Paizo Top Nav Branding
  • Hello, Guest! |
  • Sign In |
  • My Account |
  • Shopping Cart |
  • Help/FAQ
About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game
Pathfinder Society

Pathfinder Beginner Box

Pathfinder Adventure Card Game

Pathfinder Comics

Pathfinder Legends

PaizoCon 2014!

What counts as "presenting" a holy symbol?


Rules Questions

51 to 91 of 91 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Andoran

I get what you are saying, and if you will notice I haven't really been arguing with the exact things you have been saying. I am only saying that the addition of the Column should combine with the floor to create total cover. The burst, which as I understand it does indeed need line of effect, would have to go through both the floor of the Dais and the column. I am thinking that the floor and the column separate from one another would create partial cover, but combined I do believe that they block the imaginary line from one to the other.

wraithstrike wrote:
The floor could count as a barrier and block line of affect so if the line passed through it then the dwarf would be safe.


If the the cleric's channel has two avenues(squares) of approach to the dwarf, and the column blocks one line, and the floor blocks the other line then that would work to stop it also.

If there is only one possible line that would work, and neither one stops it completely then the line should continue.

Basically the invisible line goes to the first obstacle, and checks it.
If it is not total cover then it moves on. It then goes to the 2nd obstacle, and checks it. If it is not total cover then it still moves on. It is not a case of the line being partially blocked, and another partial blocking will stop it.

edit:In PFS this is especially true since a GM is not allowed to alter the rules like that. He could have fudged the dice damage, but he can't just pretend total cover is there.


Pathfinder Maps, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
wraithstrike wrote:


Basically the invisible line goes to the first obstacle, and checks it.
If it is not total cover then it moves on. It then goes to the 2nd obstacle, and checks it. If it is not total cover then it still moves on. It is not a case of the line being partially blocked, and another partial blocking will stop it.

edit:In PFS this is especially true since a GM is not allowed to alter the rules like that. He could have fudged the dice damage, but he can't just pretend total cover is there.

Actually, I have to disagree with this in certain situations.

For example :

5x5x30 corridor.

123456
A######B

Now, in 5ft cube 3, the passage way is 50% blocked by a wall that goes from the lower left to the upper right, and blocks off the upper left half of the corridor (see figure A below). At cube 5, another wall extends from the lower left to the upper right, and blocks off the lower right half of the corridor (see figure B below).

The cleric in space A on the diagram above channels. But, he cannot draw an uninterrupted line to Rogue B's square, because the two walls completely block. However, he CAN draw a line to cube 4, so the channel would affect cube 4 (bypassing the first wall) but would not be able to bypass the second wall (and therefore can't reach B).

Figure A
#####
####
###
##
#

Figure B
____#
___##
__###
_####
#####

Andoran

I do agree with this, and I would love to have the map in front of me again to be 100% sure of the location to be sure but I am going to ask our DM to consider the line of effect involved to see what he thinks of that.

Having said that, let me get your opinion on this slight edit of the situation.

What if I were standing at the edge of a dais and the other guy was standing on it but in from the edge? Drawn like this:

x x x x x x x x = the floor of the room
x x x a y y b a = me b = you
x x x x y y y y = elevated dais (let's call it 10' of elevation)

By the most technical sense of things, a line could be drawn from the upper left edge of "b" to the upper right edge of "a" down the side of the elevated Dais. Would you allow that shot? I would hard pressed to allow it because I realize that he would be shooting directly through the floor to hit the target.

wraithstrike wrote:

If the the cleric's channel has two avenues(squares) of approach to the dwarf, and the column blocks one line, and the floor blocks the other line then that would work to stop it also.

If there is only one possible line that would work, and neither one stops it completely then the line should continue.

Basically the invisible line goes to the first obstacle, and checks it.
If it is not total cover then it moves on. It then goes to the 2nd obstacle, and checks it. If it is not total cover then it still moves on. It is not a case of the line being partially blocked, and another partial blocking will stop it.

edit:In PFS this is especially true since a GM is not allowed to alter the rules like that. He could have fudged the dice damage, but he can't just pretend total cover is there.


Pathfinder Maps, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Talon378 wrote:

I do agree with this, and I would love to have the map in front of me again to be 100% sure of the location to be sure but I am going to ask our DM to consider the line of effect involved to see what he thinks of that.

Having said that, let me get your opinion on this slight edit of the situation.

What if I were standing at the edge of a dais and the other guy was standing on it but in from the edge? Drawn like this:

x x x x x x x x = the floor of the room
x x x a y y b a = me b = you
x x x x y y y y = elevated dais (let's call it 10' of elevation)

By the most technical sense of things, a line could be drawn from the upper left edge of "b" to the upper right edge of "a" down the side of the elevated Dais. Would you allow that shot? I would hard pressed to allow it because I realize that he would be shooting directly through the floor to hit the target.

If I understand correctly your supposition, then no, there would be no line of effect between A & B. Here's an exploded view (Note, I've expanded each square show corners and sides, so 1 is northwest corner, 9 is southeast corner).

123123123123
4A64Y64Y64B6
789789789789
123123123123
4X64Y64Y64X6
789789789789

To get line of effect, you have to be able to draw a line between opposite corners. So while you can draw a line from A1 to B3, that's not opposite corners. You'd have to draw from A1 to B9, or A7 to B3. Both of those are broken by the 10ft Dias Y. Because the Dias is 10ft high, it blocks the top of cube A as well. If the dias were 4 feet high, then it would not block line of effect as you could draw a line from A1 to B9 along the top of the cubes, and thus it would be in effect.

Andoran

You had me agreeing with you until you said that if it were 4 feet that I could shoot along the top of the cubes. I am sorry, that does not make sense that i could ever hit the feet of someone who is four feet above me when I would have to be holding my bow above my head and still have the strength to draw back the string above my head with full extension on my arms. In short, that would be impossible and I would not allow it to happen.


mdt wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:


Basically the invisible line goes to the first obstacle, and checks it.
If it is not total cover then it moves on. It then goes to the 2nd obstacle, and checks it. If it is not total cover then it still moves on. It is not a case of the line being partially blocked, and another partial blocking will stop it.

edit:In PFS this is especially true since a GM is not allowed to alter the rules like that. He could have fudged the dice damage, but he can't just pretend total cover is there.

Actually, I have to disagree with this in certain situations.

For example :

5x5x30 corridor.

123456
A######B

Now, in 5ft cube 3, the passage way is 50% blocked by a wall that goes from the lower left to the upper right, and blocks off the upper left half of the corridor (see figure A below). At cube 5, another wall extends from the lower left to the upper right, and blocks off the lower right half of the corridor (see figure B below).

The cleric in space A on the diagram above channels. But, he cannot draw an uninterrupted line to Rogue B's square, because the two walls completely block. However, he CAN draw a line to cube 4, so the channel would affect cube 4 (bypassing the first wall) but would not be able to bypass the second wall (and therefore can't reach B).

Figure A
#####
####
###
##
#

Figure B
____#
___##
__###
_####
#####

It seems like you are saying 2 different walls connect to effectively form one wall, but I may be envisioning it correctly. If that is so then I agree. My answer was using the poster case to explain a rule, when I should have given a more general answer.

I was understanding the post as saying one item one item is behind the other in such a way as they each provide partial cover. If two items(obstacles) connect in such a way as to form a solid barrier then I agree.


Pathfinder Maps, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Talon378 wrote:

You had me agreeing with you until you said that if it were 4 feet that I could shoot along the top of the cubes. I am sorry, that does not make sense that i could ever hit the feet of someone who is four feet above me when I would have to be holding my bow above my head and still have the strength to draw back the string above my head with full extension on my arms. In short, that would be impossible and I would not allow it to happen.

And again, I repeat...

Being able to shoot anyone is completely and totally irrelevant to line of effect. Get that out of your head. You either have line of effect to the target square or you do not. In the above example, you do not. If the wall were four feet high, it would not block line of effect.

By the same token, you could still attack the person over a 4ft wall, they'd have partial cover. If you hit them anyway, you didn't hit their foot, because Pathfinder doesn't have locations. In this case, you are assumed to hit some visible part of the target.

Now, if the target is laying prone, the GM can rule they have total cover against direct line attacks like arrows and slings and rays, if the GM so chooses. However, for magic that's AoE, like a channel, if the channel has line of effect to the square, then the square is effected, even if the target would have cover against a normal arrow or sling attack.

Remember, with area of effect, especially bursts, affect is all or nothing. It either affects the entire square, or none of the square. And if it can affect any of the square, then it affects all of the square.

RPG Superstar 2014 Top 16, RPG Superstar 2013 Top 16

1 person marked this as a favorite.

For the record, this was "Among the Living" from season 0. The cleric was on the edge of the raised dais, and there was no column between the dwarf and the cleric (he had already rounded the corner with the column). There was no line-of-sight issue here.

xxOO
DxOO
CXXF
XXXX

x=lower level
X=Raised dais
O=Ogre zombie
D=Dwarf
C=Column
F=Fel Bustrani

The Dwarf was knocked unconscious first by an AoO while approaching the Ogre zombie (which had 10 ft. reach). The Ogre was backed all the way against the wall next to the dais, so the Dwarf had to get around the column before getting within his reach (I have the map still drawn out in front of me). Clearly the cleric could see over the edge just fine, even while prone; nothing was blocking his line-of-effect to the Dwarf.


Pathfinder Maps, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
wraithstrike wrote:


It seems like you are saying 2 different walls connect to effectively form one wall, but I may be envisioning it correctly. If that is so then I agree. My answer was using the poster case to explain a rule, when I should have given a more general answer.

I was understanding the post as saying one item one item is behind the other in such a way as they each provide partial cover. If two items(obstacles) connect in such a way as to form a solid barrier then I agree.

Not connect, but they cover opposite halves of the same corridor. Another example from the real world might be better. If you've ever seen any of those split doors, the ones where you can open the top half or the bottom half independently? Imagine a 5 foot hallway with one of those doors on each end. If we're both standing in the rooms at each end of the hallway, and the top half of my door is open, and the bottom half of your door is open, then neither of us has line of effect because the doors block the lines between us, even though they don't block sound or movement (well, not completely block movement, just turn it into difficult terrain if we don't open the other halves).


Pathfinder Maps, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
RainyDayNinja wrote:
GM Clarification

In which case, then yes, the dwarf is dead.

Andoran

Ok, I was thinking he hadn't gotten around the column completely. That being the case, my argument is completely invalid and I retract it. Time to head to a temple, I suppose.

It was still an interesting discussion though.

Andoran

I get what you are saying, I really do. I am just saying that as a DM I would never allow something that I know is physically impossible no matter what the rules say. Allowing someone to be hit on a technicality is not in the spirit of the rules when I know full well it is impossible
to draw a bow at full arm extension. You cannot do it, and I would not allow it. For the player that tried, my reply would be "prove that you can do it, and I will allow it."

mdt wrote:
Talon378 wrote:

You had me agreeing with you until you said that if it were 4 feet that I could shoot along the top of the cubes. I am sorry, that does not make sense that i could ever hit the feet of someone who is four feet above me when I would have to be holding my bow above my head and still have the strength to draw back the string above my head with full extension on my arms. In short, that would be impossible and I would not allow it to happen.

And again, I repeat...

Being able to shoot anyone is completely and totally irrelevant to line of effect. Get that out of your head. You either have line of effect to the target square or you do not. In the above example, you do not. If the wall were four feet high, it would not block line of effect.

By the same token, you could still attack the person over a 4ft wall, they'd have partial cover. If you hit them anyway, you didn't hit their foot, because Pathfinder doesn't have locations. In this case, you are assumed to hit some visible part of the target.

Now, if the target is laying prone, the GM can rule they have total cover against direct line attacks like arrows and slings and rays, if the GM so chooses. However, for magic that's AoE, like a channel, if the channel has line of effect to the square, then the square is effected, even if the target would have cover against a normal arrow or sling attack.

Remember, with area of effect, especially bursts, affect is all or nothing. It either affects the entire square, or none of the square. And if it can affect any of the square, then it affects all of the square.


mdt wrote:
Talon378 wrote:

You had me agreeing with you until you said that if it were 4 feet that I could shoot along the top of the cubes. I am sorry, that does not make sense that i could ever hit the feet of someone who is four feet above me when I would have to be holding my bow above my head and still have the strength to draw back the string above my head with full extension on my arms. In short, that would be impossible and I would not allow it to happen.

And again, I repeat...

Being able to shoot anyone is completely and totally irrelevant to line of effect. Get that out of your head. You either have line of effect to the target square or you do not. In the above example, you do not. If the wall were four feet high, it would not block line of effect.

By the same token, you could still attack the person over a 4ft wall, they'd have partial cover. If you hit them anyway, you didn't hit their foot, because Pathfinder doesn't have locations. In this case, you are assumed to hit some visible part of the target.

Now, if the target is laying prone, the GM can rule they have total cover against direct line attacks like arrows and slings and rays, if the GM so chooses. However, for magic that's AoE, like a channel, if the channel has line of effect to the square, then the square is effected, even if the target would have cover against a normal arrow or sling attack.

Remember, with area of effect, especially bursts, affect is all or nothing. It either affects the entire square, or none of the square. And if it can affect any of the square, then it affects all of the square.

MDT is correct. I only asked could the two shoot each other to determine if they had line of affect. If the answer would have been yes, assuming they were standing, the issue would have been resolved.

PS:I am aware that I am responding to his post.

PS2:I might have "Among the Living". I purchased a few scenarios, but never ran them. I will check and get back.

Andoran

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Maybe I can talk him in to making a Summoner like dad. ;)

Andoran

1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. 1 person marked this as a favorite.

He might like a more traditional hand to hand monk???

Also, have him take a look at the Alchemist. The mutagen oriented alchemists might be just up his alley. They can get nasty in a hurry.......

TBaileySr wrote:
Maybe I can talk him in to making a Summoner like dad. ;)


Looking at the scenario, the diagram does show steps that would put the cleric on a raised area, but the text does not say how high it is raised. Normally when an area of the map is raised enough to matter(at least 5 feet) it is noted. That(not being raised enough to enter the next square vertically) would put the cleric and everyone else on the same level as far as squares go. Since all squares on the same level as the cleric would get hit with the channel the dwarf would also be hit.

PS:Of course this all assumes I did not miss anything, but I did check 3 times.


mdt wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:


It seems like you are saying 2 different walls connect to effectively form one wall, but I may be envisioning it correctly. If that is so then I agree. My answer was using the poster case to explain a rule, when I should have given a more general answer.

I was understanding the post as saying one item one item is behind the other in such a way as they each provide partial cover. If two items(obstacles) connect in such a way as to form a solid barrier then I agree.

Not connect, but they cover opposite halves of the same corridor. Another example from the real world might be better. If you've ever seen any of those split doors, the ones where you can open the top half or the bottom half independently? Imagine a 5 foot hallway with one of those doors on each end. If we're both standing in the rooms at each end of the hallway, and the top half of my door is open, and the bottom half of your door is open, then neither of us has line of effect because the doors block the lines between us, even though they don't block sound or movement (well, not completely block movement, just turn it into difficult terrain if we don't open the other halves).

I see what you mean. Yeah that would work to block line of effect.

Andoran

We had been told it was 5' high, which sounds reasonable considering there were three or four steps to climb to get up to it. Either way, with the Cleric up on that top edge, and the Dwarf out beyond that column, my point was incorrect as the line of effect could come off the side and get to the dwarf. I didn't think the Dwarf was sticking out quite that far.

wraithstrike wrote:

Looking at the scenario, the diagram does show steps that would put the cleric on a raised area, but the text does not say how high it is raised. Normally when an area of the map is raised enough to matter(at least 5 feet) it is noted. That(not being raised enough to enter the next square vertically) would put the cleric and everyone else on the same level as far as squares go. Since all squares on the same level as the cleric would get hit with the channel the dwarf would also be hit.

PS:Of course this all assumes I did not miss anything, but I did check 3 times.


1 person marked this as FAQ candidate.
Talon378 wrote:

I get what you are saying, I really do. I am just saying that as a DM I would never allow something that I know is physically impossible no matter what the rules say. Allowing someone to be hit on a technicality is not in the spirit of the rules when I know full well it is impossible

to draw a bow at full arm extension. You cannot do it, and I would not allow it. For the player that tried, my reply would be "prove that you can do it, and I will allow it."

Actually that is the spirit and the letter of the rules(cover rules). It is one of those cases where the rules trump real life. Another example is paralyzed characters being allowed reflex saves, and PFS GM's don't get to ignore rules, which is why I am hesitant to do so even if I move to a a larger city.


Talon378 wrote:

He might like a more traditional hand to hand monk???

Also, have him take a look at the Alchemist. The mutagen oriented alchemists might be just up his alley. They can get nasty in a hurry.......

TBaileySr wrote:
Maybe I can talk him in to making a Summoner like dad. ;)

Did someone just FAQ this? :)

Andoran

I recommended it for Faq. I think that it would be a useful addition to the FAQ. The original question about whether a cleric can use his Channel while prone is a very good question and I think others could benefit from the discussion.

Andoran

That being the case, that I am not allowed to make common sense rulings, I would never run a PFS game. As it is, if I were running one, I'd still run it that way anyway. If that is a problem, then they should probably not make me a DM then, lol......

wraithstrike wrote:
Talon378 wrote:

I get what you are saying, I really do. I am just saying that as a DM I would never allow something that I know is physically impossible no matter what the rules say. Allowing someone to be hit on a technicality is not in the spirit of the rules when I know full well it is impossible

to draw a bow at full arm extension. You cannot do it, and I would not allow it. For the player that tried, my reply would be "prove that you can do it, and I will allow it."
Actually that is the spirit and the letter of the rules(cover rules). It is one of those cases where the rules trump real life. Another example is paralyzed characters being allowed reflex saves, and PFS GM's don't get to ignore rules, which is why I am hesitant to do so even if I move to a a larger city.


Talon378 wrote:

That being the case, that I am not allowed to make common sense rulings, I would never run a PFS game. As it is, if I were running one, I'd still run it that way anyway. If that is a problem, then they should probably not make me a DM then, lol......

wraithstrike wrote:
Talon378 wrote:

I get what you are saying, I really do. I am just saying that as a DM I would never allow something that I know is physically impossible no matter what the rules say. Allowing someone to be hit on a technicality is not in the spirit of the rules when I know full well it is impossible

to draw a bow at full arm extension. You cannot do it, and I would not allow it. For the player that tried, my reply would be "prove that you can do it, and I will allow it."
Actually that is the spirit and the letter of the rules(cover rules). It is one of those cases where the rules trump real life. Another example is paralyzed characters being allowed reflex saves, and PFS GM's don't get to ignore rules, which is why I am hesitant to do so even if I move to a a larger city.

Game Balance and easy of play trump realism every time. :)

Another example, just because I am bored, is using a shield to block an attack from a giant or really large dragon. Realistically your arm, and maybe the shield itself would be broken. That is all of my rules examples for now. :)

Andoran

I understand that, but there is a strength element at work there. It would be physically possible to position yourself and have the strength to deflect that blow or to cause it to not hit straight and be more of a "glancing blow".

But, in the example of the bow that I am talking about, it is not a matter of strength. It is a matter of leverage. Drawing a bow is entirely a question of whether you can create the lever necessary to draw the bow. Having the strength to then pull the string is then the second concern, but if you can't form the lever, you can have all the strength in the world and you are still not pulling that string back.

Let me give another example. I had a DM years ago roll on a critical miss table for my bowman that had rolled a one. The table then had me shoot myself in the thigh with my own arrow. Not drop the arrow and it hit my leg, no, it had me draw back and shoot myself in the thigh for full damage. That is not only comical, it is physically impossible to turn a bow around and shoot yourself in the thigh. I told him to prove it. I accepted the damage and all, just not the described manner in which it was dealt.

I guess, in the end, I am one of these guys that is concerned about the narrative. I understand the rules and how to apply them, I just want the narrative of the situation to also make sense. I do think that there is a way to marry the two, and if being a PFS DM would not allow for me to do that, then I would not want to do it as I have been asked to do so on multiple occasions.

wraithstrike wrote:
Talon378 wrote:

That being the case, that I am not allowed to make common sense rulings, I would never run a PFS game. As it is, if I were running one, I'd still run it that way anyway. If that is a problem, then they should probably not make me a DM then, lol......

wraithstrike wrote:
Talon378 wrote:

I get what you are saying, I really do. I am just saying that as a DM I would never allow something that I know is physically impossible no matter what the rules say. Allowing someone to be hit on a technicality is not in the spirit of the rules when I know full well it is impossible

to draw a bow at full arm extension. You cannot do it, and I would not allow it. For the player that tried, my reply would be "prove that you can do it, and I will allow it."
Actually that is the spirit and the letter of the rules(cover rules). It is one of those cases where the rules trump real life. Another example is paralyzed characters being allowed reflex saves, and PFS GM's don't get to ignore rules, which is why I am hesitant to do so even if I move to a a larger city.

Game Balance and easy of play trump realism every time. :)

Another example, just because I am bored, is using a shield to block an attack from a giant or really large dragon. Realistically your arm, and maybe the shield itself would be broken. That is all of my rules examples for now. :)


Talon378 wrote:
He might like a more traditional hand to hand monk???

I personally would steer younger players away from monks for the purposes of PFS play, not just cause all the "monks so underpowered stuff", but there are just better options for beginning players. I personally would recommend a Fighter or a Ranger to that end. Of course I don't know what you're sons age is...

TBaileySr wrote:
Maybe I can talk him in to making a Summoner like dad. ;)

This on the other hand... awesome. As long as you teach him how to make an eidolon properly ;)

Andoran

I can agree with both points. Having played with his son, I was thinking that a hand to hand oriented monk might appeal to his inclination to be in the thick of things. Of my suggestions, to that end, I think the mutagen oriented alchemist would be best. They just so happen to be alot of fun to play for someone that likes to just wade in and start swinging away.....

Darth Grall wrote:
Talon378 wrote:
He might like a more traditional hand to hand monk???

I personally would steer younger players away from monks for the purposes of PFS play, not just cause all the "monks so underpowered stuff", but there are just better options for beginning players. I personally would recommend a Fighter or a Ranger to that end. Of course I don't know what you're sons age is...

TBaileySr wrote:
Maybe I can talk him in to making a Summoner like dad. ;)
This on the other hand... awesome. As long as you teach him how to make an eidolon properly ;)

Andoran

I was only kidding about the Summoner. He would perfer not to lose his Dwarf. I am hoping we can resurect him. He did however look at the rule book on the way home and said if he ever did make a new character it would be a cleric. Makes sense he would say that seeing as that was what killed him. lol. I think we all agreed to use earned money from the session to resurrect him.


See, this is another of those incidences where you wonder if some of these players have ever done anything but eat, drink, play RPGs and fiddle with the computer.

I, myself, am typing this in a prone position, and anybody who thinks a person cannot lift his arm and hold up a small piece of wood or metal while lying (either on their back or their belly) is either incredibly poor in the experiences of living on Earth, or is pretending to be so to try to get something out of you.

I also think this is another thing that DOES NOT merit candidacy for the FAQ, because it pretty much goes without saying.

"Presenting" a holy symbol is the same as "presenting" anything. You hold it up and show it to somebody. That is what "presenting" means. If they can't "see" it (or whatever passes for that in things with no eyes), it doesn't work.

Andoran

Actually, there was more to the discussion than that. There was the question as to whether or not "presenting" meant more than what you describe or not.

Before you reply, please take a moment to actually digest what I am about to type and try your best not to make a snap judgement.

Typically, when giving a presentation for any audience, there is more to "presenting" the material than just raising it up and showing. Typically, there is a "theatrical" component for lack of a better word. What we were trying to establish was if there was a similar component with presenting a holy symbol for the intention of channeling your chosen deity's energy through. It was entirely a valid question and worthy of being asked.

Now, you can certainly feel free to question whether or not it warranted addition into the FAQ, but I personally think that it could be helpful to be in there and if it does make it in there what did it hurt anyone to put it there?

I still have my own questions as to whether it is in the spirit of the rules, not the RAW wording mind you, but the actual spirit of them to allow someone to present a holy symbol from a position of weakness but that has been hashed out and I am willing to accept the majority on that one.

Bruunwald wrote:

See, this is another of those incidences where you wonder if some of these players have ever done anything but eat, drink, play RPGs and fiddle with the computer.

I, myself, am typing this in a prone position, and anybody who thinks a person cannot lift his arm and hold up a small piece of wood or metal while lying (either on their back or their belly) is either incredibly poor in the experiences of living on Earth, or is pretending to be so to try to get something out of you.

I also think this is another thing that DOES NOT merit candidacy for the FAQ, because it pretty much goes without saying.

"Presenting" a holy symbol is the same as "presenting" anything. You hold it up and show it to somebody. That is what "presenting" means.


The presenting holy symbol would not be a problem, I am surprised this was even questioned.

On the other hand the cover argument, well I do not have any PFS material since that type of playing does not appeal to me in the slightest, so I can not check the actual map. But the information given in this thread would give me the impression that the dwarf had total cover and as such could not have been affected by the channel.

From my understanding it all comes down to if the dais was 5ft tall from the ground or not since in rules terms all medium sized creatures are 5ftx5ftx5ft cubes.


The dias was not high enough to be a level(square) higher than the characters, at least not by how the mod was written anyway.


A deity does not abandon it's follower when in a position of weakness, only when it acts contrary to its edicts and/or laws.

The symbol is a conduit to it's deities energy. I believe the action to present it means the caster must possess and be able to FOCUS on the item. If the caster can do so, then LOS or LOE is irrelevant regarding the ability to cast, only on whom it may effect.

Andoran

If thats the case how can a priest who is slipping and slideing around in grease not able to even stand be able to have the wherewithall to FOCUS on something besides the fact he is screwed? First you would have to assume he fell on his back and not on his face. If he fell on his face he would need to slide on to his back. Then because he became covered with grease on his front would then be covered in grease and need to try to retrieve his item without dropping it Sounds to me like he would need to make some sort of DC to do all that. I mean think about it his hands would try to break his fall. Therefore his hands would be grease covered. There was no DC check to see if he could hold his unholy symbol that I am aware of.

Andoran

Taldor

TBailey:
Grease only prevents standing and movement. If you want to stay right where you are, in what ever position you are in. It provides no penalty.

You can actually try this in real life to. If you do not try to twist or reposition while standing on a slippery surface, you will not fall. And if you have already fallen, you can still lift you head and an arm (neither of which requires leverage) without trying to move.

And the grease spell calls out specifically a difference between casting it in an area and casting it on an object.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

TBaileySr wrote:
First you would have to assume he fell on his back and not on his face. If he fell on his face he would need to slide on to his back. Then because he became covered with grease on his front would then be covered in grease and need to try to retrieve his item without dropping it Sounds to me like he would need to make some sort of DC to do all that. I mean think about it his hands would try to break his fall. Therefore his hands would be grease covered. There was no DC check to see if he could hold his unholy symbol that I am aware of.

The grease created by the grease spell stays put. It's slippery, but it doesn't start coating other stuff. If it was able to transfer onto other objects/surfaces, you know what would happen? Every time you greased a fighter's weapon he'd just take a rag and wipe it off, instead of having to make a reflex save every time he tried to attack with it, and your spell would be nearly worthless.

The rules work the way they do for a reason. It's easy to look at a situation that isn't in your favor and assume that things should be different, but if you set your bias aside for a moment and see what your ideas would mean if the tables were turned. Sometimes the enemies cast grease - do you want YOUR cleric subject to the complete and total removal from combat that you're advocating?

If it were harder for the enemies, it'd be harder for you too. You and your enemies are working with the same tools - no sense wanting them to work better for you, because then they work better for your enemies as well.

Ultimately (and I say this as someone with multiple PFS characters, two of which have made it to 9th level) what's going to keep you alive is being more clever and better prepared than your enemies, not by trying to get the rules to work differently.

I'm a huge advocate of verifying your GM's rulings when a PC death is on the line (I've even reversed a couple of deaths from one of the tables I've run, after a couple of days of research). But don't waste your time trying to argue for something that you know you'd cry foul over if it happened the other way around.

Andoran

But don't waste your time trying to argue for something that you know you'd cry foul over if it happened the other way around.

Seriously? I am a new player to role playing. My son is nine. I am trying to understand the rules as best I can. So when grease is cast I kind of expect it to act according to theme. If I don't understand the rules thats why I come to the forum. Its not llike the rule book is written clear and concise on almost anything. But sir don't ever EVER question my integrity. I have been treated nice by everyone in Pathfinder Society but you seem to besmudge my person.

If my sons character dies he dies. We as I understand it can resurrect him. But try not to insult me or my son. That is something I will not abide.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

TBaileySr wrote:
Seriously? I am a new player to role playing. My son is nine. I am trying to understand the rules as best I can. So when grease is cast I kind of expect it to act according to theme. If I don't understand the rules thats why I come to the forum. Its not llike the rule book is written clear and concise on almost anything. But sir don't ever EVER question my integrity. I have been treated nice by everyone in Pathfinder Society but you seem to besmudge my person.

Apparently I communicated a different intent and tone than I meant. I apologize.

What I was trying to communicate was not that you were being intentionally one-sided in how you wanted the rules to work, but rather that - merely as a tip for you as you get more and more familiar with the rules - you use a sort of "litmus test" when you think things should work differently by asking yourself, "What if it were the other way around?"

I don't think you're trying to cheat or anything, or get special treatment or double-standards or whatever. I was merely advising that if a rule or mechanic seems unfair at first glance, switching places with the villain might make it feel a bit more palatable.

Sorry it sounded like I was attacking you.

Andoran

Forgiven

51 to 91 of 91 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Paizo / Messageboards / Paizo Publishing / Pathfinder® / Pathfinder RPG / Rules Questions / What counts as "presenting" a holy symbol? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.

©2002–2014 Paizo Inc.®. Need help? Email customer.service@paizo.com or call 425-250-0800 during our business hours: Monday–Friday, 10 AM–5 PM Pacific Time. View our privacy policy. Paizo Inc., Paizo, the Paizo golem logo, Pathfinder, the Pathfinder logo, Pathfinder Society, GameMastery, and Planet Stories are registered trademarks of Paizo Inc., and Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pathfinder Adventure Card Game, Pathfinder Player Companion, Pathfinder Modules, Pathfinder Tales, Pathfinder Battles, Pathfinder Online, PaizoCon, RPG Superstar, The Golem's Got It, Titanic Games, the Titanic logo, and the Planet Stories planet logo are trademarks of Paizo Inc. Dungeons & Dragons, Dragon, Dungeon, and Polyhedron are registered trademarks of Wizards of the Coast, Inc., a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc., and have been used by Paizo Inc. under license. Most product names are trademarks owned or used under license by the companies that publish those products; use of such names without mention of trademark status should not be construed as a challenge to such status.