Crimeo's page

While I agree that the permanent spell will end if the corpse is destroyed that don't mean that death make a creature that has a permanent spell on it an invalid target for that spell.

When you check the target changes?
As I pointed out, if you check constantly any spell with a target of "creature touched2 will cease to work as soon as the caster isn't touching that creature anymore.
Other spells would fail as soon as they are cast if you check the target validity after the spell has been cast and the effect resolved.

If you are arguing that you need to check only on target death, please show us the specific rule saying that. It don't exist.

Yes, you would check continuously for target validity on all spells. Nothing to do with death as a "special" event. I agree it isn't.

I don't see any examples of spells that would be problems continuously evaluating targets. You offered some examples above, yes, but I don't see how they are problems either:

Color Spray

Does not have a target, so cannot possibly be an example of something with target issues.

Invisibility

The target is a creature, invisible creatures are still creatures, not a targeting problem.

"Creature touched"

"Touched" is PAST tense and so still holds true after you move your hand away.

Present tense would be "Creature you are touching" which is not what it says.

The only thing that would be remotely close to how you seem to be reading it would be [i]passive voice[/]i, which A) is poor writing and should never be ASSUMED by default, and B) still wouldn't be what it says anyway, it would be "being touched" if so.

Yes if they are helpless and you pour a potion down their throats, they would be damaged by the positive energy.

Though a cheaper option against a helpless opponent is stabbing.

you do know the monk class is mostly based off of the eastern style of monks right?

Yeah this makes sense in terms of fit of abilities and such. But at the same time, it's a core class, and all the primary focus of the core rulebook is on Europe. All the basic weapons listed are European, armor, culture described, pretty much all the mythological basic monsters, etc. And the vast majority of campaigns happen around the inner sea, a plurality actually on the furthest west part of the inner sea at that (Varisia).

Well no one can afford heavy armor with the average, as it starts at 200gp and several medium are out too.

The highest wealth bracket is I believe 5d6*10 gp, so you can begin with up to 300gp. (30.52% chance of at least 200, 22.15% chance of 210 to allow for other sundries). Also the "rich parents" trait outside of society play.

Death ending permanency "because death" would definitely be a house rule.

Death ending permanency if/when the permanency'ed spell has a creature as a target and not an object and thus no longer has a valid target anymore upon death, would seem to be a Paizo rule, published under the heading "target" for the relevant spell.

UNLESS you consider a corpse a "creature" still, but this has some pretty obvious complications, such as the fact that it will eventually decompose, and now you have a "Creature" dispersed throughout the entire ecosystem... It would also imply that you could float an ioun stone around the head of a dead human, for example? Rapidly stops making any sense if you go down that rabbit hole. It seems much more likely that corpses are, indeed, objects. Though to be fair, I don't think this is explicitly covered anywhere.

@ OP, no flanking (90% of above discussion), but she can still sneak attack in such a situation as long as she has some OTHER way to deny the target their DEX to AC, unrelated to flanking, such as having successfully stealthed to that position without being noticed.

Although in that particular situation, you'd only get to throw one dagger before having to make a -20 penalty stealth check again to maintain stealth for the second one (see: sniping) or else it wouldn't get sneak attack as well.

Other situations: the target is helpless, squeezing, stunned, climbing without a climb speed, the rogue is invisible, etc.

So in other words, there's no problem if you house-rule the problem away?

How insightful.

Who said anything about house rules? It's what an ability check IS: doing stuff not covered by skills or anything else more specific by rolling the closest ability score check instead. Playing chess vs. an NPC? GM chooses a DC and you roll intelligence checks. Spinning plates? GM chooses a DC and you roll a dex check. That's why ability checks exist.

But you do have to actually roll it, and can fail. Thus, a feat is much better by guaranteeing success at something if you're going to use it frequently.

Killing aggressive combatants (if they attacked you) is not evil by alignment rules, it doesn't matter if they create orphans. If they wanted to take care of their children, maybe they shouldn't have gone off and led a raid attack on a village or wherever they attack you. So under those circumstances, it doesn't really get in the way of a good party.

Whereas if they decided to walk into a village AS the aggressors and kill everyone, then they're obviously evil.

There are scenarios in between, such as everybody getting along or fighting via things like trade embargoes instead, but those scenarios tend not to create orphans...

Didn't read every single post carefully, but from about 2/3 of them, I didn't see any particularly sticky scenarios described that looked difficult to interpret the alignment consequences of. What is an example of a situation that's hard to judge like this?

Kip ups are in the game as either class abilities or feats..

Something being a feat does not negate the ability to do it with a skill roll or untrained attribute roll as well. Feats simply allow you to do things with guaranteed success instead of having to roll them. There is no reason you can't power attack with a GM determined appropriate strength check DC and no feat, same for kip ups (except acrobatics or dexterity check)

Average gp gets them a shortbow, but not basic survival gear.

You cannot budget for buying a car by assuming you won't buy groceries.

Shortbow - 30gp

Total = 35gp

Seems fine to me for weapon and survival gear

which type of monks are you talking about?

Most monasteries in Europe in the medieval period controlled extensive land holdings around them and received a lot of money in exchange for praying for nobility's souls to discount their murder-hobo-ness. Poor monks who really dedicated themselves to piety existed, but were definitely the exception. Especially since more pure, humble prayers were considered more valuable, creating a powerful feedback loop that took the poorest monks and made them most rapidly the richest, often quickly corrupting out any starter "back to basics" groups soon after formation.

Several monastic orders were run like ruthless corporations, and consequently ended up usually being the most well distributed ones, such as the Cistercians. People rioted on many occasions against such abbeys and monasteries in response to their typical abuse of power and greed. The abbey at Bury St Edwards for example was attacked by mobs and looted on two separate occasions for overflowing resentment and the prior's head put on a spike in the marketplace after one of them.

I can't speak to monks in any Eastern cultures, etc., don't know about them.

Real monks were typically filthy rich.

So presumably it is not so much thematic but purely an in-game balance issue around the concept that they are not supposed to need armor and don't necessarily even need a weapon, thus if they gave you high starting gold you would get more gear of other types than other players do.

Kip Up or backwards roll. Various ways you can quickly get up after being made or going prone without leaving yourself wide open to attack. It should be a standard part of the acrobatics skill.

The rules already encourage you to use skills for things not listed if they make sense, or even things that don't fit any skills for an untrained attribute modifier roll.

Durzanult wrote:

It adds an exponential cost curve and makes the system less straight forward.

The cost curve is not exponential, it's linear, or step. On the other hand, the odds of *rolling* those particularly high ability scores *is* exponentially reduced.

1:1 isn't realistic to people, or rolling, but the advice in this thread could make it somewhat workable if you really just had to have it. 16,16,10,10,10,10 is a reasonable stat array. Or even 16x3,8x3.

Erm, this is most definitely not a linear function:

Graph

It doesn't appear to really be anything coherent, other than just "game designers thought this seemed balanced" function. POSSIBLY some sort of sigmoidal or polynomial function, but I really doubt they would have bothered with that formally.

Crimeo wrote:

He said assuming Golarion. Antimagic fields are both not on the Golarion permanency list and are also not even castable on locations (personal emanation only around the caster). Also OP said that level 10+ casters (includes AMF) are too rare for any but the most prestigious locations.

Hallow (or unhallow) actually works pretty well as the poor man's permanent antimagic field.

Interesting, I missed this comment. I'm not really sure that's how it would work, though...

Dispel magic is an instantaneous spell, which is longer even than permanent. It doesn't really gain any clear BENEFIT to have a guarantee year length duration to a spell that already lasts for eternity.

The most logical result is simply a single dispel occurrance upon the casting of hallow, on everything in the hallow area, the end. Which is already a great deal on its own.

Two reasons for anything more than that to not happen: 1) reductio ad absurdum. An infinitely continuous activation use dispel magic wondrous item acting on many items at once would be like... a million gold. 2) I don't see anything in the rules that suggest a spell gets RE-CAST constantly during the year. Only that the "EFFECT" lasts a year. In this case, as mentioned above, for an effect that already lasts a year (but you are getting a larger and radius burst version out of the deal)

You do need to consider just how many PC classes are around vs. NPC classes.

One major problem with not having many PC leveled characters around is that it starts to become wildly implausible and immersion-breaking whenever characters die to just happen to right then find another 1 in 1,000,000 5th level PC hanging out in the tavern around the corner that the player rolled up new.

Also, not every encounter can be a boss fight, so the armies of low level adepts necessary to provide a challenge to mid level PCs the rest of the time will really slow combat down to extreme levels.

Maybe an anti-magic shell surrounding the structure?

Possibly maintained by an ongoing ritual? And definitely anchored to immobile structures, like standing stones or an anti-conjuring circle or running water. Maybe that can be a reason to keep moats in style?

Or maybe magic guardian pets that have auras of antimagic?

Possibly allowing it to be bypassed by a spellcaster using a special component or badge or insignia or bloodline?

He said assuming Golarion. Antimagic fields are both not on the Golarion permanency list and are also not even castable on locations (personal emanation only around the caster). Also OP said that level 10+ casters (includes AMF) are too rare for any but the most prestigious locations.

@OP: Unfortunately I don't think you CAN play in Golarion and have magic and society make any sense as-is. Society would probably completely collapse or be utterly utterly alien as magic is written in Golarion.

Some things like invisibility and scrying are very easy to beat, but a ton of other stuff isn't, mostly other divinations and illusions and enchantment and teleportation (though with your caster level limit, circles and demiplanes and such the real bad things aren't quite as bad), and supernatural abilities like Kitsune realistic likeness, etc.

You pretty much have to suspend disbelief, unless you want to start with a blank piece of paper and spend a few months conceptualizing from the ground up, and be prepared for a bizarro world that players may not find fun, since they won't be able to jump into play quickly or easily (will have to learn a bunch of weird backstory and how the world works can't rely on tropes)

Dexterity bonuses in excess of this number are reduced to this number for the purposes of determining the wearer's Armor Class. Heavier armors limit mobility, reducing the wearer's ability to dodge blows. This restriction doesn't affect any other Dexterity-related abilities.

Because of that. "Affects armor class. Doesn't affect other dex abilities"

As for story-reasons, if that's what you mean, can't help you there. Although it's not a huge stretch for initiative in particular, since that is more of a mental thing (it really should be wisdom based in fact not dex, but whatever). Reflex doesn't make much sense to not be affected.

you only get the damage multiplier on the first attack with a lance

(part of FAQ and IMO clearly meant as what they want to rule to be now as worded.)

Hurling charger does let you throw during a charge, but so what? You only get your multiplier on the first attack with the lance. That simply IS your first attack with the lance if that's how you choose to do your turn.

Meaning that whatever you do once you arrive at the target would no longer be your first attack, whatever it is, and thus does not get the multiplier.

You can add on 17 more feats that have you do a soaring backflip and throw a lance from the clouds, make lances come out of the walls, hold lances in all of your octopus arms, throw an extra lance with your teeth, or whatever else, and at the end of the day, the bonus will still apply on the first attack with the lance.

(And the FAQ is specifically commenting on new ways of getting more attacks in, and thus is referring directly to things like this, and thus overrides them.)

it's now taking up a slot it normally wouldn't.

No it's not, from tattoo rules:

Magic tattoos must be placed on a part of the body normally able to hold a magic item slot, but they do not count against or interfere with magic items worn on those slots.

So you have a limited number of tattoo slots, basically, but they don't take up slots used by any other kinds of magical items other than other tattoos.

I.e. you can have two physical rings AND two ring tattoos.

Agreed there's no lasting "stealthed" condition. But announcing you intend to be moving stealthily in general I think is still a legitimate request to make, that will translate in mechanics terms to:

"I am making stealth rolls every single turn" and then the first one that actually matters to roll ends up being the one that would have been made immediately before the enemy is perceiving.

For the ruin situation, I would say that just for convenience, say "okay, you act stealthy" with no roll, until such a time as opponents spot your party, or vice versa, or would do so, and then have him roll stealth the first time that it actually matters, which will be at or very near to the first round of a combat most likely. He won his roll against their first perception, okay! Fair enough.

Make sure they move at half speed in the meantime, if it matters for anything (such as pursuing an enemy that ran away from you 10 minutes ago, if you're stealthed the whole time, you're falling way behind). If it wouldn't matter, don't worry about it.

Acting stealthy would also make people be suspicious of you if they do spot you, probably. Another possible drawback to keep in mind in populated areas.

But often, if say, you're in the woods, and are in no particular hurry, then sure, it seems legitimate to me to stealth 8 hours a day if you want to. So what? It wouldn't even really tire you out especially as far as I can think.

when there is yet to be any opponents which need to roll a perception check?

If there are no potential enemies around, then why does it matter if they succeeded or not in being stealthy?

If there ARE enemies who might spot them, and the players know that and that's why they want to stealth then I would say that since your PCs are aware of opponents, turn-based initiative should have already been begun as a result of them being aware of opponents.

@ original post, Quick and dirty changes:

1) Make all casters 3/4 casters (if you don't want to tinker with classes, just only allow the existing ones)

2) Chop off a bit less of the top of the game than you would have otherwise, allowing you to finish APs and things.

3) If you want to go a bit further, a really easy way to water down casters without making them any inherently less interesting is simply to delete the entire portion of rules about bonus spells due to your mental stat. You just don't get those. This is motivated more by not wanting to be saddled with the obligation to have like 3 combats a day just to strain resources, as a GM, more than it is about disparity, but it does also affect disparity indirectly.

4) Even further: reduce potion cost. Also doesn't make casters any less interesting, but allows martials a lot of buffs and heals with less and less dependence upon casters next to them, without being unrealistic at all or inventing supernatural martial abilities.

That's well more than enough in my experience to eliminate almost any perception of significant differences.

I started to think what if i threw the lances instead? Or throw one and grab another and stab with the momentum still behind me.

Throwing one: I'd say sure! It seems to fit RAW and also make perfectly good physical sense, as it has all the extra speed and momentum of the charge + whatever your normal throwing power is. So I don't even see it as non-RAI either.

Throwing one, and then also doing X with bonus, though: I'd say no. Seems to violate the ruling on iterative with charge bonus, even if your feat setup works (which I also don't see how it does, but doesn't even matter. No iterative charge bonuses).

At best, even if your feat tree works like you say, that's only a setup for talking your GM into house ruling for you, not an existing rules argument.

From exactly what it says as I'm reading it:

1) The tattoos gain a fresh whole parallel set of "tattoo slots" corresponding to the same slot list you normally have (minus the listed exceptions).
2) Each tattoo uses one of those tattoo slots.
3) Having a tattoo in a tattoo slot does not prevent a normal slotted item there using the same body part's normal slot, nor vice versa.
4) There is no actual mention I see of what kind of thing can be put in each tattoo slot, though. In other words, no mention of a restriction that a necklace tattoo cannot be tattooed onto a wrist tattoo slot. Or, indeed, slotless items.
5) Pretty sure you're only allowed to mimic wondrous items with this, not rings or stuff. It says, "Magical tattoos follow the rules for magic item creation as though they were wondrous items, except that they can use the Craft (calligraphy, paintings, tattoos) skill." The most basic rule of wondrous item creation rules (which it says it uses) is, of course, that it only makes wondrous items, so...

#4 seems odd / like it may be a mistake. It makes me ask myself, "Why did they bother listing out the available slots by name, instead of just saying you have 11 tattoo slots?" But *shrug*

ANYTHING can get class levels as far as I can tell. There are a couple of places where the rules mention that "such and such can now take class levels" such as when you awaken an animal. However, AFAIK, there was never any restriction in the first place, so these comments appear to be redundant.

Indeed, Paizo has also published multiple lists of NPCs of all kinds that have class levels of all sorts, and mentions NPCs with class levels repeatedly, including with regard to not normally playable creatures, so it's obviously intended as possible.

It's also, of course, not factored into the CR though of any monster written without those levels. Usually you add about 1 CR per class level added to whatever else you see written. But that's only really very precise or useful in my experience if the NPC is getting pretty much all its features from those class levels. If adding to a monster with a bunch of racial abilities, the balance is way off from that and you probably just have to wing it. Either playtest with yourself in a mock battle ahead of time, or under-CR it and then build in optional reinforcement waves etc. so that you have a lot of latitude in quickly changing challenge mid battle to be safe.

Crimeo and his overly pedantic insane rules interpretations strike again.

Uh, the whole point is that Melk is trying to argue that literal, pedantic reading of death rules somehow doesn't lead to any absurdity. And I'm saying that it does lead to absurd results.

So you and I AGREE on this...

Okay immobile vs. just not moving is convincing, fair enough.

Still can just stop dying from your checks, though. And we can keep going if you really want to insist on the claim that there's nothing else absurd about playing within allowed capacity after death, coming up with more silly things not dependent on that stuff anyway.

Let's see, mental only, immobile? Okay, ioun stones's orbits "reflect the thoughts and emotions of their owners" so slap one in orbit around my dead head, and I should be able to communicate with you again with purely mental activity, paralyzed or no, without any limited time frame or spell slots.

Or just solve math proofs while I wait to be resurrected and then let you know answers later when you resurrect me without having possibly had enough not-dead time to have done all that work. Even that's still totally silly without having to even communicate while dead.

Or a vampire should technically be able to keep draining blood from you forever, into negative hundreds of CON, continuing to somehow gain health all the time and somehow find more and more blood until the end of time. "If the amount of ability damage you have taken equals or exceeds your ability score, you immediately fall unconscious until the damage is less than your ability score. " <-- doesn't say anything I can find about not being able to go right on into negative ability scores? Maybe somewhere, but not seemingly in ability damage rules. The only consequences listed are unconsciousness and death, which we already suffer from. Or even if there is a minimum, that still doesn't necessarily mean I can't keep being subject to 1d4 CON damage anyway.

Or continue using a permanent telepathic bond... just cart me around in a wheelbarrow, and the other guy can relay what's going on to me and let everyone know what I think about it.

...etc...

Right, keep reading...

On the character's next turn, after being reduced to negative hit points (but not dead), and on all subsequent turns, the character must make a DC 10 Constitution check to become stable

Unlike the restriction on what your next turn has to be like (negative hp, not dead), there are no restrictions listed for what the subsequent turns have to be like.

So as long as I survive for at least 1 turn so as to trigger the start of my saves (next turn + in negative hp + not dead), then the checks have begun and continue for all "subsequent turns," period. Only stopping when I stop being "dying" (because at that point, this whole rule block no longer applies to me as I don't have the condition anymore).

Also:

Or if that doesn't do it for you, also, even while still dying (dead or not), the literalist reader could still take 5 foot steps to get around, since those are not actions ;)

Hell you can even communicate with the living. Write a bestselling novel about being dead. Or tell them who your murderer was. All they have to do is establish some sort of morse code like system regarding you 5 foot stepping either left or right to mean dot, dash, whatever.

Who needs necromancy spells to speak with the dead?

Skylancer4 wrote:

"The rules don't tell me I can't move or take actions when I'm dead, so I can continue to play right?"

This is false. Any dead creature also still has the dying condition and so cannot move.

Eventually all dead characters will stop dying, because from the point of view of the literal rules reading that this is about, they continue to get constitution saves every turn forever even after dead, and a natural 20 is an auto success, so eventually they will make one and stabilize and thus stop qualifying for the dying condition.

Or if that doesn't do it for you, also, even while still dying (dead or not), the literalist reader could still take 5 foot steps to get around, since those are not actions ;)

It's a meaningful example in general. Although I wouldn't say relevant to this thread, since there ARE rules that allow all characters (incl. familiars) to carry things, etc.

And the Rules are written in the assumption that the CHARACTER is the one using or being referred to. Not the familiar or animal companion, the CHARACTER.

Notice the terms:

NPC = "Non Player Character"
PC = "Player Character"

"Character" is simply a synonym for "creature" nothing more. If it wasn't, then not only would it be redundant to even say "player character" at all, but NPCs would be like, paralyzed and deaf and useless, because they'd be missing about half the rules in the book allowing them to do things (tons of basic stuff like combat rules etc. are written about "characters" only)

Most things presumably have to be normal Main type (not subtype or variant subtype or whatever) animal for animal spells to work on them. I don't think the augmented shenanigans help at all.

But actually wearing one as per a character is getting into "house rules" territory as nothing in the books allows for it or even hints it is a possibility.

Nothing in the book hints that you can wear a backpack that is light enough for you to easily carry and that has no size listed?

Really now?

At most, you're arguing your way to nobody being allowed to wear handy haversacks at all. At worst this is really grasping at straws to justify mechanics on what sounds like purely balance-minded point of view.

Preparing materials is a free action BEFORE casting which does not by RAW clearly require any hands. Although even if you rule that it does need a hand just for common sense purposes, it still would have no reason to interfere with the hand requirements of a somatic spell, because prepping the ingredients again is a free action prior to and separate from casting.

Then, while casting the spell, the materials have already been prepped, and so you should still only need one hand for the somatic component.

Magic items are generally assumed to magically resize themselves to fit their users.

Notice that there is no mention of different sizes or prices for, say, rings of invisibility, yet both medium and small PCs can buy and use them no problem. And body slots are listed in the rules with specifically listed examples like "camel", which as a companion starts large, so that also directly implies larger creatures can use magic items just fine for those slots too. Still with no price differences mentioned.

Handy haversacks should be no different. I would not assume that the weight changes, however, like for mundanely different sized things.

A tiny haversack would also, logically, have a smaller opening and you may not be able to fit the same things through the opening.

Uh ok. Interesting. What on earth IS that license itself referring to then?

"Heres a bunch of rules... Now go forget all those rules you just read. They're all b&~&$*~s. Use these instead." ??

It was written by the D&D publishers but doesn't apply to D&D? SO confused. Much more optimistic though.

I think you're right that trade dress is not important here, and was a syntax misunderstanding.

However, that would still only open up access only to NEW spells written by Paizo themselves, NEW creatures, etc. Since they are not claiming such things of their own to be product identity.

So great that's slightly helpful, but I still don't see how they're managing to promise us open access to any of the D&D original things of the type listed in that list: spells or creatures etc. Because the WOTC text (bottom half of page) never included any of that stuff in open content in the first place: it still lists it all as product identity. So I think you're right that Paizo's text is super forgiving, but how can Paizo have the authority to tell us we can use things freely if they themselves were never given free usage of those things?

Isn't it kind of like me giving you a library book for Christmas?

Open Game Content for the PRD is explicitly declared right at the top of the OGL page:

Yes, open content is defined as "everything that isn't PI."

But spells, for example, are listed as PI (since they are included among trade dress, which is included in the paragraph above). So they wouldn't be open content then. Nor are creatures, equipment, or special abilities: a crippling minefield of exceptions.

Product Identity: The following items are hereby identified as Product Identity, as defined in the Open Game License 1.0a, Section 1(e), and are not Open Content: All trademarks, registered trademarks, proper names (characters, deities, etc.), dialogue, plots, storylines, locations, characters, artworks, and trade dress. (Elements that have previously been designated as Open Game Content are not included in this declaration.)

Open Content: Except for material designated as Product Identity ...

All that stuff above, since it is trade dress, is thus seemingly not open content.

Nothing's stopping you from rolling X times normally if you want instead of ever deciding to invoke taking 20 in the first place, as long as the skill in question is retry-yes in your time frame. It is a purely optional simplification.

Not only does smite not say anything about adding any sort of technical "good" tag to stuff, but it's ALSO neither a spell nor a weapon. It's a supernatural ability. So fails to qualify on two fronts.

How do stealth, lighting, and concealment rules work?

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

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

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

They are.

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

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

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

The Pathfinder PRD states:

This compendium of rules, charts, and tables contains all of the open rules in the system, and is provided for the use of the community of gamers and publishers working with the system.

Yet the actual legal text of the OGL for pathfinder includes "trade dress" as not-open Product Identity, and this includes:

trade dress; artifacts, creatures, characters, stories, storylines, plots, thematic elements, dialogue, incidents, language, artwork, symbols, designs, depictions, likenesses, formats, poses, concepts, themes and graphic, photographic and other visual or audio representations; names and descriptions of characters, spells, enchantments, personalities, teams, personas, likenesses and special abilities; places, locations, environments, creatures, equipment, magical or supernatural abilities or effects, logos, symbols, or graphic designs

I have bolded just some of what appear to be glaring contradictions that the PRD is "the open rules in the system."

The equipment chapter is listed in PRD, but "equipment" is product identity?
The spells chapter is listed, but all spells are PI?
The whole bestiary is listed, but "creatures" are PI?
Doesn't "special abilities" pretty much wipe out all classes as kosher?

Also, things like "language" and "concepts" would seem to apply to every single sentence in the entire work.

Am I missing something here? It seems like potentially nothing whatsoever in the "Open" Game License is, in fact, open? Or at best, only a random, unreliable smattering of it? I wanted to make a sweeping rewrite of some core d20 stuff and was excited about the OGL making it possible, but now I'm not seeing very optimistic wording here.

I'm guessing I probably AM missing something, though, since Paizo has clearly used a ton of d&d spells, basic creatures, "concepts" etc. and has not gotten sued into oblivion. How?

Truthfully, do the generally non-evil vampires in the "Twilight" series make you more or less scared of vampires? Does the possibility that the ghost in your uncle's house might be friendly like Casper make that adventure more or less exciting when you venture in to meet it?

Why do adventures need to be "scary?"

I think the goal should be usually "interesting" not "scary."

Although on top of scares not being the ideal end goal, knowing things generally also makes them less scary ANYWAY. The unknown is the scariest, that's why horror directors don't show you their monsters, etc.

So having a diverse, organic, realistic environment of gray philosophies and morals and motivations is the best of both worlds. It not only makes the game more engaging as an end unto itself, but also fuels fear regardless by fueling the unknown.

Vampires all the same = fighting them is all the same, predictable, thus easily defended against or beaten for an intelligent and prepared person. Yawn. Vampires like humans, all unpredictably diverse and unique and catty and political etc., but now also fasthealing, 30 foot jumping and a thirst for blood = scariest thing of all to me.

Crimeo wrote:

You absolutely can use Reductio ad Absurdum in a rational argument to justify re-interpreting or ignoring a rule.

Not the way you do it. What you do is a slippery slope following the metalogic rather than the logic itself.

That's not my quote, it's Blakmane

Although what on earth is "metalogic" as distinct from "logic" anyway?

Readying an action for a negative is totally acceptable as long as you put a time limit on it.

Yes this is fine, because the trigger is a positive event: a time limit expiring.

You absolutely can use Reductio ad Absurdum in a rational argument to justify re-interpreting or ignoring a rule.

Quote:

A reductio ad absurdum is a good motivation to TRY and re-interpret, but not a guarantee of success or automatic validity of whatever else you come up with.

Your choice of terms in "weaseling the wording to something more appropriate" is accurate: Weasels can fit into some very small loopholes and come out the other side. Sometimes, though, there isn't a complex maze of possible loopholes. Sometimes, there's just a brick wall of absurdity, and even a weasel cannot fit through a brick wall.

I can't say for sure that this is one of those situations, but one reason this readied actions problem is so persistent is precisely because the two conflicting rules are SO very simple and straightforward in their writing, that there aren't a lot of weasel-sized holes visible... If any exist, I haven't seen anybody find one yet. Plenty of solutions, and clever ones, but they still add, totally change, or remove text so far (such as the brilliant idea to add a sense motive check as a way of making seeing the future not silly anymore)

Targeted spells require line of sight. It's pretty clear.

Agreed. And attacks that target concealed opponents do not require line of sight. It's also quite clear.

Yes, we all agree. It's ridiculous. That's why we reject it.

This argument requires, as a premise, that "Things written in the book cannot possibly be ridiculous."

This is obviously a false premise.

Interpretation

Nor have you actually even so much as described any other interpretation. Which, if any of the following, are you interpreting differently?

1) You act before the action?
2) You act in reaction to the action (or part of it)?
3) The one-directionality of causality?

Since those are the only 3 relevant things for my argument, if you're reaching a different conclusion by interpretation, you must be disagreeing with one. Which?

If I start my action first, but finish after, who is faster?

You would be (and of course can logically be) faster, but that's not the issue. The issue is that first phrase of yours: "if I start my action first..."

How did you START your action BEFORE the thing that triggers your action? This necessarily implies either having known that trigger was going to happen before it did, such that you could start acting first, or seeing it happen, and then going back in time to before it did to begin your response.

It goes all targets < targets with concealment < targets [with concealment] of the spell being cast

This is correct. So if any spell mentions in its own text that it requires LOS, then yes, you need LOS again.

You would lose levels every time you walked down a flight of stairs

Yes of course if you reductively and mindlessly take any cognate in English and equate them, like Amelia Bedelia, you will get silly results.

If however, you actually look at the context and realize that both the combat and magic section in question are referring to attacks in the sense of:
* offensive actions,
* in combat,
* against opponents,
* meant to ruin their day,
* with defenses applying,

then you will see that these are obviously the same concept between the two.

Secondly whats more specific is more than a little arbitrary.

Sometimes yes, but not always. If one set is COMPLETELY contained within the other set, then there is no ambiguity that the first is more specific than the second. Do you have an argument in mind for how this set is not completely contained within the other here? Possible, sure. If so, let's hear it.

Although note that even if you do, and it turns out to be a good one, at most that would just mean that there's an unresolvable direct conflict, which = GM fiat as the answer. Not "whichever one of the equally valid and opposing sets of rules Norse Wolf happens to like more."

Thirdly, there is a perfectly valid way to read the rules if you're wrong, there is NO way for you to be right without some of the rules being total nonsense.

All of the above rules still have a reason to exist and make sense under my argument. The rules you quoted are still relevant in two ways:

1) They allow for spell attacks with LOS to NOT have to suffer a 50% miss chance. The rules I quoted DO have to suffer a 50% miss chance. In other words, between the two of them, for spell attacks, it boils down to "If you have LOS, you get to be at least twice as likely to hit (much more if you aren't even sure what square a concealed guy might be in)"

2) They apply to all spells that don't fit one of the 4 "attack" criteria, i.e. any spell that doesn't harm, hamper, cause a save, or damage an opponent. For example, off the top of my head, arcane mark. Doesn't qualify as an attack spell under any criteria, so is thus boudn under your quoted rules at ALL times.

Last and not least, you're assuming that because you can attack a square you can attack the person in it rather than attacking the square granting you a 50 50 chance to hit something inside it. They clearly don't work by the same rules.

I'm not "assuming" that, I'm reading it. It says you attack a square, and you have a 50% miss chance, in black and white. Unless you're suggesting that "50 =/= 100" is a "bold assumption."

Once again, Crimeo has taken a wild interpretation of the rules and has gotten carried away from it, knowing full well that it's ridiculous as he rules it otherwise in his own games.

I'm happy to hear any other reasonable interpretation of how you think I can follow the rules without time travel or prescience? The rules clearly say:

1) That I "react" to X.
2) That I then "act before" X.

By common sense, you cannot react to something before it begins, but also by common sense, you can't act before something once it has already begun. NOR by common sense can you act prior to your reaction that told you to act. Not even instantaneous events with divinely zero reaction time could make sense here. Unless you can explain otherwise? How can those two criteria can possibly be met without time travel or prescience?