|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Hello, all.
Very recently, I have been monitoring the forums for examples of rules and abilities that require interpretation, or seem to be contradictory. To use the first example from the list below: what happens when you try to move into an invisible character's space?
What I am trying to do is compose a list of all the rules and effects that require interpretation so that I can have at-hand a list of the most RAW and RAI interpretations for those rules. I may use this in the moderately-near-future to run a "Pathfinder Coliseum" in the style of the old "Core Coliseum" of the WotC threads, back in the day.
(Basically: it was very fun, very strict Rules-As-Written gladitorial-style gameplay using exclusively OGL content, and hosted on the forums.)
So far, here's what I've got:
Attempting to move into a space you cannot occupy (such as a space occupied by an invisible creature or a wall of force) may provoke, but never uses up any squares of movement.
Creatures rendered dead or unconscious fall prone.
Flurry of blows works as intended, but not as written, with regards to the zen archer.
The compel hostility spell cannot compel a creature to attack a creature that it cannot detect, even if it threatens such a creature.
The convincing lie rogue talent requires the subject to become aware of the lie, otherwise no Bluff check is rolled (since the subject isn't lying).
The Eldritch Heritage feat chain cannot access wildblooded bloodline abilities.
The barbarian’s totem warrior archetype works as specified in the Advanced Player’s Guide, not as specified in Ultimate Combat.
The various elementals from the Bestiary II are summon-able with summon monster spells. The summon monster spells specify elementals, but do not necessarily specify what types in the text.
What I'd like from you fine people is more. Which rules or abilites are unclear, and require clarification or interpretation? This could benefit the forums in the months to come, if I'm able to get the PF Coliseum off the ground.
Wizards with the metal elementalist archetype must use two spell slots to prepare heat metal, which is both a school spell and an opposed school spell.
The spell heat metal isn't a Fire School spell, so there's no reason it should take two slots.
The dead rule is explain in your other post. There are many time RAW won't make sense, but how people play the game is clear. At that time you have to decide how you will play the game. If everything was spelled out perfectly the book would be a lot bigger.
The devs have already said zen archer is an issue. They do intend to fix it.
Convincing lie works as is. It basically you assumes you tell the lie in the same way it was told to you.
It would be like if you told me a lie, and then I passed the information on to someone else. You would basically be using me to lie for you, even though I do not know it.
If you do not leave a square, you do not provoke for leaving a square. If you attempt to take a move action to move and cannot, then you simply didn't move, so you don't provoke.
I don't see why not being able to compel a creature you can't detect is a problem for compel hostility. If I can't detect it, how would I know to force it to attack me instead of someone else?
The issue with Convincing Lie only comes up when a Sense Motive check is used by a third party (neither the rogue, nor the one she lied to).
Check: A successful check lets you avoid being bluffed (see the Bluff skill). You can also use this skill to determine when “something is up” (that is, something odd is going on) or to assess someone's trustworthiness.
Whether the teller believes something to be true or not is immaterial to the veracity of the statement. Sense motive would be used to figure out if something is fishy about the story that the teller genuinely believes. In this case, a Bluff check is rolled using the rogue's modifiers against the third party's Sense Motive.
Flurry of Blows is an issue, but that is pending Dev responses and won't be solved in this thread (most likely). The Barbarian archetype is contradictory and needs an errata, but those would be pending a 3rd printing of the APG or a 2nd printing of UC. Neither of those seem to be on the near horizon.
|
|
Convincing lie works as is. It basically you assumes you tell the lie in the same way it was told to you.
It would be like if you told me a lie, and then I passed the information on to someone else. You would basically be using me to lie for you, even though I do not know it.
If I tell a lie to you and you believe it, then you're not lying when you tell it to someone else. A fool who believes the world is flat doesn't roll Bluff every time he says so. As it stands, convincing lie is useful for enabling your party members to use your own Bluff modifier when passing on a story.
If you do not leave a square, you do not provoke for leaving a square. If you attempt to take a move action to move and cannot, then you simply didn't move, so you don't provoke.
Correct, but attempting to enter a creature's space does provoke an attack of opportunity. That's basically what an overrun is.
I don't see why not being able to compel a creature you can't detect is a problem for compel hostility. If I can't detect it, how would I know to force it to attack me instead of someone else?
You misread me. If the creature affected cannot detect you, it is under no compulsion to attack you, even if it threatens your space.
The issue with Convincing Lie only comes up when a Sense Motive check is used by a third party (neither the rogue, nor the one she lied to).Check: A successful check lets you avoid being bluffed (see the Bluff skill). You can also use this skill to determine when “something is up” (that is, something odd is going on) or to assess someone's trustworthiness.Whether the teller believes something to be true or not is immaterial to the veracity of the statement. Sense motive would be used to figure out if something is fishy about the story that the teller genuinely believes. In this case, a Bluff check is rolled using the rogue's modifiers against the third party's Sense Motive.
It could potentially be used that way, however, convincing lie is very specific in stating that it's use is for Bluff checks made to "convince the questioner," which is the standard use of Bluff to lie. A subject telling the truth as he understands it isn't lying or bluffing, even if he's mistaken about the truth. In any case, it's a hotly-contested bit of rules text, and thus probably needs clarification or interpretation.
If you do not leave a square, you do not provoke for leaving a square. If you attempt to take a move action to move and cannot, then you simply didn't move, so you don't provoke.Correct, but attempting to enter a creature's space does provoke an attack of opportunity. That's basically what an overrun is.
Ah, you mentioned walking into an invisible wall of force. Moving into another creature's square is another issue. Two creatures, however, can occupy the same space without it being a bullrush or overrun. That's where the squeezing rules apply. If the player is not attempting a bullrush or overrun, then it is not a bullrush or overrun. If it's just normal movement, both the player and the opponent would need to squeeze to prevent this, however.
I don't see why not being able to compel a creature you can't detect is a problem for compel hostility. If I can't detect it, how would I know to force it to attack me instead of someone else?You misread me. If the creature affected cannot detect you, it is under no compulsion to attack you, even if it threatens your space.
Let's quote the spell, for clarity.
Whenever a creature you can see that threatens you makes an attack against one of your allies, as an immediate action, you can compel that creature to attack you instead. When you compel a creature to attack you, you must first overcome that creature's spell resistance, and the creature can attempt a Will saving throw to ignore the compulsion.
So what does it require? Can you see the target? Check. Does the target threaten you? Check. Did the target fail the saving throw and did you pass its spell resistance? Check. Done. It must attempt to attack you.
If it can't detect you in any fashion, it must attempt to attack something other than the target. Since you can blindly swing into a square in hopes of attacking an invisible opponent, the target of the spell must attempt to attack "you", which it might believe to be in one of the adjacent squares. Since it threatens you, that means you are necessarily within attack range of some form of attack that it can make. So it must make an attack at somewhere that you might be. The compulsion of the spell is to direct the attack away from the original target to a new target.
It works.
Convincing lie might not be written perfectly, but I think the intent is clear.
If I am going to have a call to arms it will be about things that really cause problems instead of things that are understand, but could be written better.
As an example. click me
|
|
I'd love for this list to be pretty all-inclusive, as the intent is to provide a concrete set of rulings and interpretations for a series of competitive-style games. People tend to get touchy when they compete! It's also just good in general to have a set of rulings or interpretations prepared beforehand that you can simply point to when rules debates crop up. If the ruling was set in stone before the game ever began, then no-one can challenge the fairness or bias of the GM.
Otherwise, consider it a fun mental excercise.
I'm sick and tired of rule lawyers overruling common sense because of the specific wording of rules. Convincing lie requires you to lie. That's so obvious the argument is ridiculous.
The others, like Compel Hostility, are a little trickier. The only way you could justify the Compel Hostility attack on you if you're invisible is if you get into the fluff of the spell. How does the spell work in the game world, rather than in the mechanics. Does it make the target want to hit you? If so, it won't work. But if the spell makes the target physicall rather than mentally compelled to hit you, it would work.
|
|
@ littlehewy: Nobody is arguing that convincing lie doesn't require you to lie. The problem with convincing lie is that it lets someone you convince with a Bluff check convey your lie when he repeats it by using your Bluff modifier instead of his own.
The problem is that someone who believes your lie, and then repeats it, isn't lying. Therefore, he shouldn't be making a Bluff check at all. If I believe the world is flat, I don't have to roll Bluff every time I say so. I'm just an idiot.
As it stands, convincing lie is good for telling someone a lie, getting them to believe it, and then telling them that it's a lie. That way, they can pass on that same lie to a third party while using your Bluff modifier to do so. That's actually pretty useful, in that it lets your allies use your Bluff modifier when your party has the time to "come up with a story" about where they were on the night that the crown jewels went missing.
Are alternate classes like the Ninja or the Samurai allowed to take archetypes from their base classes (the rogue and cavalier respectively) as long as they qualify for them?
Does immunity to poisons also make you immune to the negative effects of drugs?
For the Qinggong monk, can you pick and choose which ability to replace for ki powers thus making it compatible with all other archetypes?
What kind of action is it for a Ninja to use the Forgotten Trick ninja trick to emulate a combat feat (by emulating the combat trick ninja trick).
prototype00
Sorry I was ambiguous there. I meant that the target must lie. If the target didn't have to lie (i.e. be aware of the truth), it would be much more powerful, I would think.
I always assumed that the rogue didn't have to lie to the target, it was more training the target to lie well, kind of like programming a spy.
|
|
Are alternate classes like the Ninja or the Samurai allowed to take archetypes from their base classes (the rogue and cavalier respectively) as long as they qualify for them?
I thought this was called out as a definate "yes" in the archetype and alternate class rules. Something about alternate classes being considered to be base classes for all intents and purposes. The ninja is a rogue, the samurai is a cavalier, and so on.
Does immunity to poisons also make you immune to the negative effects of drugs?
By RAW, no.
For the Qinggong monk, can you pick and choose which ability to replace for ki powers thus making it compatible with all other archetypes?This is a good one, and this is how I've always ruled it: monks with the qinggong monk archetype may not select another archetype that alters any ability rendered variable by the qinggong monk archetype. The archetype rules state that "a character can select multiple archetypes but none of the alternate class features can replace or alter the same class feature" (emphasis mine). The qinggong monk archetype's alternate class features can replace most of the class features of the monk, and thus cannot be selected in tandem with most other monk archetypes (except, I think, for the sensei).
What kind of action is it for a Ninja to use the Forgotten Trick ninja trick to emulate a combat feat (by emulating the combat trick ninja trick).
This is also a pretty good question. It seems like a purely mental action ("a ninja with this ability can recall one trick taught to her by her ancient masters"), which are almost always free actions.
Given that a single topic of rule interpretation can run into the 500 post range on this board, the futility of this task becomes easily apparant. It's the kind of thing I'd consign Sisyphus to if he had been a gamer.
I know that there are gamers who persist in the quioxtic crusade to end GM variance. That they'll be able to craft some kind of tome that will be the Holy Tome that will ensure campaigns be "consistent". That this tome would be some form of guardian against GM's they implicitly can't trust.
It's not going to happen.... even within a structured environment like PFS.
Well, I think of this thread as the start of someplace we can get all the rules that need interpretation together in one place (as opposed to questions about rules already settled) and SKR can sort through them and answer them at his leisure.
A clearinghouse for faqs as it were.
prototype00
Edit: Garden Tool, would it be possible to include the (relevant/valid) new questions in your first post? So that devs (welcome be they!) don't have to trawl through the whole thread looking for new rule inquiries?
|
|
I've got one. Do spells expire when their targets become illegal targets?
For example, I cannot cast mage armor on a corpse. A corpse is an object, not a creature, and thus an invalid target for mage armor. If I become a corpse, does my mage armor expire? If a breath of life spell returns me to life next round, is my mage armor gone?
I personally don't, but someone with more board experience might.
prototype00
| 2 people marked this as FAQ candidate. |
I'd love to see an official answer on how chill touch (and other instantaneous muti-touch spells) works. I have yet to find two DM's who run it consistently going all the way back to early 3.0. It's one of the most poorly written, either highly abusable or useless (depending on interpretation) spells ever propagated from one edition to the next.
Something similar to this was done a long time ago with a link to a chart that was organized, and it did not get used. The best thing to do is to give each topic its own rules thread if it needs to be addressed.
I bolded that last part because some things are not written perfectly, but most of them can still be figured out by the board members. If Paizo is going to clarify rules it is better to have actual issues clarified, than to them fix something that is clear, but could be worded better.
Chill Touch came up a little while ago, but I don't think we ever came to a consensus as to how it is supposed to work so that might be a good one.
Convincing Lie's intent is pretty obvious though, and should be at the bottom of the totem pole, IMHO.