trained martial artist who was attacked in an ally, with nothing but a 3 inch pocket-knife on him. in a 20 second period he slashed his attacker 45 times, he didn't survive... the police didn't believe it, thinking he used excessive force (beyond self defense), and arrested him. His defense attorney gave him a duplicate knife and a dummy, taping him for a 20 second time period. He slashed the dummy 60 times. When he first saw the official count in court he shrugged and said 'It was cold that night and I was tired'* (he showed us the court report as part of the seminar)
60 attacks in 20 seconds = 20 attacks every 6 seconds...
so I guess you're right, 5 iterative attacks every 6 seconds doesn't emulate reality for someone who has trained correctly for their entire lives in weapons, it should be 20.
*Paraphrasesd
Ok on the Scorcing Ray issue Please Read P337 of the Pathfinder Core under the Scorching Ray Spell it states "Each Ray requires a ranged attack to hit and deals 4d6 of fire damage" based on this each ray counts as a sperate attack not a single source for the whole spell.
as to the Abjration Issue use the DC of the Spell if it is a visable source if not it would take a detect magic spell to notice the effect at all until it effects you. HERE I can not provide a source info sorry
I have no other answers for you this is what I do know off the top of my head
So using Occam's Razor, a trident would get DR applied three times right?
If the staff take the time to clarify something, why not put it into an errata area immediately and post it in a locked thread? Or something like that. I have every right to expect a developer or designer to answer my questions about a product here, simply because they have done so in the past and actively encouraged this on these boards. Also, if i disagree on a ruling I can argue with them, because they have shifted positions in the past.
I don't agree that the questions in the OP were the best to point out the flaw of not constantly and consistently clarifying issues AND putting them in an accessible form, but I do agree that Paizo needs to think about the issue, so in a way I support the OP'er.
That said, Flame on fanboys!
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32
|
I see the above. When that was pointed out, it was mentioned that the spell was a single source of the rays, and since it was the spell dealing damage, all the damage was coming from one source.
Your GMs argument was that the fire damage from Scorching Ray happens simultaneously. "Taking 8d6 or 12d6 at once." or other such nonsense.
He fails to realize the abstraction of the round/initiative system. Each round lasts 6 seconds. EVERY combatant acts in those 6 seconds. If a fire resistant monster faces one high level sorcerer who throws 3 rays counts as 'one source', do three level 3 sorcerers each firing 1 ray on the same round count as such? Same thing. It happens simultaneously (in the same 6 second span of time).
As far as 'stealthing' in the open, that's a rule 0 call. There's no way to fit every possible scenario with appropriate modifiers in the rulebook.
Are you trying to sneak across the front of the stage during a Chelaxian Opera? I don't care how epic your Stealth is, every demon-loving son of a succubi is going to see you.
Sneaking past an open door while the two guards are complaining about their nagging wives? Sounds reasonable, Rule 0, they get a -5 because they're distracted.
Problem solved.
Ok on the Scorcing Ray issue Please Read P337 of the Pathfinder Core under the Scorching Ray Spell it states "Each Ray requires a ranged attack to hit and deals 4d6 of fire damage" based on this each ray counts as a sperate attack not a single source for the whole spell.
as to the Abjration Issue use the DC of the Spell if it is a visable source if not it would take a detect magic spell to notice the effect at all until it effects you. HERE I can not provide a source info sorry
I have no other answers for you this is what I do know off the top of my head
While it has never been clarified by the original poster, I always assumed he was referring to the special rule that multiple abjuration spells in close proximity become visible. Reading now in the PFRPG, it says it lowers the Perception DC to find such spells by 4. However, I too am at a loss for what the DC normally is to "find such spells".
While it has never been clarified by the original poster, I always assumed he was referring to the special rule that multiple abjuration spells in close proximity become visible. Reading now in the PFRPG, it says it lowers the Perception DC to find such spells by 4. However, I too am at a loss for what the DC normally is to "find such spells".Ok on the Scorcing Ray issue Please Read P337 of the Pathfinder Core under the Scorching Ray Spell it states "Each Ray requires a ranged attack to hit and deals 4d6 of fire damage" based on this each ray counts as a sperate attack not a single source for the whole spell.
as to the Abjration Issue use the DC of the Spell if it is a visable source if not it would take a detect magic spell to notice the effect at all until it effects you. HERE I can not provide a source info sorry
I have no other answers for you this is what I do know off the top of my head
The closest thing I've found is in the Knowledge(arcane) skill which has a DC for identifying spells already in effect... it would make sense that the DC for this would be lower on abjuration spells that have been in affect in the same area for over 24 hours since the "energy lines" lets you know what school you are dealing with specifically thereby narrowing the possible spells it could be for you considerably...
However they don't spell out that this is exactly what the check is either.
|
|
While it has never been clarified by the original poster, I always assumed he was referring to the special rule that multiple abjuration spells in close proximity become visible. Reading now in the PFRPG, it says it lowers the Perception DC to find such spells by 4. However, I too am at a loss for what the DC normally is to "find such spells".Ok on the Scorcing Ray issue Please Read P337 of the Pathfinder Core under the Scorching Ray Spell it states "Each Ray requires a ranged attack to hit and deals 4d6 of fire damage" based on this each ray counts as a sperate attack not a single source for the whole spell.
as to the Abjration Issue use the DC of the Spell if it is a visable source if not it would take a detect magic spell to notice the effect at all until it effects you. HERE I can not provide a source info sorry
I have no other answers for you this is what I do know off the top of my head
The closest thing I've found is in the Knowledge(arcane) skill which has a DC for identifying spells already in effect... it would make sense that the DC for this would be lower on abjuration spells that have been in affect in the same area for over 24 hours since the "energy lines" lets you know what school you are dealing with specifically thereby narrowing the possible spells it could be for you considerably...
However they don't spell out that this is exactly what the check is either.
I understand the OP's question that he's referring to the perception check to notice either an active abjuration spell somewhere or an abjuration spell centered on a character that's using stealth.
For the former it's the basic perception DC which is detailed on p.102 with the -4 if another abjuration effect is active within 10 feet. This is on p. 209. So if a character were to try and spot whether the villain has two abjuration effects on him, and he would be in plain sight, the the DC would be -4.
Alternatively if someone were to try and notice a character who is using stealth and has two active abjuration effects on him then the DC to notice him would be the Stealth check -4 per the multiple abjuration rule.
I don't agree that the questions in the OP were the best to point out the flaw of not constantly and consistently clarifying issues AND putting them in an accessible form, but I do agree that Paizo needs to think about the issue, so in a way I support the OP'er.
Thanks Black Horde.
I didn't spell out the questions, because there are multiple several hundred post threads with the questions already in them, threads where the consensus is people can make a house ruling because there is no official answer. The Displacement/Sneak attack thread (which is part of the whole stealth/perception mess) is over 700 posts long. (yes there is an official reply in that thread by the same person, one who claims he's not the final say on rules issues, An official reply that posts one way, then jokingly posts the other!)I didn't want another 700 post thread - I just wanted to maybe in one place iterate the issues which everyone must rule 0 because there is no game rule.
The game part of my home game is very important to me, if not our whole group. The rule-set is very complicated and small issues can have far far reaching repercussions. (It's not the three scorching rays, it's the maximized extended super admixture scorching ray where something like that *really* begins to matter) Overall (99.8%) pathfinder has a wonderful refined view of the ruleset - one so well defined, that there are only a handful of issues that require clarification.
It isn't that I want to pull someone away from publishing new material - it's that we, me, our group, are interested in the intent of the rules. I've been playing pathfinder for months, and the more I play it, the more respect I have for Jason as a designer. Also, the more interest I have in his intent.
Take it as you will - thanks for all the responses.
I understand the OP's question that he's referring to the perception check to notice either an active abjuration spell somewhere or an abjuration spell centered on a character that's using stealth.
For the former it's the basic perception DC which is detailed on p.102 with the -4 if another abjuration effect is active within 10 feet. This is on p. 209. So if a character were to try and spot whether the villain has two abjuration effects on him, and he would be in plain sight, the the DC would be -4.
Alternatively if someone were to try and notice a character who is using stealth and has two active abjuration effects on him then the DC to notice him would be the Stealth check -4 per the multiple abjuration rule.
But there is no DC detailed on Pg102, or anywhere that I can find, for noticing an Abjuration effect. So what DC is lowered by 4?
And as far as noticing whether someone has multiple Abjurations on, remember the -4 DC doesn't kick in until they've been in effect for 24 hours of more. So, generally never.
many of the common "trap" spells (glyph of warding, fire trap for eg.) are abjurations, and I always took that to be talking mostly about the DC of a rogue finding such traps to be easier if there are more then one of them present.
many of the common "trap" spells (glyph of warding, fire trap for eg.) are abjurations, and I always took that to be talking mostly about the DC of a rogue finding such traps to be easier if there are more then one of them present.
Ding! I think you have it. That is almost certainly the origin of the obscure rule on proximity Abjurations. That would be the only practical application anyway. So the DC to find a magical trap -4. Cool, nice work.
many of the common "trap" spells (glyph of warding, fire trap for eg.) are abjurations, and I always took that to be talking mostly about the DC of a rogue finding such traps to be easier if there are more then one of them present.
Well said!
Edit: And no, I hadn't considered it beforehand. I don't normally associate abjuration and magical trap with each other (especially in a Perception discussion), now I will.
|
many of the common "trap" spells (glyph of warding, fire trap for eg.) are abjurations, and I always took that to be talking mostly about the DC of a rogue finding such traps to be easier if there are more then one of them present.
I also thought this was obviously what it was talking about, honestly.
|
|
The Displacement/Sneak attack thread (which is part of the whole stealth/perception mess) is over 700 posts long. (yes there is an official reply in that thread by the same person, one who claims he's not the final say on rules issues, An official reply that posts one way, then jokingly posts the other!)Actually...
At this point, barring rewrites to spells and class abilities:
Sneak Attack works on displaced targets because the text of the spell SPECIFICALLY SAYS that you can target a creature normally. It's just that sometimes, the target's not where you think it is...but that doesn't impact your ability to target the foe. The spell says the miss chance works LIKE concealment, but then goes on to say that this doesn't impact your ability to actually target the foe normally.
That's about as "official" as you are going to get, until they get their production schedule back on track and update the errata page.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
People, chill out. It's just a game. Really.
But as far as [O]fficial answers go, the whole reason we have a public rules forum is so that questions can be answered by the community. If you're creating a thread here, you really can't expect every single community member to hold their tongue. We have some really talented, smart people here, and I'd really prefer it if they weren't driven away from contributing by bickering over two equally valid interpretations of the rules or people insisting that their opinions are worthless just because they didn't actually write the book.
Jason, believe it or not, already has a full time job without being responsible for answering every rules question. So does James, who DOES take a lot of time out of his day anyway to answer questions for the community (and, for the record, he's fully capable of answering Rules-as-Intended questions just as well as anyone else in the company.)
If you really feel that the only person who can answer your question is Jason, then by all means send him an email. His address is listed on our 'contact us' page. But don't be surprised if it takes him a long time to get back to you, if he ever does.
Oh, yes, this is so simple that I still don't know what the DC is to detect an abjuration... nor what spells count as a 'magical trap'... nor is it clear if I can pass through an area while stealthed without cover or concealment.
Many specific abjuration spells (glyphs, etc) have Perception DCs.
Traps come in two varities: magical and mechanical. A magical trap is a trap with the 'magic' type. See the Traps & Hazards entry in your Core Rulebook.
Moving between cover or across an open space requires observers to be distracted, as by a Bluff check or some other distraction. The Rules Compendium (if legal at your table) gives detailed, expanded rules for moving between cover).
3) Does fire resistance apply to each ray in the scorching ray? The issue isn't with energy resistance, the issue is with scorching ray and if it counts as a single attack (thus fire resistance applies only once) or if each ray counts as a separate attack.
The rays are seperate attacks and can be fired in seperate directions at seperate targets, yes. Just as each attack in a full attack action is a seperate attack, each scorching ray is a seperate attack. Nothing in the spell description indicates otherwise.
Attack actions are defined in the Rules Compendium and seem, self-evidently, to be actions which are attacks. Attacks and energy resistance are detailed in your Core Rulebook and Rules Compendium,
and the trip and lighting issues have already been addressed, so unless you have specific questions about grapple, it seems that your issues have all been resolved.
Without applying common sense I can see why the lack of a technical definiton for an "attack action" in Pathfinder might be confusing, but such an action has been defined since the days of 3.5, and given that using "attack actions" the same way as they've alwasys worked results in intuitive game mechanical compatability, I don't see why you wouldn't.
You know what's really disappointing about your flippant arrogant, and ignorant response? It's part of the reason everyone is still having to just make up their own minds about how the game works, instead of knowing how basic core pieces of functionality work.
With all due respect, if you're going to offer help, make sure you actually are helping.
While everyone is free to make up their own minds about how the game works, the issues that you raise are self-evident and addressed in the Core Rulebook. That being the case, such freedom is a luxury, not a requirement.
With all due respect, if you're trying to understand how a rule works, make sure you actually are trying. Arguing for the sake of argument isn't really arguing.