Goblin Squad Member. Organized Play Member. 8,495 posts (8,503 including aliases). No reviews. 1 list. No wishlists. 1 Organized Play character. 1 alias.
http://www.d20pfsrd.com/feats/general-feats/steadfast-personality/
At first glance seems kind of limited, then i had to ask how many will saves WOULDN'T be mentally inclined?
Honestly seems like a flat boon for any charisma based person with the exception of paladin.
Mind affecting doesn't mean 'anything which might be mentally inclined'. It is a specific tag that is added to spells and certain other effects.
For example, Hold Person says:
School enchantment (compulsion) [mind-affecting]
Am I just making this up or what? I seem to recall a rule that magic weapons of a certain bonus to hit can act as a special weapon vs creatures that have DR against everything except a certain weapon enhancement. For example, I *think* I recall seeing that a +2 weapon is the equivalent of a silver weapon for overcoming a werewolf's DR. Help me, Paizonians! You're my only hope!
I believe it is in the back of the core rulebook. That is where it appears in the PRD.
If they aren't supposed to be for ranged combat like bows are, then what are they there for? To provide some trap options to fulfill some arbitrary "trap option quota" that the PDT feels has to be there to challenge the optimizers that play the game? Because that's really what you've demonstrated to me thus far, and if that's the case, then there never really could have been such a thing as "ranged combat" to begin with because it was never a niche that was created except in our own (or rather, my own) preconceived notion(s). Archery was created as a niche, not ranged combat.
So, I will now mandate all mentions of "Ranged Combat" to be changed to "Archery," otherwise I will refer to such people as heretics having badwrongfun and creating rules that were clearly not meant to exist.
As for melee, as you've stated prior, there is a lot more agnosticism to their design. You don't have to use a specific weapon or select a specific set of feats to make them work, and even if you do, there are a lot of different weapons that can cover the options you're looking for, instead of being restricted to a single weapon. Seriously, when Ranged Com-I mean, Archery, has only one good option, and the rest being absolute crap, whereas melee has numerous good options that fill multiple niches of multiple build choices, this just tells me that weapons used at a range are designed poorly, whereas melee weapons have much better design and thought put into their creation.
For Unarmed/Armed, there are numerous classes with archetypes that can make it work; Enlightened Paladins, Brawlers, Monks, Warpriests, even Ninjas can make it viable...And plenty of other classes and archetypes that I can't think of off the top of my head. While a disparity does exist in this case due to simple outscaling, the gap between this and weapons usable at a range is significantly less, and doesn't make the Unarmed options not viable.
For Simple/Martial, there are comparable options between them. Longspear is by and large one of the most popular and mainstream reach weapons in the game, beating out typical Martial reach weapons for its palatable application, and Exotic reach weapons are usually gated by a feat that many would find undeserving of expenditure. Either way, a choice between a Simple/Martial weapon won't make a big difference 90% of the time, which is about the difference between Martial/Exotic weaponry, and in that case the power gap is at an appropriate level.
Size doesn't really matter except in the case of acquiring loot that you can't technically wear by default (Small equipment for Medium characters, and vice-versa), as there have been numerous builds that demonstrated appropriately-sized weaponry making little to no difference except in the most extreme of circumstances (such as Size-abusing Vital Strike builds compared to Tiny-sized static bonus-abusing builds), and even then it's been proven that full attacks (even with Tiny size static bonus cheesing), in a general sense, are still superior, making size of little to no consequence in the grand scheme of killing things.
Compare that to every single Archery option in existence, and it's more akin to the Caster/Martial Disparity than any other weapon or combat style that ever existed in the game.
I think you are missing the point.
Not all weapons are created equal.
Crossbows are simple weapons, they are there to give people who have low strength or no martial proficiency an ranged attack option where melee is not an option.
Thus, we get the following:
If you only have simple weapon proficiency and good strength (+2 and greater), you generally use a sling.
If you only have simple weapon proficiency and poor strength (+1 or less), you generally use a crossbow.
If you have martial weapon proficiency and poor strength (less than +0), you use a crossbow.
If you have martial weapon proficiency and good strength (+0 or greater), you use a bow.
(The above assumes you can afford a bow or crossbow, I usually start with a sling at first level with my martial builds.)
So, now we have weapons which are generally bad weapons to use, but are options for people who are unable to use the better weapon, a bow.
Then, Paizo makes archetypes that are built around a 'bad option'. Bolt Ace is one such example. It is built around crossbows which are generally a bad idea.
Bolt Ace turns crossbow use from a bad idea to a passable idea but only because of the dex to damage feature.
But, now you have ran into it's major drawback, it's inability to gain Manyshot and either Point Blank Master or Improved Precise Shot (before level 11). As a result it suffers for a long time.
Multiclassing doesn't generally help as that still delays your entry into either PBM (to level 9) or IPS (to level 11).
Just because archetypes are built around a weapon or other game feature does not make that archetype a good one.
In fact, I would say that about half of all the archetypes in the game are rarely used, if ever, because they are simply bad options.
In short, Crossbows and Slings are usually only an option until someone gets something better, or if they are limited in their weapon choices.
Lets identify the problem: You are either shooting through cover OR you are taking an AoO when shooting.
Isn't the answer to the first one a class feature - Shooter's Resolve? I appreciate it is a Deed, and therefore Grit management is an issue, but ignoring cover and concealment (unless the total version of either) when you need to for 1 Grit seems handy.
As an aside, I see a lot of people saying to drop Gunslinger/Bolt Ace at level 5 - are the level 7 deeds for either not as good as they appear? Targeting alone seems to make it worthwhile.
No, Shooter's Resolve is not the answer, it is in fact almost completely useless.
Almost every ranged combat build requires full attacks for its DPR.
Shooter's Resolve negates that by requiring a standard action.
Favored Class bonus: HP
Ranger's Focus 3/day, +4attack/damage
Equipment: +1 Mithril Breastplate (5.35k), +2 Comp. (+2str) Bow (8.6k), Belt of Incredible Dexterity +2 (4k), +2 Cloak of Resistance (4k), Efficient Quiver (1.8k), 1k in misc arrows = 24.75k
Attack bonus: 8bab, +6dex, +1wf, +2enh, +1pbs^, -2rs^, +4rf^
Damage: +2str, +2enh, +1pbs^, +4rf^
(optional damage is marked with ^)
Single Attack: +17 (+1pbs, +4rf) for 1d8+4 (+1pbs, +4rf)
Full Attack: +17*2/+12 (+1pbs, +4rf) for 1d8+4 (+1pbs, +4rf)
Rapid Shot: +15*2/+15/+10 (+1pbs, +4rf) for 1d8+4 (+1pbs, +4rf)
The Ranger version sacrifices the ability to tank (due to less AC) and some attack/damage bonuses for skills, spells, etc but in a pinch it makes up for that with Ranger's Focus and can be in the back since he ignores Cover/Concealment.
Similar builds can be made with an Inquisitor, Paladin or any number of other classes.
P.S. This isn't theorycrafting, this is basically a tweak of an existing build that I have played up through level 12.
1. Point Blank Shot, Precise Shot, Rapid Shot, Rapid Reload
3. Crossbow Mastery
4. Extra Grit
5. Deadly Aim
7. Weapon Finesse (Dex to Attack in melee, which isn't granted from EQF), Empty Quiver Style
---
9. Stabbing Shot (acquired via Ranger Combat Style for retraining Precise Shot, GM approved), Empty Quiver Flexibility (full switch-hitting compatibility, increased sneak attack application and providing flanking/threatening bonuses)
11. Improved Precise Shot, Point Blank Master (sometimes even
13. Improved Critical (17-20/X3 multiplier), Accomplished Sneak Attacker?
Summary: you built a bad build and you blame ranged combat? Interesting logic.
You have a lot of wasted feats. Starting with going Crossbow to begin with.
It requires extra feats to be useful and does less damage than bows (bow users benefit from strength).
Never build to be a switch hitter, it is one of the worst things you can do in Pathfinder. That is a lot of wasted feats that could be spent on increasing your actual combat effectiveness.
What class, archetype, race, etc have you selected?
What were your starting ability scores?
Where did you put your level points?
Where have you put your favored class bonus?
What equipment do you have?
All of those factor into your problem.
Summary: don't say ranged combat is bad if the problem is your build.
Just like the subject line, are there ways to give me a +2 or more to Dex without a belt? A method without temporary spells like cats grace. My belt slot will be occupied with a belt of Giant Strength. Thanks all.
Just get it upgraded to a Belt of Physical Might.
How much would that cost?
+2 Belt of Giant Strength has a price of 4,000gp.
+2 Belt of Physical Might has a price of 10,000gp.
Pay the difference when they are upgraded. 10,000-4,000 = 6,000gp.
Note: Lady-J's statement of 3,000gp is referencing the cost if you upgrade it yourself with Craft Wondrous Item (1/2 the price).
If you buy a new one (10,000gp) and sell your old one (4,000gp/2 = 2,000gp) then the price difference is 8,000gp.
Procedure for this:
1) Maintain check (standard action) with the option to move you and your target 1/2 your speed.
CRB p200 wrote:
Move: You can move both yourself and your target up to half your speed. At the end of your movement, you can place your target in any square adjacent to you. If you attempt to place your foe in a hazardous location, such as in a wall of fire or over a pit, the target receives a free attempt to break your grapple with a +4 bonus.
2) Target makes a grapple check to break free with a +4 bonus.
3) Assuming target failed, he is now over the pit while you are adjacent to it. Then you use a free action to release him over the pit, he suffers the effects of falling into the pit.
4) You use your remaining move action to away from the pit so you do not end your turn adjacent to it (and at risk of falling in when your turn ends).
You can move 20 feet across a room in one move action, yes, but you have to plot the movement 5 feet at a time, like normal movement. So if you want to move to a space 20 feet away that's on the other side of a large creature, you have to 'hop' around them, because you can't move through them in 5 foot increments.
Ok, so you can't Dimensional Hop through walls or other solid objects, but you can plot a nonlinear course around them.
A couple of more questions:
1. Can the cleric hop through a space occupied by an ally or enemy?
2. Could the cleric's dimensional hop end in a space that she can't actually see?
3. Does it work like Teleport, where there is a chance of a mishap (say, if the cleric attempts to end the hop in a space that is occupied by a solid wall)?
Thanks!
BadBird is incorrect, there is nothing in the rules stating that you have to 'plot movement around the creature'.
It functions like other teleportation abilities, you count out the distance (in 5' increments), burn that much of your ability, disappear from your current location and reappear in your new location.
You are not performing microteleportations in 5' increments.
The 5' increment rule does two things.
First, it shows that you do not have to use the ability in 10' increments since it is 10' per day per cleric level.
Second, it prevents you from teleporting '2.5feet' or other such fraction of 5' shenanigans.
CRB p47 wrote:
Dimensional Hop (Sp): At 8th level, you can teleport up to 10 feet per cleric level per day as a move action. This teleportation must be used in 5-foot increments and such movement does not provoke attacks of opportunity. You must have line of sight to your destination to use this ability. You can bring other willing creatures with you, but you must expend an equal amount of distance for each creature brought.
1. Yes, this is teleportation.
2. No, the ability states that you must have line of sight.
3. No, this is not the Teleport spell, it is general teleportation.
Magic Vestment is good for a lot. My clerics regularly use it on their armor instead of purchasing an enhancement bonus (saves money).
Heavy Plate (my clerics get Heavy Armor proficiency) + level 12 Magic Vestment = 9+3 = 12armor bonus to AC.
If my cleric had Mage Armor cast upon him it would be:
Heavy Plate = 9+3 = 12 armor bonus to AC which is greater than Mage Armor = 4 armor bonus to AC.
For specific to override general it has to state that it is doing something differently than the general.
What you have is something that modifies touch attacks by modifying your reach.
What you do not have is something that modifies the start of cone spells by changing the intersection rule.
If you believe Long Arm modifies the intersection rule you have to show where it does that, simply modifying the reach of your arms (which have nothing to do with the intersection rule) is not sufficient.
Yes, the spell states it starts at your hand. The spell rules ALSO state that it starts at an intersection next to you. You would have to modify both rules for you to be able to start the cone farther away. Only one got modified, so no change happens.
Of course, you can always houserule it because 'it makes sense to you'.
Area effect spells do not damage worn or carried equipment unless they specifically state they do (or the person rolls a 1). The above rule states this.
Thus, since the spell fireball does not have a clause stating it damages attended objects it does not affect worn or carried equipment unless the person rolls a 1.
This armored case provides total cover to any Tiny or smaller creature contained within it. It includes air holes (which can be plugged with cork stoppers if you need to go underwater) and two receptacles for food and water.
Price is 25gp and weight is 6lbs.
Due to total cover the familiar is ineligible to be targeted by the majority of spells, etc. It is almost 100% safe (unless they destroy the satchel or unless the effect bypasses total cover).
Danzibe1989, I think the problem you are having might be that you are just using the animal companion stats.
You also have to check the original version of your animal companion in the Bestiary to see what size it normally is when it isn't an animal companion.
Step 1) Select an animal companion that is medium sized at level 7, proceed to step 2.
Step 2) Determine if creature has 4 legs. If yes, proceed to step 3. If no, go back to step 1.
Step 3) Determine if creature has a fly speed. If no, proceed to step 4. If yes, go back to step 1.
Step 4) Check the bestiary for your selected animal companion. If the size of the animal (not it's animal companion version) is Large or Huge proceed to step 5. If it is not, go back to step 1.
Step 5) Increase the size of your animal companion to Large and give it the following modifiers:
Ability Scores Str +2, Dex –2, Con +2;
Increase the damage of each of the mount’s natural attacks by one die size.
(Note: I skipped the step regarding 'bearing your weight' because this is extremely unlikely.)
At least in one instance SKR stated that there is a language issue that should be looked at by the Dev team.
Here Mark Seifter states he is uncomfortable with the inconsistent Lance FAQ.
There may be others but I don't want to spend more time digging.
No, I didn't find a specific statement by a Dev that they appear to contradict each other, I found statements of that there is a language problem and one of inconsistency.
But I am not spending all day trying to find every reference by every dev on this topic. Nor am I searching through my PMs with Devs because that would be inappropriate to present as evidence. It is possible the statement I am remembering was in a PM with a Dev.
The two above quotes should be adequate to show that yes, the Devs have indicated that there may be a problem here that needs looking at.
Now we just need the FAQ hits so that it is on the list of things to address.
So, the 'there is no contradiction' camp should be FAQing it just to clean up the language or end the problem for people who don't have a PhD.
Given that Paizo issues FAQs on only a limited basis, asking them to FAQ something that I don't think needs an FAQ is pretty contrary to my interests, so that's nonsense. It'd literally be asking Paizo to waste time writing nothing of value purely to satisfy someone else's pedantry.
So... why am I supposed to want that?
First, how about not being insulting? This has been a relatively civil discussion.
Second, when this issue comes up time after time and people on both sides state that it is written badly, then it is in need of clarification.
Personally, I don't need this or ANY FAQ for my own benefit. I don't play PFS and even if I did..I would love doing extra damage with a Lance. I have no dog in this fight and yet there is clearly a language issue here.
So why FAQ it? Because it needs cleaning up. If we ignored every instance of things that needed cleaning up the system would never be improved.
Sure, other FAQs may need to be addressed sooner...so what? That is not relevant. Either an issue needs to be addressed or it does not.
Frankly, I don't care if Lances are treated as 1handed or 2handed but the earlier FAQ was clearly not written to only include Lances but that is what it is relegated to when the second FAQ was published only a few months later.
I am not digging back 4 years, but yes..it was stated 4 years ago. Believe me or not, I don't care, but this issue keeps coming up and the 'splitting hairs' camp keeps shouting down the 'this appears contradictory' camp.
You shouldn't need a PhD in game theory to understand the difference between the two FAQs, if there is one at all.
This causes enough confusion it deserves to be resolved.
Yes, I understand your point of view, that doesn't make it the correct one and even the Devs have stated that they appear to contradict each other.
We need FAQ hits so that this can be put to bed once and for all. It keeps appearing over and over.
Frankly, I don't understand why the 'pro 2handed strength while 1handing lance' group would not want a FAQ on this if only to stop arguing it repeatedly.
Except the Strength/Power Attack FAQ explicitly states that 2handed weapons used in 1 hand only get 1handed strength/power attack damage.
No. The Strength/Power Attack FAQ explicitly applies to weapons that "say to treat a weapon that is normally wielded in two hands as a one handed weapon".
That is the same thing according to the Devs statements on conversational rules.
Light, One-Handed, and Two-Handed Melee Weapons: This designation is a measure of how much effort it takes to wield a weapon in combat. It indicates whether a melee weapon, when wielded by a character of the weapon's size category, is considered a light weapon, a one-handed weapon, or a two-handed weapon.
Light: A light weapon is used in one hand. It is easier to use in one's off hand than a one-handed weapon is, and can be used while grappling (see Combat). Add the wielder's Strength modifier to damage rolls for melee attacks with a light weapon if it's used in the primary hand, or half the wielder's Strength bonus if it's used in the off hand. Using two hands to wield a light weapon gives no advantage on damage; the Strength bonus applies as though the weapon were held in the wielder's primary hand only.
An unarmed strike is always considered a light weapon.
One-Handed: A one-handed weapon can be used in either the primary hand or the off hand. Add the wielder's Strength bonus to damage rolls for melee attacks with a one-handed weapon if it's used in the primary hand, or 1/2 his Strength bonus if it's used in the off hand. If a one-handed weapon is wielded with two hands during melee combat, add 1-1/2 times the character's Strength bonus to damage rolls.
Two-Handed: Two hands are required to use a two-handed melee weapon effectively. Apply 1-1/2 times the character's Strength bonus to damage rolls for melee attacks with such a weapon.
Does a Medium Sized character wielding a Medium Sized Lance:
A.) Require two hands to use?
or
B.) Allow for one or two-handed use as desired?
A lance is a 2H weapon because it's in the 2H section of the weapons table.
Because it's a 2H weapon, it does 1.5x strength damage.
Because it's a 2H weapon, it needs two hands to use. Except:
CRB > Equipment wrote:
Lance: A lance deals double damage when used from the back of a charging mount. While mounted, you
...
Except the Strength/Power Attack FAQ explicitly states that 2handed weapons used in 1 hand only get 1handed strength/power attack damage.
Only the existence of the 'lance FAQ' contradicts this and it only contradicts it for Power Attack, not strength.
Wielding a lance while mounted is a special exception to the more general rule regarding using two-handed weapon as one-handed weapons. Easy.
That is not how the 'lance FAQ' is written. It is written providing an example, not that the Lance was the only weapon it applied to.
The fact that the later FAQ invalidated any other weapon should not be taken as an indication that the 'lance FAQ' is providing an exception.
The Lance FAQ was written first, the strength/power attack FAQ was written second.
Even if you followed BOTH FAQs, the Lance then gets into the odd place where it uses +50% for power attack and x1 for strength. That is clearly not the intent and is bad design.
So, either they need to remove the contradiction, or they need to specify that the Lance also gets x1.5 strength when used 1 handed. Either way a FAQ is needed to fix this.
A two handed weapon is two hand damage.
A one handed weapon is one hand damage or two of wielded in two hands.
Abilities either say “use as a one handed weapon” or they say “use in one hand” those two terms are not identical. The first changes it to a one handed weapon. The second retains two handed weapon status.
The Devs have stated that the rules are to be read conversationally. This is splitting hairs and is not how the rules are intended to be read. The so called Lance FAQ clearly contradicts the other FAQ.
Even Devs have found them contradictory going back to when they were published. However, it is my understanding that the Devs cannot make any FAQ changes without us hitting the FAQ button enough to prompt a response.
So, yes, they are contradictory and will remain so until there are enough FAQ hits to prompt resolution.
P.S. This exact issue was also FAQ'd in 3.5 and the FAQ then was not contradictory, it came down firmly on the side of 'strength and power attack bonuses are determined by the number of hands on the weapon and not by the original classification of the weapon'.
So I got into a little spat with one of my players regarding climbing up a 15 ft wall. So He has 30 ft movement and takes a -5 for fast climbing and gets a 22 on a DC 15 wall. So he climbs up 15 ft. Pretty straight forward.
I ask for a second check to pull himself up and move. He argues he has cleared the wall because he has "climbed 15 ft". He considers himself as occupying the first vertical square and starts moving from there (top of his hands) and i consider him occupying the ground and needing to move up the first 5 ft of the wall (starting from the feet).
What is the correct reasoning?
I hope this doesn't become as lengthy as the 'distanced jumped' discussion...
It doesn't matter if you are measuring from square to square, feet to feet, top of head to top of head, 15feet is still 15feet.
XP
3
2
1P
(1 = 5', 2 = 10', 3 = 15', X = open space above the wall, P = player character)
IF you measure from 1P to XP it is 3 squares (each being 5' for a total of 15').
If you measure from the bottom of 1P to the bottom of XP it is still 15'.
If you measure from the top of 1P to the top of XP it is still 15'.
I think your problem is that you are changing the measuring point.
My guess is that you are measuring movement as 'from the feet' but measuring the distance required as 'from the top of the character' which means that in your mind there was 15' of wall ABOVE the character for a total wall height of 20'.
So I just put this together and I'm wondering why I've never seen this build.
So the Unchained monk gains proficiency with ALL monk weapons, and their flurry just gives them a free attack. Unlike normal monk flurry (or brawler flurry), it makes no mention of limits for two-handing weapons.
So why aren't strength based monks flurrying with the sansetsukon? Can wild it two handed (presumably by whiling it around your body) can flurry, does 1d10 damage off the bat. . . It also is cheaper to enchant than an amulet of mighty fists and frees up your neck slot for an amulet of natural armor.
I mean, flurry power attack+strx1.5 damage, I'm not seeing a downside here?
1) They do not get bonus strength damage from 2handing weapons.
2) Monks do not need an Amulet of Natural Armor and shouldn't ever have one. They should be using Barkskin instead (courtesy of Qinggong Power).
3) They cannot use monk weapons with a number of monk abilities such as Stunning Fist, bonus attack from Ki Pool, and Style Strike.
4) You get more AC with a dex build.
except 1)you do
2)says you
3)who cares
4)debatable on benefits for doing so
1) I missed that the Unchained Monk does not have the same wording regarding strength modifier for flurry of blows as the regular monk. Edited.
2) I have never used an Amulet of Natural Armor with a monk (or unchained monk) because you get Barkskin which gives you everything Amulet of Natural Armor gives you for no gold and at a decently long duration. That means that if you are putting an amulet of natural armor on your Strength monk build you just used the exact amount of gold that you would've been spending on an Amulet of Mighty Fists (weapon +ANA = same cost as AMF).
3) Who cares? Well I don't know about you, but I would rather be able to use the Style Strike abilities. Being able to move 30' and still make a flurry of blows seems pretty important to me.
4) how is AC debatable? Either it is higher or it is not.
Perhaps what is needed is an actual comparison of builds. If someone posts a level 12 strength build I will counter with a level 12 dexterity build and then we can make tweaks to see where each of them will wind up on damage etc.
Assume level 12 single class (we are comparing monks, not other classes) with a +2str/+2wis race (such as Tiefling Oni-Spawn) vs a +2dex/+2wis race (such as Aasimar Garuda), 20point buy, WBL, and 2 traits.
mmmh, I must even have 2 or 3 vols of 3.xx Rappan Athuk somewhere in my library... the problem will be to raise the characters to the levl when they can tackle it, as I don't think you can enter at lvl 1 and survive for any length of time...
My group did enter at level 1 and did survive for awhile. While the first fatality was at level 1 (vs a Dire Bear) the TPKs didn't start until level 7 (we recorded every death in the obituary section).
Klorox, just run Rappan Athuk and tell the players "you will die, a lot, make backup characters". Then you will be living up to your job as DM and have fun killing the PCs. :)
I think there may be a difference between the Rules forum and the PFS forum. A "petition" has very different contexts in each.
Interesting. I don't frequent the rules forum, so was unaware of the context. Is the usage there more as Vic describes? If so, that might explain the disconnect that we're experiencing over terminology.
Killing an entire thread (which is what moving it to PFS is effectively doing) does not negate the problem and does a disservice to the many people who have responded.
If Paizo doesn't like the title, my suggestion would be to change the title rather than kill a thread that is already on its 200th+ post.
The thread about Repercussions in PFS is sitting at 200+ posts as well. Moving to the PFS forum is not killing a thread.
It is when it is a rules forum thread. It has effectively killed it as such. Many people (such as myself) do not touch PFS.
In fact, the only way I even knew if had been moved is that I hit focus and saw it, it wasn't in the rules forum where I expected it.
So, anyone frequenting the rules forum will miss this thread and as such both the content and the focus will change. Again, effectively killing it as a rules thread.
I think there may be a difference between the Rules forum and the PFS forum. A "petition" has very different contexts in each.
Interesting. I don't frequent the rules forum, so was unaware of the context. Is the usage there more as Vic describes? If so, that might explain the disconnect that we're experiencing over terminology.
Hmm
The context is that this is a rules FAQ that directly contradicts rules in the book without stating that it is also an Errata.
Regardless of the phrasing of the title, there are serious questions that will need their own FAQ or something.
Killing an entire thread (which is what moving it to PFS is effectively doing) does not negate the problem and does a disservice to the many people who have responded.
If Paizo doesn't like the title, my suggestion would be to change the title rather than kill a thread that is already on its 200th+ post.
Long ago, I cared about Pathfinder but I am finding that Paizo is turning into WotC (who I swore never to spend a dime on ever again).
It isn't just this FAQ (which is easily ignored) but the long progression of Paizo moving towards what I disliked so much in WotC, A game publishing company that really does not appear to discuss things with it's players nor care what they think.
I understand how we got here. Devs used to interact with us, but a number of negative interactions burned them out and then there were contradictions between the Devs opinions and the FAQs that people freaked out about.
This latest FAQ is just one of many in a line that does not make sense and rather than discuss with us the ramifications we are left in silence other than to be told this is not a rule problem when it clearly is (because the FAQ directly contradicts the rules).
It is that last part that bugs me so much. Being left in silence, fine, it happens (too often). But told this is not a rules problem? Might as well tell us you don't care.
Paizo continues to publish splatbook after splatbook but the core element of the game is a mess and the FAQs are only making it worse. They used to be better, they used to make sense.
What is happening to you Paizo? Do you really want to turn into WotC?
I don't make these comments lightly, I don't normally express opinions other than regarding the rules themselves. But perhaps Paizo will notice (I doubt it though).
The PFS issue is "Gen Con is coming up and people need time for campaign leadership to fully evaluate this FAQ before the convention and rebuild characters after the clarification is issued."
There are actual rules issues with this FAQ as well which require PDT involvement/clarification, which I will succinctly summarize below:
Problem 1: The line about masterwork being multiplied directly contradicts the CRB and Ultimate Equipment. The FAQ does not mention that these lines will be errata'd.
Solution: Either masterwork needs to not be multiplied, or the FAQ needs to mention that the lines about masterwork not being multiplied will receive errata.
Non-issue: Cold iron explicitly states that it doubles the non-masterwork cost (CRB p154, sixth printing). The FAQ gives a general rule. As specific > general, cold iron works as it did before (not doubling the masterwork cost).
Problem 2: The resizing abilities from Pathfinder Player Companion: Giant Hunter's Handbook (the fitting and resizing special abilities, the resize item spell, and the ring of perfect sizing) may allow larger items to be made even cheaper than they were previously, even for typical sizes (i.e. small or medium). For example, a tiny suit of +1 fitting adamantine full plate is (1,500 [full plate] + 15,000 [adamantine heavy armor]) * .5 [tiny] + 1,000 [enhancement bonus] + 2,000 [fitting] = 11,250 gp. Compare to a medium suit of +1 adamantine full plate which is 1,500 + 15,000 + 1,000 + 2,000 = 19,500 gp. You save 8,250 gp by making the tiny suit. The savings get even bigger as you go higher (making tiny armor with fitting for gargantuan/colossal creatures). This is only an issue for expensive materials (such as mithral and adamantine) and even then only on the heavier armors (medium/heavy armor). For less expensive special materials or light armor, tiny fitting armor would end up being more expensive or right in the same ballpark as normal medium/large...
I agree with everything you wrote right up until the personal preference. :P
My personal preference is to call a spade a spade and not mix and match economics with game mechanics.
Sure, it takes 'more material' but that should not make it cost more because the mechanical benefit is identical.
3.5/PF has long confused the two issues. Half the system only cares about mechanical benefit while the other half is trying to do some type of economy. The two do not mesh and should not both be present.
Wealth is a function of power levels...period.
Anything that you might be able to purchase using wealth should be priced according to the power level bonus you gain from it and should not cost more because it is 'bigger but does the same thing as something smaller'. THAT makes no sense for a game mechanic.
Conceptually, I'm all for trying to address the special material pricing, which makes no sense.
Consider a Large mithral breastplate.
With the new ruling, it's worth (150+4000)*2 = 8300gp
With the old ruling, it was 150*2+4000 = 4300gp
If you melt it down to a huge pile of mithral, it's worth 30*2*500= 30000gp
No matter what, something is wrong here. I would be fine with it being worth less when melt down, but not (way) more... Especially given the rules are very affirmative on the fact that it is no plating.
So, this FAQ solves nothing, and has a bunch of issues, most notably the fact that it invalidates many, many printed material.
Honestly, this needs a PF 2.0, you can't reliably address it with FAQ, unless you are prepared to errata almost everything.
The problem here is people are trying to treat separate elements of the system as if they are somehow linked.
1) Mithral was priced as a 'this does effect X so should cost Y'.
2) Mithral has been given a price per pound for trade purposes. This has no bearing on the price of #1.
Pathfinder has a poor economy system. As long as wealth is a form of game balance economics will never work 'correctly' (as defined by some).
In short, this is a game of mechanics, balance gp costs based on mechanical benefits and ignore economics.
Sometimes I wonder if the Devs have as much system mastery as some of their customers. Perhaps they should hire someone with very high system mastery to do quality assurance and point out the problems. :P
Stephen Ede, Gauss and myself are correct. The text by the other posters support our interpretation
I would qualify my support.
I think your position is reasonably thought out, easy to apply, and is useful for the situation that I'm in as GM.
I think Darksols position in reasonably thought out, more difficult to apply (not hugely difficult but simply more) and is also more likely to represent the original RAI of the writers.
Note: I say the original RAI because that was quite a few years ago and it may've changed.
If someone wrote up a clear question on the issue I would be very happy to FAQ it.
Because the one thing I'm 100% certain about the issue is that the handling of Spell casting is NOT clearly defined by the rules.
Specifically what they mean by "level Dependent Variables" and regaining spells the next day.
Actually the Devs have stated that the intent of the negative level rule was to make it very simple compared to the 3.5 version where everything had to be recalculated.
So, Darksol's position is less likely, not more likely, to represent the original RAI of the PF writers.
7) Time Hop works like all other teleportation abilities. It takes you from point A to point B. It says nothing about changing your position or condition. So, if you are prone you stay prone.
Are you also saying that if you teleport while facing north, you end up facing north after the teleport and can't "turn" mid-teleport? So if you're bringing someone with you and they're to your west, then they're still to the west after the teleport?
There is no facing in Pathfinder.
There are no rules stating that relative position changes. Additionally, for teleportation abilities which measure distance if your relative position changed then the distance traveled changes.
Example:
You start in X and teleport to Y traveling Z feet.
If you bring someone they have to also travel Z feet.
However, if you move them to the opposite side of you then they will have traveled Z+10 feet.
You can move 5 feet in any round when you don't perform any other kind of movement. Taking this 5-foot step never provokes an attack of opportunity. You can't take more than one 5-foot step in a round, and you can't take a 5-foot step in the same round that you move any distance.
You can take a 5-foot step before, during, or after your other actions in the round.
You can only take a 5-foot-step if your movement isn't hampered by difficult terrain or darkness. Any creature with a speed of 5 feet or less can't take a 5-foot step, since moving even 5 feet requires a move action for such a slow creature.
You may not take a 5-foot step using a form of movement for which you do not have a listed speed.
Not any mode of movement, but any other movement full stop. It specifically calls out any other movement, not any movement with a move action, or anything to say or imply that it is in any way limited.
As far as bladed dash, you could cast the spell but, IMO, it would fail after casting when it tried to make you move.
You can't 5ft off a cliff edge unless you can fly by my interpretation, unless you have a listed fall speed.
Having said all of that, Teleportation isn't movement. You disappear from this spot and appear at that spot. So D. Door works, but Bladed Dash, Flash Forward, and other non-teleportation spells don't.
And this is why a FAQ is needed. This is yet another interpretation.
Part of the problem with Bladed Dash is that it is not teleportation so it falls into a middle ground between the '5-foot step is referencing movement modes' camp and the 'any change in position prevents 5-foot steps' camp.
So, people may be falling into the first camp because teleportation but not allowing Bladed Dash because it seems like movement mode movement via a spell.
This comes up in the forums often enough it should be FAQd. Some people argue that any change in position is movement and thus is prevented despite the clear intent that it is 'movement modes' such as flying, walking, swimming, etc. that are what is intended to be prevented when you take a 5' step.
