Tiny Creature hiding in your backpack


Rules Questions


So you have a wizard with a tiny familiar in his backpack specifically crafted to permit it touching him.
Given that it would reasonably be under total concealment, would it incur AoO from casting touch spells on its master?

There are some rules regarding AoE attacks and equipment which I assume would apply to the familiar. Say a fireball is cast and the stuck familiar would have no way to save since his movement would be restricted...but would be considered saved if his master saves...at least for reflex saves. Will and Fortitude saves would occur normally I suppose.

Thoughts?


Total concealment seems reasonable.

In general you're not supposed to apply common sense to Reflex saves:

FAQs wrote:

Reflex Saves: If I’m paralyzed, held, dying, or otherwise completely immobilized or insensate, can I still attempt a Reflex save?

Yes, you can still attempt a Reflex save, but since your Dexterity is set to 0, you’ll have to replace your Dexterity bonus with a –5 penalty, so you’re not likely to succeed. If you do succeed, it might be due to the power of your cloak of resistance, a good angle for cover, or even luck. Either way, follow the rules of the spell for a successful Reflex save, even if this would change your space, like create pit. However, you lose evasion in these circumstances. If you are under the influence of a rare effect that causes you to be immobilized or insensate and allows ongoing Reflex saves to escape the effect, as an exception to the rule, you can use your full Dexterity bonus (instead of a –5 penalty) for the purpose of attempting those ongoing saves only, since your full Dexterity is at work within the confines of the spell, trying to break free.

posted Oct 21, 2016


Interesting, so it would get at least some malus to dex due to being basically stuck in a backpack? But probably less than immobilized. Maybe -6 dex? What would be a reasonable ruling?

I also read that tiny creatures need to enter a medium creatures space to attack them. As a consequence this would make their threat range only the square they occupy, correct?


You could apply the Squeezing rules?

Quote:

Squeezing

In some cases, you may have to squeeze into or through an area that isn’t as wide as the space you take up. You can squeeze through or into a space that is at least half as wide as your normal space. Each move into or through a narrow space counts as if it were 2 squares, and while squeezed in a narrow space, you take a –4 penalty on attack rolls and a –4 penalty to AC.
When a Large creature (which normally takes up 4 squares) squeezes into a space that’s 1 square wide, the creature’s miniature figure occupies 2 squares, centered on the line between the 2 squares. For a bigger creature, center the creature likewise in the area it squeezes into.
A creature can squeeze past a creature while moving but it can’t end its movement in an occupied square.
To squeeze through or into a space less than half your space’s width, you must use the Escape Artist skill. You can’t attack while using Escape Artist to squeeze through or into a narrow space, you take a –4 penalty to AC, and you lose any Dexterity bonus to AC.

Most tiny creatures have a specified Reach of 0 feet, meaning they only threaten the square they're in.


Hiding in a backpack is not a space that would cause penalties to saves for the familiar.

Being there would not only provide total concealment, but also would break line of effect and line of sight, preventing many spells from connecting.

/cevah


Matthew Downie wrote:

You could apply the Squeezing rules?

Quote:

Squeezing

In some cases, you may have to squeeze into or through an area that isn’t as wide as the space you take up. You can squeeze through or into a space that is at least half as wide as your normal space. Each move into or through a narrow space counts as if it were 2 squares, and while squeezed in a narrow space, you take a –4 penalty on attack rolls and a –4 penalty to AC.
When a Large creature (which normally takes up 4 squares) squeezes into a space that’s 1 square wide, the creature’s miniature figure occupies 2 squares, centered on the line between the 2 squares. For a bigger creature, center the creature likewise in the area it squeezes into.
A creature can squeeze past a creature while moving but it can’t end its movement in an occupied square.
To squeeze through or into a space less than half your space’s width, you must use the Escape Artist skill. You can’t attack while using Escape Artist to squeeze through or into a narrow space, you take a –4 penalty to AC, and you lose any Dexterity bonus to AC.
Most tiny creatures have a specified Reach of 0 feet, meaning they only threaten the square they're in.

a reach of zero never threatens, ever.


Source?

Quote:
You threaten all squares into which you can make a melee attack
Quote:
Creatures that take up less than 1 square of space typically have a natural reach of 0 feet, meaning they can't reach into adjacent squares. They must enter an opponent's square to attack in melee. This provokes an attack of opportunity from the opponent. You can attack into your own square if you need to, so you can attack such creatures normally. Since they have no natural reach, they do not threaten the squares around them. You can move past them without provoking attacks of opportunity. They also can't flank an enemy.


The familiar isn't penalized or immobilized, they're hidden in a bag bigger than they are/in a space designed for them to inhabit long-term in comfort. I wouldn't worry about penalizing a familiar for being kept out of harm's way. They have save bonuses ranging from awful-to-mediocre which reduces the benefit of improved evasion against AoE effects considerably. They'll eat up resources (spells) when the time comes, and if their owner forgets to include them when doling out protections, one higher-end breath weapon/AoE ends them on the spot.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Here is what you want:

Ultimate Equipment p64 Familiar Satchel wrote:
This armored case provides total cover to any Tiny or smaller creature contained within it. It includes air holes (which can be plugged with cork stoppers if you need to go underwater) and two receptacles for food and water.

Price is 25gp and weight is 6lbs.

Due to total cover the familiar is ineligible to be targeted by the majority of spells, etc. It is almost 100% safe (unless they destroy the satchel or unless the effect bypasses total cover).


Keep in mind even without fancy special backpacks it's already rather hard to hit a familiar with an AoE attack, particularly damaging ones, as it uses the best of either its own save or its masters base save with its own ability mods and it has improved evasion as per the rules on familiars in the CRB.

I am also of the belief that what Matthew Downie first said about Reflex saves applies equally to any and all saves. IMO it is clearly the intent of the game system to nearly always allow saves when saves are normally permitted and that circumstances have to be very extreme before the GM should disallow one (which is not to say some cicumstantial modifier/penalty might be applied).

And the last couple of posts pretty much sum it up nicely.


Thanks to you all, this has been very helpful.

Scarab Sages

Regarding AoE attacks, the Backpack is likely a combustable, so many fire spells and effects may actually cause damage to the backpack. Depends how cruel the GM is...

As for the familiar, it should be easy to keep the familiar safe provide reasonable caution is employed. On that note, familar provides bonuses within 1 mile. It should easy to keep a familar far from combat, provided the goal is survival for the familar.


the only way that an attended object get affected in an AoE is if you roll a natural 1, and even then the GM roll randomly which type of item is affected

Scarab Sages

John Murdock wrote:
the only way that an attended object get affected in an AoE is if you roll a natural 1, and even then the GM roll randomly which type of item is affected

Basis? Never heard this rule.

My understanding is that all creatures/objects in the AoE are technically affected if the spells says they are. In example, If I hit you with burning hands and you are wearing/holding combustable clothing/backpacks/equipment, as the GM I could impose that the flammable items ignite. This is part of the burning hands spell, not some crazy idea I'm making up. An attended object may still get a save, but they don't become immune to damage or AoE spells/abilities just because something is holding/wearing them.

That said, unless I am going for a harsh and realistic setting with lots of micromanaging, I'm probably not going to bother with this. It's a pain to keep track of random item HP and the PCs won't be enjoying it either, since a good chunk of adventuring gear is flammable. I may still impose it under specific circumstances, like those where PC equipment is unusually flammable (soaked in oil, improperly stored black powder, or carrying far too many alchemist's fire vials).

And PS, Fireball has a similar wording. Most of the AoE fire spells affect objects within the AoE provided they are flamable, combustable, or have a low melting point.

As per the CRB regarding damage to objects, unattended nonmagical objects always count as failing their save. Attended non-magical objects get to use the attending character's save, but are most certainly not immune. Attended magical objects get saves of 2 + half the CL of item, or, the attending character's saves, whichever is best. This is found with the rules for damaging objects.

Regarding the OP's question, even if the backpack did ignite, I wouldn't roll damage for the contents unless the backpack was destroyed (and the contents would each still get their own saves).


Murdock Mudeater wrote:
John Murdock wrote:
the only way that an attended object get affected in an AoE is if you roll a natural 1, and even then the GM roll randomly which type of item is affected
Basis? Never heard this rule.
CRB p217 wrote:

Items Surviving after a Saving Throw: Unless the descriptive text for the spell specifies otherwise, all items carried or worn by a creature are assumed to survive a magical attack. If a creature rolls a natural 1 on its saving throw against the effect, however, an exposed item is harmed (if the attack can harm objects). Refer to Table 9–2: Items Affected by Magical Attacks. Determine which four objects carried or worn by the creature are most likely to be affected and roll randomly among them. The randomly determined item must make a saving throw against the attack form and take whatever damage the attack dealt.

If the selected item is not carried or worn and is not magical, it does not get a saving throw. It simply is dealt the appropriate damage.

Summary of the above rule: Worn and carried items are not subject to damage unless the spell specifically states otherwise or unless the person rolls a 1 on his saving throw.

If the person rolls a 1 check the table, determine the four most likely objects (via said table) to be hit, and then determine randomly which one was hit.

So, short of a spell specifically targeting worn or carried equipment there is very little chance of damaging the Familiar Satchel since it would be #10 on the list AND that is only if the person who got hit had rolled a 1.

A familiar is almost completely safe in a Familiar Satchel when the owner is hit by a fireball or burning hands.

Scarab Sages

Gauss wrote:
CRB p217 wrote:

Items Surviving after a Saving Throw: Unless the descriptive text for the spell specifies otherwise, all items carried or worn by a creature are assumed to survive a magical attack. If a creature rolls a natural 1 on its saving throw against the effect, however, an exposed item is harmed (if the attack can harm objects). Refer to Table 9–2: Items Affected by Magical Attacks. Determine which four objects carried or worn by the creature are most likely to be affected and roll randomly among them. The randomly determined item must make a saving throw against the attack form and take whatever damage the attack dealt.

If the selected item is not carried or worn and is not magical, it does not get a saving throw. It simply is dealt the appropriate damage.

Summary of the above rule: Worn and carried items are not subject to damage unless the spell states otherwise or unless the person rolls a 1 on his saving throw.

If the person rolls a 1 check the table, determine the four most likely objects (via said table) to be hit, and then determine randomly which one was hit.

So, short of a spell specifically targeting worn or carried equipment there is very little chance of damaging the Familiar Satchel since it would be #10 on the list AND that is only if the person who got hit had rolled a 1.

A familiar is almost completely safe in a Familiar Satchel when the owner is hit by a fireball or burning hands.

No. That is not an accurate summary. It's saying that if my spell targets you, not your item, but you, that the spell doesn't also affect carried gear unless the spell specifically says it also affects your carried gear.

Area effect spells target everything in the area, objects and creatures. A spell being described as an area spell IS a spell specifically stating if affects items as well as creatures.

And, additionally, both burning hands and fireball specifically address how flammable items are treated by spell, which is a secondary exemption from the above quote.

Regarding wording of spells, a spell that targets an area, but doesn't affect objects, is often worded like Calm Emotions. Notice how it says "creatures in a 20ft radius spread"? If areas didn't affect objects, there would be no need to specify creatures.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Area effect spells do not damage worn or carried equipment unless they specifically state they do (or the person rolls a 1). The above rule states this.

Thus, since the spell fireball does not have a clause stating it damages attended objects it does not affect worn or carried equipment unless the person rolls a 1.


Guass in correct in this.


Yup.

Scarab Sages

Gauss wrote:

Area effect spells do not damage worn or carried equipment unless they specifically state they do (or the person rolls a 1). The above rule states this.

Thus, since the spell fireball does not have a clause stating it damages attended objects it does not affect worn or carried equipment unless the person rolls a 1.

Quote is refering to "Items surviving after a saving throw." Not sure how you interpret this to mean that items ignore saving throws. AFTER the item passes the saving throw, you can apply that quote, sure, but they are not immune to magical attacks just because their attender saved.

And even if so, Area says it affects objects and creatures. Fireball says it affects combustable objects within the area. Both seem like pretty specific "exceptions" to the above.

Seems pretty specific, but sure, can you give me a CRB example of an AoE spell that does affect carried objects? As a point of reference for what they are talking about. I already gave my example from the CRB which supports my theory.

Scarab Sages

Have you read Shatter or Break? Nothing in either of these spells specifically calls out for the ability to affect "attended" objects. Are you sure that these spells can't affect attended objects because of your quote?

I'm pretty certain both spells can affect attended objects, so I don't think your theory that spell needs to specifically mention it's ability to affect "attended" objects is a thing. I think the spell needs to mention it affects objects, but I'm not sure what you are thinking saying that these spells can't affect objects because they are attended. The CRB even has rules for the saves that attended objects get against spells and effects (page 174), as already mentioned.


the rules explicitly say that if you roll a natural 1, a random item need to make its saving throw against the spell if it can affect the object, for the spell to ignore this rule it need to specify that object worn or carried are also affected by the spell


Murdock Mudeater, the general spell rules cover this.

CRB p216 wrote:
(object): The spell can be cast on objects, which receive saving throws only if they are magical or if they are attended (held, worn, grasped, or the like) by a creature resisting the spell, in which case the object uses the creature’s saving throw bonus unless its own bonus is greater. This notation does not mean that a spell can be cast only on objects. Some spells of this sort can be cast on creatures or objects. A magic item’s saving throw bonuses are each equal to 2 + 1/2 the item’s caster level.

If you are using the area version of shatter then it only applies to unattended nonmagical items as per the description in the spell.

If you are using the single-target version of shatter then it follows the object targeting rule above which allows you to target attended objects (which then get a save).

This also applies to Break which is also targeted.

Fireball has no (object) notation. What fireball has is a clause in it's text that allows it to damage unattended objects. If it did not have that clause it would not be allowed to damage unattended objects.

Let me put this another way:
Targeted spell that affects objects: affects attended objects as per CRB 216.
Area attack damaging spell that does not state it affects attended objects: does not affect attended objects unless character rolls a 1 on his save. Then object may be affected as per procedure on CRB p217.

You seem to think that all carried objects are affected by Fireball. There is ZERO rules support for this. Please show a quote (page number and text) which states that Fireball affects attended objects at all times (ie: without using the 'roll a 1' rule above).

Scarab Sages

Gauss wrote:

Fireball has no (object) notation. What fireball has is a clause in it's text that allows it to damage unattended objects. If it did not have that clause it would not be allowed to damage unattended objects.

Let me put this another way:
Targeted spell that affects objects: affects attended objects as per CRB 216.
Area attack damaging spell that does not state it affects attended objects: does not affect attended objects unless character rolls a 1 on his save. Then object may be affected as per procedure on CRB p217.

You seem to think that all carried objects are affected by Fireball. There is ZERO rules support for this. Please show a quote (page number and text) which states that Fireball affects attended objects at all times (ie: without using the 'roll a 1' rule above).

You have it backwards. The area spell needs to be worded to exclude attended objects for them not to be affected. For objects to be affected, it merely needs to include them in it's area of effect.

Page 214. Second Paragraph, first sentance: "Regardless of the shape of the area, you select the point where the spell originates, but otherwise you don't control which creatures or objects the spell affects."

Page 283. Fireball targets a 20ft radius spread, which is a subset of an area spell. Last paragraph, first sentance: "Fireball sets fire to combustables and damages objects in the area."

Page 341. Shatter has no special rule suggesting it is able to target attended objects, as you seem to think fireball requires. Shatter's targeting parameters, "Area or Target: 5ft radius spread; or one solid object or one crystaline creature."

Regarding the page 216 part regarding the use of "(object)." If you actually read it, it allows targeted spells to target objects. This term has no bearing with area spells, which don't target. See page 213, which clearly defines "target or targeted" spells. An area spell affects everything in the area, while a targeted spell affects only the target (or targets). Fireball doesn't require the "(object)" descriptor because it is not a target spell, but an area spell.

Shatter is area OR target because different versions of the spell apply differently. The Targeted version requires the "(object)" descriptor to target objects as a targeted spell. The area spell does not, which is why they specify that it is unable to affect attended objects (because area spells would normally affect attended objects, so the distinction matters if they don't intend it to affect attended objects).


Murdock Mudeater wrote:
Gauss wrote:

Fireball has no (object) notation. What fireball has is a clause in it's text that allows it to damage unattended objects. If it did not have that clause it would not be allowed to damage unattended objects.

Let me put this another way:
Targeted spell that affects objects: affects attended objects as per CRB 216.
Area attack damaging spell that does not state it affects attended objects: does not affect attended objects unless character rolls a 1 on his save. Then object may be affected as per procedure on CRB p217.

You seem to think that all carried objects are affected by Fireball. There is ZERO rules support for this. Please show a quote (page number and text) which states that Fireball affects attended objects at all times (ie: without using the 'roll a 1' rule above).

You have it backwards. The area spell needs to be worded to exclude attended objects for them not to be affected. For objects to be affected, it merely needs to include them in it's area of effect.

Page 214. Second Paragraph, first sentance: "Regardless of the shape of the area, you select the point where the spell originates, but otherwise you don't control which creatures or objects the spell affects."

Page 283. Fireball targets a 20ft radius spread, which is a subset of an area spell. Last paragraph, first sentance: "Fireball sets fire to combustables and damages objects in the area."

Page 341. Shatter has no special rule suggesting it is able to target attended objects, as you seem to think fireball requires. Shatter's targeting parameters, "Area or Target: 5ft radius spread; or one solid object or one crystaline creature."

Regarding the page 216 part regarding the use of "(object)." If you actually read it, it allows targeted spells to target objects. This term has no bearing with area spells, which don't target. See page 213, which clearly defines "target or targeted" spells. An area spell affects everything in the area, while a targeted spell affects only...

you think they designed the game so that every damage aoe I have to roll to see if I killed the items on everyone that got hit? each combat would take 50 hours. that's not how it works


Murdock Mudeater wrote:
The area spell needs to be worded to exclude attended objects for them not to be affected. For objects to be affected, it merely needs to include them in it's area of effect.
Fireball wrote:
A fireball spell generates a searing explosion of flame that detonates with a low roar and deals 1d6 points of fire damage per caster level (maximum 10d6) to every creature within the area. Unattended objects also take this damage.

It seems pretty clear that attended objects (eg anything you wear or carry) do not take this damage or they wouldn't specify 'unattended'.


Murdock Mudeater wrote:
Gauss wrote:

Fireball has no (object) notation. What fireball has is a clause in it's text that allows it to damage unattended objects. If it did not have that clause it would not be allowed to damage unattended objects.

Let me put this another way:
Targeted spell that affects objects: affects attended objects as per CRB 216.
Area attack damaging spell that does not state it affects attended objects: does not affect attended objects unless character rolls a 1 on his save. Then object may be affected as per procedure on CRB p217.

You seem to think that all carried objects are affected by Fireball. There is ZERO rules support for this. Please show a quote (page number and text) which states that Fireball affects attended objects at all times (ie: without using the 'roll a 1' rule above).

You have it backwards. The area spell needs to be worded to exclude attended objects for them not to be affected. For objects to be affected, it merely needs to include them in it's area of effect.

Page 214. Second Paragraph, first sentance: "Regardless of the shape of the area, you select the point where the spell originates, but otherwise you don't control which creatures or objects the spell affects."

Page 283. Fireball targets a 20ft radius spread, which is a subset of an area spell. Last paragraph, first sentance: "Fireball sets fire to combustables and damages objects in the area."

Page 341. Shatter has no special rule suggesting it is able to target attended objects, as you seem to think fireball requires. Shatter's targeting parameters, "Area or Target: 5ft radius spread; or one solid object or one crystaline creature."

Regarding the page 216 part regarding the use of "(object)." If you actually read it, it allows targeted spells to target objects. This term has no bearing with area spells, which don't target. See page 213, which clearly defines "target or targeted" spells. An area spell affects everything in the area, while a targeted spell affects only...

You are the one that has it backwards.

Spells only do what they state that they do, no more, no less. There is nothing that states that area spells affect attended objects by default.

What your quote from page 214 is stating is that you do not control which creatures or objects the spell affects.
Ie: You do not control that it hits some creatures or objects but not others.
That is not the same as "area spells affect attended objects".

The area attack mode of Shatter does not state that it is unable to affect attended objects.
It states that it is able to affect unattended objects which is not the same thing.

CRB p341 wrote:
Used as an area attack, shatter destroys nonmagical objects of crystal, glass, ceramic, or porcelain. All such unattended objects within a 5-foot radius of the point of origin are smashed into dozens of pieces by the spell. Objects weighing more than 1 pound per your level are not affected, but all other objects of the appropriate composition are shattered.

No statement regarding attended objects at all.

Fireball also has a statement about being able to damage unattended objects.

CRB p283 wrote:
A fireball spell generates a searing explosion of flame that detonates with a low roar and deals 1d6 points of fire damage per caster level (maximum 10d6) to every creature within the area. Unattended objects also take this damage. The explosion creates almost no pressure.

Same basic statement, a statement that unattended objects take damage. No statement that attended objects take damage.

There is no general rule that allows area attack spells to damage attended objects. Either you have to have a spell that specifically states it or the creature in the area has to roll a 1 on his saving throw.

Scarab Sages

Matthew Downie wrote:
Fireball wrote:
A fireball spell generates a searing explosion of flame that detonates with a low roar and deals 1d6 points of fire damage per caster level (maximum 10d6) to every creature within the area. Unattended objects also take this damage.
It seems pretty clear that attended objects (eg anything you wear or carry) do not take this damage or they wouldn't specify 'unattended'.

Correct, the "damage" from fireball is limited to unattended objects. As per the 3rd paragraph, as quoted already, objects in the area that are combustable are subject to combustion, no exception for attended objects as per the damage of the spell.

Your quote is another example of why area effects would need to specify that attended objects are excluded from the damage because area effect would normally include them. And despite mentioning that it does affect objects, note that the "(object)" descriptor is not used for fireball because this an area spell, not a targeted one.

@Gauss: This issue is that people on the rules forum go with a democracy of what they think the rules mean, not a following of what the rules say in context to where they say it. 3 vs 1 may mean that you are regarded as right, but it doesn't change what the rules actually say, just in how the majority interprets it.


If multiple people read the rules all one way and you are reading them a different way then the problem is probably yours. I suggest examining how often you read the rules differently from everyone else, from what I have seen, it is quite often.


PRD wrote:


A fireball spell generates a searing explosion of flame that detonates with a low roar and deals 1d6 points of fire damage per caster level (maximum 10d6) to every creature within the area. Unattended objects also take this damage.

Last I checked, items weren't creatures. And attended items are ones that are carried by creatures, hence they aren't affected.

When your players attack an enemy do you also give them sunder attempts against the enemy armor?

Scarab Sages

willuwontu wrote:
PRD wrote:


A fireball spell generates a searing explosion of flame that detonates with a low roar and deals 1d6 points of fire damage per caster level (maximum 10d6) to every creature within the area. Unattended objects also take this damage.

Last I checked, items weren't creatures. And attended items are ones that are carried by creatures, hence they aren't affected.

When your players attack an enemy do you also give them sunder attempts against the enemy armor?

Sunder Combat Maneuvers? Sunder is specific to that maneuver. The players can attempt sunder maneuvers in place of a normal attack, as per sunder. Using a spell to damage an object doesn't require and isn't called sundering, unless the spell specifically calls it out.

As per the quote on page 217, if the attending creature fails their save on a natural 1, spells that affect the creature randomly apply to the objects they carry as well (as in, roll a nat 1 to save vs fireball, and attended objects can be damaged).

Third Paragraph of Fireball, objects in the area that are combustable may catch on fire. This is a seperate effect from the damage of fireball. This would apply to attended objects. Catching on fire is detailed on Page 444 of the CRB. It's a simple DC 15 reflex save per flammable item. Any Failure (but not each failure) means that the character takes 1d6 fire damage (unrelated to the damage from the spell). Each flamable item takes that same damage if that item fails it's save. As per page 174 regarding Energy Attacks, Fire Damage will ignore hardness for Cloth, parchment, and other materials that burn easily (aka flamable/combustable objects).

The lesson here is not wearing flamable objects in excess when expecting exposure to fire spells. If a player is holding a parchment scroll when their area is subject to fireball, they'll need a save for them vs the fireball DC, and, they will also need a DC 15 reflex save for the scroll to avoid it catching on fire. This is common sense, and is within the rules. Don't know why you think that wearing paper armor or oily rags makes those things fireproof.

Regarding the OP. This whole thing could be avoided by having a leather backpack. Leather is not flammable. A cloth backpack is flammable. I don't think the item specifies, so I think you get to choose the material (within reason).


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Gauss wrote:
If multiple people read the rules all one way and you are reading them a different way then the problem is probably yours. I suggest examining how often you read the rules differently from everyone else, from what I have seen, it is quite often.

i'm sorry to say that even if i'm on your side for how to read the rule, but saying that is an ad populum fallacy, being a lot to say the same thing do not make us automatically right

Scarab Sages

Gauss wrote:
If multiple people read the rules all one way and you are reading them a different way then the problem is probably yours. I suggest examining how often you read the rules differently from everyone else, from what I have seen, it is quite often.

Okay, so I'm wanting to cross the street. The crosswalk sign says "Don't Walk" so I wait. Meanwhile, lots of other people crossing this same street walk across anyway despite a "Don't Walk" sign, clearly reading the sign differently.

Am I wrong that "Don't Walk" means I shouldn't cross?

I could ignore what it says and what the law is, and just choose the path that everyone else seems to be following. That would be the democratic way of handling it. They aren't getting arrested, so despite it being technically unlawful, there's no real enforcement. One could reasonably argue that my law abiding nature is wrong, since the law in practice differs from the law on paper.

But following the rules as written and following the rules in practice are often different things. I think your arguement is one of how the game is played, not what the rules say. But we can disagree, and ultimately, the game exists to be played, so even if I'm in the right, it might not really matter as we play the game.


I would have imagined all the backpacks were leather. Cloth would absolutely drench all your items within during rain for example. That'd be pretty bad for your camping gear.

I just checked and the regular backpack (2 gold) is made out of leather. Now I'm considering the masterwork version for the slightly higher load capacity.


John Murdock wrote:
Gauss wrote:
If multiple people read the rules all one way and you are reading them a different way then the problem is probably yours. I suggest examining how often you read the rules differently from everyone else, from what I have seen, it is quite often.
i'm sorry to say that even if i'm on your side for how to read the rule, but saying that is an ad populum fallacy, being a lot to say the same thing do not make us automatically right

And I did not state we are automatically right. But, when a large group of people read things one way and a minority read them a different way it is at least worth examining why.

When someone consistently reads things differently, it is probably not a case of ad populum, it is probably an error in how that person reads the rules.


Murdock Mudeater wrote:
Gauss wrote:
If multiple people read the rules all one way and you are reading them a different way then the problem is probably yours. I suggest examining how often you read the rules differently from everyone else, from what I have seen, it is quite often.

Okay, so I'm wanting to cross the street. The crosswalk sign says "Don't Walk" so I wait. Meanwhile, lots of other people crossing this same street walk across anyway despite a "Don't Walk" sign, clearly reading the sign differently.

Am I wrong that "Don't Walk" means I shouldn't cross?

I could ignore what it says and what the law is, and just choose the path that everyone else seems to be following. That would be the democratic way of handling it. They aren't getting arrested, so despite it being technically unlawful, there's no real enforcement. One could reasonably argue that my law abiding nature is wrong, since the law in practice differs from the law on paper.

But following the rules as written and following the rules in practice are often different things. I think your arguement is one of how the game is played, not what the rules say. But we can disagree, and ultimately, the game exists to be played, so even if I'm in the right, it might not really matter as we play the game.

If you will re-read my post, I did not state in a specific instance. Your example of crossing the street is a specific instance.

Your example is also flawed, you are comparing your reading a sign to how people are behaving, not what they read. They know that it says don't walk, they choose to ignore it. This is not a comparable example.

If you are regularly reading things differently then the problem is probably yours.


Gauss wrote:
John Murdock wrote:
Gauss wrote:
If multiple people read the rules all one way and you are reading them a different way then the problem is probably yours. I suggest examining how often you read the rules differently from everyone else, from what I have seen, it is quite often.
i'm sorry to say that even if i'm on your side for how to read the rule, but saying that is an ad populum fallacy, being a lot to say the same thing do not make us automatically right

And I did not state we are automatically right. But, when a large group of people read things one way and a minority read them a different way it is at least worth examining why.

When someone consistently reads things differently, it is probably not a case of ad populum, it is probably an error in how that person reads the rules.

then i am sorry for having misread you then, i had the sensation it was more of we are right because we are more, again sorry

Scarab Sages

Gauss wrote:

If you will re-read my post, I did not state in a specific instance. Your example of crossing the street is a specific instance.

Your example is also flawed, you are comparing your reading a sign to how people are behaving, not what they read. They know that it says don't walk, they choose to ignore it. This is not a comparable example.

If you are regularly reading things differently then the problem is probably yours.

First, it was an analogy, not a specific instance. In the analogy, both myself and the others are fully able to read the sign. They may even know the same laws. The distinction isn't in what they think it says, but what they think it means in relation to their response to it.

Back to use, as you've stated, you think that our conclusions differ based on the same text. I agree, I think that your reading and my reading include the same text, but conclude a different meaning.

As for your response, I think you are being unnecessarily hostile about your responses. You don't need to argree, but the way you are disagreeing is hostile and makes me feel unwelcome on the site. Please respond in a more kind manner, in the future.

Anyway, we have reached an impasse. You don't agree with me, I don't agree with you. Neither of us seem to have the ability to change the mind of the other with debate, so let's stop here.

Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Rules Questions / Tiny Creature hiding in your backpack All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.