Selgard
I didn't have anything specifically to quote from you, so my usual way of responding from quotes leaves me with just saying your name!
Anyway this is perhaps how I'm reading it, and it's surprising that the RAW is this ambiguous, but the section on Smashing an Object seems like there's an additional intent.
Smashing an Object
Smashing a weapon or shield with a slashing or bludgeoning weapon is accomplished with the sunder combat maneuver. Smashing an object is like sundering a weapon or shield, except that your combat maneuver check is opposed by the object's AC. Generally, you can smash an object only with a bludgeoning or slashing weapon.
Armor Class
Objects are easier to hit than creatures because they don't usually move, but many are tough enough to shrug off some damage from each blow. An object's Armor Class is equal to 10 + its size modifier (see Table: Size and Armor Class of Objects) + its Dexterity modifier. An inanimate object has not only a Dexterity of 0 (–5 penalty to AC), but also an additional –2 penalty to its AC. Furthermore, if you take a full-round action to line up a shot, you get an automatic hit with a melee weapon and a +5 bonus on attack rolls with a ranged weapon.
When reading the entire thing as a section, it may not SAY it, but I'm getting the impression that the inanimate objects that don't usually move refer to the object being smashed as a generalization. It may not actually say "unattended object", but even in the Saving Throw section it differentiates the objects by Magical, Non-magical Unattended, or Attended.
This says to me that an unattended weapon is subject to the Sunder, despite the logical loop where it refers you BACK to the Sunder section where it says otherwise. In a way, this looks to be a contradiction within the book, but I could just as easily be wrong and reading too much into this.
Right I got to page 3...but if no one brought it up..
Can I ready an action to cast shatter on an arrow coming at me?
Selgard
I didn't have anything specifically to quote from you, so my usual way of responding from quotes leaves me with just saying your name!
Anyway this is perhaps how I'm reading it, and it's surprising that the RAW is this ambiguous, but the section on Smashing an Object seems like there's an additional intent.
Smashing an Object
Smashing a weapon or shield with a slashing or bludgeoning weapon is accomplished with the sunder combat maneuver. Smashing an object is like sundering a weapon or shield, except that your combat maneuver check is opposed by the object's AC. Generally, you can smash an object only with a bludgeoning or slashing weapon.
Armor Class
Objects are easier to hit than creatures because they don't usually move, but many are tough enough to shrug off some damage from each blow. An object's Armor Class is equal to 10 + its size modifier (see Table: Size and Armor Class of Objects) + its Dexterity modifier. An inanimate object has not only a Dexterity of 0 (–5 penalty to AC), but also an additional –2 penalty to its AC. Furthermore, if you take a full-round action to line up a shot, you get an automatic hit with a melee weapon and a +5 bonus on attack rolls with a ranged weapon.
When reading the entire thing as a section, it may not SAY it, but I'm getting the impression that the inanimate objects that don't usually move refer to the object being smashed as a generalization. It may not actually say "unattended object", but even in the Saving Throw section it differentiates the objects by Magical, Non-magical Unattended, or Attended.
This says to me that an unattended weapon is subject to the Sunder, despite the logical loop where it refers you BACK to the Sunder section where it says otherwise. In a way, this looks to be a contradiction within the book, but I could just as easily be wrong and reading too much into this.
The problem is that in Pathfinder "inanimate object" is contraditrory to "animated object" which is a defined term. An Animated Object is something that's been enchanted and can act on its own. I think that is the distinction they are trying to make. (trying to use the "break object" rules on an animated object when you should just be trying to attack it or something"
An animated object vs an inanimate object vs an attended/held/wielded object and all that.Now I could very well be wrong too. This could be a case of them meaning a generally inanimate object rater than to make the distinction between the magical kind and not.
The problem still though is that using those rules you end up with an AC 10 object. They don't give you any solid info on where to go for an animated object (if we assume an arrow is one). I personally think they didn't go into animated objects because.. those have their own rules in the Bestiaries rather than sundering/attacking an object.
Really, just about from any angle you try to come at it, the arrow-in-flight is an oddity that doesn't quite fit into any of the rules.
-S
Right I got to page 3...but if no one brought it up..
Can I ready an action to cast shatter on an arrow coming at me?
Yep.
Oddly enough, the only "weird" thing comes up if you use the AOE version.
Does an arrow in flight count as attended or uanttended? :P
If you use the "single target" version though it just does flat damage (d6/level). Whether you allow the fort save or not is irrelevant- if you are high enough to cast the spell you do enough damage to automatically destroy a normal arrow.
Of course- if the arrow is magical the spell falls. (though you still cast it, and still waste both the spell and your action).
-S
Right I got to page 3...but if no one brought it up..
Can I ready an action to cast shatter on an arrow coming at me?
Yep.
Oddly enough, the only "weird" thing comes up if you use the AOE version.
Does an arrow in flight count as attended or uanttended? :PIf you use the "single target" version though it just does flat damage (d6/level). Whether you allow the fort save or not is irrelevant- if you are high enough to cast the spell you do enough damage to automatically destroy a normal arrow.
Of course- if the arrow is magical the spell falls. (though you still cast it, and still waste both the spell and your action).
-S
Well I'd have to deal with Manyshot somehow.
Stuff
I am going to ignore the stuff about feats because as I said before the existence of a similar feat is irrelevant, but at least now, we are getting somewhere. We are talking about the RAW, not the existence of some similar feat.
One thing I would point out to add to your analysis. If the arrow is magical, then each +1 of enhancement bonus adds +2 hardness and +10 hp. A mundane arrow shot from a +3 bow gains a +3 enhancement bonus, and becomes magical. That would make it 6 hardness with 35 hp.
I think the problems with treating the arrow as wielded is bigger than that. A wielded arrow would still exist in the wielders reach and space, so unless you were in melee range of the archer you couldn't sunder it.
That brings up an interesting tangent. If you were threatening an archer, you could use a readied action or an AoO to sunder the arrow before it left the bow. That is pretty clearly allowed by the RAW.
So that leaves us with an unattended object. Which is stuck in an ambigious rules loop. Now if you can't sunder unattended objects, then you can't split logs for firewood. So lets assume that the RAI is that you can sunder unattended objects.
That just leaves us with the ridiculously low AC that unattended objects have. As the rules say, "Objects are easier to hit than creatures because they don't usually move, but many are tough enough to shrug off some damage from each blow." The rules assume that unattended inanimate objects are not moving. That is where the low AC comes from. Since we are dealing with a moving object, a circumstance modifier to the objects AC is entirely appropiate.
More Stuff
This is actually very similar to what I've been saying, and I'd like to add that the AC of 10 seems to ignore size modifiers.
A diminutive arrow (ignoring the "inanimate" penalties since it's moving and allowing it a Dexterity of at least 10 to allow for motion as well) would be at an AC of 14. Give it a circumstance bonus of +10 and you're looking at a fair AC of 24.
This could go even higher if you are willing to give the arrow a higher AC or other bonuses with respect to the archer. I would actually think it's a fair and reasonable stance to give the arrow the Dexterity of the archer.
More StuffThis is actually very similar to what I've been saying, and I'd like to add that the AC of 10 seems to ignore size modifiers.
A diminutive arrow (ignoring the "inanimate" penalties since it's moving and allowing it a Dexterity of at least 10 to allow for motion as well) would be at an AC of 14. Give it a circumstance bonus of +10 and you're looking at a fair AC of 24.
This could go even higher if you are willing to give the arrow a higher AC or other bonuses with respect to the archer. I would actually think it's a fair and reasonable stance to give the arrow the Dexterity of the archer.
Why Circumstance of 10, usually it says +2 is added according to PHB.
So AC 16 is right.
Why Circumstance of 10, usually it says +2 is added according to PHB.
Where in the PHB are you referring to?
I chose +10 because it's about the highest I've ever seen a circumstance bonus and this deserves to be difficult.
Lion Blade's Silent Soul
Grease
Black Pudding's Suction
etc...
I think the problems with treating the arrow as wielded is bigger than that. A wielded arrow would still exist in the wielders reach and space, so unless you were in melee range of the archer you couldn't sunder it.
Exactly. Using sunder to deflect an incoming arrow is a house-rule.
That brings up an interesting tangent. If you were threatening an archer, you could use a readied action or an AoO to sunder the arrow before it left the bow. That is pretty clearly allowed by the RAW.
This is true, but I would argue the archer could just draw another as a free action. You could do the same to a crossbow, though. Those are not as easily reloaded.
So that leaves us with an unattended object. Which is stuck in an ambigious rules loop. Now if you can't sunder unattended objects, then you can't split logs for firewood. So lets assume that the RAI is that you can sunder unattended objects.
You can't sunder unattended objects. Sunder is a specific combat maneuver for attacking held or worn objects. Chopping firewood is simply making an attack against the unattended object.
The problem with treating an arrow in flight as an unattended object is that it would then follow all the rules of unattended objects, meaning one could pluck an arrow from the air as easily as picking up a log.
|
So that leaves us with an unattended object. Which is stuck in an ambigious rules loop. Now if you can't sunder unattended objects, then you can't split logs for firewood. So lets assume that the RAI is that you can sunder unattended objects.You can't sunder unattended objects. Sunder is a specific combat maneuver for attacking held or worn objects. Chopping firewood is simply making an attack against the unattended object.
The problem with treating an arrow in flight as an unattended object is that it would then follow all the rules of unattended objects, meaning one could pluck an arrow from the air as easily as picking up a log.
You can sunder an unattended object. From the PRD:
Smashing an Object
Smashing a weapon or shield with a slashing or bludgeoning weapon is accomplished with the sunder combat maneuver (see Combat). Smashing an object is like sundering a weapon or shield, except that your combat maneuver check is opposed by the object's AC. Generally, you can smash an object only with a bludgeoning or slashing weapon.
Specific overrides General. While the rule for sunder states that the item be worn or carried, the "additional rules" section of the book states that breaking an unattended object uses the sunder rules too, except for the CMD. When breaking an object, you use the objects AC instead of the CMD.
This does mean that a character with the improved sunder feat (which grants a bonus to sunder) would be better at breaking objects then a character without.
There are 2 ways to break unattended items per the RAW:
1) special sunder maneuver. (to "smash" the object per the rules)
2) STR check. (to "break" the object per the rules)
You can sunder an unattended object. From the PRD:
Smashing an Object
Smashing a weapon or shield with a slashing or bludgeoning weapon is accomplished with the sunder combat maneuver (see Combat). Smashing an object is like sundering a weapon or shield, except that your combat maneuver check is opposed by the object's AC. Generally, you can smash an object only with a bludgeoning or slashing weapon.
Specific overrides General. While the rule for sunder states that the item be worn or carried, the "additional rules" section of the book states that breaking an unattended object uses the sunder rules too, except for the CMD. When breaking an object, you use the objects AC instead of the CMD.
This does mean that a character with the improved sunder feat (which grants a bonus to sunder) would be better at breaking objects then a character without.
There are 2 ways to break unattended items per the RAW:
1) special sunder maneuver. (to "smash" the object per the rules)
2) STR check. (to "break" the object per the rules)
So smashing an object uses your CMB instead of attack bonus. Good to know.
Still doesn't invalidate any of my important points. You can't deflect arrows without a feat.
|
|
You can sunder an unattended object. From the PRD:
Smashing an Object
Smashing a weapon or shield with a slashing or bludgeoning weapon is accomplished with the sunder combat maneuver (see Combat). Smashing an object is like sundering a weapon or shield, except that your combat maneuver check is opposed by the object's AC. Generally, you can smash an object only with a bludgeoning or slashing weapon.
Specific overrides General. While the rule for sunder states that the item be worn or carried, the "additional rules" section of the book states that breaking an unattended object uses the sunder rules too, except for the CMD. When breaking an object, you use the objects AC instead of the CMD.
This does mean that a character with the improved sunder feat (which grants a bonus to sunder) would be better at breaking objects then a character without.
There are 2 ways to break unattended items per the RAW:
1) special sunder maneuver. (to "smash" the object per the rules)
2) STR check. (to "break" the object per the rules)So smashing an object uses your CMB instead of attack bonus. Good to know.
Still doesn't invalidate any of my important points. You can't deflect arrows without a feat.
sure, I will give you that you cannot deflect in-flight arrows without the feat, but can you smash them?
This is true, but I would argue the archer could just draw another as a free action. You could do the same to a crossbow, though. Those are not as easily reloaded.
Ouch. This is quite painful. What if the person in question actually had Deflect Arrows?
Player: I deflect his attack.
GM: Okay, well since you did he gets another one just to spite your efforts.
I know that's not what you're saying, but if the guy went through all that trouble just to be shut down by a free action (most arrows are mundane), I think he'd be upset.
No, unless you have some kind of special ability for it. Like Wall of Blades for example.
Since we're still talking PF, can you not bring up Wall of Blades?
And just the same, can other people not bring up Deflect Arrows anymore? These are extraneous and not the question. Since they are not the question, they don't address it.
Since we're still talking PF, can you not bring up Wall of Blades?Why? Because it proves that you're wrong? Just because Paizo didn't yet make anything similar doesn't mean it all of a sudden became possible to do for everyone.
PF is supposed to be backwards-compatible so it's not even a houserule to use Wall of Blades. But if you're playing PF only then sorry, you either can't do it or you make a houserule or homebrew something.
No. Because it doesn't address the question. Let me paint the picture for you.
Player: I just bought myself a falchion.
GM: Why not a falcata?
Player: Well I want to use a falchion.
GM: Just take the feat and use a falcata, it's way better.
Player: But what if all I want to invest in is the falchion, can I still use it?
GM: No.
The question is about readying vs. a ranged attack, not about deflect arrows or wall of blades. They are good solutions to the same problem, but they are not the question.
sure, I will give you that you cannot deflect in-flight arrows without the feat, but can you smash them?
Of course not. You can smash an arrow on the table, but not in mid flight.
You can pick up an arrow on the table, can you pick it up in mid flight?
Of course not. You can smash an arrow on the table, but not in mid flight.
You can pick up an arrow on the table, can you pick it up in mid flight?
Technically there's no rules that say you can pick an arrow off the table. I find this an interesting emphasis to the line being drawn.
In the end, every GM allows things to happen that aren't specifically talked about in the book. Otherwise you wouldn't be able to pick up objects, stand on your head, or maintain a healthy and consistent heart rate.
All of these things are irrelevant and ludicrous. I'm not bringing them up to emphasize my point about allowing unwritten rules, but I am using them as extreme examples of drawing the line.
At one point, a GM draws a line in the sand based upon his own perceptions of reality, and says that players don't need to concentrate on their heart to remain alive. He also draws a line in the sand saying that you can't use the Disguise skill to convincingly walk around as a colossal giant as a medium creature without help or mechanical/magical assistance, no matter how high you roll.
Some things not in the book are assumed to happen, while other things not in the book are assumed to be impossible.
What I find most interesting about this discussion is the topic at hand is completely in the grey area. Obviously it is on one side of a GM's "sand-line", while being on the opposite side for another. The book isn't clear enough to really make a solid argument (and trust me, these "Of course you can/can't because I say so" arguments are not solid).
So, the real question is, why are people so SURE about their opinions to state things so matter of factually?
Edit:
Answer is "you can't".
Case in point.
What I find most interesting about this discussion is the topic at hand is completely in the grey area. Obviously it is on one side of a GM's "sand-line", while being on the opposite side for another. The book isn't clear enough to really make a solid argument (and trust me, these "Of course you can/can't because I say so" arguments are not solid).
So, the real question is, why are people so SURE about their opinions to state things so matter of factually?
Because it's teh interwebz... it's what we do.
Because it's teh interwebz... it's what we do.
Oh... right. Hadn't actually thought that bit through... er... well, sorry! As you were, everybody!
They are good solutions to the same problem, but they are not the question.Answer is "you can't".
If the answer were so simple, we wouldn't have gone on for so many pages about it.
GrenMeera's right, this is total grey area. It's not like I don't see where you're coming from, I do get it. If it turns up in a FAQ that this doesn't work I can see that, too. I argue the side that I do because it feels like a GM call situation and that's what I'd rule at my table.
So, an Archer fighter can deflect an arrow, by firing an arrow at the oncoming arrow?
I kinda' want him to have an illusion cast on him to look like an animated arrow himself as well.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Player wants to do something completely inefficient and time wasting.
GM goes out of his way to stop the player from doing that inefficient thing because it's not in the rulebook.
GM suddenly becomes a video game and unable to do anything outside it's script.
You can shoot an oncoming bullet, by firing a bullet at it?
At my table, he'd certainly be welcome to try. Try being a key word there.
Of course not. You can smash an arrow on the table, but not in mid flight.
You can pick up an arrow on the table, can you pick it up in mid flight?
Technically there's no rules that say you can pick an arrow off the table. I find this an interesting emphasis to the line being drawn.
The are rules, actually, they're in the Combat section.
Manipulate an Item
Moving or manipulating an item is usually a move action.
This includes retrieving or putting away a stored item, picking up an item, moving a heavy object, and opening a door. Examples of this kind of action, along with whether they incur an attack of opportunity, are given in Table: Actions in Combat.
As you can see, picking up an item is clearly a move action.
As you can see, picking up an item is clearly a move action.
You are right, you did a more thorough search than I. The rest of the examples I think still apply though.
You can shoot an oncoming bullet, by firing a bullet at it?
And by RAW the AC is what? 18?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You can shoot an oncoming bullet, by firing a bullet at it?At my table, he'd certainly be welcome to try. Try being a key word there.
Is that code for "make the DC so high he will never succeed, even on a natural 20?"
If so, I would just say tell him that there was no chance of him succeeding at his current skill level. A GM who actively wastes his players' time like that shouldn't be GMing.
You can shoot an oncoming bullet, by firing a bullet at it?At my table, he'd certainly be welcome to try. Try being a key word there.Is that code for "make the DC so high he will never succeed, even on a natural 20?"
If so, I would just say tell him that there was no chance of him succeeding at his current skill level. A GM who actively wastes his players' time like that shouldn't be GMing.
A *player who actively wastes his *GM's time like that shouldn't be *playing."
Fixed it for ya.
How is attempting to perform an inspiring maneuver a waste of ANYONE's time, AD? I'd think it would promote more cool ideas and fun actions at the gaming table.
Are all your players limited to charge, full attack full attack, lest they be considered to be "wasting their GM's time?
I've agreed with a great deal of your posts as of late, but not this one.
You can shoot an oncoming bullet, by firing a bullet at it?At my table, he'd certainly be welcome to try. Try being a key word there.Is that code for "make the DC so high he will never succeed, even on a natural 20?"
If so, I would just say tell him that there was no chance of him succeeding at his current skill level. A GM who actively wastes his players' time like that shouldn't be GMing.
No, it's code for, "unless this is high-level play, a fluke is all you can hope for."
Also, it's not wasting time, it's rolling a die. I'd rather have the player, um, playing instead of me trying to frame an argument that it can't happen at all no matter what. It places the spotlight on the sport of it instead of me on a soapbox.
And shooting a bullet out of the air: seriously, this is awesome.
There's no problem if the GM isn't deliberately and maliciously misleading his players (which doesn't seem to be the case with you, Swivl). That would be the antithesis of fun. (Trust is kind of a required component in a tabletop roleplaying game.)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It places the spotlight on the sport of it instead of me on a soapbox.
I like this line a lot actually. As a GM, I'm much more apt to feel this way.
In fact, from a GM perspective:
Trying and failing to do something isn't wasting anybody's time at all any more so than trying and succeeding. We're here to game, and there's no point in arguing about the details of the ambiguity of the RAW when we could have already rolled a die and moved on with the story.
Let them try, let them roll, let them fail, move onto the next exciting thing! None of this wasted time because trying and failing was part of the story too. In fact, let them try again if they want. A frustrated warrior obsessed with slashing an arrow can become unexpected character development if you are an adaptable GM, and I'm more interested in character development than I am in hitting a bad guy.
He finally succeeds at slashing an arrow against the assassin trying to kill the king, despite the many failures before. Now that's memorable.
|
|
It places the spotlight on the sport of it instead of me on a soapbox.I like this line a lot actually. As a GM, I'm much more apt to feel this way.
In fact, from a GM perspective:
Trying and failing to do something isn't wasting anybody's time at all any more so than trying and succeeding. We're here to game, and there's no point in arguing about the details of the ambiguity of the RAW when we could have already rolled a die and moved on with the story.
Let them try, let them roll, let them fail, move onto the next exciting thing! None of this wasted time because trying and failing was part of the story too. In fact, let them try again if they want. A frustrated warrior obsessed with slashing an arrow can become unexpected character development if you are an adaptable GM, and I'm more interested in character development than I am in hitting a bad guy.
He finally succeeds at slashing an arrow against the assassin trying to kill the king, despite the many failures before. Now that's memorable.
Thank you.
To add to this, maybe you use all the attempts (with that 1 success or so) as an RP reason for the character taking the feat next chance they can.
I love to encourage characters to RP more and get past the "I level, here is what I now can do out of thin air" mindset. It helps get people past the mechanics in the game (which are good and needed) to thinking about the role playing part of the game.
StuffI am going to ignore the stuff about feats because as I said before the existence of a similar feat is irrelevant, but at least now, we are getting somewhere. We are talking about the RAW, not the existence of some similar feat.
One thing I would point out to add to your analysis. If the arrow is magical, then each +1 of enhancement bonus adds +2 hardness and +10 hp. A mundane arrow shot from a +3 bow gains a +3 enhancement bonus, and becomes magical. That would make it 6 hardness with 35 hp.
I think the problems with treating the arrow as wielded is bigger than that. A wielded arrow would still exist in the wielders reach and space, so unless you were in melee range of the archer you couldn't sunder it.
That brings up an interesting tangent. If you were threatening an archer, you could use a readied action or an AoO to sunder the arrow before it left the bow. That is pretty clearly allowed by the RAW.
So that leaves us with an unattended object. Which is stuck in an ambigious rules loop. Now if you can't sunder unattended objects, then you can't split logs for firewood. So lets assume that the RAI is that you can sunder unattended objects.
That just leaves us with the ridiculously low AC that unattended objects have. As the rules say, "Objects are easier to hit than creatures because they don't usually move, but many are tough enough to shrug off some damage from each blow." The rules assume that unattended inanimate objects are not moving. That is where the low AC comes from. Since we are dealing with a moving object, a circumstance modifier to the objects AC is entirely appropiate.
You can split logs for firewood because they aren't weapons or armor. You'd use the guidelines as written for objects and go from there.
That's the problem.
In order to use the rules for objects you have to say the arrow isn't a weapon. In order to say the arrow is a weapon you potentially provoke and have to use the CMD of the archer when you try to sunder the arrow.
Keep in mind CMB includes things like the /archers/ deflection bonuses, dodge bonuses, insight, luck, and all those kinds. As well as your strength modifier and your dexterity modifier.
So you have an arrow flying through the air from potentially hundreds of feet away that gets to use the *dodge bonus* and *dexterity bonus* of the shooting archer in order to resist your attempt.
I mean seriously- this is what RAW says on it. You use the *creatures* CMD bonuses to try and sunder the arrow.
The "other feat" is completely relevant because it shows the only actual logical ruling on how to treat anything even close to what you are trying to do. Or do you really truly think the ruling is that the dexterity and dodge bonus of an archer 200 feet away make it harder for you to sunder an arrow just before it strikes you?
I mean thats what we're talking about here. Strict Raw? yes. Makes any sense *at all* given the way the rules are worded? Not hardly.
Which is why there is a feat that coveres it *so* much more nicely.
-S
I love to encourage characters to RP more and get past the "I level, here is what I now can do out of thin air" mindset. It helps get people past the mechanics in the game (which are good and needed) to thinking about the role playing part of the game.
When my Dragon Disciple developed his breath weapon, I had him throwing up in the woods for a full day due to an upset stomach that he didn't understand until a random spark of electricity ran between his teeth... then he understood and began working on controlling it. ^.^
Of course not. You can smash an arrow on the table, but not in mid flight.
You can pick up an arrow on the table, can you pick it up in mid flight?
Technically there's no rules that say you can pick an arrow off the table. I find this an interesting emphasis to the line being drawn.
In the end, every GM allows things to happen that aren't specifically talked about in the book. Otherwise you wouldn't be able to pick up objects, stand on your head, or maintain a healthy and consistent heart rate.
All of these things are irrelevant and ludicrous. I'm not bringing them up to emphasize my point about allowing unwritten rules, but I am using them as extreme examples of drawing the line.
At one point, a GM draws a line in the sand based upon his own perceptions of reality, and says that players don't need to concentrate on their heart to remain alive. He also draws a line in the sand saying that you can't use the Disguise skill to convincingly walk around as a colossal giant as a medium creature without help or mechanical/magical assistance, no matter how high you roll.
Some things not in the book are assumed to happen, while other things not in the book are assumed to be impossible.
What I find most interesting about this discussion is the topic at hand is completely in the grey area. Obviously it is on one side of a GM's "sand-line", while being on the opposite side for another. The book isn't clear enough to really make a solid argument (and trust me, these "Of course you can/can't because I say so" arguments are not solid).
So, the real question is, why are people so SURE about their opinions to state things so matter of factually?
Edit:
Answer is "you can't".Case in point.
Both sides getting their say, hashing it out, making sure they know what the rules say (whether they agree with them or not) is the first step in making an effective, efficient houserule in case 1) the rule is actually a grey area or 2) the rule is a rule that's just stupid and needs to be changed. (stupid, or doesn't adequately cover the issue at hand, or whatever).
So yeah, making sure exactly what the rules are is a very important part of the game.-S
So yeah, making sure exactly what the rules are is a very important part of the game.
An interesting side note to this:
Dave Arneson once told me that the more rules you create, the more impossible game balance and play becomes. He claimed that Rock, Paper, Scissors is still the ultimate example of perfect game design.
I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you, but it's dangerous to open a can of worms stating that everybody should have the same understanding of a rule system that is meant to replicate an entire universe. This generalization works at upper levels, but can spiral down a dark path into the abyss of "nuance".
As you can see, picking up an item is clearly a move action.You are right, you did a more thorough search than I. The rest of the examples I think still apply though.
Right, your other examples.
By the way, what would you say the roll should be to maintain a healthy and consistent heart rate in combat? 'Cause that would be a really sucky roll to botch, ya know?
You know why you don't have to worry about your heart rate? Not because the GM "took a stand," but because THE RULES DO NOT EVEN REMOTELY SUGGEST THAT YOU DO!
We're not talking about common sense rules to preserve verisimilitude like "You Fall Down When You Die," we're talking about making up mechanics that affect combat. What's more, mechanics that are already amply covered by a feat.
The rules don't even begin to back any of this up, you're just saying "I think you should be able to, so you can." And that's fine, at your table, but it's a house-rule, not RAW.
THE RULES DO NOT EVEN REMOTELY SUGGEST THAT YOU DO!
I think you failed to understand the point of that post. It was identifying the fact that sometimes you say this very thing, and other times you say "THE RULES DO NOT EVEN REMOTELY SUGGEST THAT YOU DON'T"!
How do you differentiate when to use one method of interpreting the rules and when to use the other? The GM DOES take a stance, it's just so simple and obvious that the concept is overlooked.
The rules don't even begin to back any of this up, you're just saying "I think you should be able to, so you can."
This is an assumption of yours. This thread has gone on for 346 posts because there ARE interpretations of the rules that say that this is a perfectly valid action by RAW. You may disagree, and that's fine. I just see no reason to claim that the rules are clear when this thread has essentially proved by sampling that it's not.
This is an assumption of yours. This thread has gone on for 346 posts because there ARE interpretations of the rules that say that this is a perfectly valid action by RAW. You may disagree, and that's fine. I just see no reason to claim that the rules are clear when this thread has essentially proved by sampling that it's not.
Actually, if you read what's going on, even the people that think it should be allowed say it will break the game if you do it by RAW and give the arrow a 13 AC. So while their argument is that it is allowed by RAW, even they realize doing it that way is a horrible idea. The most likely reason for this is that the rules are not intended to work this way.
EDIT: They're trying to have their cake and eat it too. What it boils down to is either:
1. Accept that the rules don't work this way, and disallow it.
2. Accept that the rules don't work this way, and use house rule to allow it (which your previous post about Dave Arneson implies is a bad idea).
3. Argue that RAW does allow it, and run it exactly like the rules say you should, with a 13 AC arrow.
Most people are saying 3 but arguing 2. Which really means we all know the rules don't work this way, but some of us want to allow it anyway. I'm not saying that it's a bad thing, your game, have fun with it, but call it what it is.
Good thing I'm not a PF-only guy, so I don't have to houserule anything.
This question has nothing to do with whether 3.5 is accepted material or not, as the question remains the same with or without it. Seriously, I already talked to you about this.
Jodokai, for my part at least I have no illusions about houseruling to help this situation out, provided it actually needs it. It is a corner case, after all. Though I do think one or two possibilities might be missing from your list. I can't think of them yet, though, so I'll get back to you if they come to me.