Zolan Ulivestra

Agénor's page

121 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists.


1 to 50 of 121 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>

I usually do not insist on realism in Pathfinder - there is no momentum, I'd have to start here and it would mean rehauling the system. To answer your question, yes, I would have running on water happen in the situation you describe.

Make sure to wear goggles^^

Quixote wrote:

The only time you ever roll dice is:

-when there is a chance for a PC to fail


-when there is a penalty for failure.


An encounter involving combat is NOT over when the very last goblin is hunted down and slain. It's over when the tension created by the encounter (or that created the encounter) has been resolved.

Sir, allow me to send you hugs!

DarkPhoenixx wrote:
How angry would you be if GM ruled that overrun does not break sanctuary unless it knocks the enemy prone?

I am not sure anger is what I would feel^^

More on point, I'd ask if swinging a battle axe only breaks Sanctuary if the blow deals damage. Coherence is key.
As Sanctuary is, it is the intent that matters, regardless of the the result. A possible houserule could be to care about the result instead of the intent but it would need to be deliberate alteration of the mechanics of the spell.

Assuming no invisibility is involved, a spell is cast at the carpet, does the carpet use the save bonuses of the character or its own?

From there, I would determine if the carpet is gear or not.

I think it is gear hence invisible.

As was said above and in the linked threads, Heightened Mount + Alter Summon Monster would conflict most of the time with rule 0. Ask your Game Master, expect a negative answer.

It would be like in a given country, two laws together allowing something but that something going against principles in the constitution. Ask the highest constitutional body.

- The same goes for other rules combination unintended by the authors. Oversight is just that, oversight, this is partly why the game relies on a Game Master rather than not -

I've given consideration to the points that were raised here and followed the advice I was given to go back to the rules to check for consistency.

I've found that Vampiric Touch isn't a valid comparison as its rules speak of the damage dealt by the attack when those of Harm speak of the damage of spell.

Vampiric Touch wrote:
You gain temporary hit points equal to the damage you deal.
Harm wrote:
Harm cannot reduce the target’s hit points to less than 1.

From there, it is only normal that since rules-wise the damage of the attack and the damage of the spell aren't equivalent, their outcome with Sneak Attack are not necessarily identical.

- Indeed, damage from Sneak Attack is included in the temporary hit points gained from Vampiric Touch -

About seeing the question as being about order of operations, this isn't the case. It is a question of the touch attack being comprised of the spell charge and the Sneak Attack or the spell being the touch attack with spell charge and the Sneak Attack.
The rules clearly say that the attack is a free action on its own, not part of the spell. MrCharisma already kindly quoted and linked the rules above so I'll only link to it, for reference purposes, « Touch Spells in Combat ».
From there, I conclude that a touch attack is comprised of a spell charge and a Sneak Attack, if any.
- a question of order of operation would be a damaging spell both Empowered and Maximised -

I've found in the rules a mechanism internal to many spells that alters the damage dealt, the save for half damage.
Given a damage dealing spell that requires a touch attack and allows a save for half damage - I think we have one at hand^^ -, would a successful save also negate half the damage from Sneak Attack? If it were damage integral to the spell, it would be halved. However, it isn't halved as it is damage from the attack but not from the spell.

Edit: There a few points raised here that I didn't address, such as the claim Sneak Attack damage being integral to spell damage because of how it interacts with Damage Reduction. As showing them wrong would still not mean the point I am making to be valid, I chose not to develop them but to focus on demonstrating what I believe is correct.
I would however develop said points if one asked me to.

An immense creature could only easily crush a swarm if it could occupy all the surface of the square the swarm is on and all the adjacent relevant squares, preventing movement to another area.
Otherwise, the swarm could climb on the creature trying to crush it. It is the concept of lacunary surface or structure.

When I successfully swat a fly, it is usually because I've managed to corner it so it has limited space to dodge.

The rules for swarms is poorly written so by essence, there is no answer other than G.M. fiat. If there was a way in the rules then I wouldn't call it a poorly written rule^^

Just like the other side, archons, angels and whatnot do not have the Celestial template.

They are themselves celestial beings, they do not need to have to be transformed into ones.

MrCharisma wrote:
@Agénor. Since you have consensus against you, try to see if you can think of us as right (as a thought exercise) and see if you can justify to yourself how this way of thinking can be consistent. Try reading through some rulebooks with the assumption that skeak attack is not seperate damage, but is integrally combined with the damage from the attack.

I am taking your advice - and being caught up with by life. I am not dropping this conversation but reviewing each point on both sides with finesse, trying to do so without prejudice. It will take a bit of time, hopefully, whatever the answer is, it will be an interesting and fun exercise.

GeneticDrift wrote:
The maximize/empower question is irrelevant

It is entirely relevant.

The question is whether the damage from Sneak Attack is part of the damage of the spell, the only way to have it bound by the limitations of the spell. If the damage from the Sneak Attack isn't part of the damage of the spell then the damage from the Sneak Attack isn't bound by the limitations of the spell.
This is the one and only question this thread is about, this is what is being discussed here and nothing else is being discussed here.
This is the general case I was reaching to earlier, a general case from which to deduce the specific case at hand.

Do not confuse the spell with the attack, the spell is part of the attack but the attack is more than just the spell. I do not claim nor have I claimed earlier that the damage from the Sneak Attack isn't part of the damage of the attack. I claim that the spell and the attack are different entities and that damage from the Sneak Attack isn't part of the damage of the spell.

Checking whether something that modifies the damage of the spell affects the damage of Sneak Attack is a good way of assessing that it isn't part of the damage of the spell. It is called a logical proof by counterexample.
As we all agree, the damage of Sneak Attack isn't affected by feats that maximise the damage of the spell.
Hence the damage of Sneak Attack isn't part of the damage of the spell. This is what is debated here. We all agree on the premise but disagree on the conclusion.
I say that you rule one way in a case, Maximise, and the other in another case, Harm, of the same question.

In this post and the previous two, I've tried to be exact and precise. I'd appreciate if you'd point out the specific points of my reasoning with which you disagree and develop why and how come you disagree with said points.
The same stands for me, I would wholeheartedly change my opinion if shown that indeed, the damage from Sneak Attack is part of the damage of the spell. The goal is progress, I'd rather have been proven wrong than stay wrong if I am wrong which is why I make clear what my argument stands on, what is to be demonstrated to show it wrong.

Meirril wrote:
And what other type of damage is being done by the Sneak Attack? This FAQ answer says "the extra damage is only added once to one ray" which implies that sneak attack damage increases the amount of damage the attack you are performing does. Which also denotes that it doesn't change the damage type and it has all of the other effects of the source.

The type of damage has never been in question, the question is whether the damage from the Sneak Attack is part of the damage inflicted by the spell or part of the damage of the attack without being part of the damage of the spell.

The FAQ you link to says nothing about the damage from Sneak Attack being part of the damage of the spell, only part of the damage of the attack, hence supporting my point and strongly weakening yours given that if the damage from Sneak Attack were part of the damage inflicted by the spell rather than the attack as a whole, surely this same FAQ would clearly state it. However, this FAQ doesn't says no such thing hence my conclusion.

Meirril wrote:
There are certainly no provisions that state that sneak attack damage does a different type of damage, or that it has any special rules to bypass DR or immunizes.

There aren't because Sneak Attack doesn't do a different type of damage. However, I believe you are not understanding the point being discussed. The point being discussed is whether the damage from Sneak Attack is damage from the spell itself or not.

Meirril wrote:
if you still want to insist on that, start linking rules, FAQ, or any other source that actually backs up your conjecture because at this point you've got nothing other than a stubborn insistence that you are correct.

The use of the imperative, giving an me a direct order, is not something I take kindly to, especially when asking me to link to something to back my views up when you yourself have just linked to something that doesn't back you up, au contraire, finding yourself at fault of what you accuse me and more.

If the damage from the Sneak Attack is limited by Harm, then does it get Maximised by the feat?
For as Kayerloth said,

What's good for the goose is good for the gander.

I assume you are asking because constructing a Homonculus requires among other materials some of the creator's blood. The rule says sibling. Given that your blood courses through the veins of the homonculus, one could say a homonculus and his creator are blood-related, in the literal sense of the term, literal sense from which the meaning of family arises.

I do not see the question without merit.

I'd say talk to you G.M. I'd probably rule one can because it fits the flavour and isn't broken, I'd probably even rule that the twins condition applies.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Artofregicide wrote:
I agree, but immunity to weapon damage is also purely mechanical.

I was trying to politely convey the idea that replacing a poor rule with another poor rule isn't a good fix^^

Artofregicide wrote:
In my case I am talking about the character wielding a huge slab of rock as a weapon, not pushing it over onto the swarm.

Now this is not what I had initially understood from you stance, I was imagining a character using his regular weapon, being allowed to strike at the swarm and deal damage if overcoming the DR, even a highly enchanted hammer.

To be dealt damage with a solid weapon, I envision the swarm needs to be crushed on an area wider than that of weapons carried by Medium creatures. "Between a rock and a hard place" goes the saying, no?

MrCharisma wrote:

I'm confused by this. You say you disagree with me, then you seem to agree with me, then you come to a different conclusion.

(Not trying to pick a fight, I'm genuinely confused by this. I think getting to the bottom of this this might help us communicate better.)

No worry! I am enjoying discussing with you and I feel the same way.

I'll explain my point with different wording, to try to alleviate the confusion.
You say attack = spell.
I say attack = spell + Sneak Attack. This is the key point.

The spell isn't the attack, it is part but not all of the attack. Both the spell and the Sneak attack make the entirety of the attack.

GeneticDrift wrote:
Sneak attack is extra damage not separate damage.

The Sneak Attack is extra damage to the total attack, not to the spell. Feats like Empower Spell increase the damage of the spell itself.

- as a side note, if Sneak Attack increased the damage of the spell, it would be affected by metamagic feats, it isn't -

Meirril wrote:
Like say you tried to Harm a Vampire that you believe is just a normal person. The sneak attack doesn't do anything because the target is immune.

Because in this example, the vampire is immune to the relevant type of energy, something which I made sure to address earlier, developing on the example of the spell that deals damage to Orcs only via an energy type to which an Elf isn't immune.

MrCharisma wrote:
Eg. If you have an attack that deals ( .... ) They are the same attack, you just have a way to increase the damage. This is why I say Harm + SA wouldn't reduce them to less than 1hp.

They are the same attack, they are tallied up to overcome DR but the attack isn't only Harm, it is also has S.A. Hence my disagreement with the last sentence of this quote.

Is it not? Improvised weapons are, so are falling objects.

If it were the case, then there would be no immunity to precision damage. Damage from Sneak Attack isn't damage from Harm otherwise they wouldn't be separable.

In the example, the target isn't immune to the attack, the spell portion of it deals zero damage to the target but the attack succeeds, any effect to which the target isn't immune to triggers.

Artofregicide wrote:
Am I proposing sacrilegious madness?

A high DR is purely rules, without trying to model anything in particular, it isn't any better than the swarm rules as they are. I understand your frustration, I however believe that the swarm rules may be poor but they try to model something. Swarms are a tool for the G.M., a poorly developed tool so to be used with parcimony knowing this.

There are methods of dealing with swarms, you have mentionned an effective one, improvised weapons that swat a large number of individuals at a time, hence dealing damage to the swarm.

Like most peculiar threats, swarms occupy a small niche. It is because they are rare that tools against them aren't prevalent. Realise how trivial an encounter they become if a group is made aware of their presence beforehand and can prepare?

DungeonmasterCal wrote:
Yeah, I was going to ask if the OP had ever been in a swarm of yellow jacket wasps. Not trample there. Just overrunning all your friends trying to escape.

I've never been able to cast spells either or all the myriad of fantastic abilities a Pathfinder character can perform, this doesn't preclude me from discussing their rules.

Level 0 commoners will run away. A character level 6, I do not think so^^

We are zeroing on the point that has us rule differently, I like this progress.

MrCharisma wrote:
In this case the spell is the attack. The damage is added to the total of the spell, but is still being delivered by the spell, and is therefore subject to the limitations imposed by the spell. If you had a touch spell that only damages orcs, and you used that spell to touch an elf you wouldn't get sneak attack damage on top of your zero damage spell(since as far as the elf is concerned you just touched them).

Line-by-line answer to this paragraph.

In this case the spell is the attack.

I disagree. In this case the attack is comprised of the spell plus the Sneak Attack. The Sneak Attack is part of the attack, not an additional effect, as word of god was linked earlier.

The damage is added to the total of the spell, but is still being delivered by the spell, and is therefore subject to the limitations imposed by the spell.

The damage is delivered by the attack, not by the spell hence only the portion of damage coming from the spell is limited by the internal rules of the spell.

If you had a touch spell that only damages orcs, and you used that spell to touch an elf you wouldn't get sneak attack damage on top of your zero damage spell(since as far as the elf is concerned you just touched them).

Very interesting case!

Let's assume the spell deals negative energy, or any type of energy to which the target doesn't have immunity to. A Sneak Attack would then add negative energy damage. Performed on a non-Orc, the portion of the damage coming from the spell doesn't damage the Elf, because of the rules internal to the spell, but the portion coming from the Sneak Attack does.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

No need to involve the Dev. We are squarely in the Homebrew domain. Each G.M. decides on its own whether to allow for trampling of swarms.

If there is no attack of opportunity, then I'll go with damage of opportunity^^ Anyone big enough relative to individual members of a swarm can trample a non-flying swarm. However, without Improved Overrun, the trampler suffers the normal damage by the swarm when it enters a square of the swarm.

I go back to a general case, what if a charge of Harm is held and delivered through a punch enhanced with frost damage? It deals Harm damage plus punch damage plus frost damage.

It is still only one damage roll in total. Is it bound by the limitations of Harm? I say that it isn't.

Yes, specific trumps general is indeed about rules, not rulings. I typed too quickly before having to go.

The FAQ linked above says the Sneak Attack is added to the attack, not the spell. Sneak Attack deals damage of whatever type the attack is. The same FAQ also clearly says the Sneak Attack adds damage on top of those dealt by the spell.

The Sneak Attack deals the same type of damage that Harm deals but it is damage added to the damage of Harm.

What do you mean, a spell can kill and the other can't?
- Which spells? Harm with a Sneak Attack and Harm without? -

I don't, just like I don't explain how can the Arcane Trickster add Sneak Attack damage to Fireball but don't deny it can.

Specific trumps general doesn't apply as those aren't ruling over the same area.

GeneticDrift wrote:
Sneak attack is part of the damage and would be limited by the spell.

I disagree.

Harm wrote:
Harm cannot reduce the target’s hit points to less than 1.

It isn't Harm that is reducing the target's hit points below 1, it is another effect taking, distinct from Harm, taking place simultaneously.

How would you rule about a damaging hit delivering the charge of Harm? They have nothing to do with each other, there is no reason for the damage from the hit to be limited by the spell.

Edit to be clear:

Word of God wrote:
The sneak attack damage is not a special effect that accompanies the attack, it is part of the damage roll.

This says that the damage roll is comprised of the damage inflicted by Harm, held by its own limitations plus the damage inflicted by the Sneak Attack, not bound by Harm.

The same idea goes with a Frost weapon being part of the damage roll, it adds 1d6 damage to the total, possibly helping overcome the DR, if any - as discussed in the linked thread. It isn't a special effect that accompanies the attack.

Swarms aren't immune nor have special resistance against trampling. Though I do not think you are referring to the Trample present in the rules, that is an extension of Overrun.

Allowing any creature, of adequate size, to trample, as per the Monster rules, a swarm could be interesting. It should go in the Homebrew section, though.
Without Improved Overrun, one should still provokes an attack of opportunity from the swarm.

No need to go into the Sneak Attack mechanism, casting the Harm spell, holding the charge and punching the enemy square between the teeth. On a hit, the charge goes off. Assuming the punch deals lethal damage and the target fails the saving throw, does the target fall?

Assume the blow is delivered through a medium that would have the charge go off that is enchanted with extra damage options, such as frost, what then?

I'd rule the extra damage applies, the target falls as these are two separate instances of damage.

blahpers wrote:
Heh, you don't have to convince me. I'm just saying that the rules don't go into that sort of detail.

I know, I don't have to convince you.

- and I believe the goal of debate is go make progress, not to convince the other -

However, I usually value your point of view as you make sound arguments so I thought I'd develop and clarify the case then expose my view and you how you'd rule.

blahpers wrote:
The rules aren't clear on this. Use your judgment.

The spell description has the word « wounds », both in the fluff and the crunch sections. This is what guides my understanding.

Suppose A and B are linked through this spell. A takes N damage of a type to which she is resistant, say she divides damage taken by two. If B is also resistant, would you have the damage B takes further compounded by his resistance? - I wouldn't -
Would you apply the resistance of each A and B after the damage has been transferred? - I wouldn't either as it would mean B still taking damage if A gets hit by a source to which she is completely immune -

Now imagine the damage has two types, one to which A is resistant, the other to which B is. What then?

I posit damage reduction, if any, happens only for the character sustaining the initial damage. The character with which the wounds are shared sustains damage from the spell, not from the initial source.

Yes, you have to check Concentration in the case of damage.

Concentration rules and events that call for a check

No. The damage is computed entirely, taking resistances and the ilk of the creature suffering damage into account then instead of sustaining what amount has bypassed said resistances, each recipient of Shield Other sustains a half of the remaining amount. No further reduction of the damage by the other recipient of the spell. I don't believe the wounds transfered are of any type so they don't trigger any resistance.
I do not know how I'd rule with DR/-.

Given that a fireball explodes normally for other people around if the target's Spell Resistance isn't bypassed, I'd say it is case A.

Now imagine a case where a harmful spell targets a set number of creatures in an area of effect in a way that isn't at the discretion of the spellcaster and the familiar happens to be in said area. I think Sleep works this way. What then?

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Lymnieris or simply Calistria are the deities of sidewalk-walkers, no?^^

I knew I had read something on this theme years ago^^


Too late to edit my message above:

« The Defending quality adds to A.C. but not to the shield's enhancement bonus. »

Shield Master wrote:
Add your shield’s enhancement bonus to attack and damage rolls made with the shield as if it were a weapon enhancement bonus.
Defending wrote:
A defending weapon allows the wielder to transfer some or all of the weapon’s enhancement bonus to his AC as a bonus that stacks with all others.

The Defending quality adds to A.C. but not the shield's enhancement bonus. As such, it isn't taken into account for the purpose of Shield Master.

- I had written an answer, it got lost in the æther -

In short, I'd rule the other way, I'd go with how Incorporeal(Ex) is written, under the assumption this is what the writer meant given that « At 15th level, you can become incorporeal for 1 round per sorcerer level. While in this form, you gain the incorporeal subtype. » are complete sentences, logically coherent on their own, needing no further explanation to be understood and they are the incipit of the ability text.

I think the writer tried to summarise the chunky bits of Incorporeal for the description of the bloodline ability and got lead astray by the sentence about Force effects.

This being said, I'd love the writers to sometimes discuss the intent behind wording, as part of the work itself. Here, a line saying « this is a departure from the Incorporeal monster trait » would have been useful if they meant the difference or « you gain the Incorporeal trait except for....». As it stands, I'd rule it wasn't an intended difference.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

The results are the consequences of a failed or successful save, which could include a few more dice rolls. You can't decide to reroll once you know how much damage you took for example.

However, to answer your question directly, you can indeed reroll an initial roll of 1 thanks to those feats. Rolling a 1 has no bearings on revealing the results as the results aren't a failed save, they are the consequence of a failed save.

I've had a had a few characters for which the backstory was essentially having been well raised by his parents and extended community, s/he was then encouraged to travel and see the world before coming back to the community a more valuable member of it for all the experiences.

The Hound Archon provides a good example of a relevant attack block:

Melee bite +8 (1d8+3), slam +8 (1d4+1) or mwk greatsword +9/+4 (2d6+3), bite +3 (1d8+2)

It shows two options, either two attacks which are a bite and a slam, in any order or - this is an exclusive or - three attacks, two strikes with a greatsword and a bite, combined in whichever order.

A big tortoise.

Slow to the point of immobility, useless and preventing the door he was in front of from being opened by his friends while we did what we had to do in this small cramped room.

@BigNorseWolf, I like your turtles story^^

From the Core Rulebook,
« A critical hit means that you roll your damage more than once, with all your usual bonuses, and add the rolls together. »

There is nothing about the sign of the STR modifier.
The damage roll of a critical hit is described as [ weapon's damage die/dice + relevant Char. mod.] x weapon's crit. multiplier, not as weapon's damage die/dice x weapon's crit. multiplier + relevant Char. mod.

I am not sure it is legal to do so as the entry specifically says « Celestial Dire Boar » rather than « Dire Boar* ».

However, I do not understand why the writer specified the Celestial template, as clerics of Old Deadeye can make use of the Resolute template as well. Maybe Kingmaker was published before the Monster Summoner's Handbook, a time when the Resolute template wasn't yet available to clerics of Lawful deities.

If this is the case, the entry for summons peculiar to Erastil should be revised to reflect the choice in template, in which case, Versatile Summon Monster works.

If the M.S.H. was out already then the writer decided that clerics of Erastil using S.M.III to summon a Dire Boar could only get a Celestial one, while S.M.IV could get them either a Celestial or a Resolute one, in which case V.S.M. doesn't apply.
In this case, I would rule that it works nonetheless - and that choosing the Resolute template is possible.

I agree with Derklord, this isn't a particularly strong power. It can be a nuisance if used wisely, forcing the target to take actions that aren't optimal in order to avoid the damage but having other acceptable ways of using one's turn besides striking if one is a melee combattant or casting if one is a magic user is good play.
Making use of items, consumable or not, comes to mind.

Maintain a varied toolbox; areas of dead magic, enemies out of reach, being caught unequipped.... Those happen.

There is no save because the target can decide not to perfom the triggering action.

It does seem like you were a victim of this power in a case where it was more than an annoyance. Good for the player having it to have used it while it is useful.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Joshua029 wrote:
Regarding the duration, the main argument presented for it being over-powered was "because it is", which is asinine.

Pray, keep it polite and courteous.

Joshua029 wrote:

The initial question:

Mount + Rider's Bond + Alter Summoned Monster ... Is it RAW legal?

So are the Cyclops Helm, the Candle of Invocation or Pun Pun.

You are missing the premises of the game, that the writers are prone to error and that the game happens through a game master, whose, among others, role it is to keep things from getting out of hand, using his wisdom, with help from the rest of the table.

We've done a show of hands asking which G.M. present on those boards would run Heightened Mount + Altered Summoned Monster as is, the answer is a resounding zero.

I assume you mean Ice Spears.

I'd allow it provided there is enough thickness to the ceiling, deep enough underground. It goes with the flavour of the spell.

The idea that, otherwise, one should research and develop another spell, that would have the wording "stalactite-like" for it to work doesn't work with what I understand spell research to be.

I also didn't give time to thinking of the potential of allowing it. If it turned out to be broken, I'd change my mind.

Alter Summoned Monster is poorly written. It allows transformations from any form one can summon into a set of forms, from S.M. and S.N.A., provided one can cast those, but not from those forms into other forms one can summon.

Using Mount to get summons that last hours, provided they survive, has immense benefits in combat and exploration. This clearly wasn't intented by the developers.

I also know that being able to use summons in exploration is an interesting idea, the short duration of S.M. and S.N.A. prevents it.

However, it would create another instance of "there is a spell for that". I do not believe, metagaming-wise, that the spellcasters need yet another tool.

As such, as a G.M., I'd re-write A.S.M., either as has been proposed above, that the duration becomes then that of S.M./S.N., pro-rated to what is left of the original spell, or that it can only target creatures summoned with S.M./S.N.A. in the first place, but this would tremendously diminish the offensive power of A.S.M.

I'd also talk to my player to understand what s/he is looking for in the exploit. If it is just abusing the oversight, I'd close it, if it is trying to create interesting play out of it, I'd work with the player to get to what is being found interesting without resorting to this exploit.

When I am behind the screen, I usually ask, before they tell me about the mechanical aspect, to tell me about their character in a way a close friend would describe the character. I let the player know I am interested in behaviour and personality - and not in background or origin, and even less in mechanical concepts such as class or alignment.
Day to day, at home, what kind of person are they? If they lived on Earth now, like you and me, who would they be?
I ask to be told about their [meta]humanity.
It isn't about their failures nor their successes, it is about colour.

I get answer such as « She likes the smell of baked goods. » or « He likes to be fashionable but isn't very good at it and doesn't like it. » or « He is a bit chauvinistic but doesn't realise it. »
The personality equivalent of the Warhammer table of physical particularities.

Temperans wrote:
(Why did people ignore my suggestion of an alternate rule? Is it really that bad to just not use either rules and come up with a new one? *thinking*)

No, it isn't bad at all, it is even encouraged. I do believe it is the wisest course of action when presented with problematic rules. However, this is the Rules subsection of the forum, by opposition to Homebrew, so the discussion is restricted to rules published by Paizo - and staff members in more or less official capacity^^

The disk is neither a mount nor a vehicle as understood by the rules, therefore isn't ruled by either set.
The rules for mounts are made to apply to a character on a horse commanding said horse, and variations thereof, this isn't such a variation because the passenger isn't commanding the mount.
The rules for vehicles are made to apply to animal-drawn carriages guided by a driver riding along, and variations thereof. Likewise, this isn't such a variation, here because the disk doesn't have a driver.

The rules of initiative and actions per turn can be abused regarding movement because they have each character act in turn when narration has the characters act simultaneously.

I believe Mordenkainen transformed performing the whole range of his iterative attacks while a passenger on Tenser's disk doesn't qualify as an abuse of the initiative.

There is no inertia in the rules of Pathfinder, only movement. When performing a move, a character doesn't need to accelerate at the beginning nor to decelerate at the end.

Cavall wrote:
Agénor wrote:
Cavall wrote:
Being in a disc is hardly involuntary.
Being isn't an action.
I've no idea what this means. But climbing on to a disc is both voluntary and an action. I find most of your arguments a little disingenuous.

@Cavall, to be, to become, to seem.... Those are verbs that describe states, not actions. Hence being on a disc is not an action, move or otherwise. One cannot voluntarily be and to voluntarily not be, it takes actions towards this end.

Climbing indeed is an action, voluntary indeed; but in our scenario, it doesn't happen in the current round so it is disregarded. Just like the fighter drew his sword and readied his shield, also prior to this round so I am not counting those actions even though he does use both sword and shield in the current round.

I am not disingenuous. I am trying to reach a general rule rather than look at specific instance. To be able to rule that something counts as the move action of a character, I look at similar cases and from there infer.

LordKailas wrote:
It's not a situation explicitly covered by the rules and its important that the DM makes a ruling that deals with the current situation.

I appreciate the exemples you have developped. They encompass the issue quite well.

I disagree with you. The two situations you have described should have the same rule. The cost of a +3 longsword doesn't change when a full B.A.B. class character is using it or when a half-B.A.B. character is using it.

In the end, this is about the concept of round and initiative. Given a fight between two persons trading blows for a long time, it doesn't matter where the end of a round and the beginning of a new one falls, the combat is a cycle. Where one acts in the round doesn't in itself affect what one can do. This is why when one delays, his initiative is changed in subsequent rounds rather than kept to the original value.

If you decide the person on the floating disk has been moving hence cannot perfom a move action, what if that person has been moved way more than a double move? Let's say for example a frail halfling through a peasant railgun?
- a great number of peasants in a line, each of them readying an action to pass to the peasant ahead of him in the line whatever the peasant behind them passes him, which could make things reach relativistic velocities -

I believe you cannot rule this away without breaking part of the core of the system which initiative is.

1 to 50 of 121 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>