Create Pit vs Paralyzed Opponent


Rules Questions

151 to 200 of 204 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as FAQ candidate.
QuidEst wrote:
It's just for rules consistency.

But what about the rules consistency regarding the Paralyzed rules? By enforcing one rule, they broke another.

@Darksol: Luck can not explain how a human statue suddenly moves.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Derklord wrote:
QuidEst wrote:
It's just for rules consistency.

But what about the rules consistency regarding the Paralyzed rules? By enforcing one rule, they broke another.

@Darksol: Luck can not explain how a human statue suddenly moves.

The possibility of macroscale-noticable quantum fluctuations resulting in the situation you describe is extremely small, but nonzero. Therefore, luck can explain it, it just probably won't.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Derklord wrote:


@Darksol: Luck can not explain how a human statue suddenly moves.

You pulled apart spacetime like a magician yanking a tablecloth out from under a dining set. Sometimes the wine glass gets yanked off with it.


Derklord wrote:
QuidEst wrote:
It's just for rules consistency.

But what about the rules consistency regarding the Paralyzed rules? By enforcing one rule, they broke another.

@Darksol: Luck can not explain how a human statue suddenly moves.

Sure it can, just like how people can explain all other sorts of rules/physics inconsistencies by spouting the word "Magic." Quite frankly, Luck and Magic, in this scenario, are interchangable, in both function and application, because things happen in a certain way through aspects and subjects well outside our own human understanding. In fact, I could say "Cthulhu" as a reason why something happens, and it'd get the same desired effect, because it's a result of that which is well beyond our own human logic. Great, isn't it?

There's also the aspect of the game being abstract of real life physics and expectations; if we want to be realistic and do away with abstractions in the rules, as an example, the Grapple rules would actually force a specific hand (such as one that holds a Shield, or a Weapon, or even nothing at all) to be unusable for the entirety of the Grapple, and one of the options on successfully maintaining the Grapple would most likely include adjusting which hand would be unoccupied (for both the Grappler and the Grappled) for the remainder of the Grapple.

But the rules don't say or imply anything like that, even though in real life, it does. The same would apply here.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

I like the ruling as it is how we've always run it in our games.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ravingdork wrote:
I like the ruling as it is how we've always run it in our games.

Hooray! I am just happy that there is a ruling. When we get one, we shouldn't complain. We want to make sure we have only positive reinforcement for the FAQ PF design team.

For example, it would be nice if said design team ruled on Ravingdork's old thread about regen and death effects. :D I promise I won't complain, no matter which way things are ruled.


As a suggestion regarding those who are flummoxed by fluff vs mechanics. If the text describes an action such as "jumping to safety" but does not give a DC, it's fluff.


Quintain wrote:

As a suggestion regarding those who are flummoxed by fluff vs mechanics. If the text describes an action such as "jumping to safety" but does not give a DC, it's fluff.

Or it could be that the DC of the spell is the DC to "jump to safety," which would trump the general rules of it simply being an Acrobatics check (which a Paralyzed/Helpless person wouldn't be able to do).

Remember how someone said it was Aliens? [ancientaliensguy]I'm not saying that it's Aliens, but it's Aliens.[/ancientaliensguy]


Quote:


Or it could be that the DC of the spell is the DC to "jump to safety,

Then that would be explained in the text and fall under the "gives a DC".


Quintain wrote:
Quote:


Or it could be that the DC of the spell is the DC to "jump to safety,
Then that would be explained in the text and fall under the "gives a DC".

It already is. Because that's what happens when you make the Save DC of the spell, just like how what happens when you fail the Save DC is explained in the text as well.


Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
Quintain wrote:
Quote:


Or it could be that the DC of the spell is the DC to "jump to safety,
Then that would be explained in the text and fall under the "gives a DC".
It already is. Because that's what happens when you make the Save DC of the spell, just like how what happens when you fail the Save DC is explained in the text as well.

Absolutely not, because the circumstances that influence the ability to jump, such as armor check penalty and skill ranks, have absolutely no bearing on the check.

Thus, it's fluff.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

It's not complicated, even though this thread will endeavor to make it so. If you're rooted to the spot, you can't very well jump out of the way. Any arguments to the contrary are just killing time.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Pathfinder Accessories, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Kobold Cleaver wrote:
TOZ wrote:
Kobold Cleaver wrote:


Maximum Movement: None.

Can't jump!

*Flips table* Your move.

Incorrect. Paralysis prevents you from taking move actions, your movement speed is unchanged.
PRD wrote:
A paralyzed character cannot move, speak, or take any physical action. He is rooted to the spot, frozen and helpless.

That does not support your earlier statement. He cannot take move actions. The characters movement is unchanged.


TriOmegaZero wrote:
Kobold Cleaver wrote:
TOZ wrote:
Kobold Cleaver wrote:


Maximum Movement: None.

Can't jump!

*Flips table* Your move.

Incorrect. Paralysis prevents you from taking move actions, your movement speed is unchanged.
PRD wrote:
A paralyzed character cannot move, speak, or take any physical action. He is rooted to the spot, frozen and helpless.
That does not support your earlier statement. He cannot take move actions. The characters movement is unchanged.

[saracasm]Nope, can't move. Therefore as the world spins and moves he stays in place as the galaxy continues moving leaving him for a death in space. Other people can't lift him up and move him. He's immune to being swallowed since that would be movement and so on.[/sarcasm]


_Ozy_ wrote:
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
Quintain wrote:
Quote:


Or it could be that the DC of the spell is the DC to "jump to safety,
Then that would be explained in the text and fall under the "gives a DC".
It already is. Because that's what happens when you make the Save DC of the spell, just like how what happens when you fail the Save DC is explained in the text as well.

Absolutely not, because the circumstances that influence the ability to jump, such as armor check penalty and skill ranks, have absolutely no bearing on the check.

Thus, it's fluff.

Because it's not a Skill Check, it's a Saving Throw. OF COURSE ACP, Ranks, etc. won't apply...


Not being able to move and not being able to be moved are not the same thing.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Quintain wrote:
Not being able to move and not being able to be moved are not the same thing.

The juggernaut cannot be MOAAARGH!

Is driven through a spinning earth at 1,000 miles per hour..


Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
_Ozy_ wrote:
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
Quintain wrote:
Quote:


Or it could be that the DC of the spell is the DC to "jump to safety,
Then that would be explained in the text and fall under the "gives a DC".
It already is. Because that's what happens when you make the Save DC of the spell, just like how what happens when you fail the Save DC is explained in the text as well.

Absolutely not, because the circumstances that influence the ability to jump, such as armor check penalty and skill ranks, have absolutely no bearing on the check.

Thus, it's fluff.

Because it's not a Skill Check, it's a Saving Throw. OF COURSE ACP, Ranks, etc. won't apply...

Agreed. That's why 'jump out of the way' is pure fluff. As I said. If it makes sense to skin the save that way, go for it. If it makes sense to skin the save some other way because jumping makes no sense, then do that. It's the 'jumping' part that is fluff, not the 'save: negates" part.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
BigNorseWolf wrote:
Quintain wrote:
Not being able to move and not being able to be moved are not the same thing.

The juggernaut cannot be MOAAARGH!

Is driven through a spinning earth at 1,000 miles per hour..

Oh crap! We forgot to account for general relativity. But it doesn't play well with quantum mechanics, which we've already established is vital in understanding this rules situation.

*cracks knuckles*

Time to break out the M-theory.


_Ozy_ wrote:
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
_Ozy_ wrote:
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
Quintain wrote:
Quote:


Or it could be that the DC of the spell is the DC to "jump to safety,
Then that would be explained in the text and fall under the "gives a DC".
It already is. Because that's what happens when you make the Save DC of the spell, just like how what happens when you fail the Save DC is explained in the text as well.

Absolutely not, because the circumstances that influence the ability to jump, such as armor check penalty and skill ranks, have absolutely no bearing on the check.

Thus, it's fluff.

Because it's not a Skill Check, it's a Saving Throw. OF COURSE ACP, Ranks, etc. won't apply...
Agreed. That's why 'jump out of the way' is pure fluff. As I said. If it makes sense to skin the save that way, go for it. If it makes sense to skin the save some other way because jumping makes no sense, then do that. It's the 'jumping' part that is fluff, not the 'save: negates" part.

It isn't nothing but fluff, as you claim, because it explains what happens when the save is made, which is your character is moved to the edge of the space that is affected.

While "jump" is perhaps not the best-used word (you could be prone, grappled, or entangled, for example, and you likewise couldn't "jump" any more than you could if you were paralyzed), it still doesn't excuse that it provides mechanical ramifications (i.e. your character's tactical position is altered). Just because it's explained in a "fluff" manner does not result in the mechanical ramifications likewise being "fluff".


We're probably in agreement and just talking past each other. I agree that the 'move to a safe square' is mechanically what happens. The 'jump' part is the fluff.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

What makes you think we're all in agreement? M-theory is cool and all, but so are causal sets. Even if we use M-theory, we still need to determine which of the five segments are arcane, divine, and psychic, and what the other two aspects are.


The Sideromancer wrote:
What makes you think we're all in agreement? M-theory is cool and all, but so are causal sets. Even if we use M-theory, we still need to determine which of the five segments are arcane, divine, and psychic, and what the other two aspects are.

Put the coffee on. Let's do this.


The Sideromancer wrote:
What makes you think we're all in agreement? M-theory is cool and all, but so are causal sets. Even if we use M-theory, we still need to determine which of the five segments are arcane, divine, and psychic, and what the other two aspects are.

Sorry, I was responding to Darksol. I have no idea whether you're in agreement with anyone.


Quintain wrote:
As a suggestion regarding those who are flummoxed by fluff vs mechanics. If the text describes an action such as "jumping to safety" but does not give a DC, it's fluff.

False. The DCs for jump checks are under the Acrobatics skill, the only required information (for a horizontal jump) being distance - something that is actually provided by the spell! Just like not every spell says what it's DC is because the general rules for your classes spell casting cover that, the effect doesn't have to state the DC to jump because the acrobatics rules cover that. "The base DC to make a jump is equal to the distance to be crossed (if horizontal) or four times the height to be reached (if vertical). These DCs double if you do not have at least 10 feet of space to get a running start."

On an empty field, the DC for medium creature would be 20 (presuming that the slippery edges aren't considered to be save). And look at that, what you and others claim was fluff is able to produce tangble numbers.

My reading not only answers the paralyzed paradoxon without a headache, but is also able to answer what happens if the save open space is not easily accessible. For instance, if the open space is on a ledge above where the pit was created, with my reading, the spell doesn't suddenly teleport you through space, you can simply calculate the jump DC using the above quoted rules. It also works as a blueprint for other spells and even non-magical effect (like a pit trap) that require movement on a successful save!

Quintain wrote:
Not being able to move and not being able to be moved are not the same thing.

Jumping is not the same as being moved, either. "Jumping or leaping is a form of locomotion or movement in which an organism or non-living (e.g., robotic) mechanical system propels itself through the air along a ballistic trajectory."


It doesn't say "make a jump check to see if you jump to safety." If you make the save, you jump to safety. No additional check is called out or required. Describe your jump to safety however you want, but Reflex check passed = Jumped to safety.


Derklord wrote:
On an empty field, the DC for medium creature would be 20 (presuming that the slippery edges aren't considered to be save). And look at that, what you and others claim was fluff is able to produce tangble numbers.

The distance from the center of my square to the nearest safe space is 2.5 feet, not 5', thus DC 3 (see FAQ on DC to jump a 10' pit for further clarification that it is the actual distance spent airborne). This also assumes that I start in the center of my square - I could be on either edge making the distance range from between 0' and 5'. Given the rules for the spell don't talk about any of this, and given that the Save is the only required (or mentioned) roll of the dice needed, it is clear that 'jumping with acrobatics' is not the rule for avoiding the spell. The call to 'jump to safety' is therefore fluff. It could have said 'quickly stepped to safety' for the same net effect. With magic and divine intervention a common thing in the Pathfinder universe, it is a '<however the GM wants to describe the fluff of it> to safety'


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Quote:


My reading not only answers the paralyzed paradoxon without a headache, but is also able to answer what happens if the save open space is not easily accessible...

And in your reading you are ignoring the "Save" line of the spell itself that requires a reflex save, not a acrobatics check.

If your reading were correct, the save line of the spell would be "see text", not what it is.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Saethori wrote:

What if a person pinned by a grapple makes their save to jump to the nearest open spot, but the grappler does not? What becomes of the grapple?

Ah, the wonders of pits.

EDIT: This is not a serious question. I'm attempting to be silly.

MUAHAHAHAHA

PRD: Grapple wrote:
If you successfully grapple a creature that is not adjacent to you, move that creature to an adjacent open space (if no space is available, your grapple fails)


Tarantula wrote:
It doesn't say "make a jump check to see if you jump to safety." If you make the save, you jump to safety. No additional check is called out or required.

"English is a very fluid language. In some ways that is helpful because it allows us to express a rule in a natural way in one sentence and in another natural way in another sentence. For example, we can say "if the creature fails its save, it gains the blinded condition," or "this spell blinds the target if it fails its save." Even though "blinds" isn't a condition, you know what that second statement means because you understand that "blindness" and "blind" mean the same thing in the real world and you know that "blindness" and "blind" aren't two different game terms."

Are effects that say "roll initative" not working because they don't actually say "make an initiative check"?

Tarantula wrote:
No additional check is called out or required. Describe your jump to safety however you want, but Reflex check passed = Jumped to safety.

What you fail to realize is that the line was added in an errata. They probably didn't have any space to spare because they didn't want to re-format half the book.

Quintain wrote:
And in your reading you are ignoring the "Save" line of the spell itself that requires a reflex save, not a acrobatics check.

Er, I'm not saying that the jump check replaces the reflex save. I'm saying that a successful save allows the target to attempt the jump check.

Quintain wrote:
If your reading were correct, the save line of the spell would be "see text", not what it is.

First, even without any further checks and forced movement it should say that (because in any case, the "nearest open space" part is a modification of the save) so your whole point is simply invalid, and second, again, the whole thing we're talking about was errata'd in. The presumably simply forgot to add "; see text" in the errata. It's not like it's the first errata where they forgot to apply the changes they made to every relevant part, you know?

bbangerter wrote:
It could have said 'quickly stepped to safety'

It could have. It did not.

bbangerter wrote:
The distance from the center of my square to the nearest safe space is 2.5 feet, not 5', thus DC 3

I seriously doubt that the slippery edges are "save". Also, no running start, so you have to double the DC. That would make it DC10 if you jump from the corner of your square, or DC 16, if you jump from the center.

The fact is, all of you are ignoring part the spell discription, which is in direct voilation of what the FAQ says ("follow the rules of the spell for a successful Reflex save"). If the spell said "you are moved to the nearest open space", I wouldn't have any problems with it. But it does not. It uses a game term, and none of you have given my any proof that the game term they used is not indeed a game term but fluff. Once again, the spell was not written this way. They had to shoehorn in what they could with the limited space to give at least some clarification.

Liberty's Edge

3 people marked this as a favorite.

Q.E.D. even with the FAQ someone argue that it work as he want it to work, not how the FAQ say it work.
Not surprised.


Apparently, doing what the f&#$ing FAQ says is now wrong. Let's all ignore the "follow the rules of the spell for a successful Reflex save" line!


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Derklord wrote:


My reading

Is completely wrong.

The devs said it was wrong
It violates the entire point of a saving throw
the devs said it was wrong
it alters the game balance of the spell from a save to a save and a skill check
the devs said it was wrong
it violates the basic, fundamental tenants of the game, game balance, fairness,

and the devs said it was wrong.

For the love of pete, leave over. No one is "ignoring rules" here except you. You've decided that the ONLY rule that matters is the jump part, not any of the other rules of the game INCLUDING what the devs said specificaly about how this works. You have cherry picked one word out of the spell, the book, AND the devs comments that supports your idea ignoring EVERYTHING else.

You get a save. Period.


As one of the original (the original?) arguer against allowing a save in this situation that led to this thread being created I have to agree: The opinion that no save is allowed here is completely wrong.

The why of it still makes no sense to me. I've re-read the decision several times and the summary seems to be to be:
"You still get the save....because".
And then random reasons thrown out as to accidental/magical things that could randomly happen.

I don't understand why magical/random happenstance would fall under a "reflex save", but apparently it does.

As someone said earlier, this just has to be sucked up with a wave of the hand and a DM saying something like "magical fairies appear and move you 10 feet saving your life for no reason at all! Yaaaaay!".

That, or look for a game where the rules are more clear/make more sense.


Or understand that the spell grants a save that you haven't lost, coupled with the fact that they re-wrote the spell so people weren't hanging in the air until their turn, creating the move caveat. Prior to the wording change the paralyzed guy made sense but everyone just floated till they had their next turn.

As for rules making sense that's not a road you really want to go down and keep playing Pathfinder or you will quickly find nothing seems to match your standards of sense.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kaliel Windstorm wrote:

As one of the original (the original?) arguer against allowing a save in this situation that led to this thread being created I have to agree: The opinion that no save is allowed here is completely wrong.

The why of it still makes no sense to me. I've re-read the decision several times and the summary seems to be to be:
"You still get the save....because".

because the rules for how a spell works are one of the base mechanics of the game and they trump obviously descriptive text, hard.

Quote:

And then random reasons thrown out as to accidental/magical things that could randomly happen.

So everyone elses reasons are random, but yours are perfectly sensible?

There is no "reality" for how exactly you open a pit into nth dimensional space. Some ways of doing it allow even an inaminate object to be pushed the the side, some don't. The only random decision here is deciding that THE way it MUST work is one of the ways that doesn't allow it.


Welp, RAW is LAW wins again. I guess the "You can't see the sun" thread is next.

Another reminder that I don't ever want to be stuck playing PFS. :)


Kaliel Windstorm wrote:


The why of it still makes no sense to me. I've re-read the decision several times and the summary seems to be to be:
"You still get the save....because".
And then random reasons thrown out as to accidental/magical things that could randomly happen.

My opinion on why the "because reasons". The more exceptions you make in the game the more complicated it gets to remember those exceptions and when they apply. It is better game design to have the rules work at a general (and consistent) level, even if that sometimes breaks the realism side of things. Most exceptions to rules come about as a result of feats and character abilities. Making an exception for one specific spell (or line of spells) is (again in my own opinion) poor game design. Also, remember we are talking about realism in a game that has fairies, dragons, and unicorns, along with super human like characters. Realism has its place as a rough foundation for the rules, but need not (and does not) apply everywhere.

Don't let the way you want the rules to work cloud what is actually written in the rules. This isn't specifically directed at you Kaliel, though I hope you to take it to heart as well. It is an observation of mine from having participated in dozens and dozens of rules threads.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kobold Cleaver wrote:

Welp, RAW is LAW wins again. I guess the "You can't see the sun" thread is next.

Another reminder that I don't ever want to be stuck playing PFS. :)

Stop that. PFS isn't nearly that bad, and any home game DM you pick is going to have different ideas about how the rules/reality work that are at least as wonky.

I hate that PFS gets compared to the platonic perfect DM that agrees with you on everything rather than any individual DM who won't.

(and FIY the sun is a light source, it can't hide so it's auto spotted :) )


I wouldn't want to play in a game with a GM who made rulings that dumb, either. PFS just occasionally establishes just how wonky its GM can be.

BigNorseWolf wrote:
(and FIY the sun is a light source, it can't hide so it's aut spotted :) )

Oh, so I can see a candle fifty miles away? :P


1 person marked this as a favorite.

And can people stop acting like this is a balance issue? Getting transported away from a fight while paralyzed is practically a boon. It saves you from easy coup de graces. Paralysis is basically as bad as it gets—who cares if you're paralyzed from twenty feet down?

This was a non-issue until we had to make it an issue. I have found this thread unpleasant and pedantic from beginning to end. I find its conclusion to be patently ridiculous, but it's certainly a triumph for the persnickety rules lawyers of the forums, so congrats.

Sovereign Court

BigNorseWolf wrote:
Kobold Cleaver wrote:

Welp, RAW is LAW wins again. I guess the "You can't see the sun" thread is next.

Another reminder that I don't ever want to be stuck playing PFS. :)

Stop that. PFS isn't nearly that bad, and any home game DM you pick is going to have different ideas about how the rules/reality work that are at least as wonky.

I hate that PFS gets compared to the platonic perfect DM that agrees with you on everything rather than any individual DM who won't.

(and FIY the sun is a light source, it can't hide so it's auto spotted :) )

It's not the GMs that give PFS a bad RAW IS LAW reputation... it's the players that disagree with their GMs about what is a "reasonable adjudication of the rules" and they tend to prematurely throw the "you can't DO that"objection.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kobold Cleaver wrote:
This was a non-issue until we had to make it an issue. I have found this thread unpleasant and pedantic from beginning to end. I find its conclusion to be patently ridiculous, but it's certainly a triumph for the persnickety rules lawyers of the forums, so congrats.

Well, apparently it wasn't a non-issue because it was enough of an issue that someone felt the need to post a thread questioning how it should work. As for saying that this was a "triumph" for persnickety rules lawyers, I find that rather amusing. The "persnickety rules lawyers" in the thread were the ones focusing on a single word in a line of text that was fairly clearly (in my opinion) at least largely descriptive. Because focusing on small portions of the whole is exactly what lawyers do (at least when it comes to statutory interpretation -- i.e. deciphering and interpreting rules).

Now, to be fair, I will agree that the devs could have used better language to convey their intent. They could (and perhaps should) have said something along the lines of "a successful reflex save allows an affected character to jump to the nearest open square or otherwise be moved to the nearest open square. Of course, the vast majority of people in the thread quickly understood the intent of the devs anyway. The bottom line is that the devs are not nobel laureates, nor in all likelihood are they experienced attorneys trained in how choice of language can affect the actual meaning of a statute (i.e. rule). They will never be perfect. Here, they have clearly informed the community of their intent. As with any rule, a GM in a home game is free to house rule it however she wants, but if we are going to start complaining about things that don't make sense from a logical standpoint, then we might as well all create our own games to play as fantasy, by its very nature, doesn't often follow the rules of logic.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Kobold Cleaver wrote:
I find its conclusion to be patently ridiculous, but it's certainly a triumph for the persnickety rules lawyers of the forums, so congrats.

Doesn't persnickety mean putting too much emphasis on trivial or minor details? Like obsessing over the use of the word 'jump', perhaps?

Personally I never really got the "oh I was wrong so I better throw out some snide insults at everyone that disagreed with me" thing, personally.

What's the point of it? Are you just trying to taint someone else's victory by trying to make them feel bad? Is it some attempt to claim moral superiority by insisting people with the other opinion are beneath you?

I'm sincerely curious.


Kobold Cleaver wrote:

And can people stop acting like this is a balance issue? Getting transported away from a fight while paralyzed is practically a boon. It saves you from easy coup de graces. Paralysis is basically as bad as it gets—who cares if you're paralyzed from twenty feet down?

This was a non-issue until we had to make it an issue. I have found this thread unpleasant and pedantic from beginning to end. I find its conclusion to be patently ridiculous, but it's certainly a triumph for the persnickety rules lawyers of the forums, so congrats.

Who says the nearest open space will put the character in question in a safer location from being CdG'd? Its not a balance issue. Its a consistency in rules issue.

Liberty's Edge

Talonhawke wrote:

Or understand that the spell grants a save that you haven't lost, coupled with the fact that they re-wrote the spell so people weren't hanging in the air until their turn, creating the move caveat. Prior to the wording change the paralyzed guy made sense but everyone just floated till they had their next turn.

As for rules making sense that's not a road you really want to go down and keep playing Pathfinder or you will quickly find nothing seems to match your standards of sense.

Note that the with the original wording with a successful save you started your turn on empty air and move away from there.

How?

People that are so disturbed by the idea that a successful save move you out of the area of the pit should consider what it allowed whit the original wording:
- you started your turn on empty air
- you didn't immediately fall but where able to move away from the square in which you started your turn.


Kobold Cleaver wrote:

I wouldn't want to play in a game with a GM who made rulings that dumb, either. PFS just occasionally establishes just how wonky its GM can be.

BigNorseWolf wrote:
(and FIY the sun is a light source, it can't hide so it's aut spotted :) )
Oh, so I can see a candle fifty miles away? :P

No, and let me give you my home game answer:

There are areas that the rules don't cover: how far away you can spot a light source from is one of them. In that case I'm going to default to more time than was probably safe for me wandering around the woods at night as to how far off you can spot what light source.

Now let met give you the answer i would give my PFS tables

There are areas that the rules don't cover: how far away you can spot a light source from is one of them. In that case I'm going to default to more time than was probably safe for me wandering around the woods at night as to how far off you can spot what light source.

The rule is not that absurd. Yes, you're pretty unlikely to miss a stationary target with the pit, but then again they're VERY unlikely to make the save (since they have no dex bonus and then a -5 for a zero dex on top of it) Its ridiculous to try to say how magic SHOULD work by reality or common sense and thats what you're trying to do


How to find perception DCs for light sources:
step 1: find relative senitivity (by energy) of sight and hearing.
step 2: find the incident light energy of the source from its luminosity, frequency and distance
step 3:Use a known reference from hearing DCs to calculate sight DCs (Note: decibels are a log scale, adjust light energy to match)

Liberty's Edge

Kobold Cleaver wrote:

I wouldn't want to play in a game with a GM who made rulings that dumb, either. PFS just occasionally establishes just how wonky its GM can be.

BigNorseWolf wrote:
(and FIY the sun is a light source, it can't hide so it's aut spotted :) )
Oh, so I can see a candle fifty miles away? :P

At night, with no light pollution, with a perfectly clear air, and no obstructions you can see it at 3 or more miles in RL.


Diego Rossi wrote:
Talonhawke wrote:

Or understand that the spell grants a save that you haven't lost, coupled with the fact that they re-wrote the spell so people weren't hanging in the air until their turn, creating the move caveat. Prior to the wording change the paralyzed guy made sense but everyone just floated till they had their next turn.

As for rules making sense that's not a road you really want to go down and keep playing Pathfinder or you will quickly find nothing seems to match your standards of sense.

Note that the with the original wording with a successful save you started your turn on empty air and move away from there.

How?

People that are so disturbed by the idea that a successful save move you out of the area of the pit should consider what it allowed whit the original wording:
- you started your turn on empty air
- you didn't immediately fall but where able to move away from the square in which you started your turn.

Exactly but it worked out just fine even if you were paralyzed. No movement, no "jump" no nothing just save and then fall. When the re-wrote it then the paralyzed guy making his save became weirdish.

151 to 200 of 204 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Rules Questions / Create Pit vs Paralyzed Opponent All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.