James Risner's page

Cevah presented a perfect reply. One thing of not is some items are intentionally over charged. A prime example of that is ring of invisibility. They cost more than the formulas because their utility is better than your typical 2nd level spell.

The actual question they are wanting answered is:

For spell stacking rules, if a magical effect is not a spell it is exempt from stacking rules because a supernatural effect is magical but not a spell.

James Risner wrote:

It doesn’t Matter whether or not it’s a spell.

but it does, as only the effects in spell form prevent things from working together

The rules disagree with you, the developers disagree with you, and I don’t understand why you keep repeating it. Can you articulate why you feel so strongly everyone else is wrong?

A virtual thing can't be an "item".

An unarmed strike is listed on the manufactured weapon chart, but it’s not a real weapon nor does it use a specific part of your body.

I'm the PFS GM, I'm totally okay to allow level 1 hedge witches to have the archetype's full abilities then.

If that is how you believe the rules work, yes.

I normally run the PVP Arena fights at GenCon. I'm looking to add some pregens this year so people don't have time to build a character can join in the fun.

If people are interested in working together on some theoretical optimization of 12th level PFS legal characters using no more than 108,000 gp and require no more than 50 prestige points plus no use of any boons or scenario/module specific features. I'd love to hear some of the builds.

I’m also on the replacing, you get it at the level it replaced bandwagon.

1) we have lots of FAQ on stacking that handle non stacking of spells and magical effects, so the spell stacking rules don’t require spells.
2) wild shape is a polymorph, enlarge doesn’t stack with polymorph whether or not it changes size.
3) yes, but if you have a polymorph it’s ignored.

Demonic Bulk is “as enlarge person” which won’t stack with any polymorph effect.

there is no need for an FAQ and they have their 'normal' sources [Orc bloodline, Elemental/draconic bloodline and Blood havoc].

+1

But I don't even get how the nested (ability) source even factors in here? There is no other stat it is looking to fill here? It isn't like it's asking for an ability or some other stat. How do you see the nested source can in any way be connected to this question?

the reasoning is wrong (because it is too powerful).

Think of that reasoning as "here is another way you know this isn't right" and less "this is the reason it's blocked".

Yeah, but RAW is stupid.

That line of thinking leads to the answer that an amulet of mighty fists with the speed quality grants an extra attack with each unarmed attack (which is wrong by FAQ).

I think it's less "RAW is stupid" and more "using interesting interpretations to get to a cool for me RAW".

Most RAW is pretty easy to figure out which interpretation is likely and which is not.

Anchoring Weapon that has Levitate

I just don't get why two items conferring the same untyped bonus wouldn't stack.

Because Anchoring Weapon does not equal Levitate.

It's why we have FAQ on untyped ability bonuses. The whole rule system is strongly against same source stacking. When you have two different abilities with different names and different ways they work both adding the same ability. It was felt the ability was the source, so an FAQ made it clear that two different abilities that both add Charisma are the same source (Charisma).

You don't need to "get" why, just understand that two menacing weapons are the same source because they both have the menacing property.

If your bonus is 5 and you have a MW weapon, then you can have any of these:

• +5
  
• +1 brilliant energy
  
• +2 nullifying
  
• +3 holy
  
• +3 flaming

It lets you store one spell that can be discharged with any unarmed attack such as unarmed strike, natural weapon, etc.

intentionally fudging anything over there and not sure why you would accuse them of that.

Fudging is a harsh term, but they have no quibbles about doing editorial review. Things such as editing sentences “to make it easier to understand”, adding “Special:” lines to feats that don’t exist in the rules, and marking archetypes as stacking when they clearly don’t. I’ve brought up most of these issues with the site, none seem to get fixed.

I think they don’t see it as fudging as much as clarifying. It’s bad whatever term they want to use.

Honestly This Thread has me far more interested in how many natural attacks the Green Men actually gets since it's unclear whether they're only granted by their special abilities.

2 slams are clear.

Anything beyond that requires ignoring the rule about not getting any abilities not listed (Vines/Thorns).

I’m also interested in the shifter and I’m not concerned with other classes doing better.

You are failing to remember a whole host of FAQ that deviated from a technical reading you suggest. I could list you 15-20 just brainstorming. I’m sure you could just by reading the FAQ and remembering the various FAQ over the years you have participated.

The other thing you are missing is most of the time when we have developer comments “it works this way” as a known thing, the resulting FAQ ends up confirming those concepts. I can count a couple that failed to do so compared to a large number of successes.

Do we have anything saying the green men are actual deities? Sure they are deity-like creatures, but that’s not the same thing. It’s the same way that spell-like abilities aren’t actually spells.

They grant high level spells to Druids, so they are dietities.

James Risner wrote:

Each Green Man is a different unique entity that grants different spells.

And each human is a different unique entity that has a different taste in music. That doesn't mean you can't take the form of that general type of creature.

That isn’t how they write the rules. You can be a generic human. You can’t be a generic diety. You can choose to assert “But RAW” but that just means you are choosing to ignore parts of the rules by using a interpretation counter to design, known stated intent, and convention.

Now, as you would be taking the form of an avatar

Green Men are Deific, an avatar as you say.

your appearance is always that of a generic member of that creature's type

There is no "generic" member of a deific/avatar/god.

Same is true for Yig and other avatars/gods.

I'd rule as soon as it's hardened, it's no longer fragile without looking it up. Just on the word use.

If you disagree, post the relevant rules and maybe we can dissect it more.

If you GM agrees, you are good to go. You don’t need consensus, approval, or permission of any other person.

Weirdo is so smart! That is an awesome way to frame it.

At any point during this movement,

If you don't move, you can't do something during the move.

TWF Penalties are -2/-2.
That means the first attack is at -2 and the second attack is at -4.

I defy anyone to prove me wrong. Give me your evidence. I like evidence.

Oh? Bring it! I like evidence. Bring forth the evidence. I will examine your evidence.

See that is baiting.

Baiting isn't about personal remarks. It's about making a statement, that you know is going to illicit a rejecting response.

I'll give you an Example...

I suspect you've debated it with him in the past, so you'd be better served to say you don't agree, say why, and leave it at that.

If you don't know the history, Scott gets a quirky not at all correct interpretation in his "current arsenal" and he hammers it through with sufficient number of locked threads until Paizo gives a FAQ tailored specifically to Scott as he is the only person who shares his view. When it happens, he proudly champions the fact he saved the forums.

When really all is happening is he engages in baiting with the most polite manner as possible to evade being seen to be baiting.

a monk with twf with 6 bab and a slam would be +4/+4/-1/-1 unarmed strikes +4 for the slam because of the twf penalties

natural weapons are not a manufactured weapon.

So twf penalties are not applied to natural weapons. Instead, you make them secondary and apply the -5 penalty to BAB for them.

Scott is very disrupting on a number of threads and topics. He regularly engages in Baiting like this, which is a community guideline violation.

Very unlikely to get an official response. Can you not ask your GM?

Based on the past, it is extremely likely the official response is "no, it only works on arcane and divine as written."

Do you have a rules-based argument to demonstrate I am wrong? I would like to hear it.

You have been shown rules that say your entire interpretation is wrong. You just ignore it and continue to say "show me a rule".

+1 on instead means
The stat block tells you all the attacks you get regardless of bab.

why would unchained monk not be able to take it paizo have stated all new monk archetypes will be compatible with unchained monk

No monk archetypes work unless they tell you how they differ in chained and unchained. So unless it says how it works in both, it doesn't work in unchained.

There is just too much information to reference on this. This FAQ reminds me of the damage dice one. It would have been a non-starter until someone compiled a working formula.

Does someone have the time (in this thread) to compile a list of the various, and the most likely intended use of them. In a fair and reasonable way? In other words, "not the most powerful way to interpret".

If someone has that time, the chance this will get answered will go up. If not, it waits until they have months of weekly meetings to devote to it OR nothing else to do.

You can not ready a charge unless you have the Rhino Charge feat.

Pretty sure Rhino Charge feat didn’t exist 7 years ago when this thread was created.

FYI I'm still getting logged out. Which is fine, if it's still being worked on.

+2 because they don’t stack.
It doesn’t matter why the bonus was added, just that it’s the same type.

Yaba may be new. As the FAQ process has been explained, the faster they can:
Read the question.
Read the links to the rules.
See the pitfalls you provided.
Make a ruling.

If all that can be done in 15 minutes, you are likely to get an answer.
Otherwise, be patient. It could take months, years, never.

What’s to FAQ.
Humans (and other two hand) have a primary and one offhand.
Kasatha has one primary and 3 offhand.

You only have attacks equal to your total offhand via twf/mwf rules.

Nothing else adds attacks to offhand.
Haste and other things (that mostly don’t stack) add things to bab/primary attacks.

There isn’t much confusion on this subject. Yes you can find the occasional thread where no one came along to correct for this. Yes you can find FAQ answer threads (vestigilearm) where developers tried in vain to explain how some where reading the rules wrong like you are. No that doesn’t mean you get infinite attacks just cause.

The game is designed for 2 arms, period.

So really your problem isn't with the Devs but with the players forcing the Devs to no longer keep it simple?

I think their problem is with Devs not spending thousands of hours rewriting all ambiguous rules to be program code with every term used with a dictionary definition. They’d like rulebooks 43,556 pages long.

Any time hyper-analysis is used, it’s nearly always destined to be wrong. I’d bet anything 90% of FAQ published in the last 5 years corrects for hyper analysis.

Loudly is when you assert only you can translate rules into meaning and you not accept other interpretation not invented by you. That’s loud, disruptive, and harmful. This game is not designed to be interpreted that way. It’s not machine code with one path from words to meaning. It never will be. This type of quibbling turn people I know personally away from the forums. I’m sure it turns many more people I don’t know personally away.

All classes are written from the point of view of single classed characters.

As a result phrases like “upon reaching 4th level”
Mean
“Upon reaching 4th level in this class”

They are, unless told differently.

That line of thinking leads swify to not understanding “why they nerfed my stuff” questions.

In other words, the magic makes it special and you can’t swap out a material hoping to make it BETTER better.

Look up the magus FAQ on spell combat that explains that “magus spells” means “spells cast from magus spell slots on your magus class spell list” and why they use short hand of “magus spells”.

Thelemonache, that would be a violation of “break other rules”. You know, the unspecified one for doing xyz.

i agree with darksol, if it was modifying extract or altering it, it would have been printed with saying it does, but it is printed by saying it only replace poison use, so it does not alter or modify or change extract

Let's try to stay on the issue, because saying how you think they write the rules doesn't match up with how they say they write the rules. See Gisher's post above. They simply don't write that it modifies or alters everything that modifies or alters most of the time. If you interpret things saying they modify or alter as the only things that modify or alter, you are missing most of the rules.