2016, what are the big unanswered rules questions?


Rules Questions

51 to 100 of 152 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Can a tiny creature 5 foot step into a square without an AoO? - Foxform kitsune and reduced person halfling mousers want to know.

Scarab Sages

Elbedor wrote:

My point here is not to debate with you, but to show that such a topic has been hotly debated. Submission of the FAQ along with your conclusion that it is saying they are two different things does not change this. It is quite possible (and has been debated thusly by myself and others) that the assumption of "tripping" and "falling prone" being two different things is not what the FAQ is talking about. As suggested, tripping may very well include falling prone whereas we know that falling prone does not always include tripping.

If you disagree, then you are welcome to visit the various threads that have already debated this idea. There are a number of them.

This thread, however, is not designed to debate these points. It is to gather the assortment of unanswered questions that people have had. If you wish to debate the whole Greater Trip issue, you are free to do so on one of the old threads or start a new one.

And my point was to say that it has been answered. I'm not looking for a debate. I only wanted to show that the FAQ MUST mean that tripping comes before falling prone during a trip attempt, or the FAQ MUST be wrong, and thus Greater Trip and Viscous Stomp could not function together. Making it an 'obvious' answer.

Thus making the likelihood of seeing an answer on an already answered issue very slight.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Scott Wilhelm wrote:
The NPC Codex says something different, and that is the latest official word about the Heavy, Spiked Bashing Shield.

The NPC Codex is not a source of rulings nor can it be used at such. The NPC Codex also has a number of incorrect rules in it, such as NPCs using Spring Attack to charge and full attack, or using Spring Attack with Vital Strike, or Vital Strike on a charge.

Since no book has come out since then contradicting these stat blocks, then I guess that means, if NPC Codex were a rules resource, you can do all of the above, right?

Fortunately and unfortunately, it's not. The NPC Codex is simply a book full of NPCs that were made by a variety of authors, some who know the rules better than others. Granted, they went through a pass of editing, but editing doesn't fix every mistake or catch every error in the rules.

If the NPC Codex is the sole source of your stance on the side of a debate, then you don't have very much to stand on.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

The FAQ that explicitly puts the kybosh on the spiked bashing shield is newer than the NPC codex.


Lorewalker wrote:
Elbedor wrote:

My point here is not to debate with you, but to show that such a topic has been hotly debated. Submission of the FAQ along with your conclusion that it is saying they are two different things does not change this. It is quite possible (and has been debated thusly by myself and others) that the assumption of "tripping" and "falling prone" being two different things is not what the FAQ is talking about. As suggested, tripping may very well include falling prone whereas we know that falling prone does not always include tripping.

If you disagree, then you are welcome to visit the various threads that have already debated this idea. There are a number of them.

This thread, however, is not designed to debate these points. It is to gather the assortment of unanswered questions that people have had. If you wish to debate the whole Greater Trip issue, you are free to do so on one of the old threads or start a new one.

And my point was to say that it has been answered. I'm not looking for a debate. I only wanted to show that the FAQ MUST mean that tripping comes before falling prone during a trip attempt, or the FAQ MUST be wrong, and thus Greater Trip and Viscous Stomp could not function together. Making it an 'obvious' answer.

Thus making the likelihood of seeing an answer on an already answered issue very slight.

The fact that you, I, and others are discussing this shows pretty clearly that it has NOT been answered. You have your view of the matter. I have mine. Others have theirs. There is no agreement.

Scarab Sages

Elbedor wrote:
Lorewalker wrote:
Elbedor wrote:

My point here is not to debate with you, but to show that such a topic has been hotly debated. Submission of the FAQ along with your conclusion that it is saying they are two different things does not change this. It is quite possible (and has been debated thusly by myself and others) that the assumption of "tripping" and "falling prone" being two different things is not what the FAQ is talking about. As suggested, tripping may very well include falling prone whereas we know that falling prone does not always include tripping.

If you disagree, then you are welcome to visit the various threads that have already debated this idea. There are a number of them.

This thread, however, is not designed to debate these points. It is to gather the assortment of unanswered questions that people have had. If you wish to debate the whole Greater Trip issue, you are free to do so on one of the old threads or start a new one.

And my point was to say that it has been answered. I'm not looking for a debate. I only wanted to show that the FAQ MUST mean that tripping comes before falling prone during a trip attempt, or the FAQ MUST be wrong, and thus Greater Trip and Viscous Stomp could not function together. Making it an 'obvious' answer.

Thus making the likelihood of seeing an answer on an already answered issue very slight.
The fact that you, I, and others are discussing this shows pretty clearly that it has NOT been answered. You have your view of the matter. I have mine. Others have theirs. There is no agreement.

If being answered means that people stop arguing/discussing things... half the forum would shut down.


My big ones:
1.) In a mounted overrun, do you use the mount's CMB or the rider's CMB? The fell rider from the ARG says the fell rider, not the Mount, gets a CMB bonus on mounted overruns. Also, who needs the improved and greater overrun feats to prevent attacks of opportunity on the Mount and rider, and who needs them to trigger AoOs on the target?

2.)Can you cast magic vestments on any of the Oracle mystery armors? Like Armor of Bones from the bones mystery? I've heard both sides of the argument and would like an official FAQ.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Lorewalker wrote:


If being answered means that people stop arguing/discussing things... half the forum would shut down.

optimist

Scarab Sages

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Honestly, I'd like to see a whole blog post just on mounted combat. There are just so many issues there.


Lorewalker wrote:

If being answered means that people stop arguing/discussing things... half the forum would shut down.

You make that statement from the position that the FAQ answers the question concerning when the AoO happens in the sequence. There are many that disagree with you.

You see it as a matter of them ignoring an obvious answer to a question.

They see it as a matter of you using an answer to a different question to support your position here. Hence the disagreement.

Again if you don't believe me, there are plenty of threads that go into detail on the subject. In fact our discussion here shows such a divide.

And a blog on mounted combat would be nice too. :-)


If it hasn't been mentioned yet: Wild Shape

Do non-armor bonus Special Abilities on armor remain active when wild shaped.


When making a drag or bull rush, do you provoke AoOs from the target for your movement to follow the target?

Liberty's Edge

BigNorseWolf wrote:
The FAQ that explicitly puts the kybosh on the spiked bashing shield is newer than the NPC codex.

I have been looking for this for a very long time. I saw one that said you do 2d6 enlarged with a bashing shield, but nothing about shield spikes.

Can you link the shield spikes one?

Scarab Sages

Elbedor wrote:
Lorewalker wrote:

If being answered means that people stop arguing/discussing things... half the forum would shut down.

You make that statement from the position that the FAQ answers the question concerning when the AoO happens in the sequence. There are many that disagree with you.

You see it as a matter of them ignoring an obvious answer to a question.

They see it as a matter of you using an answer to a different question to support your position here. Hence the disagreement.

Again if you don't believe me, there are plenty of threads that go into detail on the subject. In fact our discussion here shows such a divide.

And a blog on mounted combat would be nice too. :-)

I make that statement from the position that in the same thread that a dev releases a clarification people still argue if that's how it works or not.

But like I said, I'm not here to debate this.

My favorite part about the feat though is that it causes those affected by it to provoke AOOs without only provoking AOOs from the tripper.


DM Livgin wrote:

If it hasn't been mentioned yet: Wild Shape

Do non-armor bonus Special Abilities on armor remain active when wild shaped.

Wasn't this covered in the FAQ they issued fairly recently about armor and wild shape?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I'm somewhat eagerly awaiting the long awaited blog on Grapple. I'm also not sure if there was ever a clear answer about whether you can fight defensively while using spell combat.

Scarab Sages

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I'd like to see an official clarification/errata that states animal familiars are either A: actually turned into magical beasts or B: sentient despite being animals.

As well, I'd like to see a clarification describing if an Animal Companion keeps the type of the original creature or not. Such as plant ACs being plants, the Imp AC being an outsider, Gryphons being magical beasts... so on and so forth.
Previous clarifications about AC stats have been 'you only get what is in the description for the AC' but those do not include type... and I doubt they are supposed to be untyped creatures.
I'm sure most of us use the type of the base creature... but it would be nice to see it official.


but is now a magical beast for the purpose of effects that depend on its type. Only a normal, unmodified animal may become a familiar. An animal companion cannot also function as a familiar.

Scarab Sages

Chess Pwn wrote:
but is now a magical beast for the purpose of effects that depend on its type. Only a normal, unmodified animal may become a familiar. An animal companion cannot also function as a familiar.

Exactly. An animal familiar does NOT actually change type.

It does not say "Is now a magical beast." it says "is now a magical beast for these considerations, but not all considerations."

An animal type, such as a monkey, is still an animal. But a spell that targets animals would not affect it, as it counts as a magical beast for targeting and the like.
It is effectively a magical beast for effects(read: Things that target it or check type to affect it), but on its character sheet you write animal in its type and it follows all rules for being an animal otherwise. And according to a certain blog post all animals are non-sentient no matter how intelligent.

Before it becomes a debate I know everyone plays them as sentient anyway. I would just prefer it to be official because a GM would not be breaking the rules to say an animal familiar is non-sentient.


Lorewalker wrote:
My favorite part about the feat though is that it causes those affected by it to provoke AOOs without only provoking AOOs from the tripper.

This part we can happily agree on. :D


Harrison Wise wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
The FAQ that explicitly puts the kybosh on the spiked bashing shield is newer than the NPC codex.

I have been looking for this for a very long time. I saw one that said you do 2d6 enlarged with a bashing shield, but nothing about shield spikes.

Can you link the shield spikes one?

Size increases and effective size increases: How does damage work if I have various effects that change my actual size, my effective size, and my damage dice?

Spoiler:
As per the rules on size changes, size changes do not stack, so if you have multiple size changing effects (for instance an effect that increases your size by one step and another that increases your size by two steps), only the largest applies. The same is true of effective size increases (which includes “deal damage as if they were one size category larger than they actually are,” “your damage die type increases by one step,” and similar language). They don’t stack with each other, just take the biggest one. However, you can have one of each and they do work together (for example, enlarge person increasing your actual size to Large and a bashing shield increasing your shield’s effective size by two steps, for a total of 2d6 damage).

You can only have 1 "as if" size increase

Benefit: These spikes turn a shield into a martial piercing weapon and increase the damage dealt by a shield bash as if the shield were designed for a creature one size category larger than you

A bashing shield deals damage as if it were a bashing weapon of two size categories larger (a Medium light shield thus deals 1d6 points of damage and a Medium heavy shield deals 1d8 points of damage).


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Horse animal companions, wartrained and the Docile property already.


Lorewalker wrote:

I'd like to see an official clarification/errata that states animal familiars are either A: actually turned into magical beasts or B: sentient despite being animals.

Look, I can see an argument that an int 3 animal isn't really sentient. But 12, 14... 16? That Bird graduated ahead of you in highschool, its sentient.

Scarab Sages

BigNorseWolf wrote:
Lorewalker wrote:

I'd like to see an official clarification/errata that states animal familiars are either A: actually turned into magical beasts or B: sentient despite being animals.

Look, I can see an argument that an int 3 animal isn't really sentient. But 12, 14... 16? That Bird graduated ahead of you in highschool, its sentient.

I know, that's how it could/should be. But it is officially not that way, as per the Monkey See, Monkey Do blog and forum posts. You can have a 30 int gorilla, and it would still not be sentient.

Jason Bulmahn wrote:
"The Handle Animal skill functions similarly no matter how intelligent an animal becomes."

Intelligence works differently for the Animal Type than for any other type in the game, as per that blog. Well, actually, he does mention in a forum post that the plant type is under the same restriction...

The blog does say that with more intelligence, an animal does have a higher chance to understand concepts like doorknobs and a GM is encouraged to loosen the 'no commands, no actions' concept a little. But that is not sentience.

Also...
Link

Jason Bulmahn wrote:
"1. Animals work under the rules for Handle Animal. The only place where Int comes into this is using the skill for Magical Beasts (which must have an Int of 1 or 2 for the skill to be used on them) and the number of tricks an animal can learn. On the first issue, it is just easier to have the rules apply to all creatures of the animal type, regardless of Int. This does not necessarily create two different Int score tracks, it just places limitations on creatures of the animal type, which I think is perfectly reasonable. Similar limitations apply to plants, but PCs have fewer iterations with them as tools and allies, so the issue is far less common there. The rules are silent on the second issue, but I think a GM could safely assume that an animal can learn 3 extra tricks for each point of Int above 2 (following the pattern)."

Animals, no matter how intelligent, use Handle Animal and are not sentient.

Animal familiars are animals and not magical beasts by type, and thus do not fall under the 'over 2 int magical beast' clause.


I'll make a wizard use handle animal for a familiar when they give me the "Calculus derivation" trick.

Scarab Sages

BigNorseWolf wrote:
I'll make a wizard use handle animal for a familiar when they give me the "Calculus derivation" trick.

I don't like it and am fairly sure it is not intended. And, also I'm pretty sure the only reason it hasn't been FAQ'd yet is few recognize the purposeful change to how animals work changed how familiars work... mostly because many seem to believe familiars are magical beasts by type instead of animal. The 'for effects' text is confusing.

But it could also be purposeful.


Lorewalker wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
I'll make a wizard use handle animal for a familiar when they give me the "Calculus derivation" trick.

I don't like it and am fairly sure it is not intended. And, also I'm pretty sure the only reason it hasn't been FAQ'd yet is few recognize the purposeful change to how animals work changed how familiars work... mostly because many seem to believe familiars are magical beasts by type instead of animal. The 'for effects' text is confusing.

But it could also be purposeful.

I don't see anyone actually asking this. Ever.

Scarab Sages

BigNorseWolf wrote:
Lorewalker wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
I'll make a wizard use handle animal for a familiar when they give me the "Calculus derivation" trick.

I don't like it and am fairly sure it is not intended. And, also I'm pretty sure the only reason it hasn't been FAQ'd yet is few recognize the purposeful change to how animals work changed how familiars work... mostly because many seem to believe familiars are magical beasts by type instead of animal. The 'for effects' text is confusing.

But it could also be purposeful.

I don't see anyone actually asking this. Ever.

Maybe not. I did say in my original post on this subject that everyone is pretty much going to play them as sentient anyway.

It is only a matter of books, as it were. Because, technically, any PFS GM who does not rule animal familiars as non-sentient and requires handle animal checks is breaking the 'follow all official posts' rule in the PFS guidelines.

It's the same in a home game, really, since the post is not PFS specific. But, in a home game anything the GM wants goes anyway.

Just because GMs don't do it, doesn't mean it isn't the rules.

Also, a point to remember, if you give familiars sentience based on the fact that they get 6 int to start, you'd have to give that to paladin mounts as well and any animal companion that gets up to 6 INT too. Not that hard, with a human trait, 4 levels and a headband. Unless you are applying a unique rule to familiars... the very thing I'm asking for.

So, why not make it actually legal to do what everyone is going to do anyway?


Quote:
How do stealth, lighting, and concealment rules work?

In terms of "nearly everything about X" lists, I'd add invisibility, readied actions, animal handling, and perception. And you've covered about 80% of contentious rules threads I've experienced.

All in all not a huge %age of the rules, but massively disproportionate problem generators, those.

Quote:
many seem to believe familiars are magical beasts by type instead of animal.

They are.

If something is a hammer, "except that it's a screwdriver for the purpose of any effects relevant to what kind of tool it is" then... it is in fact a screwdriver.

Hammering stuff? That's an effect relevant to tool type, so it doesn't.
Screwing in stuff? That's an effect relevant to tool type, so it does.
Looking like a hammer? Relevant to tool type, so it doesn't.
Looking like a screwdriver? Yup...

If literally anything relevant to being a hammer has been overridden and replaced with screwdriver, then you are, in fact, holding a screwdriver in actuality. Or in more classic terms "if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, it's a duck."


Pathfinder Maps, Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Charter Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber

I think this thread should better be used to collect issues with open questions, but not actually discuss these issues. Seeing that a number of such issues have been discussed there makes it hard to follow either the listing of issues or the individual issue discussions. Discussions are better served in their own threads, maybe old ones, or possibly new ones which could be tagged as being a 2016 version.

Sczarni

Yes, indeed, which is why many people are posting links to pending FAQs.

Some quibbling will always accompany forum discussions.

RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 16

Caedwyr wrote:

How do stealth, lighting, and concealment rules work?

How do ride and charge rules and all the various feats/subsystems work together?

I honestly hoped Pathfinder Unchained would reword or rework Stealth. Sadly no.


Lorewalker wrote:


Just because GMs don't do it, doesn't mean it isn't the rules.

Its a very good indication that its the rules.

If 99,999 out of 100,000 people are reading the same rules you are and hitting the same conclusion they're probably right and they're definitely not baseless. Reducing the myriad of sources for a familiars sentience down to one out of context quote talking about animal companions and ignoring contradictory information in other sources is bad rules interpretation.

Making an argument for arguments sake/perfectionists sake clogs up a very limited FAQ process that has enough trouble getting actual questions answered.


How exactly perception works, how big of an area do you scan when you take a move action to perceive stuff.


BigNorseWolf wrote:
Can a tiny creature 5 foot step into a square without an AoO? - Foxform kitsune and reduced person halfling mousers want to know.

Not in 3.5, so I'd assume the same situation.


Starbuck_II wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
Can a tiny creature 5 foot step into a square without an AoO? - Foxform kitsune and reduced person halfling mousers want to know.
Not in 3.5, so I'd assume the same situation.

Citation?


How does simulacrum work


CWheezy wrote:
How does simulacrum work

The weird thing is that I seem to remember a staff member saying that a Simulacrum FAQ was in the works a while back, but nothing ever came of it.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Snowblind wrote:
CWheezy wrote:
How does simulacrum work
The weird thing is that I seem to remember a staff member saying that a Simulacrum FAQ was in the works a while back, but nothing ever came of it.

It's still in the works, Mark said that he'd got a first draft done, it needs a full-blown design team pass, and then editing, and then a spot in the blog schedule, because it's such a big subject.

Sczarni

BigNorseWolf wrote:
Starbuck_II wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
Can a tiny creature 5 foot step into a square without an AoO? - Foxform kitsune and reduced person halfling mousers want to know.
Not in 3.5, so I'd assume the same situation.
Citation?

And if there is one, post it in the linked thread, and not here.

Scarab Sages

BigNorseWolf wrote:
Lorewalker wrote:


Just because GMs don't do it, doesn't mean it isn't the rules.

Its a very good indication that its the rules.

If 99,999 out of 100,000 people are reading the same rules you are and hitting the same conclusion they're probably right and they're definitely not baseless. Reducing the myriad of sources for a familiars sentience down to one out of context quote talking about animal companions and ignoring contradictory information in other sources is bad rules interpretation.

Making an argument for arguments sake/perfectionists sake clogs up a very limited FAQ process that has enough trouble getting actual questions answered.

Except I showed in the rules where they are not Magical Beasts. And that ALL animals(and plants), not just animal companions, must use handle animal and are not sentient.

So, we already have an example of something done that isn't in the rules.

There are not a myriad sources of familiar sentience. Try to quote them, you'll see what I mean. It was just a consequence of having more than 2 INT. It is referenced once in Ultimate Campaign, but that was changed the moment any animal with 3+ INT no longer got sentience in a purposeful change to the rules.

In fact, the same place I know Familiars are referenced as sentient, so are paladin mounts.

But I will discus this no further here.

Crimio wrote:

Quote:

many seem to believe familiars are magical beasts by type instead of animal.
They are.

If something is a hammer, "except that it's a screwdriver for the purpose of any effects relevant to what kind of tool it is" then... it is in fact a screwdriver.

Hammering stuff? That's an effect relevant to tool type, so it doesn't.
Screwing in stuff? That's an effect relevant to tool type, so it does.
Looking like a hammer? Relevant to tool type, so it doesn't.
Looking like a screwdriver? Yup...

If literally anything relevant to being a hammer has been overridden and replaced with screwdriver, then you are, in fact, holding a screwdriver in actuality. Or in more classic terms "if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, it's a duck."

That's not true in the context of this game. Effects based on type are things like, "what spells can target me", "Favored Enemy: Magical Beast or Animal".. not "Can I take this feat?", "Magical beasts can do this, can I?

Like I said, the effects language can be confusing.
Sentience is not an 'effect based on type'.


BigNorseWolf wrote:
The FAQ that explicitly puts the kybosh on the spiked bashing shield is newer than the NPC codex.

I am not aware of an FAQ that explicitly puts the kybosh on the spiked, bashing shield: it must be quite new indeed!

I am aware of an FAQ that explicitly says that virtual size increases do not stack. And looking back at the text of the Core Rulebook, it seems that Shield Spikes constitutes a virtual size increase.

But that is is not explicit kybosh on the spiked bashing shield. That is an implicit kybosh.

Implicit is not the same thing as explicit. Actually, it is the opposite.

And I really believe that the community deserves an explicit answer to the question,

"Do Shield Spikes actually constitute a virtual size increase?"

But, if there has actually been an explicit answer to this question, I'd be much obliged for a link to it.

For the purposes of building characters, it's academic to me, though. You know what I do to get around this problem: I just use a Klar, which is not a Spiked Shield, but rather a light shield with Armor Spikes, and therefore has no virtual size increase issues, either implicit or explicit.

The other way I like to get around this is to just take a level in Warpriest and Weapon Focus Shield. Then the 1d6 Damage is Sacred Weapon Damage with no Size Increase augmentation, and there is no problem with the Bashing Enchantment with that, either.

Of course, as I write, it occurs that my last 2 workarounds may deserve explicit rules clarifications themselves!


Scott Wilhelm wrote:


Of course, as I write, it occurs that my last 2 workarounds may deserve explicit rules clarifications themselves!

They do not. And you've summed up why they don't deserve even more explicit rules clarification with your own two words.

Work around.

You are deliberately trying to work around the rule when you know full well what the rule is. You asked, they answered, you didn't like the no answer so you are deliberately trying to get a different answer: not clarify the one they've already given you and you didn't like.

Rules clarifications are for questions where reasonable, informed attempts at interpretation arrive at different answers for large numbers of people. They are not, and they cannot be, the response to every attempt to deliberately twist and purposefully misread the rules in a quixotic pursuit of a mechanical advantage.

This question has already been answered.

The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Can we please not use the following words in this thread or this thread will be 10x 1000 post threads:

  • Citation for rules - Because that demonstrates a disagreement with the rules.
  • The FAQ says - Because that asserts that there shouldn't be any disagreement with the rules.
  • question has already been answered - Because that asserts that there shouldn't be any disagreement with the rules.

In short, let's not debate the rules here. Let's just enumerate the various topics in disagreement or debate the relative importance of an answer.

Sovereign Court

9 out of 10 GMs I encounter allow a Cleric with the Fire Domain to read scrolls of Fireball, according to THIS post from SKR, but if this could be added to either the FAQ or future errata then we can reach the remaining 10%.


What's the price of a scroll (or other magical item) of Animate Dead (or other spell with varying cost) and how does it function in situations requiring another cost than the one its price is based on?


Tels wrote:
The NPC Codex is not a source of rulings nor can it be used at such.

The NPC Codex is an official rules source. It is listed in the Pathfinder Society as an Additional Resource. The Scarred Wanderer is not included in what can be used for PFS play, but it is a level 20 character.

And do bear in mind that I am not arguing that a +1 Heavy, Spiked Bashing Shield has a Base Damage of 2d6. I'm pointing out that

*it's counter-intuitive that putting a spike on something makes it bigger, even virtually bigger.

*Since the Core Rulebook was written before the concept virtual size increases existed, it could not possibly have been the intent of the writers that Shield Spike not stack with magical virtual size increases.

*This non-intent is clearly mirrored in the NPC Codex, a book which is legal for use by PFS players.

*No FAQ exists that calls out Shield Spikes as a real virtual size increase. At least Big Norse Wolf can't find one. If he could have, he would have linked to it instead of resorting to ad homs.

And therefore,

*I am adequately justified to call upon Paizo to answer the question,

Do Shield Spikes actually constitute a Virtual Size Increase such as will not stack with other virtual size increases?

officially and explicitly, instead of unofficially and implicitly as is the case now.

Tels wrote:
The NPC Codex also has a number of incorrect rules in it,

Well, then it should be corrected!


Scott Wilhelm wrote:
*No FAQ exists that calls out Shield Spikes as a real virtual size increase. At least Big Norse Wolf can't find one. If he could have, he would have linked to it instead of resorting to ad homs.

Size Increase FAQ.

FAQ wrote:

Size increases and effective size increases: How does damage work if I have various effects that change my actual size, my effective size, and my damage dice?

As per the rules on size changes, size changes do not stack, so if you have multiple size changing effects (for instance an effect that increases your size by one step and another that increases your size by two steps), only the largest applies. The same is true of effective size increases (which includes “deal damage as if they were one size category larger than they actually are,” “your damage die type increases by one step,” and similar language). They don’t stack with each other, just take the biggest one. However, you can have one of each and they do work together (for example, enlarge person increasing your actual size to Large and a bashing shield increasing your shield’s effective size by two steps, for a total of 2d6 damage).

Shield Spikes wrote:

Benefit: These spikes turn a shield into a martial piercing weapon and increase the damage dealt by a shield bash as if the shield were designed for a creature one size category larger than you (see “spiked shields” on Table: Weapons). You can't put spikes on a buckler or a tower shield. Otherwise, attacking with a spiked shield is like making a shield bash attack.

An enhancement bonus on a spiked shield does not improve the effectiveness of a shield bash made with it, but a spiked shield can be made into a magic weapon in its own right.

Bashing Property wrote:
A shield with this special ability is designed to perform a shield bash. A bashing shield deals damage as if it were a bashing weapon of two size categories larger (a Medium light shield thus deals 1d6 points of damage and a Medium heavy shield deals 1d8 points of damage). The shield acts as a +1 weapon when used to bash. Only light and heavy shields can have this ability.

So, Shield Spikes says, "as if one size category larger" which is "similar language" to that used to describe an effective size increase, so it's an effective size increase (as per the FAQ). Bashing Shield also says "as if two size categories larger" which is "similar language" to the effective size increase language used in the FAQ, so it too is an effective size increase (as per the FAQ). Since both are effective size increases, only the larger of the two applies.


BigNorseWolf wrote:
You are deliberately trying to work around the rule

And I'm using the rules to do it perfectly legally! And if you don't like that, you should be joining me in the call to close these unintended legal loopholes.

BigNorseWolf wrote:
Rules clarifications are for questions where reasonable, informed attempts at interpretation arrive at different answers for large numbers of people.

Yeah, sure, I guess.

BigNorseWolf wrote:
They are not, and they cannot be, the response to every attempt to deliberately twist and purposefully misread the rules in a quixotic pursuit of a mechanical advantage.

I disagree with you completely. Rules clarifications are precisely for correcting unintentioned consequences of how the rules were written. Presuming to know how the rules were meant to be used and setting oneself up as some kind of keeper of the true intent is a very poor option. It invites moralistic bullying, and not even the creators of the game should be allowed to do that. The ball no longer belongs to the quarterback after he throws it. I get to play the game my own way according to how the rules are written, and nobody else plays my character for me! We are not slaves to the creators' whimsy. We are playing Pathfinder, not re-reading the Hobbit.

Almost everyone I see play Pathfinder uses the rules aggressively to create powerful characters, and they take pride in how powerful those characters are. A good fence around the playground sets clear and healthy boundaries for fun and safe play. That's what clearly written rules are for. And that is what clarifying unclear rules is for.


Dotting for reference.

51 to 100 of 152 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Rules Questions / 2016, what are the big unanswered rules questions? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.