People are posting pictures of their 2nd edition subscriptions arriving today. I thought it was all going to be released on August 1st at Gen Con...
Will there be an option again this year to pick up our subscription and all of the contents of our sidecart that is related to Pathfinder 2.0 at Gen Con? If so, when do you think that option will appear? Thank you!
See organizedplayfoundation.org for most of these answers. Yes, they will take you for one table. This may not mean much, but under Gen Con on that site it says "Space Available for Pathfinder (2nd edition) and Starfinder GMS!" That may not preclude Pathfinder 1st edition, but that is all that I would feel comfortable at running. I am going to reach out to them anyway. Edit: It looks like it may be a minimum of two blocks...
Zombies have a base speed of 30 feet so looking at the chart that lets them Walk 3 miles an hour. As they are always staggered, they cannot Hustle so they cannot use that distance over time at all. To the points made earlier, they also do not need rest, so they can Walk 3 miles an hour for 24 hours a day and cover massive amounts of distance (72 miles per day) even at that pace.
Well for starters, even though I know this is the rules forum, I clicked on this thread looking for cool ways for zombies to travel through time... They are staggered so they would only be able to walk and cannot hustle so with a move of 30, they would walk 3 miles in an hour. So, it would take them 1 hour and 20 minutes to walk the 4 miles to town.
Last thing I saw, they haven't decided yet if it will be available for pickup. I wish it would be, so I can get everyone to sign it. I usually see all the big names of Paizo at some point in the con. Yep, I see Jason Bulmahn there every year in the Paizo store and chat him up about all things Pathfinder. I also love it when Wayne Reynolds is there with all of his AMAZING artwork...
Regarding who is in charge, I so miss the days of a little mystery and power in the DM. From 3rd edition on it seemed like I got more, how is that happening or can he do that or the rules say... I have done it myself as a player and I do love more codification of rules and streamlined play. However, I often pine for the days when a DM made a call and it was not instantly challenged from multiples sides. Sure I want to DM fairly, but even I make mistakes or have to play the hand dealt me in a published adventure. Maybe it does not all make sense, but just put it down as “magic” is how they did that and no I am not going to reveal all of my secrets behind the screen here. I think it is important to be fair to players and make sure first and foremost that everyone is having fun. That includes the DM and when every rule is spelled out with exacting detail and reviewed by rules lawyers at every turn, it becomes less fun to run a game. So I hope the balance is there a little more than it currently is between a set of rules that everyone clearly understands and the right of the DM to ad lib from time to time for the sake of the game.
Being a gnome and halfling player across all the editions, I would be very disappointed if they were not kept in the top tier of player races. One of the first turn offs for me in 4th edition was the inclusion of the tiefling and dragonfolk and the exclusion of gnomes from the original playable races. Some don’t like the short folk because of stereotypes that generated from sources like Dragonlance where all halfling, aka kinder, were mischievous cleptomaniacs and all gnomes were scatterbrained tinkerers. I do not play all my half-orcs as brutish dullards, why should I play gnomes and halfling the same way every time? Please keep them!
I run almost exclusively in the World of Greyhawk and I have run entire adventure paths there, such as Reign of Winter and Kingmaker. This is hard to do with adventure paths since they are so interconnected with the names of places and people, but it can work. I just do not want the core rules to the point where I must use Golarion. I do for PFS, but for little else.
Because even in a game of rules and "game mechanics", there is a modicum of common sense regarding the meaning of certain terms such as dead. If a player insisted that their dead character has actions because the rules do not specifically state that they cannot take an action, then they would be laughed away from the table, or at least away from my table.
Yes, a swashbuckler counts as having Weapon Finesse with light or one-handed piercing melee weapons. Any prerequisite that requires Weapon Finesse would be satisfied by Swashbuckler Finesse, but only for light or one-handed piercing melee weapons.
It's a logical fallacy, because the effect we're talking about is a hemisphere. Which means that it extends 5 feet tall from the grid intersection (because it's a 5 foot radius hemisphere, using the grid intersection as the point of origin, right?) and then curves down to 0 feet at the end of the 2x2 square. No, because in a game with square grids, there really are no curves or perfect hemispheres. The edges are squared off, not rounded off like we would like it to be. The fluff might call for a 5ft radius hemisphere, but the game mechanics only allow for a cube 10ft wide x 10ft long x 5ft high if the intersection point selected is at the caster's feet (meaning it is at one of the bottom vertices of the caster's 5ft cube) or 10ft wide x 10ft long x 10ft high if the intersection point selected is at the caster's head (meaning it is at one of the top vertices of the caster's 5ft cube). I know we always use the game language of square, but it is better to think in terms of cube. We usually look at the rules in a 2D manner as that is how they are most often presented, but spell effects, height considerations, and other game mechanics really exist in a 3D world. Even though the rules do not always say this specifically, it has to be included or else the game begins to really break down quickly.
Hero Lab is not the determining factor as to whether something is PFS legal or not, but it is pretty accurate most of the time and it allows the shinobi shozoku for purchase in PFS mode. I usually go with that and will change it if a DM says otherwise. There is just too much to go through every piece of what is authorized and what is not as they seem to change it on a whim from time to time.
good, thanks. I'm running Beyond Azlant Ridge and this will be relevant. I highly recommend that you read through the comments under this particular scenario to make sure it runs smoother. I played this scenario last year at Gen Con and the final battle was nearly a TPK. The DM can do a lot to better describe the last battle and make sure the players see it as a puzzle and not a combat to muscle their way to victory.
The brawler has no Dexterity requirement to fully use Brawler's Flurry and any of the progressions of the class feature.
So, if it's determined by name, if I name my fighter Johnny Golem, can he be detected by the golembane scarab?Yes. Officially, if Golem is in the name then yes. No, not "officially" or RAW or any other way that we want to waste time parsing out little slivers of the rules for our amusement. I do not know if this is result of the Internet and the anonymity that we each have so we feel we can throw any little thing out there and see if it sticks or is this the curse of the millennial mindset of the video game era crowd or if this is just the result of having a rule set that tries to cover every little action and leave very little to the imagination or the whim of the DM. Why do we have to be so pedantic about something like a golembane scarab and what it does? Why do we have to wring our hands and worry about things like "there is no golem type or subtype" or "a developer said that names do not matter so the name golem means nothing". Can we not just say that there is a group/class/section of creatures that are golems. Look under the Golem heading in the Beastiary and there it is. Just like there is a section for demons, devils, genies, and several other groups but there is no demon type or subtype. Maybe some do this for fun or look for ways to blow things up or out of proportion, but what it does is to make some developers and game designers roll their eyes and never want to put anything down in print as somebody, somewhere will take it and distort it as well unless it is so well phrased as to be unable to be misunderstood but even then somebody will notice a comma or a preposition that could possibly be read a different way and then claim RAW to support an absurd point of view. So you wonder why we do not get as much FAQ or errata as we sometimes want, it is because of arguments like this. Sorry! My rant is now over... So, no, a golem is a construct that will be in the golem section of whatever book it is listed or be called out in the text of the description as being a golem. That is it. A golembane scarab will help detect and fight one of these. That is it. Thanks for the time and I hope I did not offend anyone, but I see this so much in the rules forum and I would like to just discuss real rules issues.
Well tell your GM that I think he is smart because I agree with him and that is how the rules read to me even if some disagree.
Socrates is mortal
That is like what you are saying. You say that you do not believe that is how it is supposed to be yet that is how you take each of the words and statements written to be so you continue to argue the point that is how the rules read. Why continue to argue the point? That is the downside of these messageboards when people recite like a mantra what their take on the rules as written is. Could we have better editing of the rules? Sure! Would their still be mistakes? Sure! Is everything worn an FAQ? Not in my opinion! What happened to a common sense reading of the rules and an understanding that their is no one right way to look at every situation?
If you are able to "wield or carry items in that hand" then I do not see why you cannot use it to manipulate material components or make somatic components. I cannot see how the -2 penalty to manipulate items comes into play unless you would apply it to a concentration check but that does not really seem to fit the bill of "precision-based task" in my opinion. In short, sure, cast away!
I leave them on the battlefield until they either bleed out to negative con or the characters put them out of the misery or capture them. I did not worry about this in 3rd edition, but with channel energy, I have found that some negative hit point bad guys come back to consciousness unless they are selected out with selective channeling. Of course, I also give them damage for area effect spells so they may come off soon anyone. Also, do not forget that huge and larger creatures should remain on the battlefield as they constitute difficult terrain once they are dead. You can still occupy their squares while unconscious or dead but they are difficult terrain.
Hamatula Strike says that "as an attack action you may make a grapple check on your turn", but since you already made the initial attack that round, the grapple attempt will be in subsequent rounds. In your scenario: Round 1: Use an Attack (melee) as a Standard Action or a Full Attack as a Full-Round Action and, if you hit with a piercing weapon, deal damage as normal for the weapon and make a grapple check to see if the opponent is impaled on your weapon, ie Grappled. Round 2: Unless the opponent broke the grapple on his turn, he is grappled and you can now deal damage as per a normal grapple. Claxon is thematically correct to say that the damage should come from the weapon the opponent is impaled upon, but, as a game mechanic, grapple is handled as normal so you could use your armor spikes at that time. That is how I read and would adjudicate Hamatula Strike unless I am missing something (and if I am, I am sure somebody will point it out on the message boards ;) ).
Really, in the day and age of electronic FAQ and such it will require a 50lb rulebook that costs $500? I think that is a little bit of a hyperbolic stretch. I do not think that this is over the top at all. If you want over the top, look at the threads about swapping out wizard spell slots for spontaneous healing like a cleric, but I digress... Here is what Regeneration looked like in 3.5: "Regeneration
Certain attack forms, typically fire and acid, deal damage to the creature normally; that sort of damage doesn’t convert to nonlethal damage and so doesn’t go away. The creature’s description includes the details. A regenerating creature that has been rendered unconscious through nonlethal damage can be killed with a coup de grace. The attack cannot be of a type that automatically converts to nonlethal damage. Creatures with regeneration can regrow lost portions of their bodies and can reattach severed limbs or body parts. Severed parts die if they are not reattached. Regeneration does not restore hit points lost from starvation, thirst, or suffocation. Attack forms that don’t deal hit point damage ignore regeneration. An attack that can cause instant death only threatens the creature with death if it is delivered by weapons that deal it lethal damage. A creature must have a Constitution score to have the regeneration ability." Here is what it looks like in Pathfinder: "Regeneration (Ex) A creature with this ability is difficult to kill. Creatures with regeneration heal damage at a fixed rate, as with fast healing, but they cannot die as long as their regeneration is still functioning (although creatures with regeneration still fall unconscious when their hit points are below 0). Certain attack forms, typically fire and acid, cause a creature's regeneration to stop functioning on the round following the attack. During this round, the creature does not heal any damage and can die normally. The creature's descriptive text describes the types of damage that cause the regeneration to cease functioning. Attack forms that don't deal hit point damage are not healed by regeneration. Regeneration also does not restore hit points lost from starvation, thirst, or suffocation. Regenerating creatures can regrow lost portions of their bodies and can reattach severed limbs or body parts if they are brought together within 1 hour of severing. Severed parts that are not reattached wither and die normally. A creature must have a Constitution score to have the regeneration ability. Format: regeneration 5 (fire, acid); Location: hp." There are major differences! The biggest is the change from lethal to nonlethal damage in 3.5 versus just not being able to die in Pathfinder. In Pathfinder the wording was changed enough to substantially change the ability. Again, you tell folks to use their brains and I agree with you that we seem to lack that often on these messageboards. I do NOT need Paizo to tell me what it means to "wield a weapon." As a DM and a player I think I can work through that one. I would like them to be clear on an ability that they have listed, especially when it will only take a few lines of text that do not amount to 50lbs of $500 even if all of the FAQ would be incorporated. In short if you think a thread is silly, then do what I do, ignore it. If you post just to say that everyone on the thread is being silly, then it really does not help anyone.
In defense of the original poster the FAQ is a little scattered and hard to find if you do not know exactly how to use it. It really took me a while to find it under the CRB entry and then each book has it's separate FAQ. Not an efficient way of looking for information at all even if you use the search function. However, yes, it is always a good idea to try a search before you post as you may find endless threads on certain topics with or without answers and resolutions.
I am not sure of the nature of the campaign, but if you can afford/found an Amulet of Natural Armor +5 and your AC is only 24 then it is a weird campaign if the fighter is not in the 30's. A 24 is not a high AC past about 6th level. A wizard with a +2 Ring, +2 Amulet, a dex of 14, and two spells can have that in no time...not to mention other buff spells like Haste, Blessings of Fervor, etc. This is the rules forum so you got your answer that they stack. If you want advice, then you need to convince your DM that he is a little off on this subject, live with it, or find a new game. Plus, as you are playing a Warlock, it seems that you guys are already a little loose with the Pathfinder/3.5 barrier (which I find insurmountable, but I know others do not). Good luck!
Area Dispel is only usable with Greater Dispel Magic. Dispel Magic can only be used as a Targeted Dispel or a Counterspell. To use it at as Targeted Dispel you do not need to know what is the target of the spell such as the coin or dagger in the case of Silence. You only need to direct it at the spell and know that you want to dispel the Silence. "You can also use a targeted dispel to specifically end one spell affecting the target or one spell affecting an area (such as a wall of fire). You must name the specific spell effect to be targeted in this way." Dispel Magic has changed a lot in Pathfinder from 3.5 D&D. So, you do not need to know where the Silence is cast just the area that it is affecting.
The Paladin is a mature class and should be treated as such. There seems to be a lot of twisting and turning of plots and moral scales and such by you as the DM so you should probably give the more casual players a warning that you will be doing that from time to time to liven things up. That being said, the Paladin really screwed up! By the rules (an you did come to the rules forum) Atonement should do the trick and should restore him. If, however, you want advice and you seem to be running a more complex game, I would not recommend a simple spell to make everything good. One aspect of repentance is usually to make restitution for your crimes/sins. How do you do that? Bring the tribe back to life via Raise Dead and such. This may take all of his gold and possessions but it would show that he is truly sorry for his deeds. In the end, you as the DM will decide what to do. Atonement is the easy rules way out but there are other avenues as well. Some of those might, however, disrupt the campaign and the game. Either way it seems like both the players and the DM learned some lessons out of this event. Hopefully they put those lessons to good use in the future.
Here are two questions for FAQ purposes: Does the Invulnerability (Ex) class feature of the Invulnerable Rager Barbarian archetype count as still having the Damage Reduction (Ex) class feature of a Barbarian for purposes of what feats and rage powers for which he may qualify, such as the Stalwart feat line and the Dragon Totem rage power line? Does the Dragon Totem rage power line increase Damage Reduction or just Resistance?
All means all. All does not always mean all... "Spell-like abilities are magical and work just like spells (though they are not spells and so have no verbal, somatic, focus, or material components)." "Spell-like abilities cannot be used to counterspell, nor can they be counterspelled." So even though spell-like abilities are like spells (hence the name) there are a few areas where they are different and those are usually listed in the rules. Hence we need to be cautious when we lay down blanket statements like all or always. Edit: Mojorat, you are right that really is a good point. A great FAQ would be, does the Barbarian Invulnerable Rager archetype ability Invulnerability count as Damage Reduction to qualify for Feats like Dragon Totem that say 'this resistance equals double her current DR/— from her barbarian damage reduction class feature'? This is being asked because Invulnerability has replaced Damage Reduction but it is still giving the Barbarian Damage Reduction.
In looking at Controlled Rage under the Urban Barbarian archetype I noticed a glaring discrepancy. Controlled Rage: "When using a controlled rage, an urban barbarian gains no bonus on Will saves, takes no penalties to AC, and can still use Intelligence-, Dexterity-, and Charisma-based skills. This ability otherwise follows the normal rules for rage." I noticed the abilities that require Concentration were not listed just SKILLS based on those ability scores. So look to Rage as the last line says it follows the normal rules for Rage. Rage: "While in rage, a barbarian cannot use any Charisma-, Dexterity-, or Intelligence-based skills (except Acrobatics, Fly, Intimidate, and Ride) or any ability that requires patience or concentration." So it appears that Controlled Rage still does not allow you to cast spells or use spell-like abilities. This is in comparison to Moment of Clarity that says: "The barbarian does not gain any benefits or take any of the penalties from rage for 1 round." That would obviously allow the barbarian to cast a spell or use a spell-like ability.
I would agree that there is a strong argument to be made in favor of saves for spell-like abilities. However, it really comes down to the wording of the feat as it would be an example of a specific rule (the feat) over-ruing a general rule (Spell-Like Abilities). The issue is that they add spell-like abilities in the top of the rule and then specifically omit it in the bottom part. Is the omission enough evidence to have us a fall back to the general Spell-Like Ability rules or was it meant to actually omit them from being affected by the feat? I would probably rule the latter if I was DM of such a character, but that could be debated. Again, if we go rules-lawyer then the Barbarian should not make a save versus spell-like abilities, but I like to play with more common sense than just what the letter of the law says. I would look to see how it plays out and if it really matters to the flow of the game and the balance. That is why a good DM is a great referee.
Strictly speaking as the rules go it says: "The barbarian gains a +2 morale bonus on saving throws made to resist spells, supernatural abilities, and spell-like abilities." So he gets the bonuses on those three types of effects. "While raging, the barbarian cannot be a willing target of any spell and must make saving throws to resist all spells, even those cast by allies." It only applies the penalty to spells. So no save needed on spell-like abilities and supernatural abilities. That is the ability strictly by the rules. That is the RAW position. If they spelled it out what effects he gets the bonuses, then they should have spelled out the same effects to apply the penalty or in this case having to make the save. Other than that, run it by your DM for confirmation, but that is the Rule as Written.
Seeing as how it could be dispelled by either Dispel Evil or Dispel Chaos, I would rule that it can be detected by either Detect Evil or Detect Chaos.
If it is difficult terrain and you attempt to move out of a threatened square then you WILL provoke an attack of opportunity. For example, if a caster is adjacent to a foe and they are in difficult terrain and the caster wants to move 5 feet away so that he can safely cast a spell without casting defensively, then the caster would provoke an attack of opportunity from the movement. If a rogue wanted to position himself in a different adjacent square to him and the enemy, then that would provoke an attack of opportunity in difficult terrain. The distance is still only 5 feet but the action required was more than a simple adjust so the action is what is provoking the attack of opportunity per the rules on both action types and attacks of opportunity in the Combat section of the CRB.
The problem here is when it comes to reloading with only one hand. There are ways around it like a Beneficial Bandolier and such, but nothing is as effective as having a free hand.
I'm still somewhat confused as to whether or not it would waste one of your daily charges if you were to miss, although I'm assuming that would be the case? Usually, the answer is, no, you do not lose a spell or effect that requires a carrier melee touch attack to deliver the effect if you miss. Now, if you cast something else or activate a different ability, then you would lose the spell or effect. "Spell-Like Abilities (Sp): Using a spell-like ability works like casting a spell in that it requires concentration and provokes attacks of opportunity. Spell-like abilities can be disrupted. If your concentration is broken, the attempt to use the ability fails, but the attempt counts as if you had used the ability. The casting time of a spell-like ability is 1 standard action, unless the ability description notes otherwise." So the "works like casting a spell" would indicate to me that you could hold the charge like this: "Holding the Charge: If you don't discharge the spell in the round when you cast the spell, you can hold the charge indefinitely. You can continue to make touch attacks round after round. If you touch anything or anyone while holding a charge, even unintentionally, the spell discharges. If you cast another spell, the touch spell dissipates." Unfortunately, supernatural abilities are a little vague on the subject. "Supernatural Abilities (Su): Using a supernatural ability is usually a standard action (unless defined otherwise by the ability's description). Its use cannot be disrupted, does not require concentration, and does not provoke attacks of opportunity." So those might be a DM call but I would not have a problem of those fitting under the Holding the Charge rules.
I think it falls in the same area as going to the bathroom. Doesn't need to be menrioned but if your explicitly not doing it then the dm can apply whatever he feels. LOL!! That's it! My character will explicitly stop going to the bathroom! I want to see the DM's eyes and reaction when I make that claim at the table...
Game mechanically, no, but having done much camping, I recommend a bedroll and a blanket. All of my characters have one. I just think it makes more sense as part of the standard gear. There is so much that we hand wave as it is a game, it seems that lugging around a bedroll and blanket along with a waterskin, rations, and flint and steel should be basic. If it is an encumbrance problem, just drop the backpack as a free action at the start of combat or have the beefy types carry it for you on request.
I totally agree that while "any" object may be used as an improvised weapon, not just any object is an improvised weapon. Clear? Like you said, I may be carrying a book, but in that case it is just a book. When I take it as SlimGauge said and begin to purposely wield it, then it becomes an improvised weapon. The same can be said with a bottle or whatever else may be taken and used. I have never thought of the idea of using rings, but if it is something like a class or school ring, then yes, I could see that as a weapon. I have been thumped on the head by my brother's class ring in the past when he spun it around and gave me an open hand whap to the head. It hurt!!
Yes, Spellcraft or Craft (weapon), not both! Which ever one is better for you is the one that I would use. Spellcraft just applies to all crafting of magic items so it is the best bang for your buck if you are going to load up on skill points. Of course, I have dwarven characters who use the craft skill as it seems more appropriate. The caster level to craft a +1 weapon is 3rd. So normally it would be DC 8 (CL 3 + 5). If for some reason you were not 3rd level but were able to craft (such as with a bonded item), then you can add 5 to the DC and skip the requirement so it would be DC 13 (CL 3 + 5 + 5 for requirement). To make a +1 weapon Holy it would be DC 12 (CL 7 + 5) if the crafter was good and had Holy Smite. If you were good but did not have Holy Smite, then you could add 5 to the DC to make it DC 17 and skip that requirement, etc. You do NOT have to be the caster level mentioned in the item or ability description. That just sets the DC. The only times that caster level becomes a requirement is if it is listed under requirements like for weapon enhancement bonus, bracers of armor, etc. In your example you could be 3rd level and make a +1 weapon with no problem, just a DC 8 check, plus time and money. You could add Holy to the +1 weapon with no problem, just a DC 12 check, plus time and money. You could even later add an additional +1 later, but if you are not 6th level or higher, then you would have to add 5 to the DC to skip the requirement and so it would be either a DC 11 for a 6th or higher level caster or a DC 16 for a 5th or lower caster. I hope I did not confuse things or make them too complicated. Once you get a hang of it, it is becomes very simple to understand. Feel free to ask more questions or give more information on what you are trying to do and what type of character this is.
There is no change in class levels or racial hit dice. Polymorph Rules shows exactly what changes. So, +10 Disguise to appear like that creature, bonuses to ability scores and natural armor, movement types and other benefits such as movement, resistances, and senses. If you were a 10th level wizard polymorphed into a Behir, then you are now a 10th level wizard with Behir abilities as listed but no extra hit dice.
If you start from the spell with the highest caster level that is affecting the wizard and work your way down until he successfully dispels a spell or fails to dispel any spells. You just roll one dispel check and then go down the list. If all of the spells are at the wizard's caster level of 13, then he cannot dispel any of them with the roll he had. Targeted Dispel: One object, creature, or spell is the target of the dispel magic spell. You make one dispel check (1d20 + your caster level) and compare that to the spell with highest caster level (DC = 11 + the spell's caster level). If successful, that spell ends. If not, compare the same result to the spell with the next highest caster level. Repeat this process until you have dispelled one spell affecting the target, or you have failed to dispel every spell. He can dispel his spell that was on the wizard and he does not even have to roll. You automatically succeed on your dispel check against any spell that you cast yourself. So it appears that he would have dispelled his Dimensional Anchor. The safer way to go is to use the targeted dispel to dispel a specific spell instead. That way there is no chance he will get his own spell.
Then game on as he seems a little like a jerk to you (just getting one side of the story mind you) and so you ought to be well within your rights to plan your nefarious scheme! Good luck!
Man... My DM won't know what hit him... I know you probably mean this well and I am not lecturing you, but I have found as both a player and a DM it does not go well when you try and "surprise the DM." I always run these scenarios past the DM if I feel it is a little out there. You may be 100% in the right, but it wastes table time for you and him to argue it out there. Just my two cents!
It occurs to me, since Pathfinder is 'backwards compatible' one could make a Simulacrum of Pun-Pun... Hence what I said early on this thread: If you like the kobold that can destroy the world with a thought or endless wishes from an icy replica of an outsider, then go for it.
I think if you are going to blame players for using the rules like LazarX does, why are you bothering to post in the rules forum? I post in the rules forum because... #1 I like to help out those who honestly have a question or misunderstanding about the rules. or #2 I sometimes seek clarification regarding how a rule works or interacts with other rules. I think the rules forum is an excellent place to grow in knowledge and understanding of the game. What I do not believe is that a thread like this even belongs in the rules forum. It is about an idea that is absurd and no sane or rational person, in my opinion, would allow it unless they knew the ramifications it could have on the game. Also, I never said that I think that players using the rules is a bad thing. I think that players purposefully exploiting rules to show how powerful or amazing they can bend and twist words are a problem. They should be lawyers and not gamers. I come from the era were rules where sometimes rather loosely defined and the DM had to be as much of a judge as a storyteller and artist. I do, however, feel that a sound set of rules is important for a fun gaming experience. You will recall that I joined the conversation saying that I do not believe the rules are broken rather it is players and DM's as accomplices that break perfectly sound rules.
The "community" needs to learn that it can help itself. Amen!! It's broke, it needs to be fixed. It is not Pathfinder that is broken, it is players who try to go beyond what is fun to most and DM's who have no control over their table that is broken. If you guys think think that this is broken, then you should never step near AD&D or other editions. If you like the kobold that can destroy the world with a thought or endless wishes from an icy replica of an outsider, then go for it. Do not, however, waste the time of developers with nonsense like this. It is time for the DM's of the world to step up and say enough is enough to all the silly munchkin plots and hair-brained schemes out there. I have no issue with Dr Deth or anyone on these messageboards but I think we would get more good FAQ if we did not have things like this gumming up the works. I also think the developers are hesitant to post because when they do, they get munchkins crawling out the woodwork to find out how to further twist their words. DM's need to just take back control and run their games the way they and their players want and we would have half as many threads on here. Sorry for the rant!
Under the grapple rules for Tie Up it says: "If you have your target pinned, otherwise restrained, or unconscious, you can use rope to tie him up. This works like a pin effect, but the DC to escape the bonds is equal to 20 + your Combat Maneuver Bonus (instead of your CMD)." and "If the DC to escape from these bindings is higher than 20 + the target's CMB, the target cannot escape from the bonds, even with a natural 20 on the check." However, the creature that is "tied up" could still try and burst the bonds correct? "Rope, Hemp: This rope has 2 hit points and can be burst with a DC 23 Strength check." "Rope, Silk: This rope has 4 hit points and can be burst with a DC 24 Strength check." "Chain: Chain has hardness 10 and 5 hit points. It can be burst with a DC 26 Strength check." It makes sense that they could burst the bonds but the troubling line in Tie Up was the "If the DC to escape from these bindings is higher than 20 + the target's CMB, the target cannot escape from the bonds, even with a natural 20 on the check" line. Also, I may have missed it but I assume it would be a standard action to burst the bonds.
At will means that he has no limits to how many times per day he can use it. It still requires a standard action to activate unless the ability or power entry says otherwise. Constant means that it is always on and so does not normally require an action to activate. Edit: Williamoak is correct about reactivating constant abilities as a swift action.
Pffft...there is only an 11% chance of failure if viewed once. What could pooosssibly go wrong?!? I have had no less than two groups wind up in the middle of an ocean because of failed teleports. Not fun for the fighters!!
|
