Lorewalker's page

If you control more than 4 HD worth of undead creatures per caster level, what do you do? You add any new creatures to the pool(in this case, 0) and the excess undead become uncontrolled.

These arguments would make more sense if the game expressed the removal of fatigue as ignoring the fatigue. There are items that function like that in the game. Such as the Everwake Amulet.

Then you can magically prevent suffering fatigue but still accrue fatigue/exhaustion. Which I believe could be a very fun house rule to play with.
(An example of this can be seen in the Wheel of Time series)

Lorewalker wrote:

If you try to tell me that lack of sleep is different from fatigue and that lesser restoration only cures the fatigue... then wouldn't they still be fatigued? Since the cause would still be there.

This I would consider silly.

Point of order: Lack of sleep is very much different from fatigue. Lots of things can make you fatigued that have nothing to do with sleep other than sleep being the go-to method of removing the condition.

Sleep cures fatigue... because fatigue is a form of tiredness. As in... needing rest. IE sleep. No matter what causes fatigue it is an expression of needing rest. If you are no longer fatigued then you no longer need 8 hours of rest which is the cure for the fatigued condition.

Imagine if someone tried to argue that HP loss is not actually healed by the cure spells, you just look cured. Yet still die if your total damage taken would kill you before considering magical healing. That you only really heal damage by natural healing.

But even all that aside, you didn't address the important issue. Why would their fatigue be cured, then, if they still need the sleep? And if they don't still need the sleep... why would they still have lingering lack of sleep?

If you try to tell me that lack of sleep is different from fatigue and that lesser restoration only cures the fatigue... then wouldn't they still be fatigued? Since the cause would still be there.
This I would consider silly.

Diego Rossi wrote:

The staff has a caster level, not the character (unless he is a caster). So he animate his 16 HD of undead, then they check his caster level (not that of the staff). Caster level = 0, controlled undead limit = 0.

I don't agree with this analysis.

The caster level requirement for control is in the text of, and part of, the spell being cast. It would certainly use the caster level at that time. it 'checks' during casting, and makes no mention of checking at any other time, so if your caster level is good for the casting, you are good until you cast the spell again I believe.

Either you;

B) Have a full personal pool(10cl = 40HD of undead) and cast from an item with 5cl and suddenly gain 20HD of undead on top of the 40HD since you now have two pools.

C) Have a full personal pool and trade out HD for HD of controlled undead for newly animated undead when you use an item.

Also, your HD pool is checked at all times. If you gain a negative level and thus lose CL, you should then lose from your control pool.

The biggest problem with what I believe is the best answer, c, is that a non-caster can not control undead. At least not without some additional rules element allowing an HD control pool. I prefer to use HD instead of CL for this, though I haven't used this rule enough to decide if I'm happy with it or not.

Another answer is to only allow a temporary, non-stacking, pool up to the CL of the item used for non-casters. Thus, if you cast again you lose control of all undead previously controlled for the newly animated undead.

From a "feat slot to damage increase" stand point, improved natural attack is a losing proposition. Given the limited feats available to the Shifter and the new feats available in Ultimate Wilderness that the Shifter can take, I can not see any reason to take INA.

Sadly, the best damage potential for the Shifter that I could find included going the Feral Combat Training route.

The Improved Natural Attack doesn't modify base damage though, it modifies 'damage' up one step. Secondly, when the form changes, you no longer have the claws from your base form, thus the feat can no longer modify them even if you ruled that it does alter base damage: when you change shape, the feat improves your CURRENT "natural attack form" that matches the feat. How can it modify an attack you no longer have [your 'base claws' and not the claws you currently have?

EDIT: I see no issue with using claws as a prerequisite. The brawler playtest showed that temp abilities, like the two weapon fighting from brawlers flurry, could be used for feat prerequisites. As such, I see NO reason at will claws do not qualify as well.

The damage die is the base damage. Rose by any other name, in this case. As the claw ability is a natural attack form that belongs to the creature... this should work.

As an aside, natural attacks are very hard to increase as is and this by no means should break balance. Even if you allow the bonus to continue if the claws ability is used to adjust a natural attack that isn't claws.

You could also take a level of sorcerer, orc blooded to get...

"Bloodline Arcana: You gain the orc subtype, including darkvision 60 feet and light sensitivity. If you already have darkvision, its range increases to 90 feet. Whenever you cast a spell that deals damage, that spell deals +1 point of damage per die rolled."

and then you can take the additional traits feat to pick up Tusked.

Or ask your GM if having the Orc and Human subtypes mean you count as a half-orc... which would allow you to pick up Razortusk. But the other way gives you an additional trait with the bite.

Saldiven wrote:

Despite all your arguments presented thus far, Lady-J, you still haven't presented one shred of evidence from published Paizo rules that prevent anything other than iterative attacks from high BAB with a Natural Attack.

I do not understand the logic behind a rule stating natural attacks don't get extra attacks for high BAB getting turned into natural attacks never being able to get extra attacks from other sources.

post to me the rules on how dead things cant take actions or were unconscious creatures fall prone, its implied by the limitations of other rules put in place

Okay, sorry for the derailment on this post. I won't post a second time on this particular issue.

"The character’s hit points are reduced to a negative amount equal to his Constitution score, his Constitution drops to 0, or he is killed outright by a spell or effect. The character’s soul leaves his body."

As for falling prone... well, not all creatures fall prone when they fall unconscious. So it wouldn't be the general rule. Take snakes, for instance. But any creature that requires active effort to stand will fall over if they are not conscious if it is possible to fall prone in their surroundings.

"The Material Plane tends to be the most Earth-like of all planes and operates under the same set of natural laws that our own real world does.."

If a man fall unconscious in the real world, typically, he falls down.

This falls under the heading of so obvious it shouldn't need to be said. Not the same with the rules for how many attacks you may make, which are not obvious.

Jurassic Pratt wrote:

Alright, you've baited me in for 1 last response. You're purposely not quoting the full sentence or even the full paragraph to make it seem like you're correct.

Natural Attacks wrote:

You do not receive additional natural attacks for a high base attack bonus. INSTEAD, you receive additional attack rolls for multiple limb and body parts capable of making the attack (as noted by the race or ability that grants the attacks).

Note the big INSTEAD connetcing it directly to the previous statement. So all that says is that you don't get extra attacks in your full attack due to BAB when using natural weapons.

Just because you take a quote out of context doesn't change it to mean what you want.

its not out of context the rules state you can only have one and i even quoted two other rules that provide an exception to the base rule something that the feat in question does not have

Those rules add iteratives. Something natural attacks do not usually have. These are useful only during a full attack action. They are not per round limitations. Just as you are not limited to attacks per round by your BAB iteratives with a sword. You are limited only in number of attacks per full attack action. These are not proof of per round limitations.

Lorewalker wrote:

Lady-J wrote:

Saldiven wrote:

Lady-J wrote:

your looking at 12th level to get access to that feat and its only really useful if you don't plan on ever making a full attack

What?

"You can make a swift bite attack against a flanked foe.

Prerequisites: Base attack bonus +9, bite attack.

Benefit: Whenever you are flanking with an ally who also has this feat, as a swift action you can make a bite attack against the opponent you and your ally are flanking."

I cannot find anything that would prevent combining this Swift Action bite attack with a full attack. The full attack is a Full Round Action, and the CRB specifically states that you an combine Full Round Actions with Swift Actions. I don't see anything under the rules for Full Attack in the CRB that would prevent it.

Is there a FAQ or other rule that I am missing that would prevent it? Of course, if the PC were attacking with regular weapons, it would make sense that the bite would take a -5 to hit for combining manufactured and natural weapon attacks.

I feel it's not a terrible addition. If you have decent static bonuses, it's like having one main attack and three iteratives at -5 (full attack of swing, swing at -5, bite at -5, then swift action bite at -5).

Edit: Also, is there anything that would prevent it from being used in conjunction with a charge?

if you are full attacking you can already make a bite attack, if you have already attacked with a natural weapon in a round you cant attack with it again so no bite on the full attack with an additional bite as a swift

Not quite. You get one attack per natural attack per series of attacks. This is because natural attacks do not function off of BAB iterative attacks.

But you can be granted additional series of attacks in a turn, each let's you use the same natural attack in the same round. Take the styracosaurus.

...

You're splitting hairs that don't even exist. Nothing says you only get one natural attack from a natural weapon either per round or per turn. You simply do not get iteratives with a natural attack. That is the limitation in the rules.

Saldiven wrote:

Lady-J wrote:

your looking at 12th level to get access to that feat and its only really useful if you don't plan on ever making a full attack

What?

"You can make a swift bite attack against a flanked foe.

Prerequisites: Base attack bonus +9, bite attack.

Benefit: Whenever you are flanking with an ally who also has this feat, as a swift action you can make a bite attack against the opponent you and your ally are flanking."

I cannot find anything that would prevent combining this Swift Action bite attack with a full attack. The full attack is a Full Round Action, and the CRB specifically states that you an combine Full Round Actions with Swift Actions. I don't see anything under the rules for Full Attack in the CRB that would prevent it.

Is there a FAQ or other rule that I am missing that would prevent it? Of course, if the PC were attacking with regular weapons, it would make sense that the bite would take a -5 to hit for combining manufactured and natural weapon attacks.

I feel it's not a terrible addition. If you have decent static bonuses, it's like having one main attack and three iteratives at -5 (full attack of swing, swing at -5, bite at -5, then swift action bite at -5).

Edit: Also, is there anything that would prevent it from being used in conjunction with a charge?

if you are full attacking you can already make a bite attack, if you have already attacked with a natural weapon in a round you cant attack with it again so no bite on the full attack with an additional bite as a swift

Not quite. You get one attack per natural attack per series of attacks. This is because natural attacks do not function off of BAB iterative attacks.

But you can be granted additional series of attacks in a turn, each let's you use the same natural attack in the same round. Take the styracosaurus. It has combat reflexes but only one natural attack. There would be no point for that if it could not attack more than once in a round ever. It even has an ability that grants it additional aoos.

So,much as a swordsman can full attack and perform an aoo in a turn a t-rex can bite once and take an aoo to bit again. And this swift attack is a separate attack from other attacks in a round.

Basically, every time you reset BAB you get to use a natural attack again.

your looking at 12th level to get access to that feat and its only really useful if you don't plan on ever making a full attack

This is for a hunter. So I assume most of the damage for the feat will be from his animal companion with a bite attack. The feat is best for creatures with big bites but small number of attacks who also do not use non-natural weapons.

That is of course unless your GM rules that since this is a separate attack from the full attack action that it does not become a secondary attack for this one attack. Much as an AOO taken on the same turn as a full attack action is not actually part of the full attack action. Such as if you have Vicious Stomp. Which would grant you a single attack(AOO) at full bonus if an opponent falls prone near you. Then it can be very effective. Especially if you've been able to pile static damage or abilities onto the attack somehow.

There is also always the spells reincarnate and its more accurate brother reincarnate spy. It's an expensive way to go and relies on luck... but it technically can get you where you want to be eventually.

Warpriest with the animal blessing.

Animal Totem Tatoo can grant a bite attack.

Serpantine bloodline with Eldritch Heritage would work.

My preferred way of handling Gate is to have the portal not allow passage to effects related to environmental movement(running water, wind and things of that nature). Nor to allow differences in pressure to be meaningful. This prevents a lot of hijinks as well as expanding what the spell can do. For instance, if water flowed through then making a Gate to the plane of water would be a very bad idea.

"Unlike mundane armor, mage armor entails no armor check penalty, arcane spell failure chance, or speed reduction."

This tells us that the Mage Armor is armor... but it also tells us that the armor is completely non-hindering. Thus it should not cancel out any abilities, even ones that are canceled for wearing armor.

"An invisible but tangible field of force surrounds the subject of a mage armor spell,"

This part tells us that while it is armor it isn't really like armor, as it is just a field of energy. Further enforcing it's non-hindering nature.

Remember also that if you deny Mage Armor from working on a monk then Bracers of Armor also would not work.

This is very much a "whatever your GM thinks" issue.

My personal take on it is that you get a real creature but not its original body. Much in the way Astral Projection functions if you visit another plane from the astral plane. This would allow manipulation of their silver cord... but luckily very few things can do that.

This also allows them to have a personality and history even if they are effectively dominated. Which means specific creature summoning is possible. As well as asking questions based on their experiences. "So, how much does Cayden Cailean drink... really?"

No harm would be permanent, though. Since their body is magically generated. This would allow you to get real samples from the creature but it would poof as soon as the creature does.

By my idea, though, they could get pregnant but it would end the moment they disappear.

On a fun note, 20th level wizard summoning school summons a permanent Xill... xill has many many children. Threatens large area. Wizard dies, summon poofs... as does all its children and children's children.

I mean, just because their safe word was lost to the ages doesn't meant that they wouldn't respect it if they heard it. That'd be a fairly lawful thing to do...

But seriously, Kytons are organized and deliberate. They are truly dedicated. In many ways, they are lawful for the same reasons that monks are lawful.

Azten wrote:

Well they are created through magical means.

not all constructs are and even then only robots are covered by engineering for some reason despite some non robot constructs being made by science and not magic

Constructs are, almost all, made by magic. With robots being fairly unique in that they are not. Even clockwork constructs are created, at least in part, by magic.

"Clockwork constructs are the technological cousins of golems, constructed with a combination of magic and precise technologies dependent upon the internal churning and turning of thousands of intricate springs, screws, and gears. "

Basically, any construct that isn't a clockwork, robot or android is purely animated by magic. Clockwork is animated in part by magic. And robots are magic-free. Android are a step above robots.

Unless something happened to Earth that I am not aware of, there's humans there too.

Could also just summon psychopomps using Ring of Summoning Affinity (Psychopomp) as they all have Spirit Touch.

Spirit Touch (Su) A psychopomp’s natural weapons, as well as any weapon it wields, are treated as though they had the ghost touch weapon special ability.

Thanks! I thought we were in the PFS forums. Also I didn't know the item just disappeared when the spell effect ended, I guess that is a reasonable interpretation.

PFS is weird. Permanent effects are either duration permanent or duration instantaneous. And all end at the end of the scenario. Meaning even Wish ends even if used to give a stat bonus. They had to write a FAQ that specifically allows stat boosting books to function at the end of the a scenario. Of course, if you didn't personally buy the book the effect does still end.

Promethean Disciple makes it so you must use craft Alchemy to make a construct.

"and must use Craft (alchemy) to create the construct."

This allows you to use craft alchemy to make any construct and it also means they must use craft alchemy instead of the normal craft required by the construct.

It doesn't limit you to constructs that have craft alchemy as a requirement.

If I target a lump of material with fabricate and succeed at the craft check to make it into large mithral barding, what happens to it at the end of the scenario?

I know from the guide that "All spells and effects end at the end of a scenario". Does the armor revert back to the pile of materials that I had at the beginning, or would I lose all of it?

You lose it all. The original material is consumed by the spell as a material component. Thus if the spell ends the item disappears but the component is not refunded. The same way that undead raised during an adventure stop existing and the onyx gems are not refunded.

This is why you should only fabricate materials found in the adventure. Then it is "free."

This question should be asked in the PFS forum, by the way.

And yet we still don't have a pricing guide for tiny weapons.

All rules assume you are a medium humanoid on the material plane, unless otherwise noted. More than half of them get stupidly wonky if any of those assumptions is untrue.

Medium 4 limbed(two arms, two legs) humanoid on the material plane. Adding arms by itself complicates and breaks things in major ways.

Avoron wrote:

Rope trick is transmutation, that might get you out of the demiplane's effect.

I hadn't even considered that, that's brilliant! And then, you just Plane Shift out of your rope trick and you're good to go.

Although it's GM decision what planes you can even reach from a place that is not on any planes. Plane Shift states that "From the Material Plane, you can reach any other plane", heavily implying that that is not the case for every location or even every plane. I'd argue that a fairly sensible interpretation of Plane Shift is that you can't shift out of extradimensial spaces at all, so you would have to go with one of the Ethereal/Astral options.

As an aside, I just noticed that Blink specifically states that you shift back and forth between the Material and the Ethereal Plane which makes me wonder what would happen if you cast it on any other plane. Do you just leave that plane to blink back and forth between the Material and Etheral Plane, essentially giving you a cheap, but very temporary Plane Shift?
That is very obviously not the intention, but the only reasonable interpretation I can think of from the rules as written. Shadow Walk specifically talks about the Material Plane as well.

Any reasonable GM should allow both of those to work on any plane that borders the Ethereal and Shadow plane respectively.

As far as Medium Reptiles go for Beast Shape 1, the Monitor Lizard looks like the best bet with a land and swim speed of 30, low-light vision, scent, and a 1d8 bite. We don't get the grab nor poison yet, but that just means it gets slightly better at higher levels. The Giant Gecko seems good if we're after a climb speed instead.

If dinosauroids count: the Dimorphodon is good for a flight speed; and the Deinonychus is the best all-around combat form with 4 natural attacks, low-light vision, and scent, and retains some use at higher levels by gaining pounce and 60 ft speed with Beast Shape 2.

The dimorphodon is not a dinosaur and their stat-block calls them reptiles, so you should be good there.

But, the Saurian Shaman mentions their speak with animals works only with Reptiles and Dinosaurs... which leads me to believe they are supposed to be separate. Though, honestly, general creature typing, like reptile or aquatic, is so ill defined that it quickly becomes a matter for table variation.

Lorewalker wrote:

Please note that the Seeking special ability is also not granted to ammunition.

And that particular lack of superscript is apparently a mistake, according to John Compton, a little over 3 years ago

There is an issue with that for PFS... it needs to be a FAQ or written by the PDT to be official. Or written by a PFS official in a PFS thread.

A ghost touch weapon deals damage normally against incorporeal creatures, regardless of its bonus. An incorporeal creature’s 50% reduction in damage from corporeal sources does not apply to attacks made against it with ghost touch weapons. The weapon can be picked up and moved by an incorporeal creature at any time. A manifesting ghost can wield the weapon against corporeal foes. Essentially, a ghost touch weapon counts as both corporeal or incorporeal. This special ability can only be placed on melee weapons and ammunition.

Of course, the CRB already covered this by not having Ghost Touch in the Ranged table.

Now the way I've always seen it read is that a bow just transfers it's properties to the arrow. Now there's a question coming up if it does that at all unless that little subscript 2 specifically allowing the weapon to do that. for example, would a ghost touch bow be of any use (besides a ghost that also had the forsight to be burried with ghost touch arrows or someone beating ghosts on the head with the worlds most expensive non masterwork club)

Would that break splatbook enchants that don't have charts?

The Huntsman special ability would only grant the survival check bonus and not the extra damage as ammunition is not granted the ability.

Cruel is useless on a launching weapon unless you hit a creature with the ranged weapon as its ammunition is not granted the ability. This is also true of Planar.

Please note that the Seeking special ability is also not granted to ammunition.

Post FAQ we know the subscript matters.

Ghost Touch is handled by the GT arrows/salts/etc.

Do you have an example of a ranged special property in a book without a chart?

Pre-FAQ the superscript mattered.

Lorewalker wrote:

Halek wrote:

Answer this. Would casting protective penumbra temporarily negate the curse?

No more than never getting into combat negates the tongues curse.

But that, like the horse, is an external thing that prevents the curse from harming your activities. Not an internal ability negating the curse. Negation being preventing the curse from harming you when it should be and it is not the same as overcoming the harm from the curse.

Protective Penumbra would prevent the curses condition for harm being met. But it doesn't allow you to ignore the harm when it should be affecting you. Which is what Lightbringer would do.

Your argument makes no sense. Protective Penumbra negates the effects of the curse in question in the same way that Lightbringer negates the effects, in that the penalties associated with the curse no longer apply to the character who has said curse, because the two effects in question negate the penalty the curse afflicts.

So, because they negate the curse in the same exact way, why would you allow one subject to work, and the other not?

Is it because one is permanent versus temporary? The Curse rules make no such distinction of permanent solutions or temporary solutions to a penalty, because you aren't removing the curse, which cannot be done without the help of a deity, you're negating the penalties associated with the curse, something that the Curse rules or deific intervention don't give two damns about. You're adding a restriction that, while the context of the rules maybe should care, the actual rules text doesn't.

Is it because one is a racial trait and the other is a spell? Again, Curse rules don't care, because the rules only state for removing a curse, does the help of a deity matter. Anything else, such as negating, or even amplifying said curse? Doesn't require a deity to do. Which means this sort of argument won't work in terms of negating penalties associated with a curse.

Is it because you hate the player trying...

This is not correct. Protective Penumbra keeps the character in shadow. This prevents the condition for the penalty, IE being in bright light, from occurring. "This spell keeps the target slightly in shadow."

This is different from an ability that causes a character to actually be immune to the curse.

"I'm in enough shadow that there isn't enough bright light to trigger my curse's condition and thus affect me" and "I can be in bright light because I have an ability which prevents my curse from penalizing me even when its condition is met" are not the same things. At all. They only end up with the same outcome, you not taking penalties. How this is achieved should be important.

See spells are a class feature as are some mounts. You can even get another character from feats.

So how do you draw the line?

Under your system you can have an effect be both internal and external at the same time. Which is useless. So how do you define it?

Please don't strawman me. It is fairly annoying to rebut that which should not need rebutting.

A spell is not a class feature. The ability to cast spells is. But the spell itself is a separate entity.

Same with, say, an animal companion or a cohort. They are granted by a feat or class feature... but they are not themselves your PC or part of them intrinsically. If you kill one the PC does not also die. Nor are they affected by the same effects. They are external to the PC, though they belong to the PC. Just as a sword is a separate entity from your PC but a trait can grant a sword to a PC. The trait(grantor) is internal but the sword(granted) is external to the PC(grantee).

Lorewalker wrote:

Halek wrote:

Answer this. Would casting protective penumbra temporarily negate the curse?

No more than never getting into combat negates the tongues curse.

But that, like the horse, is an external thing that prevents the curse from harming your activities. Not an internal ability negating the curse. Negation being preventing the curse from harming you when it should be and it is not the same as overcoming the harm from the curse.

Protective Penumbra would prevent the curses condition for harm being met. But it doesn't allow you to ignore the harm when it should be affecting you. Which is what Lightbringer would do.

Lightbringer is a racial trait an effect of being his race. Which can be changed. It is temporary just like protective penumbra. You mentioned internal versus external. Define that in game terms and give a way to determine the difference.

Internal, part of the character.

Internal; feat, race, trait, class feature.
External; spell, mount, aid from another character.

It is an undefined and poorly implemented classification in Pathfinder but it is used. The nomenclature is mine, though. For instance, the familiar uses this concept. Their HD counts as their master's for spell effects affecting(external) them but not for their special abilities(internal).

Your race is not temporary. It is a permanent part of your character. It can be changed due to certain effects... but that isn't what makes something temporary in Pathfinder. Just as there is a difference between a permanent enhancement bonus to an ability score and a temporary one... the limiter is a 24 hour period. But basically, permanent typically means that there is no duration and that it will continue to be as it is until something forcibly changes it.

Honestly, if you were to use your logic of what makes temporary and permanent... nothing is permanent in this game. As anything can be changed.

If an oracle with the lame curse gets a way to permanently fly is the Oracle breaking some rules?

Simple answer, no.

Lorewalker wrote:

Slight modification, the english language is messy enough that you can have more than one possible meaning in any given combination of words. But the number of possible meanings is still finite. Those possibilities are constrained by the words used, the context and the syntax.

For instance, "Hiding under the floor boards, I have finally found you."
Who is hiding under the floor boards? Either the person speaking or the person they found. The sentence isn't clear enough to say which. But the number of possible meanings is finite.

In that sentence, it sounds like, both are hiding under the floorboards. Guess he just turned around and saw the other.

That is also possible!

There is no requirement by the rules that an Oracle suffer the drawback of their curse to enjoy the benefit. If the GM is okay with a PC using an option to avoid the penalty, then there is no problem.

There is some argument to be made that negating the penalty(being immune to it, for instance, not making it meaningless) is a form of curing the curse. And thus the rules do say that it would have required a deity to perform the curing.

An example of this view; say there is a spell that allows you to ignore any movement penalty and it is cast on an oracle with the lame curse. The caster is not a deity and so they should still suffer the penalty for the curse even though there is a rule saying that they should remove the penalty. Since it would temporarily negate the penalty(de facto temporary cure).

But, ultimately you are correct. It is a valid interpretation to read it as you do.

I like Oracles have played a few over the last few years. The cures at higher levels actually get useful. The question isn't removing the curse he or she has found a way to negate the penalties. Now while an interesting way of doing it, The question is why? Elves are not really geared for the class no bonus to Chr. To get Light Bringer he gives up his normal immunities and magical abilities.

After reading everyone's post I'd allow him. It isn't cheating really just a different way of nullifying a curse. I could take Lame lose ten feet, then take a level of Cleric gaining the Travel Domain and gain a ten foot enhancement bonus. The curse is still there it just doesn't affect me.

I respect your decision.

But, I do want to point out that the cleric still suffers from the curse. They are 10 ft slower than they should be. They just made the penalty meaningless. But the case of Light Bringer makes it so that they are immune to the penalty. Also, I think it might be less fun to allow it but that is just my opinion.

James Risner wrote:

There is no one true RAW.

You say that a lot, but it isn't even remotely true.

Every word in the English language has a predefined set of meanings (even including slang), and as a result any given sentence has an exceptionally limited number of possible meanings.
When reading the Rules As Written, there is only ever one correct interpretation of given rule. All other interpretations are false to varying degrees. This is a necessary concept to accept in order for any ruleset to function consistently.
So if two or more readers come to opposing interpretations of the meaning of a sentence (or game rule in this case), not only is at least one of them guaranteed to be wrong, but possibly all of them are wrong, and them being wrong is a direct result of their less than perfect grasp of the language's written form. Authors are not exempt from this principle either. It is entirely possible for a game designer to write a rule that doesn't mean what they think it does (as a result of their imperfect grasp of the language they wrote it in).

If whoever wrote that section of the rules believes that the New FAQ is simply reiterating what the rules actually say: They are demonstrably wrong. The RAW does not say what they believe them to be saying, or intended for them to say. Which, by the way, is still grounds for the publication of an errata; as clarification is one of the legitimate purposes of errata.

Slight modification, the english language is messy enough that you can have more than one possible meaning in any given combination of words. But the number of possible meanings is still finite. Those possibilities are constrained by the words used, the context and the syntax.

For instance, "Hiding under the floor boards, I have finally found you."
Who is hiding under the floor boards? Either the person speaking or the person they found. The sentence isn't clear enough to say which. But the number of possible meanings is finite.
A special thanks goes to the Grammar Nazi and College Humor for the example.

This means that when reading RAW there can be multiple valid interpretations. But not every interpretation is valid. Of course, there is only one intention for the rule. But, unless we have the person who wrote it tell us what it was supposed to mean, we will have to guess what that intention is.

Not present by your reading.

I wish I had the benefit of being in this thread preFAQ. I'd like to have the pre/post rules understanding. It will give me a better perspective.

As it stands now, all I can say is just because you read RAW to grant the additional abilities to cut through DR. That doesn't make it read that way for others. There is no one true RAW.

This is an example. They don't feel the rule was changers they are not changing anything. Yet if you don't read the RAW like the FAQ then change your RAW interpretations.

If the RAW is supposed to mean Y but it isn't written to mean Y... then it was poorly written. When something means something other than what it is written as... then it needs to be an errata. Since it is a change in what is written.

Or, very likely in this case, they decided on making a change to how things function but have chosen to no longer errata the core rulebook. Since an errata means a re-print.

James, I think you are forgetting Shield Master. Which very clearly negates all penalties... not only the ones they meant to negate. The FAQ clears this up... but doesn't errata the text. Does that mean RAW changes? Nope. It does not. Those who read the RAW before were still correct(but ignored RAI if they used it that way). Since the text does not change. But we now have additional information to go off of. In the case of Shield Master, it only negates two-weapon fighting penalties.

With launchers, we have a similar situation. It's not an errata but it is a change to the rule and how quite nearly everyone played the game due to how the rules were written. This includes the developers of the game. Or, can you tell me of a time any of the creative team behind the CRB stopped someone from arching and piercing DR using enhancement bonuses?

The FAQ does not remove anything. It is clarifying what was already there, whether you agree with it or not. This is why the question was asked in the first place.

Except that it does. Because you can't clarify something to mean something that it doesn't. That is a change.

PRD wrote:

Although shuriken are thrown weapons, they are treated as ammunition for the purposes of drawing them and crafting masterwork or otherwise special versions of them, and of what happens to them after they are thrown.

Nay, Ammunition is not a Weapon (except when it is used as an Improvised Weapon), and Shuriken are not Ammunition. Shuriken are Thrown Weapons which are treated as ammunition for certain specific purposes.

That special treatment includes making them magic("crafting masterwork or otherwise special versions of them)" and what happens when they are thrown.

Answer this. Would casting protective penumbra temporarily negate the curse?

No more than never getting into combat negates the tongues curse.

But that, like the horse, is an external thing that prevents the curse from harming your activities. Not an internal ability negating the curse. Negation being preventing the curse from harming you when it should be and it is not the same as overcoming the harm from the curse.

Protective Penumbra would prevent the curses condition for harm being met. But it doesn't allow you to ignore the harm when it should be affecting you. Which is what Lightbringer would do.

Doesn't prevent attacks made by a +5 Bow from overcoming damage reduction (which has already been granted to all magical weapons without exception). What it does is allow Magical Arrows (which are not Weapons but Ammunition) fired from a non-magical bow to still overcome Damage Reduction (which it otherwise would not because the weapon itself is not magical and that is what the general rules quoted above look at.

Ammunition is also a weapon.

"Loreealker, I'm not following you. Can you explain whether or not you believe the FAQ says it confers the ability to cut through DR cold iron and silver from a +3 bow?

Or are you saying it should work?"

The FAQ removes the ability for the enhancement bonus from the launcher which is applied to the ammo to affect additional DR beyond +1.

I have stated it before, but I shall repeat myself, the only thing I have to say about the FAQ is that it was a bad call and I'll leave it.

I've only been talking about the original text and whether or not the FAQ is new information or if the original text was misread. And my conclusion is that it is new information due to the rules not limiting how enhancement bonuses work in the original text. Which they could have done one of several ways that already exist in the core rulebook.

And then some wise*** casts control summoned creature.

Hey, if they prepared that ahead of time or bothered to take it as a sorcerer... well, they deserve to have all the fun they get from temporarily controlling that eidolon.

As a GM I use a general rule of thumb; if you gain a benefit from a penalty but you somehow negate the penalty then you do not gain the benefit. But you can make the penalty meaningless and still gain the benefit.

Now, I go case by case with this but enough abilities become more balanced taking this idea into consideration.

An example, if you have the lame curse but gained an ability that heals your lameness then you would gain no benefit from the curse. But riding a horse does not negate the curse only makes it meaningless as the horse is not lame. Gaining a level of barbarian would not negate the curse either as you are still 10ft slower.

Another example, the barbarian class and rage cycling. Before level 17 their rage causes them to be fatigued so any ability that prevents them from being fatigued would also prevent them from gaining the benefits of rage. But at 17 when they get tireless rage that no longer becomes an issue.

As a side note, I would also say any ability that heals or nullifies the curse counts as removing or dispelling the curse. And thus the curse should override the ability unless it is granted by a deity directly.

Again, you have yet to quote text which states ammunition gains the enhancement bonus of the weapon firing it.

What is a magic weapon capable of? Bypassing DR/magic, and dealing 50% damage against incorporeal creatures. That is all a magic weapon is capable of unless it has an enhancement bonus of +3 or higher. No where does the rules state the ammo gains the enhancement bonus, only that it is treated as magic (treated as magic and treated as a magic weapon are functionally identical without further text to expand upon it).

The rules gives ammo the permission to be treated as a magic weapon.

The rules do not give ammo permission to gain the enhancement bonus of the weapon.

Therefore, the rules do not give ammo an enhancement bonus and, as such, do not penetrate DR.

Until you can find text that explicitly states that ammo gains an enhancement bonus, then there can be no further argument from you.

Also, the text on how enhancement bonuses from ammo and weapons don't stack has no bearing, as non-magical ammo doesn't have an enhancement bonus.

To further reiterate quote the text that explicitly gives ammo the enhancement bonus of the weapon, or stop arguing about it.

Okay. How about this text from the FAQ?

Also, if the enhancement bonus does not apply to the arrow then it can't apply to the attack. But we know that they have the chance to stack... meaning that it is applying to the arrow.

Chess Pwn wrote:

It doesn't say it's treated as magic for dr full stop. It said it's treated as a magic weapon, when just before it said that a magic weapon can bypass different dr if it had a +3 or more.

Quote the text that tells me ammunition gains the full enhancement bonus of the the weapon. Remember, being treated as magic for the purpose of overcoming damage reduction is a specific rules term with specific interactions with the rules. In this case, being treated as magic, allows it to overcome DR/magic. There are other examples in the core rules that use the same language, but don't allow overcoming other damage reduction, see Monks and the Arcane Strike feat.

I repeat again since you keep making the same incorrect claim. The text does not say, "treated as magic." It says it is treated as a magic weapon with no limiting text. These are different things.

If it had just said treated as magic then you would be correct. Then again, people would have played it that way. But that isn't what the text says.

And, for the umpteenth time, the quote on enhancement bonus and ammunition...

" The enhancement bonus from a ranged weapon does not stack with the enhancement bonus from ammunition. Only the higher of the two enhancement bonuses applies. Ammunition fired from a projectile weapon with an enhancement bonus of +1 or higher is treated as a magic weapon for the purpose of overcoming damage reduction. Similarly, ammunition fired from a projectile weapon with an alignment gains the alignment of that projectile weapon."

Nothing there limits how magic weapons and enhancement bonuses function. It only states that it counts as a magic weapon... but not that it does not allow the enhancement bonus to do what enhancement bonuses do.

They needed to include something like the "it only counts as magic" or "can only bypass DR/magic" or "This bonus does not allow a weapon to bypass damage reduction aside from magic." Permissive text is not limiting. Being granted a climb speed doesn't prevent you from gaining a fly speed or even a faster climb speed.

To further explain... the monk ki pool class feature also says it counts as a magic weapon. Now, say that a 10th level monk has a +5 amulet of mighty fists, which grants a +5 enhancement bonus. So, their fists count as magic, cold iron, silver and lawful... but do they count as good?
Yes, they can bypass all alignments because that is how enhancement bonuses work. Even though they also gain lawful from permissive text.

If the game grants something that gives a benefit then it needs to have limiting text to say that the item doesn't gain the full benefit. The original text does not.