There isn't anything on non-humanoids using magic items (except for horseshoes) in the rules. Sorry OP, none of what you were looking for.
Search Posts
But I thought it was human nature to push limits as far as they can go...(or maybe that was a bad line from a bad movie). This thread has derailed so badly that the train is in the Pacific. I believe the answer to the OP is "no official answer; just pick one of the attacks". EDIT: @ Quantum Steve: It's the fact that they literally broke an archetype and a half.
Oh, I've seen it. A 'true' rules lawyer would accept the errata (however begrudgingly) and play by it. I'm not sure what wraithstrike described should be called, but they are a whole other breed of bad gamer. I'm surprised that they can still find groups to play with. As futile as it may be, it's about (and I know that it is a sore spot; don't jump me for this) things like what they did to the monk. That level of inconsideration should not be tolerated.
Then they should do that. It wouldn't be hard. All it would take is a statement that it doesn't stack with itself; something they put in Haste. In the first printing, if memory serves. At least with errata it's official. FAQs seem not to be scrutinized (by Paizo)like errata is. And another kick to the quickly dieing horse: Why didn't the FAQ address the Speed weapon property in general, instead of just the amulet? It matters because this game is bad enough with rules lawyers; if the rules and/or reasoning get sloppier, it's done for. Fitting into a new group (with their own conventions on the rules) would be less fun than repeated blows to the genitals with a sledgehammer. At the very least the rules need a predictable structure.
Please: no fluff reasoning. This is the Rules Questions section. I ask this because fluff is not rules, and has no impact on RAW. Using your example: the Speed property isn't a spell effect, it's a property of the weapon. So they are different. This is the whole 'similar' thing again. Not the core of my problem with this. Here is my problem: the Paizo crew has had many chances to address this, both errata cycles and through FAQ. They have not errata'd it at all, and their only FAQ only states the reason "It's too powerful". Nowhere did they state that it doesn't work because they can't stack. There is an implication of other answers, but they arn't stated. Why not? That FAQ entry has been edited before for a tangential numerical error, so why not an actual rule saying it doesn't work? Do the devs know something we don't? It can't be errata; they had a chance to put that in with the last set. We got a FAQ that was 100% opinion. The best/most common answer is based on subjective interpretation. EDIT: I have no idea where I'm going with this anymore.
What an amusing and obscenely dangerous idea. This demands looking into. EDIT: preliminary results: the magic item section only talks about characters and humanoid shaped bodies. Cannot find anything in the bestiaries on the implications of polycephalia.
Yes. Exactly. "Similar" isn't yes or no, there are degrees and conditions of similarity. So I'll ask (PURELY as a thought exercise): what degree of similar qualifies?
If this was the advice section, I wouldn't make more than one post in a thread like this(unless asked to). This is the Rules Questions section. I will go back and forth until every possible reasoning path has been tested, or the answers found. In particular, I am dissatisfied/dissapointed with how the Paizo crew handled this. So I will ignore the Errata in FAQ clothes and slam my head against this until my head breaks or the answers form from the aether and splashes of blood from head trauma.
And I can say that charcoal and diamonds are similar, or that my 7 cent bic pen and my boss's $120 gold tip marble body fountain pen are similar. Or how about Haste (the spell) and having a BAB of +6 or greater? Both of those give me an extra attack during a full-round attack action. Are they similar?
You clearly didn't see the problem, or didn't clearly see the problem. With something as open to interpretation as 'similar', it is left up to the individual to make a determination. So: does the part "with this weapon" not have enough impact to move it away from being similar, or is it enough to make it distinct? There CAN be more than one correct answer when the question is subjective. THAT is the problem.
Quote, from the rules, the definition of 'similar'. See the problem?
DM: "The magistrate informs you of a mage preforming bizarre experiments in a nearby village. It is nearing harvest season, and he wants your group to guarantee the safety of this year's crop." Seeing as how the bomb puts a target "under the effect", it seems to bypass a save.
I *Hate* this FAQ. It is a blatant attempt to issue errata without it being official. The argument can be made that having multiple weapons with speed grants multiple additional attacks. If the rules completely disallowed that, SKR would have said so in the FAQ. That would have been an undebateable statement of the rules, but he didn't. It also doesn't clarify what you DO get for additional attacks. There hasn't been an errata for the AoMF, so the RAW for it hasn't changed. If the devs thought it needed fixing, it would have gotten changed in the last cycle of errata. Also: The original FAQ has been edited. It quoted the price of a +4 amulet as 45,000 GP. It now reads 80,000, as it should. This mistake makes me think that the FAQ was issued as a knee-jerk reaction.
DM: *checks notes* "You don't find out anything relevant. But you do heat a rumor that the local magistrate is looking for adventurers."
I took a more careful re-read of the sneak attack rules, and it states that "the rogue's attack" can get sneak attack dice. No mention of an attack roll anywhere. So sneak attack can apply to any attack a rogue makes. This would mostly invalidate the arcane trickster's 10th Lv ability, and I have a problem with that.
Always the first question when concerning mage hand: does it weigh 5 lbs or less? He could be carrying lots of coin. As funny as it could be, RAW is clear: just as Reckless pointed out, "unattended" puts the damper on that fun.
In the case of the ballista, there is nothing in the sneak attack rules that disqualifies it from sneak attack damage. As for TK, the spell generates attack rolls. Assuming that attack rolls equal attacks, sneak attack would have to be determined for each attack.
You might want to consider working some levels of duelist into the build. Precise Strike is the only thing that doesn't work with TWF, and any firearm is piercing, so they work with all of the other class abilities, including the 10th Lv one. Sword and Pistol is neat, but I recommend the Deft Shootist grit feat (also from UC), as it is easier to get and covers reloading. It is feat intensive either way; fighter levels can help with that, though a level of Gunslinger or two are a great help.
Maybe, but the point is that the referenced creature, the Will-o-wisp, has "Natural Invisibility (EX). That would be the inconsistency in your scenario.
There are a few mistakes in the FAQs, and if the reply hasn't been added to the errata, it isn't truly a part of the game. It IS an inconsistency, and it's probably one that will never see an errata-level correction. With the wording from invisible stalker, it could also be read that any "inherent" source of invisibility isn't subject to invisibility purge. What "inherent" means, I don't believe it says, but it's just a small piece of evidence showing yet another small flaw in the game.
Stuff like this can be interesting, but don't try to implement an overly complex system or the bog down with the rules can ruin it. You probably have already, but have you looked at Ravenloft/Call of Cthulhu material? Most of those books have interesting ideas, as do their support communities. My one real suggestion is that you don't try to force a 1-100 chart. Just do 50. Or 25. Give yourself more time to develop the core of what you are doing, instead of a set of charts that the players will try to avoid rolling on.
The stat block needs to be finished, and the Dex/Wis effect should be either damage or drain, not just "loss". It's mindless, so it shouldn't have any skill ranks. Is it not supposed to do anything to an engulfed creature (other than get it drunk)? What about each round of being engulfed is equivalent to having a drink or two? An interesting idea, sounds similar to an amber ooze (Tome of Horrors). How about a series of oozes based on this list?
Vampiric Touch is always good. Just a question of who gets the temp HP.
This is only a personal thought, but a 1 ft wide stream doesn't quite fit with my idea of "immersion". I also don't quite like the implication of if the decanter works like this on a vampire. Vampire recruitment Day 1:
1) Avoid sunlight
Any questions?"
Reading his posts, the OP doesn't mention power gaming as a problem, he is using it as a comparative, so the advice about weakening a character seems misguided. It seems more like the inability to let a misplay of the rules go, regardless of the consequences. Whether a player was saved or killed (or whatever example) because a rule was misplayed doesn't matter; what matters is that the rule wasn't followed exactly. For me, it's almost a neurotic compulsion that I play the rule a close to exactly correct as possible. It's something that even I find somewhat annoying about myself, but it's something I feel I MUST do. (I hope I'm not derailing the OP's thread too much.)
This is me. thegreenteagamer, I'm in the same boat as you. It's an almost uncontrollable impulse to correct whatever mistake has been made or whatever misunderstanding comes up. What really sucks about it is that half the time the other person is dead set that they are right, and they take the correction as an attack. Anecdote: I play with a GM that is convinced that 1) swarms take 50% damage from area of effects (instead of +50%) and 2) fractions are always rounded up. I've tried to bring it up multiple times (avoiding the issue during sessions), but the GM is dead set against it. I have found that forcing the issue when you run, then quoting the rulebook verbatim when it's questioned can resolve the issue, at least for the short term, but this can be considered antagonistic. However, if even this doesn't work, a reevaluation of whether or not that person is worth playing with is warranted. It really depends on the group dynamic, though. If the group in general acknowledges whatever rule is in question, the mistake usually ends up corrected. tl;dr: I feel you, bro. Just do what you can.
I would like to see something like this, or maybe something closer to a reference guide; something where rules are described in shorthand and page numbers are given for the source book. Could be very handy. Of course, it is unlikely that this would happen. Buy the PDF, put it on your smartphone....job done. This comes across as very condescending. So what if I don't have a smartphone? Or I specifically want a physical copy? PDF/smartphone is a nice suggestion, but not an end-all answer. |