Komoda's page

If I understand this correctly, a player loses "class feats" and chooses "archetype feats" that are just a regular feat tree with some linked theme.

That assumes that "class feats" are just feats that you gain when you level.

If I am correct, how is this new or different from anything?

Isn't this exactly the same as not having archetypes at all?

If you have 1 round of Feather Fall, you can fall 60ft. while taking no damage, not counting however far you fell before using Feather Fall, which is nullified. What are you jumping down from that you need to safely fall 540ft.?

The back of a dragon.

Does he have a 10 minute limit to answer questions?

As far as the NPC statblock I think you misundertand. I do think they can be used at times. As an example if I can show how several monsters can only use claws or weapons that can back up a point due to consistency, but at the same time one single statblock is not proof without something to back it up. It is evidence at best, and in this case the evidence is weak.

The Multiweapon Fighting feat has its own confusion. Does it mean that it replace the entire TWF tree or just the one feat. There have been debates on this alone. The writing could be a requirement or an option. There is no way to know, no matter what side of the argument someone is on.

There is no proof that double slice allows you to add 1.5 strength mod. We don't even know how TWF and two-handed weapons officially act.

Basically the rules do not say how this works, and until an FAQ covers it then it falls to "ask your GM".

I am amazed at how so many people do not understand the difference between evidence and proof.

EDIT:

Man, when I started this, no one had answered yet!

But I'm needlessly wordy, so I was ninja'd hard!

Oof!

Anyway...

There is no easy-to-use template, and, unfortunately it does tend to vary a bit, even in published stuff.

Nonetheless, what I'd recommend is either making it up yourself, or looking at various published examples and extrapolating from there.

You can also get the vague gist based off of the knowledge skill itself.

In your specific case, of a DC 10

- K (engineering): Identify dangerous construction
- K (geography): Identify a creature’s ethnicity or accent
- K (history): Know recent or historically significant event
- K (local): Know local laws, rulers, and popular locations
- K (nature): Identify a common plant or animal
- K (nobility): Know current rulers and their symbols
- K (religion): Recognize a common deity’s symbol or clergy

These are the things that people who aren't really trained in can generally tell you.

You can also adapt things by using the "Monster Lore" section as a template of your own:

Quote:

In general, the DC of such a check equals 10 + the monster’s CR. For common monsters, such as goblins, the DC of this check equals 5 + the monster’s CR. For particularly rare monsters, such as the tarrasque, the DC of this check equals 15 + the monster’s CR or more. A successful check allows you to remember a bit of useful information about that monster. For every 5 points by which your check result exceeds the DC, you recall another piece of useful information.

... so depending on how common the information is, you may adjust the DCs up or down by 5 to 10 points.

So, if, for example, someone has lived in an area their whole life, you might presume they've just picked up more about it (or, at least, their hometown).

In your specific case, of a DC 10 (really DC 15 for most) that'll net you:

- K (engineering): Determine a structure’s style or age
-...

I'm pretty sure a young girl scout could have beaten you to post with that lengthy missive. You can't really claim ninja on that.

Ssalarn wrote:

blahpers wrote:

Driver_325yards wrote:

blahpers wrote:

Ssalarn wrote:

RAW it is impossible to perform a mounted charge on anything other than an animal companion

???

He is saying that a person with a animal companion can make a handle animal check as a free action allowing the mount to charge as a full round action. However, a person without an animal companion has to spend a move action to perform a handle animal check, thus eliminating the ability for the mount to charge.

"Fight with a Combat-Trained Mount" is covered by the Ride skill and is a free action.

Doesn't say what you think it does.

"Fight with a Combat-Trained Mount
If you direct your war-trained mount to attack in battle, you can still make your own attack or attacks normally. This usage is a free action."

If You direct your war-trained mount to attack in battle you may attack normally. This check is necessary for you to make an attack if your mount also makes an attack, and is contingent on you directing the mount to attack, which is a function of the Handle Animal skill. That's what the rules actually say.

Directing a mount to attack is usually a move action with Handle Animal, or a free action for an animal companion.

Brilliant. The rules worked better before the FAQ. Now they've literally broken charge (though still not in the bizarre way Chess seems to think).

Well, unless Paizo design decides to own up, screw the rules, I'm trying to run a game here.

It is my belief that Ride is for mounts you are, riding, and Handle Animal is for creatures you are directing. So if you are on a mount, it would be ride. If you are on the ground point at the mount, it would be Handle Animal.

Combat while Mounted: With a DC 5 Ride check, you can guide your mount with your knees so as to use both hands to attack or defend yourself. This is a free action.

What does that do if not give you the ability to make your mount do something as a free action?

And this:

Control Mount in Battle: As a move action, you can attempt to control a light horse, pony, heavy horse, or other mount not trained for combat riding while in battle. If you fail the Ride check, you can do nothing else in that round. You do not need to roll for horses or ponies trained for combat.

What does having a war trained mount do if it is a move action to control one and a move action to control one that is not war trained? I do believe "attack with" means to use the mount to attack, whether it be the mount's attacks or just by the mount moving you into place. I liken it to "attack with a sword". Attacking with a sword does not mean to attack next to the sword that is also attacking.

I am in the camp that it is a 5' step out of difficult terrain. If there is a 5' square of difficult terrain, you pay the penalty once, not twice. That one time is upon entering.

Right again if two are in melee. A vs B. A swings at B, misses or hits doesn't matter. He then announces I'm gonna stealth cause this brush I'm standing is concealment/cover (any amount doesn't matter). Mind you he doesn't move cause he doesn't have to according to some people's thought. Now its B's turn he just got attacked the guy is in the square next to him and misses that perception check and then announces I'm gonna stealth. A's turn he misses the perception so he doesn't break stealth. Now we had 2 people that were just toe to toe battling it out and now they can't see each other? All because there was a 20% concealment or partial cover?

What's being said is every person in combat should end their turn with now I'm gonna stealth!

OK, so? Using one's environment for a tactical advantage is a huge part of fighting in small groups. It is not like it is going to work all the time. Against equally trained combatants you only have a 50/50 chance.

A lot of the posts here seem to assume that the ability to make a stealth check is equal to succeeding at one when that is not true.

If you can't jump into the brush or some other cover/concealment during a fight then stealth really only works when the DM lets you set an ambush. At work I can walk right at someone that is actively watching me, even talking to me, and duck behind a low wall (office) or between pallet racks and still surprise them seconds later with a shot from a Nerf gun. This stuff is not that hard to do.

Ascalaphus wrote:

No, you just need to be unobserved; cover or concealment are ways to become unobserved.

Absolutely not. You need Cover/concealment AND you need to be unobserved. There is no rules interpretation paradigm where you can just vanish becomes a credible interpretation.

Raw: It's sheer torture of the english language to say that someone with half of their body poking around a corner, standing behind a waist high wall, or in a candle lit room 5 feet away from you is not observed.

There is simply no need to say or even bring up observed if unobserved means "have cover or concealment". The stealth rules could be 3 sentences long

Game mechanics treat them as two seperate clauses. The rangers camouflage ability and hide in plain sight make no sense if the two clauses are one and the same.

There is no point in ever using the bluff check to hide if you can simply hide at will as soon as you have cover or concealment

It leads to absurdities. You can just vanish while fighting someone around a hard corner. Two untrained farmers standing out in the middle of a moonlit pumpkin patch have a 50 50 of being able to batman each other while playing penuckle. While yes, the game does have some absurdities, if one reading of a mundane ability gets you a sane interpretation and one gives you an episode of loony toons, the former is far more likely than the latter.

How, for the love of god, can you ever be unobserved in Pathfinder by a strict reading of the stealth rules? It clearly states that it is not limited to sight. Therefore we should acknowledge that hearing and smell also come into account. As well as shifts in the wind and even taste if one has a strong enough odor.

Beyond that, your statement does not jive with Ultimate Intrigue:

Cover and Concealment for Stealth: The reason a character usually needs cover or concealment to use Stealth is tied to the fact that characters can’t use Stealth while being observed. A sneaking character needs to avoid all of an opponent’s precise senses in order to use Stealth, and for most creatures, that means vision. Effects such as blur and displacement, which leave a clear visual of the character within the perceiving character’s vision, aren’t sufficient to use Stealth, but a shadowy area or a curtain work nicely, for example. The hide in plain sight class ability allows a creature to use Stealth while being observed and thus avoids this whole situation.

Yet you seem to ignore that. Is it your opinion that this clarification is not a part of the rules? I think it clearly debunks your position.

I agree that the ranger's skills are messed up. But the original stealth rules (written at the same time as those ranger skills) didn't do anything per RAW. As such, the stealth rules have changed but not everything that those stealth rules have touched.

And as pointed out before, a successful stealth check does not automatically mean that you are forgotten about or that someone doesn't know where you are. It means that the stealthed person has gained a tactical advantage over you due to your inability to see them. And yes, this includes hiding behind a tree or ducking behind a wall. They can pop up again on either side of the tree or a few feet from where you thought they were and deny you your dexterity to your AC. But you can also just walk around the tree or wall and instantly find them.

Going to mega-necro this thread, because of candlelight.

I rule that candlelight is normal at 5' for LLV characters, because they can read scrolls by it. Dim out to 10'.

Sometimes you just have to use your own interpretation of the rules and enforce that upon your players. If they have objections and are unhappy, things can be changed.

There are stickier rules than vision, but I agree with some that these rules not very clear as written.

Using your own interpretation of rules that are difficult to define, like stealth, is one thing. Making up your own is known as "House Rules". These are fine, but the difference should be understood.

Toast, I understood what you were saying.

Thaboel wrote:

So you mean every drop is to cover 50% of the square so you can argue you can be both standing on the square as well as climbing it?

But that still doesn't resolve the other part of my problem. The reason I initially posted. If a wall is 15 ft high, and i climb 15 ft worth of movement, does that put me on top of the wall, or at the edge.

If the edge is a hard corner, you seem to need an extra 5 feet to move into a wall. Because you can't climb through the corner, but need to climb around it. So to climb on top of a 15 foot obstacle, you'd need to climb 15 ft, but move 20ft (1,2,3,B). As is the case with jumping a 15 ft wide pit. You need to cover the distance AND move into the safe square.

B 3
[]2
[]1
[]A

The main explanation I'm seeing for why it shouldn't be treated as a hard corner is because to climb a 15 ft wall would require you to only climb 15 ft, and that climbing those 15 ft WILL to put you on top of the wall.

And if needing only need to climb 15 feet to get on top of a 15 ft wall and the edge is treated as a hard corner, that means you'r not actually climbing from the bottom of the wall to the top in the 15 feet of climbing. Which is where my OP question comes in. Do we count the distance we need to climb from where our hands are, or where our feet at?

As for where you need to stand to strike down the climber. If you stand on the edge and climber needs to climb around the hard corner (through your 2), and that is the movement that would provoke from someone standing on the edge. Who will make the attack against the climbers flatfooted AC.
If the corner isn't a hard corner and i'm climbing through it, then climbing on top of a wall would never provoke because the edge is still providing you cover. Which just seems really off to me.

I would rule that you can go through the hard corner, in terms of movement spent. It seems to me that the 1/4 speed helps to account for what is going on. Also, gravity is working at a different angle than when the hard corner rules are typically used.

I would rule that an AoO is appropriate. Maybe even two. One, when going over the hard corner, you are clearly at a disadvantage. The second would basically be for standing up from prone. If you intend to be standing when you climb over that edge, you are pretty much getting up from prone.

It's not pedantic. I generally get annoyed myself when people pick apart words in a sentence and completely invalidate abilities by skewing grammar. This isn't that. My view is heavily supported by my understanding of game balance.

Giving two races free access to what you're arguing is essentially a third limb is game-breaking. If your interpretation were valid, there would be no argument against the tail:

- holding a shield and benefitting from the AC bonus
- holding a metamagic rod and using it during Spell Combat
- activating a wand while your hands are occupied
- dual wielding guns and reloading them by holding them with your tail
- holding anything meant to take up an actual hand for balance purposes

In order to gain a "third limb", you generally have to spend a feat or equivalent ability, such as an Alchemist's Vestigial Arm or the Grasping Tail feat.

I do not believe that any race comes with that ability out of the gate.

I do not agree with your interpretation of what holding/carrying means.

Holding a shield is not the same as wielding one. I would allow the tail to hold it but not position it between a target and an attack.

Holding a rod and manipulating it as require for use are completely different things. I can pick up a pen off the floor with my toes. I can't write a single letter with one.

Wands: See rods.

I'm not sure what you mean by reloading guns as I don't know any firearms rules. I will assume you mean loading them with your tail or a combo of tail and hands. Much like the rods, one could not manipulate the gun well enough with a tail to load it. I can pick up a gun with my toes, I damn sure am not going to load it and let the slide ride forward!

Holding/Carrying and Using are completely different. I would not even allow a tail using character to read a scroll held with the tail, but I would surely allow them to carry it.

Here's how I do it:

Did you miss the target's AC? Did you get within 5? Then an image is destroyed. Concealment miss chance is immaterial because mirror image does not specify how you have to miss, just a miss by less than 5 destroys an image.

Did you hit the target's AC? Check to see if you hit an image. If you did, miss change is still immaterial because you either hit the image, destroying it, or you miss due to miss chance, which is a miss by less than 5, destroying an image.

If you hit the target's AC, and did not hit an image, check for concealment miss chance. If you hit, do damage. If you miss, destroy an image, because you have now missed by less than 5.

Basically, if you beat the target's AC yet miss anyway, you have innately missed by less than 5 and pop an image.

Neither side persuaded me until this argument. It seems to be the most logical. I hit FAQ but will use this until it is settled.

I am pretty sure it is impossible to be sure what "landing" means. You and your players are just going to have to choose what works for your table.

Personally, I feel that it is a live saving spell that should save you from the fall no matter what other people/weather does to screw you up.

Komoda wrote:

...

As the game system is defined, there is no "in the mist of the action" phase. Every single action happens before or after another. No action of any kind happens at the exact same moment in time.
...

Are you sure that "[e]very single action happens before or after another?"

CRB wrote:

Free Action: Free actions consume a very small amount of time and effort. You can perform one or more free actions while taking another action normally. However, there are reasonable limits on what you can really do for free, as decided by the GM.

CRB wrote:

Swift Actions

A swift action consumes a very small amount of time, but represents a larger expenditure of effort than a free action. You can perform one swift action per turn without affecting your ability to perform other actions. In that regard, a swift action is like a free action. You can, however, perform only one single swift action per turn, regardless of what other actions you take. You can take a swift action anytime you would normally be allowed to take a free action. Swift actions usually involve spellcasting, activating a feat, or the activation of magic items.

CRB wrote:

Immediate Actions

Much like a swift action, an immediate action consumes a very small amount of time but represents a larger expenditure of effort and energy than a free action. However, unlike a swift action, an immediate action can be performed at any time—even if it's not your turn. Casting feather fall is an immediate action, since the spell can be cast at any time.

It seems to me that those are three types of actions that could occur while other actions were taking place.

I should have said resolved.

Is that from book of Heavily Debated Topics? I’d like to get a copy of that again, as all internet copies are gone now

PM me your email and I will send it to you. It is a 945 KB PDF.

This is old, but here is the original take from WotC.

Can a monk use a +5 gauntlet in an unarmed attack,gaining all of her class benefits as well as the +5 bonus on

attack rolls and damage rolls from the gauntlet?

Gauntlets are indeed a weapon. If a monk uses any weapon not listed as a special monk weapon, she does not gain her better attack rate. She would, however, gain the increased damage for unarmed attacks.

Again, not Paizo, but clearly the original intent of the items. I don't have a link as I have the file saved from way back when.

1. The DC to "stay in saddle" after being hit is 5. It doesn't really say anything other than that and in most cases can be ignored due to high ride checks. (CRB 103-104)

2. The rules surrounding this are horribly worded. No, you do not have to move. (CRB 202)

Melee: You can attack, then move.
You can move, than attack.
You can 5' step and make a full attack.
You can full attack, than take a 5' step.

Ranged: You can attack, then move.
You can move, than attack.
You can 5' step and make a full attack.
You can full attack, than take a 5' step.
You can Move (-0) Double Move (-4) or Quadrupedal Move (-8) and make single or full attacks by adding the proper modifier to all attacks. These attack rolls are made at the halfway point of your movement.

If I have an ability that allows my character to move unimpaired and at normal speed through a certain terrain type or obstacle, do I still need to roll skill checks to advance through a Chase happening at within that specific terrain type or obstacle?

For example, the Streets Mystery for the Oracle, has "Nooks and Crannies (Ex)" which allows normal movement though obstacles and difficult terrain within an Urban Setting. If a Chase took place in an Urban Setting, would I still be required to roll skill checks to navigate the chase?

I am wondering in regards to PFS.

I don't know anything about PFS, but I would rule that it comes into play when the chase scene description matches the movement type ignored. For instance, if you have Freedom of Movement, it would help you navigate through a web spell or difficult terrain but it would not allow you to skip rolling for a scene that required you to climb.

So yes, the skill is useful, but would not allow you to ignore everything.

But it's precisely that "look at minute details" approach to rules that aren't written to a level that supports it that's causing you these problems.

Anyone casually reading these rules isn't going to have these kinds of issues.

"Oh, you want to jump a 10' pit? Look, there's a DC of 10 in the table. Roll."
"You want to jump as far as you can? Roll. You got a 23? You jump 23 feet."

It really is that simple. That's the level of detail the rules support. Parsing every little nuance to see if it breaks doesn't work. And never will. This is so far down the list of things I want the dev team spending time on it isn't even funny.

Anyone casually looking at the rules isn't on page 27.

And if you're not interested in that detail, bow out of the conversation. If the Devs aren't, they won't answer.

I am not emailing them or trying to force them to answer. I am just posting thoughts on the forum where we post thoughts about the rules.

Komoda wrote:

There are rules holes all over the game. Ignoring them doesn't make them or the game better. Finding them and fixing it does.

Fixing every possible law hole that a lawyer could try to exploit would mean we have a CRB with 2000 pages or so. We would need to start with a definition of what is "to jump". And what's "a gap". What are "feet", and what is "to clear".

Rules assume players have a moddicum of common sense. That's why there are no penalties explictly stated for dead characters, but most people assume that dead characters can't take actions.

Now, if the game were meant to be played by automatons, or computers following strictly an algorithm, then yes, rules should be more complex. Probably a few more millions of lines of code. Fortunately, it's not needed.

While I agree with you, in this case I am actually advocating removing one line that most of us ignore anyway.

Komoda maybe...just maybe you are the one creating the issues that don't actually exist.

I've seen a few threads with you in them at this point where you fabricate some issue with a rule being a "mistake" get proven wrong on how your looking at it; with RAW proof or a FAQ, and still refuse to acknowledge it.

You have seen two. And in both cases my position is often completely misunderstood and misrepresented. Maybe I have a hard time getting it across. Maybe I am over thinking it. But in my mind, the question/point I am trying to make is far different than that shown in the FAQ or any DEV post that I have seen.

Is there another FAQ for jump other than the one posted on the CRB page? It makes no mention of this second part of the rule, or the fact that one MUST land where the dice says, rather than the pass/fail nature of most skill checks.

Komoda wrote:

Johnny_Devo wrote:

I'm not using the grid either.

I really don't see what the problem is.

So, based on your picture, ignore the grid, how far does someone move when they get a result of 15 on a jump check? NOT how big is the gap that they clear.

Or another way, What is the movement for the gap cleared and the safe landing area?

And please tell me how you got that number.

They move 15 feet... in the jump. If you had a movement speed of 5000 and you wanted to clear a 10 foot gap that was 2500 feet away then travel another 2000 beyond that, the dc is still 10 to clear it, And the distance travelled in the jump is 10. A safe landing area is not part of the jump, it is the landing, and is not part of the DC nor the distance travelled in the jump.

Remember that in pathfinder, d20 rolls follow a binary "pass or fail" paradigm. You either succeed at jumping 10 feet, or you fail. Then it lets you divine more information: If you failed, how far did you jump? But like attack rolls, exceeding the DC by 10 doesn't mean you overshoot the jump by 10. To suggest otherwise is to suggest that the person making the jump has zero control of how far they jump, and will land, every time, in a random location on a line that measures 20 feet long.

So if you're looking for a DC, the answer is "the amount to be cleared". If you're looking for "as far as I can jump", then the result is your roll.

There's really no longer any reason to obfuscate this further, now that there's a FAQ on how to handle it.

All other skills are binary, or at least really fail/kind of fail/pass/pass better/pass even better etc.

But with the line "the result is the distance traveled in the jump..." you do not have the ability to say, I want to jump 10' and jump 10' with a result of 30. With a result of 30, you have cleared 30' (if you want to or not) and landed another, I guess 1' in. So, even though your target square was 3 squares away, you land 7 squares away.

I don't think anyone disagrees that the rule "the result is the distance traveled in the jump..." says that, do they?

EDIT: And I agree that I play the same way you are suggesting. But I think the actual rule needs to be cleaned up to say as much rather than us just all "knowing" the right way.

Komoda wrote:

What did the Devs confirm? My question/position was not covered in the FAQ.

"Since it didn't EXPLICITLY say so, I'm going to ignore the FAQ and the precedence it sets. Clearly the second half of jumping rules are still completely broken, wrong, and not at all going to match the FAQ from the part above it. I know that the rules are meant to be read to be broken and that's the correct reading of the rules and everyone else is reading it wrong."

Or

You're wrong, everyone else is right. The new FAQ would fallow the other FAQs president, and is going to be the same answer for the bottom part as the top, "If you total 10 you jump 10ft and you traveled 10ft with your jump. You'll likely move more on your turn, but the jumping part is separate from that."

There are rules holes all over the game. Ignoring them doesn't make them or the game better. Finding them and fixing it does.

That is how stealth got changed. That is how the rule that you could take as many free actions as you had attacks got changed. That is how the "metaphysical hands" came into being.

We know that you don't ignore EVERY penalty to attacks with Shield Master, but would still like to see it fixed. We know that darkvision doesn't stop all forms of stealth within 60', even though it EXPLICITLY states that it does. I think we would like that fixed too.

Don't attack me because I think I found a mistake, especially when I am pointing it out as one and not trying to use an exploit. The rule, even if it works the way you say it does, causes problems where having a good jump check can easily make it impossible to jump short distances. The rule is bad. The rule should be removed. Even without my reading of the rule, it is a bad rule that is counter to EVERY OTHER SKILL in the game where the higher you roll, the better you do. Based on that rule, you have a very small window in which to hit your target. You do not get better with a better jump. The target may be impossible to hit if you jump skill is too high. It is a bad rule.

Komoda wrote:

Johnny_Devo wrote:

I'm not using the grid either.

I really don't see what the problem is.

So, based on your picture, ignore the grid, how far does someone move when they get a result of 15 on a jump check. NOT how big is the gap that they clear.

Or another way, What is the movement for the gap cleared and the safe landing area?

And please tell me how you got that number.

someone moves 15ft on a result of a 15 on a jump check.

This depends on where the GM allows you to stand, aka the grid comes back in. But the movement for the gap cleared is the distance of the gap. If the end of the gap isn't a safe square to end in, example: the 9ft pit that starts at the edge of your current square. You clear the jump with a jump of 9, traveling 9ft in the jump and 10ft total movement since it takes 10ft of movement to move into a square two away from you. Then if that's not a safe square to end you suffer that consequence, or you continue moving on land and move 5ft into the next square.

And here is the problem.

1) We know that the DC for a 15' gap is 15.

2) You stated that a result of 15 = 15' of movement.
"someone moves 15ft on a result of a 15 on a jump check."

3) If you move 15' of movement, you fall in the hole.

You have to move MORE THAN 15' to jump a 15' hole.

I agree that the DC is 15. Just that the MOVEMENT of a result of 15 has to be more than 15'. I am willing to say the movement is only 1' more to make it easy.

But the DC cannot be equal to both the gap jumped AND the movement on the map.

Komoda wrote:

Johnny_Devo wrote:

Komoda wrote:

I don't have any idea how why you think I would be advocating anything like that. I am only saying that according to the second form of measurement listed in acrobatics "The result equals the distance traveled in the jump..." (paraphrased) jumping 10' = 10' of movement. This does not work with the DC equals the distance cleared, which is the...

I think the dissonance here is that the jump does not equal the move action.

For example, if you were two squares away from a 3 square wide pit, then the total movement cost to enter the square on the opposite side of the pit would be 25. 7.5 to get to the edge of the pit, 15 to jump it with a DC of 15, 2.5 to get to the center of the square on the opposite side.

The distance travelled in the jump is 15. The dc for the jump is 15. The distance travelled total is 25, and total is not equal to the jump.

My position has nothing to do with the grid, and never did. Like I stated before, I think "distance traveled in the jump" = "distance traveled on the map." Not grid spaces, just 1' increments of the jump.

And in this you're incorrect. Distance of a jump is a clear thing in our world where it's from toe to heel. It's not the distance traveled on the map.

But in the game we play, distance traveled is on the map.

TriOmegaZero wrote:

Komoda wrote:

I only advocate that the movement part (not the DC) is based on heel-to-heel or toe-to-toe measurements (they should match barring very strange feet) and not toe-to-heal measurements.

Why would you advocate that, knowing it leads to a failure state?

Just perform a 180° turn in midair, and since there are no facing rules in Pathfinder, you end up facing whatever direction you want anyway! Problem solved! /snark

Seriously, I've more or less given up arguing with Komoda. They seem dead set on picking the most obtuse possible interpretation and running with it regardless of evidence.

It is hard to debate here because everyone is SO SURE they see the only way a rule can possibly be read. They KNOW they are playing it right, no matter what.

And they might be right. I always try to look at things from the other position to see how they might have gotten there. But on this forum, if the position is different than the popular one, you are treated as a leper, not as a thoughtful being looking to work through the system.

This is most evident when people ridicule what they think are your ideas, when you are saying no such thing. I know the two rules as I read them, CANNOT work together. So the only way to reconcile that is to change the meaning of the actual words "the result equals distance traveled in the jump..." which is what I believe the opposing position has done, without even realizing it. The fact that they can't be reconciled as I read them, and that "the result equals distance traveled in the jump..." makes it VERY difficult to land where you want, is why I advocate for removal of the line.

Even though I pointed out a few times how tough it is to land on a spot that you want to with that line, no one has agreed (or disagreed) with that point. If you have a +20 jump check and try to jump over a 2' stream, you end up at least 2 squares away! That is a stupid rule. You probably ignore it in your games already. Wouldn't you want it just removed?

I mean seriously, even if I am wrong and the measurement is toe-to-heel, not one dissenting person has even agreed that it is counter intuitive and could see why I am having trouble looking at it that way when all other measurements of "distance traveled" in Pathfinder would be measured from toe-to-toe (or center-to-center, line-to-line, edge-to-edge, or whatever).

There is no effort to empathize or understand dissenting positions.

For those that get my position, I can see why it looks like I am trying to force it. But I try not to keep coming back and just restating my position. I do so when someone else misrepresents or misunderstands my position. Like thejeff and Johny_Devo did this time around.

Say something like, "I see your point, but disagree" and the debate is over. "Your wrong." "No evidence." "That's not how it works." "Your obtuse."

Komoda wrote:

I don't have any idea how why you think I would be advocating anything like that. I am only saying that according to the second form of measurement listed in acrobatics "The result equals the distance traveled in the jump..." (paraphrased) jumping 10' = 10' of movement. This does not work with the DC equals the distance cleared, which is the...

I think the dissonance here is that the jump does not equal the move action.

For example, if you were two squares away from a 3 square wide pit, then the total movement cost to enter the square on the opposite side of the pit would be 25. 7.5 to get to the edge of the pit, 15 to jump it with a DC of 15, 2.5 to get to the center of the square on the opposite side.

The distance travelled in the jump is 15. The dc for the jump is 15. The distance travelled total is 25, and total is not equal to the jump.

My position has nothing to do with the grid, and never did. Like I stated before, I think "distance traveled in the jump" = "distance traveled on the map." Not grid spaces, just 1' increments of the jump.

If you get a 1, you move 1'
If you get a 5, you move 5'
If you get a 156, you move 156' (assuming you can).

I don't believe the line was meant to convey "distance traveled in the jump + safe landing area" = "distance traveled on the map."

Now again, I think the line needs to be removed. It is kind of like when drawing in Inventor or other high end CAD program and there are too many constraints. In this case, the two constraints do not match up.

swoosh wrote:

thejeff wrote:

I just saw a 10' pit, looked at the table, found 10' = 10 DC and ran with it. Or found the bit that said you jump your roll in feet and that obviously matched the DC to jump an obstacle.

Overthinking it may be the problem.

Well, on its face that makes sense. It makes a lot of sense, is rules consistent, etc.

But Pathfinder's movement is measured in 5 foot increments. So the confusion comes from the fact that that 10' jump actually moves you 15 feet.

*sigh*

Again, only if the pit is grid aligned, and only for size medium and smaller creatures.

Furthermore, if you take a running start, you move a lot more than 15'.

The rules quite clearly say that the DC is based on the distance traveled in the jump. Though I can understand some confusion since Komodo for some bizarre reason always fails to include that bolded part when he quotes the rule.

I believe distance traveled in the jump = distance traveled so:

You believe distance traveled in the jump = distance cleared by the jump plus the area needed to safely land (whatever distance that may be, because we have no guidance for that). I do not agree that they are the same thing. But whatever.

thejeff wrote:

I just saw a 10' pit, looked at the table, found 10' = 10 DC and ran with it. Or found the bit that said you jump your roll in feet and that obviously matched the DC to jump an obstacle.

Overthinking it may be the problem.

Well, on its face that makes sense. It makes a lot of sense, is rules consistent, etc.

But Pathfinder's movement is measured in 5 foot increments. So the confusion comes from the fact that that 10' jump actually moves you 15 feet.

A lot of people get stuck on the grid but it is a mistake and has nothing to do with my position that the rules do not match. The rules state that if the result of your acrobatics check during a running jump is 8, that you land 8' away. It doesn't care if you were trying to jump 1', 14', or whatever. 8' may put you in the next square or two squares away, depending on where the hole is in the grid. Again, none of this matters to my point.

My point is that if you land 8' after your start, and the hole is 8' wide, you land in the hole.

Furthermore, if you are jumping from wall to wall to wall to wall and those walls are 1' wide and 3' apart, it is almost impossible to land on one of them following the rules. if you have an acrobatics of 6, you cannot roll low enough to land on the closest wall. Unlike every other skill where beating the DC is in your favor, this one use of this one skill may require you to hit an exact number. And that number may be too low for you to actually hit.

Imagine trying to jump 5' to a 5' ledge with a 100' pit on the other side of it. You would only have a 25% chance of making it no matter what your jump check is. Otherwise, RAW, your jump would be too short or too long.

The line that reads something to the effect of "Your result is the distance traveled in the jump..." is a horrible line that just needs to be removed. Even if you ignore the fact that matching the DC would put you in a hole based on this line (which we all ignore or disagree with) it means that you could easily over-jump your target and gives you no way in which to NOT jump so far.

Imagine jumping from one wagon to another. What are they, 4' wide? So you would have to fall in a range of 8 numbers, not just clear the distance between the two. If they are 1' apart you better not have more than a 9 acrobatics because any result higher than a 10 would put you over the target wagon. It doesn't make sense when every other skill is considered more successful the higher you roll.

We are not talking about how to measure jumps in a competition. We never have been. We are talking about movement in Pathfinder.

Just like we don't talk about how to hit someone with a boxer's uppercut when discussing unarmed strike. Or how we don't take into account acceleration and deceleration when running or when controlling a mount's movement.

We are talking about how far a character moves.

If a character moves 5' while swimming, running, flying, walking, burrowing, or tumbling, that character moves 5', or one square away. If a character moves 5' while jumping, that character does not clear a 5' hole, because that character only moved 5', and is still one square away.

If you fall off a 5' thick wall that lines up with the grid, and land 5' away, you land one square away. There is not a 5' gap between you and the wall. If you land 10' away, then you are two squares away. There is a 5' gap between you and the wall.

Yet again, we all agree, the DC for that 5' hole is 5. You just can't move 5' on a roll of result of 5 and still clear the 5' hole.

Simple mathematics shows that you HAVE to move MORE than 5'. But it says that if you roll a 5, you move 5'.

I think we all know what they meant. But it is not what it says.

Komada wrote:

So again, if the gap/DC is 5, and the result of the skill check is 5, by the first quote, you make it. By the second quote (found in the same paragraph) you fail to make it as you land 5' from your starting position, AKA in the hole.

While it can be read that way it does not HAVE to be read that way. You are assuming that the distance traveled and the distance jumped are the same: something that a dc 5 jump check on the chart should have precluded.

This is incorrect. If you land 5' away, you land in the next square. You can never land 2 squares away if you land 5' away. if that first square is a hole, and you land 5' away, you land in that square, and fall in the whole.

There is no other correct reading of that line.

There is another correct interpretation of what that line SHOULD mean. But it is not what that line states.

Shadowlord wrote:

I have a question about your blog post Illuminating the Darkness.

Yeah, "actual light" vs "perceived light" is pretty annoying, particularly for features that rely on the exact position of "shadows". I would tend to agree that anything that depends on the absolute light level of an area should just use the way it works for normal vision; the existence of a creature with darkvision shouldn't negate the shadowdancer's ability to shadow jump, for instance (or else the poor thing would never be able to do it, since she gains darkvision).

While I see no other way to play for most skills and spells that rely upon Dim Light (shadow), doesn't this ruling negate the benefits of Low Light Vision and Darkvision of targets in relation to abilities such as Hide in Plain Sight (Shadowdancer & Assassin versions) even though there is no such mention of doing so in those Hide in Plain Sight abilities?

Komoda wrote:

But the DC to jump a 5' pit is 5 AND the movement of a skill check of 5 is 5'. Both things cannot exist at the same time. There is no question that the rules were written that way and were not compatible.

The rules do not say where the jump is measured from. They say that the DC of the jump is equal to the length of the jump. And since unopposed skill checks are meet or exceed rather than exceed, the jump is clearly not measured where you suppose it is.

You can either keep using your logic that is proven to not work, or you can use the logic that does work and is confirmed in the FAQ.

You keep saying that, but that is not ALL that the rules say, which is the problem. The rules ALSO say that the result of the roll, (5 in the example) is the distance traveled. The distance traveled AND the distance cleared cannot be the same thing.

The base DC to make a jump is equal to the distance to be crossed...

and

For a running jump, the result of your Acrobatics check indicates the distance traveled in the jump...Halve this result for a standing long jump to determine where you land.

So again, if the gap/DC is 5, and the result of the skill check is 5, by the first quote, you make it. By the second quote (found in the same paragraph) you fail to make it as you land 5' from your starting position, AKA in the hole.

Paizo agreed that these statements conflict, hence the FAQ. I think EVERYONE agrees that the DC should be 5. A slight rewording of the second quote would fix everything.

This is so funny.

Draw a line in the dirt.
Draw a parallel line 5' away.
Stand with your toes on one line while facing the other (AKA outside the lines).
Walk 5'.
Notice that you are IN-BETWEEN the lines.
If this was a 5' pit, your 5' of movement would mean you fell in the pit.

But the DC to jump a 5' pit is 5 AND the movement of a skill check of 5 is 5'. Both things cannot exist at the same time. There is no question that the rules were written that way and were not compatible.

Nefreet wrote:

Knight who says Meh wrote:

How was this a question and how did it take 24 pages to answer!?

Because the text of Acrobatics in the CRB was (and still is, despite the FAQ) in contradiction.

One section states that the DC is equal to the obstacle.

One section states that the DC is equal to the distance traveled.

And if someone just wants to jump for fun, to see how far they can jump, with zero obstacles, across a flat plane, there is currently no way to determine how far they jump.

What text are you using? The two references I see are:

Quote:

Finally, you can use the Acrobatics skill to make jumps or to soften a fall. The base DC to make a jump is equal to the distance to be crossed (if horizontal) or four times the height to be reached (if vertical).

and

Quote:

For a running jump, the result of your Acrobatics check indicates the distance traveled in the jump

Can't see how it isn't both clear and consistent, as both refer to the actual width of the obstacle. But then, I don't want another 12 pages either.

They do not mean the same thing. If you travel 10', it is from where the front of your toe starts the jump to where the front of your toe ends the jump. If you travel this 10' while trying to jump a 10' gap, your going to stub your toe as you fall in the hole.

Assuming your feet are 12" long, you would need to "move" 11' to land safely.

So, the distance to be crossed is 10' or DC 10.
But the movement is 11' or DC 11.

When counting squares, it is also a problem. What is the DC to jump over 2 squares? The distance of the jump is 10' = DC 10. The distance of the move is 15' = DC 15.

I am pretty sure everyone agrees the DC is 10 but they just want the book to actually reflect it. You can ignore the fact the book is wrong and play without trouble, but you can't follow both parts as they conflict.

Komoda wrote:

TOZ wrote:

Komoda wrote:

This follows my oppositions logic of HiPS.

No, it doesn't. Please stop misrepresenting other people.

How does it not?

Because an invisible creature is no longer invisible to a creature with See Invisibility. There is no comparable condition for Hide in Plain Sight.

The area is no longer Dim Light to the elf is an exact comparison.

QIbyItwI wrote:

I would love for this to be answered in the FAQ section or in a blog post. It seems to have a lot of entries on the message board. I have a PFS shadow dancer and it makes hide in plain sight (HIPS) seem pretty useless when going against orcs, goblins, kobolds, or drow. The Society GM wants an official response before he will concede that darkvision does not negate the HIPS supernatural ability (that or I would like an official ruling before I concede that it does negate it).

I fail to see how them having Darkvision affects it at all. The wording is such "A shadowdancer can use the Stealth skill even while being observed. As long as she is within 10 feet of an area of dim light, a shadowdancer can hide herself from view in the open without anything to actually hide behind. She cannot, however, hide in her own shadow."

Bolding mine. Now, you just need to be within 10 ft of Dim Light. Your vision does not change Dim Light into normal light. It's just that you can see in Dim and Dark areas with Darkvision. The space is still Dim Light. You meet all requirements and can then skyrim crouch out of vision.

This is incorrect. Dim Light is a condition based on the viewer's eye sight. It is not a condition based on the environment. Areas of Dim Light are not defined. Locations of light sources are.

The same single square can be different for a character with Darkvision, Low Light, or Normal.

Take a square 45' away from a torch. One of each character is standing at the torch.

Normal Vision can't see anything.
Low Light sees it as Dim Light.
Darkvision sees it normally.

And interestingly enough, if they all step back 20', there is no change for Normal Vision or Low Light, but the guy with Darkvision now can't see the square. So the light level of the square changed for one of them just because of position.

The square itself has no "standard" light level. It is only the light level as per the viewer.

Furthermore, supernatural does not mean superpowerful. The definitions of Extraordinary, Spell-like, and Supernatural are only categories of how special abilities interact with things like AoOs and Anti-Magic fields. Saying, "Because Supernatural" is just like saying, "Because Magic" and that doesn't work for this argument. The fact that HiPS does not work in an anti-magic field has no bearing on what really is Dim Light. Extraordinary abilities, like Low Light Vision, are superior to Supernatural abilities. They have the same properties, except that Extraordinary abilities ALSO work in areas of Anti-magic. So again,, "But Supernatural" has no bearing.

Another example is cover. You do not have cover from a massive tree due to being in a square next to said massive tree. You only have cover if that tree is between you and the viewer. It changes per viewer, and it changes if that viewer moves.

I understand that it is supremely complicated. Light and Terrain are probably the most complicated and most ignored parts of the game. But if you really start to use them, they totally change the combat around. And it is absolutely not fair to only take the very best parts of it, like HiPS and ignore the powerful sight abilities that some creatures have.

Yes, it is harder to sneak up on a dwarf than a human. So sad, too bad.

You can't.

PRD wrote:

The ready action lets you prepare to take an action later, after your turn is over but before your next one has begun.

Also somewhat important:

PRD wrote:

Then, anytime before your next action, you may take the readied action in response to that condition.

So if you decide to take a free action to talk, you took an action and cannot use your readied action.

This super strict reading of the rules is destructive to the game. Of course you can talk, breathe, make a saving throw, or an attack of opportunity. I am sure there are other examples of things you can do as well.

As your original turn is over, you could not take swift or move actions. You could take immediate actions with no loss to your readied action unless the result of the immediate action somehow invalidates your readied action.

There are a lot of misconceptions in this thread.

Interrupt is a horrible word that means two different things.
One is that it STOPS something.
One is that it happens BEFORE something.

Pathfinder uses both definitions at different times and it is very difficult to know which one they are using without the full context. The definitions are different when dealing with Spellcasting and almost everything else.

----

AoOs are not Free Actions. Free Actions do not have hard limits on times they can be done in a round. There are no feats that give you more Free Actions. There is a feat that gives you more AoOs.

----

In Pathfinder melee & ranged combat, all these interrupts (AoOs and Readied actions) resolve in the reverse order of declaration. This is often referred to as "First In, Last Out."

----

AoOs happen BEFORE the triggering action. That is why the trip lock mentioned above does not work. Someone declares they are standing. The AoO happens, which could in fact be a trip, then once it is completed, the original character stands up. But he would stand up AFTER the AoO, so even if it was a trip, it would not stop him from standing up. It doesn't affect him WHILE he is standing, only before.

----

So, in the case of readied actions vs AoOs, the order in which they start is inverse to the order of resolution.

If the AoO triggered the Readied Action, the Readied Action resolves first, then the AoO is resolved. If the Readied Action triggers the AoO, the AoO resolves first and then Readied Action is resolved.

----

Spells are COMPLETELY different. They should never be used as the "normal" way for handling AoOs.

----

If the same character gets to make the AoO and take the Readied Action on one trigger, who cares what order you go in? Both triggered at the same time, and both can be resolved easy enough.

----

Thoughts of "but since he died, the original trigger never happened" are technically true, but don't matter. The actions in the game have to be resolved in some logical order. That would even be true if it were a computer game. Even if it was so fast, you couldn't see it. This is the order that the designers chose.

----

Happy Gaming.

This is a discussion forum about rules, right? It is not a rules citation site. It is not any one of the many sites that list the rules verbatim.

Of course this forum is about intent, RAW, and just what we as the players and customers thinks makes sense. Even FAQs have been modified or completely changed due to our discussions.

It is very likely that parts of the rules that many people think are absolutely clear are very murky to others. And sometimes, that murkiness points out problems with the rule, not an inability to understand something.

So I would ask, and often have, that people just realize that opposing views and ideas are not such a horrible thing. It is what makes a debate. But trying to be so absolute in the idea that your position can be the only one is just insane.

Relax, discuss, and debate. Stop attacking the other side's viewpoint or play style. Because in the end, you're gonna go play your way anyway.

Right. It says Brawler levels count.

It doesn't say Brawler levels AND Fighter levels count. Therefore, Fighter levels don't count. It is very easy to read that Brawler levels = fighter levels overrides fighter levels. How could you not?

It is as obtuse and ridiculous as saying Brawler 4 = Fighter 4 but Brawler 4 = Fighter 4 + Fighter 4 /= Fighter 8.

It makes zero sense.

It all comes back to the trip lock.

Interrupt is meant as "go before" not "Stop opponent". That is why the trip lock does not work. When tripping a prone character that is standing up as an AoO, there is no benefit because the prone character just gets up after the trip attempt. The prone character was not stopped.

Imagine this:

Player 1 Readied action, "I attack if someone attacks me."

Player 2 action "I move up to and attack player 1"

Readied action happens and Player 1 5' steps BEFORE triggering action.

Player 2 continues his action. His action was to move up to and attack. He MUST (strict reading, not mine) continue moving up and attack. So he continues moving up 5 more feet and attacks.

The interrupt (read as: change order of actions) happens before the attack. Therefore Player 2 never finished his move action and can complete it.

This all fits within the strict reading of the Readied Actions.

The problem is the absolute mentality of many people on this forum. They see a rule interpretation as one way and only one way. When in reality they have just made a choice as to which they think is correct.

Diego points out you target a creature, not a square. True, and ridiculous all in one.

If I target a creature, and the creature moves but I don't change my targeting, I can't hit the creature. So, to hit a creature with a bow, that has moved due to a triggered readied action, the attacker MUST be allowed to change his targeting. Otherwise the best he could do is hit where the target was.

But wait, why couldn't the same attacker just move another 5' (assuming movement available) and finish the attack? Clearly the readied action happens BEFORE the attack, as stated in the CRB. If it happens before the attack, then there is no reason why the movement has to stop.

But to some people, that's just crazy! According to them, you have got to be off your rocker to even imagine such a scene. How dare you! Maybe one day you will get it. On like your fifth try.

But seriously, as written, both ways are legitimate interpretations of a turn-based system that tries to keep a "live action" feel. And until the Devs actually rule on how interrupts really work in the game, this question will arise.

No matter how many times you say "sightless is 'not able to see'," it doesn't become true. Sightless means 'having no capacity for sight'.

Try this instead: point out that darkvision only shows black-and-white, so 'clashing colors' wouldn't be visible.

There is NO WAY darkvision is black and white. I know the rules say the are, but it has to be grey scale to be of any use at all. Without it, you couldn't even measure distance. Everything would be a silhouette.

Sightless and not being able to see because it is dark are two different things.

Two swords that clash in the night can spark. A sightless creature can't see it whereas others could. Because even though it is dark, they are not sightless.

Sightless creatures would normally (I guess) not have eyes to damage.

With no indication that the spell does not work in the dark, I would rule that it does.

Pass for human and quick change are the only rules evidence I have seen so far for the side that you can't normally take 10 on disguise. With that evidence in mind I'm no longer at "The rules clearly say you can" and instead I'm at "My interpretation is the rules clearly say you can, but there is room for interpretation so ask your GM".

I'm just a lucky GM because my players think taking 10 is boring and they always deign to roll.

Now this is a statement that just about everyone should make concerning just about every rules interpretation. That sir, is a great post.

This is so funny because I was watching ST:TNG this weekend and the nose on one Klingon was SO BAD! It was driving me crazy.

They didn't take 20 that day.

Here is the real question: Now what?

I see this problem all the time with games. There is a point where the DM wants the players to Meta Stupid where they DON'T do smart things "because Meta!" and that drives me crazy. Because they are Metaing (is that a word) so that they don't Meta. It is akin to Lawful Good is not Lawful Stupid.

I have been playing this game "including D&D" for 25 years. It is impossible to believe that I will approach each and every encounter as if I have never played before. While I don't memorize the Bestiaries, there is some stuff that I just know.

The characters know it too. I live in a world where bears and snakes are a danger. I know what to do about bears and snakes. I NEVER run into them, but they are there. I am not hunting them, but I know what to do about them. They are not hunting me, but I know what to do about them.

You had better believe that an individual that is planning on running into a troll is going to know a bit about trolls. Just like we tell stories about dangerous things (aliens, bears, terrorists) in the form of movies and books, adventurers talk too.

The knowledge skills are the worst in the game. Difficulty is based on CR, not the likelihood of hearing a great story about one of these creatures. All characters in a "regular" D&D world knows what a dragon is. Does it make ANY sense that a bigger dragon is harder to identify as a dragon than a smaller one? Or that a Red one is harder to identify than a White one?

If it doesn't hurt the game, it doesn't hurt the game.

If the players have the book opened to the troll page during the fight, then that is a different story.

I am in the camp of allowing the player to make intelligent sweeping choices. One might include, "I attack the wizard if he does something I don't like".

I think the alternative of not allowing this type of play is very clear:

"I attack the wizard, limiting the ability for role-playing because the rules make it impossible to conduct simple target engagement protocols that even wild animals exhibit."

Don't make the rules so rigid that there is only one logical way for the PCs to act. Otherwise, all actions become attacks and you are playing a table-top war game rather than a RPG.