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

Starfinder


Pathfinder Society


Pathfinder Adventure Card Game

Rule you never see used though it is RAW


Pathfinder RPG General Discussion

301 to 350 of 374 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | next > last >>
Dark Archive

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Wait what


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Hugo Rune wrote:
deuxhero wrote:

With smokeless powder rifle rounds that aren't 7.62x39/300 Blackout at least. It actually applicable to black powder.

Hugo Rune wrote:
By RAW, the maximum range for a composite longbow is 1100 feet, but you need a Perception DC of 110 to spot somebody standing and waving in a featureless field at that distance.

108: Open field to spot is favorable conditions. May be even lower, as there's nothing that states favorable conditions don't stack.

A weapon's mechanical distance outpacing the distance a human can use it is also pretty normal. Without magnified optics that's actually quite hard with a modern rifle because your sights cover the entire target.

Oh I agree that the person would be difficult to hit at that range and the -20 range penalty certainly reflects that. It's the fact that by RAW the target can't even be seen at that distance that doesn't sit right. I know that by looking out of the office window and using Google Maps to measure distance that I can notice people in a park over a mile away and even work out their gender, build and age group; though distinguishing between adult and middle aged at that range is near impossible.

That's ridiculously better than normal eyesight. There are military manuals that fairly clearly specify what should be visible at particular distances (it's advantageous for estimating ranges which helps both artillery and small arms fire, among other things) and while it's certainly true that spotting a person at 1100 feet should be easy enough (the estimate for a single person in the Artillery Officer's Manual is equivalent to 2200 feet) I wouldn't expect most people to match your ability.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
J4RH34D wrote:

I have noticed recently people rarely use perception properly.

We are currently involved in a dungeon crawl in one of our games.

We opened a door onto a battle.
We should have heard that through the door.
DC to hear is -10 (sound of battle) +2 (closed door) +5 (Distance) +5 (Maybe we are distracted) for a total DC of 2.

Literally the next door we opened we opened onto a group of enemies that smelled so bad we had to make fort saves or be neasueated.
Dc for smelling garbage is again -10. So again a total dc of +2.

The gm ignored this in both instances

Through a door is +5, not +2. If the door was 1 ft. Thick+ It is a +10.

Still unfair, but it helps to even it up a bit.

Unused Rule: Seeing by candlelight gives all DC’s involving sight +5 (terrible conditions)

Hugo Rune wrote:
Vidmaster7 wrote:
Hey where does the raw say it can't?

Very true, in fact by RAW, you can stand against a 1 foot thick wall and perceive what's on the other side by taking a DC10 check.

Brave Sir Robin walks up to the wall and rests his head against it. "The barracks are beyond this wall he whispers"
"How can you tell?" asks Marvello the Magnificient
"There are bunk beds pressed against the wall"

I didn’t think about it this way. Now my +39 perception character can see through 3 ft. of wall

Matthew Downie wrote:
J4RH34D wrote:
Not being visible and being invisible are very different.

...is a rule I never see used even though it is RAW.

The game is a lot easier if you merge invisibility, blindness, darkness, impenetrable smoke/fog and total cover into a single concept.

But do they combine?

William Werminster wrote:

The 24h 'cooldown' retry for Diplomacy.

That and the fact that it takes one minute of constant use.

ryric wrote:
Chess Pwn wrote:
ryric wrote:
Back to OT. One rule I don't use is the rule about multiple sneak attacks with spells. If someone manages to have sneak attack, greater invisibility, and scorching ray, they can have sneak attack on all three rays.

Are you saying that you ignore the FAQ that says that someone can't get multiple sneak attacks off if they fire mulitple rays?

Or are you unaware of it and were saying that people don't make use of the illegal option?
I ignore the FAQ. Obviously home game, not PFS.

So, you homerule that an FAQ doesn’t exist so that you can houserule that they can’t do it?

PossibleCabbage wrote:

Speaking of the age categories, does anybody actually use the randomized height and weight by gender and race?

I find that sometimes people just want to play someone who is especially tall, thin, thick, or whatever and so I've always been at tables where you just right down whatever.

So I've totally played a 6'11" 110 lb male Aasimar or a 4'6" 280 lb female dwarf.

Yes. Our group always sticks by the guidelines on the table. If you want to randomly write it down though just remember to keep characters from slipping size categories.

Bill Dunn wrote:

Check out the darkness, light, and vision rules that include this tidbit:

Quote:
Characters with low-light vision (elves, gnomes, and half-elves) can see objects twice as far away as the given radius. Double the effective radius of bright light, normal light, and dim light for such characters.
linkified

Interesting. I will have to remember this.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Vidmaster7 wrote:

Anything?

uh looked up the thread and turns out I undershot the number it was 2929 str score. which was 1.27E+147 Solar Masses so the number has 147 0's 127,000... in solar masses.

I gotta check this.

Maths (bad):

2900=290 or
4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4 x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x 4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4 x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x 4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4 x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x 4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4 x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x 4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4 x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x 4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4 x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x 4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4 x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x 4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4 x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x 4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4 x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x 4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4 x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x 4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4 x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x 4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4 x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x 4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4 x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x 4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4 x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x 4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4 x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x 4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4 x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x 4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4 x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x 4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4 x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x 4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4 x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x 4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4 x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x 4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4 x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x 4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4 x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x 4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4 x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x 4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4 x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x 4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4 x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x 4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4 x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x 4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4
x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x 4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4 x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x 4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4 x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x 4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4 x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x 4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4 x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x 4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4 x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x 4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4 x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x 4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4 x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x 4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4 x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x 4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4 x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x
4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x4x


1 person marked this as a favorite.

hey zeuz ADM you put some work into that.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
J4RH34D wrote:

I agree with you completely Adjoint.

The RAI is certainly not what is written.
The reason I see that what I posited as RAW can easily be read that way, is because of the last quote.
It spells out the effect on the character which implies the others do as well.

Adjoint wrote:


All characters can clearly see objects in an area of bright light.
A character can somewhat see objects in an area of dim light.

The funny thing is that this is still ambiguos.

Can they see the object clearly when the object is in the area of bright/dim light, or when the character is in that area.

Basically the "In an area of --- light" can refer to location of the subject or object of the sentence, IE the Character, or what they are looking at.

The light rules are weird, and hard, and confusing

No they aren't. People are weird, argumentative and just plain damn contrary.

I have a rule - it is arguably vaguely written - one way of reading it matches my expectations of how the world works, another way of reading it is counter intuitive and breaks things. Which one do you think is the correct way to read that rule?


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Adventure Path Charter Subscriber
dragonhunterq wrote:


No they aren't. People are weird, argumentative and just plain damn contrary.
I have a rule - it is arguably vaguely written - one way of reading it matches my expectations of how the world works, another way of reading it is counter intuitive and breaks things. Which one do you think is the correct way to read that rule?

The one that matches how the world works is usually the right one, because more often than not that was the inspiration for the rules in the first place (or at least how the rules for the specific actions were written to fit within the larger structure of the rules).


1 person marked this as a favorite.

The calculator says that with 2929 strength you can carry
3 957 286 423 569 672 544 968 040 336 314 355 040 562 101 585 619 389 438 625 008 897 486 355 601 704 509 874 725 062 416 979 888 719 833 562 742 816 258 229 429 621 840 548 908 019 359 480 738 481 630 290 686 665 708 354 379 186 176 lbs.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

That is of course in the order of 100000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 0000 times the mass of the universe (estimates vary).

However, assuming that carrying capacity is based on weight not mass, that's a force under 1g gravity. As the centre of mass of such a large object will necessarily be a long way away (in the order of 1e36 miles if normal matter), its apparent weight under the gravity of an earth-sized planet will be 1e72 times less. Which means that you can actually carry 1e72 times as much. Which is then 1e24 times further away, and 1e48 times lighter. And so on.

Which is perhaps all better considered as lifting Golarion against the gravity of a large object sufficient to create that weight, though before you get that far, the whole lot has obviously collapsed into a black hole and your calculations are all messed up.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ancient Dragon Master wrote:

The calculator says that with 2929 strength you can carry

3 957 286 423 569 672 544 968 040 336 314 355 040 562 101 585 619 389 438 625 008 897 486 355 601 704 509 874 725 062 416 979 888 719 833 562 742 816 258 229 429 621 840 548 908 019 359 480 738 481 630 290 686 665 708 354 379 186 176 lbs.

Yeah we converted it to planetary masses to try and reduce the silliness but it was still a silly number.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Rule I never see used even though it's RAW: Spontaneous caster casting-times increased when using Metamagic.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Zhayne wrote:
Rule I never see used even though it's RAW: Spontaneous caster casting-times increased when using Metamagic.

That was one of the major reasons the mantra "Monte Cook Hates Sorcerers" took off the way it did.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Dαedαlus wrote:
WhiteMagus2000 wrote:

That coins are actually pretty damn heavy. 50 coins per pound, so 2000gp to enchant your sword weighs 40 lbs! IRL 40lbs of gold = $816,640. I did have one GM that would occasionally audit weights on all that characters, chart days of food remaining, and make us find water every day or two.

By the way, IRL its 291.667 penny weights (one copper) per pound, so pathfinder coins are HUGE, like 1/3 of an once.

I actually did some calculations regarding coin weight. While there is quite a bit of rounding to get to 1 pound/50 coins (the actual figure is closer to .8 of a pound/50 coins), the coins are actually of a realistic size while still being heavy (metals are dense. Just be glad we didn't go with Tungsten way back when instead of gold).

While you are technically correct (the best kind of correct), I professionally deal in precious metals, so I kind of know what I'm talking about. Coins can be (and have been) made of all kinds of sizes. For my calculations I'm assuming that 1 penny = 1 copper piece. Off the top of my head, I don't know who uses 7.25 grams per coin, but I don't doubt that someone in earth's history has.

In the Middle Ages, a British penny's weight was literally, as well as monetarily,  1⁄20 of an ounce and  1⁄240 of a pound of sterling silver (approximately 1.46 grams). After 1527, the English pennyweight was the Troy pennyweight.

A (modern)pennyweight (abbreviated dwt, from denarius weight) is a unit of mass that is equal to 24 grains,  1⁄20 of a troy ounce,  1⁄240 of a troy pound, approximately 0.054857 avoirdupois ounce and exactly 1.55517384 grams. There are 291.667 pennyweights per modern pound.

You could assume that copper, electrum, gold, and platinum coins should weigh different amounts, but that's not how the rules are written. As I said before, coins that weigh 1/3 of a once each are pretty big. In modern terms, its 180 pennies per pound or 80 quarters.

If you are going with 1/10 oz. and a standard gold piece, it would come out to 160 per pound.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Did you hear they redefined the kilogram so all SI units don't need specific objects?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
The Sideromancer wrote:
Did you hear they redefined the kilogram so all SI units don't need specific objects?

That is really exciting. Doesn't effect my work, but it is cool.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

"If you are going with 1/10 oz. and a standard gold piece, it would come out to 160 per pound."

Actually I was incorrect about this, due to the troy to standard conversion. 1/10 troy oz. (a standard size) would equal 145 per standard pound.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Mudfoot wrote:

That is of course in the order of 100000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 0000 times the mass of the universe (estimates vary).

However, assuming that carrying capacity is based on weight not mass, that's a force under 1g gravity. As the centre of mass of such a large object will necessarily be a long way away (in the order of 1e36 miles if normal matter), its apparent weight under the gravity of an earth-sized planet will be 1e72 times less. Which means that you can actually carry 1e72 times as much. Which is then 1e24 times further away, and 1e48 times lighter. And so on.

Which is perhaps all better considered as lifting Golarion against the gravity of a large object sufficient to create that weight, though before you get that far, the whole lot has obviously collapsed into a black hole and your calculations are all messed up.

Well, I mean, this guy had to come from somewhere. My current headcanon is that it was a bunch of low-grade mythic rubes using Aid Another and lend path (to grant Mule's Strength*) to literally "do you even lift, bro?"-bootstrap their way out of the black hole which changed them into a powerful non-mythic Tychilarius (much like the mythic lamia becomes a lamia matriarch) - kind of a raw deal in some regards, but existence is existence, right?

...

* Possibly with excessive use of ascension first to gain Mule's Strength in the first place to grant it; this could even have been what caused the black hole - stupid aberrants (like humanoids) tampering around with stuff beyond their ability to control, and it literally ate them and spit them out as something new and worse. Whether this was intentional or not... ¯\_(ツ)_/¯


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Removing armor takes time (from 5 rounds to 1d4+1 minutes, depending on the situation).

I have never seen a situation when it would matter, though I can imagine one (for example if someone was about to drown, and was willing to drop his armor in order to get a chance to get to the surface).


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion, Maps, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber

There is a form of medium armor called an armored coat that can be donned or doffed as a move action. That item could be very useful for a multi-classed arcane spellcaster who wants to avoid arcane spell failure while casting but have armor protection the rest of the time.

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Roleplaying Guild, Tales Subscriber; Pathfinder Comics Subscriber
David knott 242 wrote:

There is a form of medium armor called an armored coat that can be donned or doffed as a move action. That item could be very useful for a multi-classed arcane spellcaster who wants to avoid arcane spell failure while casting but have armor protection the rest of the time.

My Bloodrager has one, they take it off when they have to do some sneaking real quick.

Lantern Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Lighting penalties.

Its like the one weakness of humans and yet how often is it ignored because its too annoying to keep track of the lighting penalties.

20' out from the area of normal light provided by a source is dim light - many targets in this region are conveniently ignored their 20% miss chance simply because the human source is within the normal light area.

40' from the edge of normal light source is darkness.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Athaleon wrote:
Zhayne wrote:
Rule I never see used even though it's RAW: Spontaneous caster casting-times increased when using Metamagic.
That was one of the major reasons the mantra "Monte Cook Hates Sorcerers" took off the way it did.

I decided, a while back, to just house-rule that out, partially because of that, partially because nobody ever remembered so I figured I might as well.

Turns out, it was beyond 'nobody remembered'. The general response was 'wait, that's a rule?'


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Rysky wrote:
David knott 242 wrote:

There is a form of medium armor called an armored coat that can be donned or doffed as a move action. That item could be very useful for a multi-classed arcane spellcaster who wants to avoid arcane spell failure while casting but have armor protection the rest of the time.

My Bloodrager has one, they take it off when they have to do some sneaking real quick.

My bloodrager has one, too, because she wears a Robe of Arcane Heritage beneath it (houseruled that the robe works for bloodragers). Furthermore, she has the Wings of Air feat, which allows her to fly while wearing light armor or no armor. She would remove her armored coat and carry it for overland flight. Later, she made mithral armor that counts as light for movement, but that armor was another armored coat.

Scarab Sages

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Zhayne wrote:
Athaleon wrote:
Zhayne wrote:
Rule I never see used even though it's RAW: Spontaneous caster casting-times increased when using Metamagic.
That was one of the major reasons the mantra "Monte Cook Hates Sorcerers" took off the way it did.

I decided, a while back, to just house-rule that out, partially because of that, partially because nobody ever remembered so I figured I might as well.

Turns out, it was beyond 'nobody remembered'. The general response was 'wait, that's a rule?'

Wow, yeah, I've played for years and we never realized that either. Guess we'll keep playing without it!


1 person marked this as a favorite.

* Rangers need a divine focus, and druids use a spell-component pouch.

* The Ioun stones in that Oort Cloud orbiting your head have AC24, 10 hitpoints and 5 hardness. Any reasonably competent mid-level opponent could theoretically destroy most or all of them in a single full-attack.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Slim Jim wrote:
* The Ioun stones in that Oort Cloud orbiting your head have AC24, 10 hitpoints and 5 hardness. Any reasonably competent mid-level opponent could theoretically destroy most or all of them in a single full-attack.

That's why you give them to your ioun wyrd tattoo'd familiar to hold. ;)


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Or implant them.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Or use a wayfinder for one. The aesthetic of ioun stones orbiting you isn't for most characters anyway.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Starfinder Charter Superscriber
Adjoint wrote:

Removing armor takes time (from 5 rounds to 1d4+1 minutes, depending on the situation).

I have never seen a situation when it would matter, though I can imagine one (for example if someone was about to drown, and was willing to drop his armor in order to get a chance to get to the surface).

Yeah, this happened to a PC in my RotRL game just a couple of months ago: got stuck in quicksand and with the major armor check penalty of full plate armor, couldn't make the Swim check to escape before drowning. It's not easy to drown in Pathfinder, and it's the first time I've ever seen it happen. Felt really bad for the player, but the life of an adventurer isn't an easy one!


2 people marked this as a favorite.
avr wrote:
Or use a wayfinder for one. The aesthetic of ioun stones orbiting you isn't for most characters anyway.

My stinky dwarf disguised all of his as horseflies.

Scarab Sages

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Jhaeman wrote:
Adjoint wrote:

Removing armor takes time (from 5 rounds to 1d4+1 minutes, depending on the situation).

I have never seen a situation when it would matter, though I can imagine one (for example if someone was about to drown, and was willing to drop his armor in order to get a chance to get to the surface).

Yeah, this happened to a PC in my RotRL game just a couple of months ago: got stuck in quicksand and with the major armor check penalty of full plate armor, couldn't make the Swim check to escape before drowning. It's not easy to drown in Pathfinder, and it's the first time I've ever seen it happen. Felt really bad for the player, but the life of an adventurer isn't an easy one!

Gotta keep Guardian Armor handy for situations like this.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
avr wrote:
Or use a wayfinder for one. The aesthetic of ioun stones orbiting you isn't for most characters anyway.

I just got an idea to build Zenyatta from Overwatch.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Zhayne wrote:
avr wrote:
Or use a wayfinder for one. The aesthetic of ioun stones orbiting you isn't for most characters anyway.
I just got an idea to build Zenyatta from Overwatch.

I actually was tasked with doing this once. I used Witch chassis (INT based, access to Fortune, Misfortune, (snow)ball throwing, and healing) with a Harbinger Archon familiar.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I want to thank the OP for a clever thread idea that I've enjoyed reading.

To contribute, Eschew Materials only replaces the need for material components worth 1GP or less, not focuses. The sorcerer wants to cast Mage Armour? Best have a spell component pouch or piece of cured leather handy!

Scarab Sages

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Artificial 20 wrote:

I want to thank the OP for a clever thread idea that I've enjoyed reading.

To contribute, Eschew Materials only replaces the need for material components worth 1GP or less, not focuses. The sorcerer wants to cast Mage Armour? Best have a spell component pouch or piece of cured leather handy!

Most PCs have something leather carried on them...

Boots, belts, pouches, hats, weapon sheaths, armor, water skin, wine skin, skirt, training harness, bindings, restraints, sex toys...


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Katisha wrote:
Artificial 20 wrote:

I want to thank the OP for a clever thread idea that I've enjoyed reading.

To contribute, Eschew Materials only replaces the need for material components worth 1GP or less, not focuses. The sorcerer wants to cast Mage Armour? Best have a spell component pouch or piece of cured leather handy!

Most PCs have something leather carried on them...

Boots, belts, pouches, hats, weapon sheaths, armor, water skin, wine skin, skirt, training harness, bindings, restraints, sex toys...

True, it was just an example. A clear crystal or mineral prism might prove harder to scrounge up if you find you want to use Read Magic on something.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Artificial 20 wrote:
To contribute, Eschew Materials only replaces the need for material components worth 1GP or less, not focuses. The sorcerer wants to cast Mage Armour? Best have a spell component pouch or piece of cured leather handy!

This legitimately feels like an oversight since "hold on, let me get my piece of leather" seems to go against the Sorcerer Fluff.

Similarly, I've never seen Psychic Magic required to use Focus components that aren't expensive ones, involved in the spell's effect somehow, or aren't an Occultist's implement. So like the Psychic casting Mage Armor does not need leather, and the Occultist casting Mage Armor doesn't need anything except their conjuration implement. It seems that since the point of Psychic casting is that you avoid the chanting, handwaving, and "stuff that disappears" you shouldn't also need to be carrying around random bits and bobs to make your spells work.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

“Sensei, how did you develop your psychic powers to discover the True Strike spell? Mental focus honed to a sharp point? A calm emptiness that makes you one with your enemy?”

“Actually, the big breakthrough was whittling an archery target by accident while I was thinking on the problem.”


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Artificial 20 wrote:

I want to thank the OP for a clever thread idea that I've enjoyed reading.

To contribute, Eschew Materials only replaces the need for material components worth 1GP or less, not focuses. The sorcerer wants to cast Mage Armour? Best have a spell component pouch or piece of cured leather handy!

I hadn't noticed that Mage Armor needs a focus rather than a standard expendable material component. Time to update my house rule!


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I see casting time being done incorrectly on a regular basis:

Casting Time
Most spells have a casting time of 1 standard action. Others take 1 round or more, while a few require only a swift action.

A spell that takes 1 round to cast is a full-round action. It comes into effect just before the beginning of your turn in the round after you began casting the spell. You then act normally after the spell is completed.

A spell that takes 1 minute to cast comes into effect just before your turn 1 minute later (and for each of those 10 rounds, you are casting a spell as a full-round action, just as noted above for 1-round casting times). These actions must be consecutive and uninterrupted, or the spell automatically fails.

When you begin a spell that takes 1 round or longer to cast, you must continue the concentration from the current round to just before your turn in the next round (at least). If you lose concentration before the casting is complete, you lose the spell.

A spell with a casting time of 1 swift action doesn't count against your normal limit of one spell per round. However, you may cast such a spell only once per round. Casting a spell with a casting time of 1 swift action doesn't provoke attacks of opportunity.

You make all pertinent decisions about a spell (range, target, area, effect, version, and so forth) when the spell comes into effect.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Bob_Loblaw wrote:

I see casting time being done incorrectly on a regular basis:

I'm curious what mistakes do you see people making?

(others have noted that many people playing Sorcerers - or actually most spontaneously cast spells- forget that if they apply metamagic feats the spell takes a full round if not already longer)

what other mistakes do you see people making?

(asking as a player and GM)


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Rycaut wrote:
Bob_Loblaw wrote:

I see casting time being done incorrectly on a regular basis:

I'm curious what mistakes do you see people making?

(others have noted that many people playing Sorcerers - or actually most spontaneously cast spells- forget that if they apply metamagic feats the spell takes a full round if not already longer)

what other mistakes do you see people making?

(asking as a player and GM)

The difference between 1 round and a full round.

I also have to remind people often that spells that are cast as swift actions don't provoke.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I see a lot of people get 1 round and full round action confused a lot.

Full round action completes on your turn.

1 round action completes before the start of your next turn. It makes it super easy to interrupt with any damage. You have to make a check against... 10 + damage taken I think. Which can approach really high values quite easily.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Claxon wrote:

I see a lot of people get 1 round and full round action confused a lot.

Full round action completes on your turn.

The confusion is understandable given that "full" means "one complete". Therefore, "full round" sounds more like a name for the period of time from the beginning of your turn to the beginning of your next turn than a name for a combined move and standard action. That makes me wish that Pathfinder had renamed "a full round action" to "an extended action" or "a combined action."


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Modules, Tales Subscriber
Claxon wrote:

I see a lot of people get 1 round and full round action confused a lot.

Full round action completes on your turn.

1 round action completes before the start of your next turn. It makes it super easy to interrupt with any damage. You have to make a check against... 10 + damage taken I think. Which can approach really high values quite easily.

I've been using the "take dmg before spell is completed" rules for a while now [Concentration check = 10 + points of dmg + spell level, I think], but this sub-topic discussion has me questioning whether I've been doing something wrong.

Can someone tell me if both of these scenarios are correct or just the 2nd example:

Battle A: Enemy archer [higher initiative] strikes my spell caster w/ an arrow before I complete my Magic Missile spell [standard action]; I need to make a Concentration check so as not to lose the spell, right?

Battle B: Enemy archer [higher initiative] strikes my spell caster w/ an arrow before I complete my Sleep spell [1 round casting]; I need to make a Concentration check so as not to lose the spell, right?

And now I can just admit, this is the 1st time I've realized Sleep takes an entire round to cast!


1 person marked this as a favorite.
BenS wrote:

Can someone tell me if both of these scenarios are correct or just the 2nd example:

Battle A: Enemy archer [higher initiative] strikes my spell caster w/ an arrow before I complete my Magic Missile spell [standard action]; I need to make a Concentration check so as not to lose the spell, right?

Battle B: Enemy archer [higher initiative] strikes my spell caster w/ an arrow before I complete my Sleep spell [1 round casting]; I need to make a Concentration check so as not to lose the spell, right?

The difference is, with the Magic Missile they can only interrupt you if they use a readied action to shoot you during spell casting.

With the Sleep spell, they could make an ordinary full-round archery attack during their turn, after you start casting the spell, and still interrupt your concentration.

Silver Crusade RPG Superstar 2014 Top 16

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Matthew Downie wrote:
BenS wrote:

Can someone tell me if both of these scenarios are correct or just the 2nd example:

Battle A: Enemy archer [higher initiative] strikes my spell caster w/ an arrow before I complete my Magic Missile spell [standard action]; I need to make a Concentration check so as not to lose the spell, right?

Battle B: Enemy archer [higher initiative] strikes my spell caster w/ an arrow before I complete my Sleep spell [1 round casting]; I need to make a Concentration check so as not to lose the spell, right?

The difference is, with the Magic Missile they can only interrupt you if they use a readied action to shoot you during spell casting.

With the Sleep spell, they could make an ordinary full-round archery attack during their turn, after you start casting the spell, and still interrupt your concentration.

Although a melee combatant could take 2 swings to stop you. One with their readied action, and one with an AOO.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Zahir ibn Mahmoud ibn Jothan wrote:
Matthew Downie wrote:
BenS wrote:

Can someone tell me if both of these scenarios are correct or just the 2nd example:

Battle A: Enemy archer [higher initiative] strikes my spell caster w/ an arrow before I complete my Magic Missile spell [standard action]; I need to make a Concentration check so as not to lose the spell, right?

Battle B: Enemy archer [higher initiative] strikes my spell caster w/ an arrow before I complete my Sleep spell [1 round casting]; I need to make a Concentration check so as not to lose the spell, right?

The difference is, with the Magic Missile they can only interrupt you if they use a readied action to shoot you during spell casting.

With the Sleep spell, they could make an ordinary full-round archery attack during their turn, after you start casting the spell, and still interrupt your concentration.

Although a melee combatant could take 2 swings to stop you. One with their readied action, and one with an AOO.

And if it had a one round casting time instead they could get an AoO, a readied action, and a full attack action.

For example, they go just before the caster ready an action to interrupt spell casting. Caster begins casting, triggers readied action, triggers AoO, turn continues back around to melee which then takes a full attack action on the caster. The chances of successfully making all those checks is real real low. Like it should be.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Only if the attacker hits and deals damage (so a caster protected by mirror images, blur/blink/displacement, DR etc might still attempt such a foolhardy activity.

But more broadly I rarely see PCs using readied actions to disrupt spellcasting (In part because GMs rarely use it in reverse)

Related the rules around continuous damage and spell casting are not often encountered and often forgotten about (since there are only a few ways to generate continuous damage - acid arrow, setting someone on fire, or environmental damage like being in lava or near a wall of fire etc. With the rule using 1/2 damage to approximate the amount of damage taken while actively trying to cast a spell (I think thus if you cast a longer than a standard action spell while on fire or taking ongoing acid damage etc the check would use the full amount of that damage.

Using readied actions or ongoing damage against spellcasters is definitely advanced mode - but also something a GM can introduce as an enemy tactic to show to the PCs how they might use that tactic themselves in the future (early on smart goblins or kobolds or even bandits or city guards might use such tactics to harass the casters in the party

301 to 350 of 374 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | next > last >>
Paizo / Messageboards / Paizo / Pathfinder® / Pathfinder RPG / General Discussion / Rule you never see used though it is RAW All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.

©2002-2017 Paizo Inc.® | Privacy Policy | Contact Us
Need help? Email customer.service@paizo.com or call 425-250-0800 during our business hours, Monday through Friday, 10:00 AM to 5:00 PM Pacific time.

Paizo Inc., Paizo, the Paizo golem logo, Pathfinder, the Pathfinder logo, Pathfinder Society, Starfinder, the Starfinder logo, GameMastery, and Planet Stories are registered trademarks of Paizo Inc. The Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pathfinder Adventure Card Game, Pathfinder Player Companion, Pathfinder Modules, Pathfinder Tales, Pathfinder Battles, Pathfinder Legends, Pathfinder Online, Starfinder Adventure Path, PaizoCon, RPG Superstar, The Golem's Got It, Titanic Games, the Titanic logo, and the Planet Stories planet logo are trademarks of Paizo Inc. Dungeons & Dragons, Dragon, Dungeon, and Polyhedron are registered trademarks of Wizards of the Coast, Inc., a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc., and have been used by Paizo Inc. under license. Most product names are trademarks owned or used under license by the companies that publish those products; use of such names without mention of trademark status should not be construed as a challenge to such status.