Nar'shinddah Sugimar

Lorewalker's page

Organized Play Member. 1,710 posts (1,713 including aliases). No reviews. 1 list. No wishlists. 11 Organized Play characters. 1 alias.


1 to 50 of 374 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | next > last >>
Scarab Sages

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Lady-J wrote:
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.

Scarab Sages

1 person marked this as a favorite.

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.

Scarab Sages

3 people marked this as a favorite.

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.

Scarab Sages

1 person marked this as a favorite.

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

Scarab Sages

2 people marked this as a favorite.

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

psychopomp wrote:

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.

Scarab Sages

1 person marked this as a favorite.

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

Scarab Sages

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ultimate Equipment wrote:
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.

Scarab Sages

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
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.

Scarab Sages

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Cantriped wrote:
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.

Scarab Sages

2 people marked this as a favorite.
James Risner wrote:

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?

Scarab Sages

2 people marked this as a favorite.
thaX wrote:
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.

The FAQ introduces a limitation that was not presented in the text. By stating that the enhancement bonus does not function as an enhancement bonus normally does. Something the original text does not do. Despite the developers knowing how to write text to limit such things during the creation of the core rule book. Since they did so in other rules in that book.

Scarab Sages

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Cantriped wrote:
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.

I site the existence of shuriken, which are ammunition launched by hand(hmmm... rules twisting... but I wonder about shuriken and an amulet of the mighty fist since the hand is the launcher... could be fun for a home game).

Scarab Sages

1 person marked this as a favorite.
James Risner wrote:

"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.

Scarab Sages

3 people marked this as a favorite.

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.

Scarab Sages

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Tels wrote:

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?

"the enhancement bonus granted to ammunition from the ranged weapon"

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.

Scarab Sages

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Tels wrote:
Lorewalker wrote:
As I said previously, I'm not trying to invalidate the FAQ. You can't do that. I am trying to show where the FAQ erratas the rules instead of clarifying.

Unfortunately, Paizo does this a lot. They've never really used the FAQ as a FAQ but as a hybrid FAQ/pending errata. Issuing an errata because something was unclear is one thing, but they've also used it for outright rule changes as well.

Matthew Downie wrote:
The rule didn't use the word 'only', meaning that you could apply both that rule and the general rule without them coming into conflict. Which is why pretty much everyone played it 'wrong'.

It didn't need to use only, because it states what happens when non-magical ammunition is fired from a magical weapon. It only says it's treated as magic, or it gains the same alignment, it does not state that it's treated as having the same enhancement modifier.

Remember, Pathfinder is typically a permissive system. It tells you what you can do, not what you can't do. There is no rule that says to treat non-magical ammo as having the full enhancement bonus when fired from a magical weapon, therefore, you don't treat it that way.

Also, honest question as my memory is a little fuzzy on this, but is there any actual rule that states ammunition gains the weapons enhancement bonus? I recall people in this thread stating rules for such exist, but I don't recall if was ever actually posted. If such rules don't exist, then it just goes further to show how badly we've all misread the rules for the last ~8 years.

It is important to note that the rule does not say the arrow becomes magic. The rule says that it gets treated as a magic weapon. And thus gets all the rules associated with magic weapons in regard to DR. Just like a one-handed weapon being treated like a light weapon lets it be used as an off-hand weapon without additional penalty... because that's a benefit of being a light weapon.

A benefit of a magical weapon is that you adjust what DR it can pierce based on its enhancement bonus. To remove this benefit the text would have to add limiting text much in the way Greater Magic Weapon does.

Scarab Sages

2 people marked this as a favorite.

The main problem here, rules-wise, is that the alchemist tried to do casting but without casting. They then linked that not-casting to a mundane task. Now anything that modifies that mundane task also modifies not-casting.

The alchemist is just a bundle of issues because of this design choice. Honestly, being able to drink their mutagen faster is already pretty powerful. This is why you shouldn't create a thing that is not that thing. It creates murkiness.

The style is also from a splat book. A breeding ground for rules that cause trouble.

Scarab Sages

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Tels wrote:

Lorewalker, your issue with the rules on this ruling is that the rules for enhancement bonuses and DR state that weapons with enhancement bonuses of a certain amount penetrate certain types of DR. This is a true and factual aspect of the rules and no one is going to argue differently. However, when it comes to the rules, specific rules take priority over general rules.

Ammunition has a specific rule for how it is handled. That rule states that non-magical ammunition fired from a magical bow only benefits by being treated as magical, unless that bow is aligned. This is a specific rule that trumps the general rule for enhancement bonuses, even if other rules state that bows transfer the magical bonus to the ammo.

So yes, the ammo has an enhancement bonus, and, normally, this would mean it penetrates DR if it's high enough, but there is a specific rule that nullifies this general application. In this specific instance, the ammo does not benefit from enhancement bonuses, unless the ammo is magical in it's own right.

Unfortunately, this aspect of the rules as been overlooked by everyone, myself included, for many years now. If this had been discovered way back at the beginning of Pathfinder, we'd never have this much confusion and, dare I say it, outrage (in certain areas of the internet) over this ruling. But it wasn't.

It took 6 years for anyone to, truthfully, question the assumed method of playing the game, and then a further 2 years before a ruling was issued. Honestly, I don't think there has been a ruling that so drastically changes how the game is supposed to be played. The closest that comes to mind is when Paizo made that Flurry of Blows ruling that said Monks don't benefit from wielding weapons 2-handed while in a flurry. But even that doesn't compare because it only affected Monks, while this ruling affects every character who uses ranged weapons, which, as we know, is a lot.

My only issue with the ruling is that it is a bad decision. I say it is thus because it will only hurt the fun of the game. Also, if you go back in time to when only the core rule book existed... archers could not play high level without paying significant amounts of gold and taking turns where they do not contribute to battle. I'm feeling for any ranged characters in the Core Campaign.

My only point here was that the text of the game does not agree with the FAQ. If the game had always worked that way... then the text was an extremely poor way to deliver that message. I refer back to Greater Magic Weapon and its very clear exclusion of DR piercing. Which was in the same book. There was no limiting language and there was context that pointed to the opposite of the ruling. This is what I was trying to show.

As I said previously, I'm not trying to invalidate the FAQ. You can't do that. I am trying to show where the FAQ erratas the rules instead of clarifying.

Also, if everyone played the game with arrows piercing DR from enhancement bonuses... including the Devs of the game... then maybe that's further evidence of my point.

Scarab Sages

1 person marked this as a favorite.
KingOfAnything wrote:
Lorewalker wrote:
Damage Reduction wrote:
"Damage Reduction may be overcome by special materials, magic weapons (any weapon with a +1 or higher enhancement bonus, not counting the enhancement from masterwork quality), certain types of weapons (such as slashing or bludgeoning), and weapons imbued with an alignment"

Please notice that a magic weapon is any weapon with a +1 or higher enhancement bonus. It is not counted as only magic for piercing DR, all magic weapons get the entire table for DR piercing based on their bonus.

I think it is much simpler to read "magic weapons" in that sentence as referring to weapons capable of bypassing DR/magic. That is separate from the additional rules regarding a high enhancement bonus.

What grants access to the table?

This line,
Damage Reduction wrote:
"Weapons with an enhancement bonus of +3 or greater can ignore some types of damage reduction, regardless of their actual material or alignment. The following table shows what type of enhancement bonus is needed to overcome some common types of damage reduction."

This is the only qualifier.

The only qualifier for a magic weapon is for it to have an enhancement bonus of +1 or higher.

Is an arrow fired by a +5 bow both a magic weapon and have an enhancement bonus of +5?
Yup.

Greater Magic Weapon wrote:
"This spell functions like magic weapon(which never says the item is a magic weapon, by the way. It only gives it a +1 enhancement), except that it gives a weapon an enhancement bonus on attack and damage rolls of +1 per four caster levels (maximum +5). [/b]This bonus does not allow a weapon to bypass damage reduction aside from magic.[b]"

This is how one would say that a weapon with an enhancement bonus only bypasses magic no matter how high the bonus.

Damage Reduction wrote:
"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."

Now, what does this say? How does one find out the benefits of a magic weapon in regards to overcoming DR? By examining its enhancement bonus and referencing the table. This text does not limit the normal benefits of a magic weapon as GMW does.

Of course I can see reading this as meaning "treat as a +1 magic weapon for overcoming DR." But it is not more simple as you have know to treat the arrow as different from any other magic weapon and the text does not point to this idea well.

Scarab Sages

1 person marked this as a favorite.
James Risner wrote:
Lorewalker wrote:
So, an extract is a liquid by the APG.

Congratulations, you have just added liquid to the definition of extracts as a result of interpreting the rules.

The same action that can be performed to exclude extracts from "other liquids" in context.

Is my point really this unclear? - not being snarky. I genuinely don't understand why this point isn't clear. I'm confused or missing something.

Implicit information is not the same thing as adding additional information.

The rules states that an extract is a liquid by the fact that it is a drink, this is implicit and already exists within the text. The rules state that the fighting style can be used with all liquids, this is explicit. The rules state that extracts can not be used with Potion Glutton, this is also explicit. This is all RAW as it requires no new information.

But, the moment you say that an extract can not be used with the fighting style because it doesn't work with Potion Glutton then you have added information that doesn't exist within the text. Meaning it is not a valid way to read the text and thus can not be RAW.

It is RAI, though. And this point seems to be agreed upon, that it should be judged that extracts are not included.

You are clear. You just also happen to be incorrect in your word usage. I have attempted to explain to you the difference because I think your input is valuable but your method hampers your effectiveness.

Scarab Sages

1 person marked this as a favorite.
James Risner wrote:
Lorewalker wrote:

R.A.W = Read As Written

R.A.I = Read As Intended

If you interpret text using the RAW method then you do not add any information to the text.

RAW doesn't exist as a valid concept, as all RAW is interpreted by the reader.

Your version of "do not add any information" may not be my version of "do not add any information" and may not agree with their version of "do not add any information".

Most of the FAQ result from two people taking the same text and using their RAW interpretation to get two rulings. The FAQ makes it clear which one is correct and which one is incorrect.

I think you are confusing "words in a text having multiple possible meanings" and "adding additional meanings not based on words in the text."

Your "everything is subjective" argument doesn't fly. As go cannot mean stop. So if you say you have a RAW interpretation that makes go mean stop... then it can not be RAW. As the information for go is not included in stop. I get that english can be a difficult language to parse but some things are fairly clear.

Say you are at a job and your boss sends you a memo stating, "Get a form T1050 and fill it out using the information from account 110334." Can you later tell your boss you interpreted his memo to mean that you can leave early for the day? In no way is leaving early mentioned in the memo explicitly or implicitly.

Scarab Sages

3 people marked this as a favorite.
James Risner wrote:
Lorewalker wrote:

James is arguing this:

Extracts aren't liquid, the feat doesn't work with free liquids, extracts are sometimes spells, the feat only works with drinks like beer, and if the liquid is magic at all and not a potion it doesn't work.

You are arguing this:
RAW might allow it but RAI doesn't. You should treat it as if RAW doesn't.

Your argument is valid. Though, not the only valid argument.

Actually I was interpreting that you could read RAW to allow it, but you have precedence from Glutton/Accelerated Drinker to suggest you not that. Instead you should interpret RAW to forbid extracts.

Plus you have a lot of murky things that we all take for granted that simply isn't directly spelled out in PDT books, but are spelled out in companion lines.

R.A.W = Read As Written

R.A.I = Read As Intended

If you interpret text using the RAW method then you do not add any information to the text. You only take the words that are written and decipher their definition as well as take context and grammar into consideration.

If you interpret text using the RAI method then you can add information to the text. You can draw from things like Dev comments, FAQs that do not directly connect to the text but are similar in idea, lore and balance concerns.

So when you say that RAW includes the ability to interpret all liquids to mean some liquids you are by definition incorrect. What you should say is that there is a RAI argument for why we should judge the RAW rule to mean something other than its wording suggests. This would alleviate much of the push back you seem to be getting in this thread.

Both RAW and RAI should be considered when making a judgement. But one is not the other and a RAW interpretation can not be one that includes RAI. RAI does not change the words on the page.

Scarab Sages

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Garbage-Tier Waifu wrote:
claudekennilol wrote:
Pathfinder Design Team wrote:

Answered in FAQ.

FAQ wrote:

Magic Ranged Weapons and Ammunition: When a ranged weapon shares its enhancement bonus with its ammunition, does this count as “true” enhancement bonus or more like a temporary bonus like greater magic weapon? In other words, does the shared enhancement bonus allow the arrow to bypass damage reduction as if it was cold iron, silver, adamantine, and aligned?

No, other than the ways indicated in the Core Rulebook (if the ranged weapon is at least +1, they count as magic, and if the ranged weapon is aligned they count as that alignment as well) the enhancement bonus granted to ammunition from the ranged weapon doesn’t help them overcome the other types of damage reduction. Archers and other such characters can buy various sorts of ammunition or ammunition with a high enhancement bonus to overcome the various types of damage reduction.

What!?

*edited down from a few hundred words to be less inflamatory.

Well, it was how the rule always was, we just got it wrong because it was a specific case over general. No need for such a lack of inflammatory words :Oc

There is no limitation in the original RAW. So there is no specific over general. Here's my reasoning.

Damage Reduction wrote:
"Damage Reduction may be overcome by special materials, magic weapons (any weapon with a +1 or higher enhancement bonus, not counting the enhancement from masterwork quality), certain types of weapons (such as slashing or bludgeoning), and weapons imbued with an alignment"

Please notice that a magic weapon is any weapon with a +1 or higher enhancement bonus. It is not counted as only magic for piercing DR, all magic weapons get the entire table for DR piercing based on their bonus.

So when the rules say this,

Damage Reduction wrote:
"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,"

it refers back to the definition for magic weapon as given in the previous paragraph. Especially since the arrow explicitly gains the full enhancement bonus of its weapon if it is higher than the ammunition's. And thus gains the entire table as all magic weapons do... unless the text also says they only pierce DR/magic. Like greater magic weapon.

Also note that Greater Magic Weapon has to specifically say that its increased enhancement bonus over Magic Weapon does not allow it to pierce additional DRs. As the definition of a magic weapon already allows it to pierce additional DR and so it must be explicitly taken away.

So, there is little to indicate that an arrow is treated differently than a sword. Other than a magic sword is always a magic sword... while a non-magic arrow can be a magic arrow... or at least counted as one. Maybe they intended to limit ammunition, but the text does not really bear it out.

To re-state for clarity, if a magic weapon is 'any weapon with a +1 or higher enhancement bonus' and an arrow is counted as a magic weapon with a +1 or higher bonus... either melee weapons gain the same limitation of only piercing DR/magic or arrows by RAW(before the FAQ) pierce additional DR based on their enhancement bonus.

I do not say all this to negate the FAQ, as that can not be done. It supersedes the original text. I say this to counter the idea that this is not a new rule.

Scarab Sages

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Cavall wrote:
Nitro~Nina wrote:

Lune, please calm down. This is a discussion about the specifics of half a feat in a geeky roleplaying game; there's no need to get defensive.

Back to the topic at hand: while I agree that it may be best to be conservative with our estimates, Cavall, I also think that we should go with what the text says now rather than assume what Paizo may do in future. As it stands now, Extracts are clearly allowed by this feat as liquids. We may be disappointed in future, but as for now it is entirely rules-legal to drink your extracts from a tankard mid-battle, as far as I can see.

Yes this may be the crux of this entire issue I would suppose.

On one hand we have a clear issue of "hey it works right now with a loophole" and honestly? I can't argue that.

I think what James and myself are actually arguing is that it IS a loophole and just warning it is likely to be closed.

So really this thread isn't two sides of yes no it's more now and future.

James is arguing this:

Extracts aren't liquid, the feat doesn't work with free liquids, extracts are sometimes spells, the feat only works with drinks like beer, and if the liquid is magic at all and not a potion it doesn't work.

You are arguing this:
RAW might allow it but RAI doesn't. You should treat it as if RAW doesn't.

Your argument is valid. Though, not the only valid argument.

Scarab Sages

1 person marked this as a favorite.

For the exact same reason that zombies have hordes.
Because it makes for a more interesting story.

Scarab Sages

2 people marked this as a favorite.
James Risner wrote:

The reason it doesn't support extracts is because extracts are not called out and they don't have a gp cost.

The same logic that says extracts work says that elixirs work, poisons work, and all mannar of strange rules interactions work. The rules don't court strange, so when you see strange it's a good bet you are outside the area of "what the rules say".

Water. No GP cost and not called out. Not supported?

Next argument please.

Also, poisons working is not a strange rules interaction. One of the things you can do is splash an opponent with the fluid from the cup... a contact poison would be great for that. You'd have to successfully perform a dirty trick to make it work... but that isn't weird. As its not much different than having a vial of poison and doing the same thing since dirty trick allows you to describe how you are performing it.

Also, also, what the rules say and what the rules mean can be different things. In this case what the rules say disagree with you. What the rules probably mean agree with you... partly... but pretty much only when you say extracts shouldn't work because Potion Glutton was changed and enhancing a (sort of)caster was likely not intended.

Scarab Sages

1 person marked this as a favorite.
KingOfAnything wrote:

At the point in play you are considering a +5 weapon, 300gp a combat seems trivial.

Yes, going into a high level combat without any intel is tough. That's why you have teammates and a backup plan.

Remember, that's not your only expense. That's just the additional expense you get to pay for being ranged. Then you're also needing to buy adamantine arrows as well. And this is before they had durable arrows.

But yes, I am not putting down teammates or backup plans. I am explaining that the archer would have to go through additional hardship over the melee guy in regards to DR piercing. And that any campaign that spent time in the planes and did not offer frequent town visits for oil buying would have landed archers in serious trouble.

Most of this would have been surmountable. But it would have severely impacted the damage output of an archer in any fight that included alignment DR. And would have hit their bank account hard if there were many creatures with adamantine DR.

Scarab Sages

1 person marked this as a favorite.
KingOfAnything wrote:

Is the action economy to apply an oil just too much? You'd think the typical way to align a weapon wasn't align weapon or something.

It's right there on CRB p.240, guys. You can stop the freak out.

Try to sit out the first round of combat during any combat with a creature with DR/alignment. Since we are talking move action and standard action to apply the oil. Add in holding your turn for the person who can identify the creature if you can't. Add in possibly using your first turn to fire ineffectually and then having to spend your second turn getting your bow situated.

Now, it is also 300 gp a vial. You must buy them for the specific alignment. They will only last one combat. We're still talking significant expenditure here. Unless you have a pocket caster. Just hope everyone has the same alignment DR in the fight... Imagine what it would be like if your campaign moved into the planes without clustered shots.

But a melee guy just has to buy a weapon with the right plus on it once maybe twice depending on his style.

Again, I am talking high level play.

Scarab Sages

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
James Risner wrote:
I think the theory I like better is they are liquids, just not what that feat is thinking about when it says liquids.

So, you're saying that it's a liquid, but it doesn't say what is not a liquid, so because it doesn't say it's not a liquid, it's not a liquid?

As Lorewalker said, that's not only disingenuous, but it's also the same argument the Ancient Aliens guy gave. And quite frankly, there's a meme that mocks him for his claims.

Unless you're willing to admit that you were told this argument by Aliens, I'd rather think you're better than this.

He is saying it is liquid... but it's not the liquids we are looking for.

That despite the style allowing all liquids and that extracts are liquids... it didn't intend to allow extracts to be used with the style.

This is very much a RAI assessment.
I think that is the way things would shake out in a FAQ.

But it is definitely not RAW.

Scarab Sages

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:

Yup, Clustered Shots just went from Green to Blue in a lot of Archer-based guides with this FAQ.

**EDIT**

Ironically enough, the Empty Quiver Style feat chain just got a lot more valuable, too...

The thing is that this ruling is presented as if the game had always been this way. So how was archery supposed to be effective before Ultimate Combat in high level play? As before then clustered shots did not exist. Were you just supposed to spend all your gold on aligned ammunition?

Scarab Sages

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Mark Seifter wrote:
Lorewalker wrote:

Mark, I do have a question about the recent ranged FAQ.

Enhancement bonuses do not stack and thus only the effect of one enhancement bonus is applied between a bow and an arrow. Do you think we can get a clarification on whether the arrow provides partial benefit(it's DR piercing at +3 and above) even if the bow's enhancement bonus is higher than the arrow?

In the interest of mind-reading, I think we got one up there a few minutes before your request. Heading out of the office soon, though; have a great weekend everybody!

Thanks much! Have a good one!

Scarab Sages

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Mark, I do have a question about the recent ranged FAQ.

Enhancement bonuses do not stack and thus only the effect of one enhancement bonus is applied between a bow and an arrow. Do you think we can get a clarification on whether the arrow provides partial benefit(it's DR piercing at +3 and above) even if the bow's enhancement bonus is higher than the arrow?

Scarab Sages

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Garbage-Tier Waifu wrote:

If that was the case, then why doesn't it apply against DR? Can an arrow not exist as a +3 arrow and deliver an attack with a +4 from a bow?

The properties of magical arrows do not cease to exist in the abstraction of the rules, it's just that the rules apply higher bonuses over lower ones. Not cancelling them out, just superceding them.

Additionally, you do add magical arrow special qualities to attacks with magical bows regardless if the numeral bonuses are lower or higher (up to +10). If a +2 bow lacks ghost touch but the arrows themselves are +1 ghost touch arrows, they confer their ghost touch property to the attack. The rules for enhancements providing partial benefits do work like this already, but only the highest numeral bonus applies. Any properties of the arrow or bow apply. In this case, enhancements from a bow do not apply for DR. But arrows do, so that applies partially, even if that arrow has a lower numeral bonus.

No, the rules do not allow partial benefit from non-stacking bonuses.

What you are talking about is not an enhancement bonus. Frost is not an enhancement bonus. Only the +1, +2...etc is the enhancement bonus.

Enhancement bonuses do not stack and only one is applied. Explicit fact.

DR piercing is a function of the enhancement bonus. Thus if the enhancement bonus is not applied... neither is the DR piercing.

Again, I would like the game to work as you suggest with this change. But the rules simply do not support it. Thus why I would like the rules to change to support it.

Scarab Sages

5 people marked this as a favorite.

There is a world of difference between, "Text X says this..." and "Text X meant to say this..."

If your argument is that the fighting style allows you to drink extracts... that is RAW.

If your argument is that it is probably an oversight that allows you to drink extracts and that the designers wouldn't want that... then that is RAI.

If your argument is that extracts are not liquid despite them explicitly being liquid because if they are not liquids then the style doesn't do what you think it wasn't meant to do... then that is disingenuous.

Scarab Sages

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Garbage-Tier Waifu wrote:
Lorewalker wrote:


It would be nice if we had a rule that said that, yes. Instead the only relevant rule states that only the higher enhancement bonus applies. DR piercing is a function of the enhancement bonus.

This is the same sort of idea with polymorph effects. If you are in wildshape but then cast alter self only one of those effects apply. You don't get partial benefit.

Except we have a FAQ that outlined that this is not the case with bows. Which explicitly stated higher enhancement ammunition can help bypass DR. What you're saying is the general rule, but the FAQ is telling you a specific rule for bow enhancement which seems to not impact DR, and that you completely ignore it and consider the ammo instead. Don't ignore one half of the FAQ to focus on the other.
FAQ wrote:

Magic Ranged Weapons and Ammunition: When a ranged weapon shares its enhancement bonus with its ammunition, does this count as “true” enhancement bonus or more like a temporary bonus like greater magic weapon? In other words, does the shared enhancement bonus allow the arrow to bypass damage reduction as if it was cold iron, silver, adamantine, and aligned?

No, other than the ways indicated in the Core Rulebook (if the ranged weapon is at least +1, they count as magic, and if the ranged weapon is aligned they count as that alignment as well) the enhancement bonus granted to ammunition from the ranged weapon doesn’t help them overcome the other types of damage reduction. Archers and other such characters can buy various sorts of ammunition or ammunition with a high enhancement bonus to overcome the various types of damage reduction.

Where does the bold section say that both enhancement bonuses now apply instead of only one?

The FAQ does state that arrows with an enhancement bonus not granted by a bow still pierce DR... but it doesn't say that if its enhancement bonus does not apply that you can still get partial benefit.

The italic part shows that the enhancement bonus is still granted to the arrow.

So, you have an arrow with two enhancement bonuses but which have separate effects. And a rule that says that only one applies, the higher one. And no rule that disagrees with that statement.

Scarab Sages

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Gisher wrote:
Lorewalker wrote:
Garbage-Tier Waifu wrote:
The arrow has +3 enhancement, so it'll pierce silver DR. Just not adamantine.

The arrow has a +4 enhancement. The +3 enhancement is treated as if it does not exist as it does not apply.

CRB pg 468 wrote:
"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."
My thought is that they don't stack, but they do overlap. So the DR effects of the +3 Enhancement Bonus would still apply even though its Enhancement Bonus isn't applied to the attack roll or to damage.

It would be nice if we had a rule that said that, yes. Instead the only relevant rule states that only the higher enhancement bonus applies. DR piercing is a function of the enhancement bonus.

This is the same sort of idea with polymorph effects. If you are in wildshape but then cast alter self only one of those effects apply. You don't get partial benefit.

Scarab Sages

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Garbage-Tier Waifu wrote:

So you are suggesting the +4 enhancement bonus cancels out +3 but because the enhancement bonus of the bow does nothing for DR it means the arrow doesn't pierce the DR? That is answered in the FAQ:

Quote:
Archers and other such characters can buy various sorts of ammunition or ammunition with a high enhancement bonus to overcome the various types of damage reduction.
The ammunition is considered separately when determining DR if this is anything to go by.

That covers having a +1 bow and a +3 arrow. Not the reverse. They did not change how enhancement bonus stacking works.

Scarab Sages

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Garbage-Tier Waifu wrote:
The arrow has +3 enhancement, so it'll pierce silver DR. Just not adamantine.

The arrow has a +4 enhancement. The +3 enhancement is treated as if it does not exist as it does not apply.

CRB pg 468 wrote:
"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."

Scarab Sages

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Chess Pwn wrote:
I know of at least one Zen archer in PFS that is going to be pissed that his +5 bow that he saved up for no longer bypasses DR.

Honestly, I think this FAQ is worth an item buyback in PFS.

Scarab Sages

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Rysky wrote:
Lorewalker wrote:
MisterSlanky wrote:
Got it. The people of Fiji, the survivors of the Essex and the Uruguayan Rugby team are Eeeeeeeeeevil...
Not only evil... you might want to check to see if they are ghouls now. As that's what tends to happen when you are give into cannibalism in a crisis in Pathfinder.
Or a Wendigo! Don't forget the Wendigos! ^w^

Can't forget them. As wendigos are pretty awesome.

Scarab Sages

1 person marked this as a favorite.
MisterSlanky wrote:
Got it. The people of Fiji, the survivors of the Essex and the Uruguayan Rugby team are Eeeeeeeeeevil...

Not only evil... you might want to check to see if they are ghouls now. As that's what tends to happen when you are give into cannibalism in a crisis in Pathfinder.

Scarab Sages

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Snowblind, Snarkwyrm wrote:
Rysky wrote:
Lorewalker wrote:
Rysky wrote:

...

And to preempt a quip, hitting someone with feeblemind and then trying to eat them is still cannibalism.
*Researches spell Unawaken which converts sentient creatures into non-sentient creatures. Opens restaurant*

No.

*bops with newspaper*

No.

Eh, hydra-burgers are still a better restaurant idea.

Okay, so, remember the Flinstones? How in the opening song they go to a restaurant and order dinosaur ribs? Now, remember that all those dinosaurs can speak and are sentient...

The Flintstones is actually about cannibals.

Scarab Sages

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Rysky wrote:
Lorewalker wrote:
*Researches spell Unawaken which converts sentient creatures into non-sentient creatures. Opens restaurant*

No.

*bops with newspaper*

No.

*Does best Ian Malcolm impression* "Players will, um, find a way."

Scarab Sages

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Rysky wrote:
Cebo wrote:
SCPRedMage wrote:
Walter Sheppard wrote:
Seems to me that GMs are the arbiters of what constitutes an alignment shift at your table, which is another way of saying Table Variation.

Except that table GMs are required to obey the rulings of the campaign staff, so table GMs are required to treat cannibalism as an evil act.

That said, while it being officially an evil act in PFS, and thus automatically an alignment infraction, that doesn't mean the first occurrence is automatically an alignment shift.

I don't consider a giant-rat like creature eating a bull (aka BEEF)-like creature as cannibalism. Therefore I don't consider it an evil act.

If a person eats a dolphin, and if some people propose a dolphin is sentient, does that make that person a cannibal? NOOOOO!!!!

The real world definition of cannibalism is constrained because we have only humans. But in a fantasy world like Golarion we have HUNDREDS of fully sapient creatures, so cannibalism means eating something fully sapient there, just because it's not humanoid in shape doesn't change that.

So for your example, yes, a ratfolk eating a Minotaur is still cannibalism.

And to preempt a quip, hitting someone with feeblemind and then trying to eat them is still cannibalism.

*Researches spell Unawaken which converts sentient creatures into non-sentient creatures. Opens restaurant*

Scarab Sages

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ravingdork wrote:
Lorewalker wrote:
For PFS there are three main ways to modify an items size. A spell an enchant and a magic item. Important for anyone wanting to have weapons on their improved familiar.
Can you name them specifically?

Resize Item is a spell that lasts 24 hours and will adjust a weapon or armor up to 2 sizes up or down.

The Resizing weapon enchant always adjusts the weapon to your current size. It only costs gold without adding to the current enhancement.

The Iron Lord's Transforming Slivers will also permanently adjust a metal weapon 1 size category per 1000gp application. You will need to be your intended size when applying the slivers.

Scarab Sages

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Rysky wrote:

I had forgotten about the Witch Hex where it is called out (don't know of any other sources) so when Mike's post had been declared superseded it seemed like we now had 0 rulings in PFS or Pathfinder itself stating cannibalism is Evil.

Thankies.

Glad to help. ^.^

For reference, the cannibalism domain includes such text as well.

Scarab Sages

2 people marked this as a favorite.

In the end it is better than I think you are imagining. Because all it takes is one player having an issue to limit the behavior. So you shouldn't have any issues at any table you sit at. And, honestly, it will be limited at most tables for the same reason.
I have included the relevant, but long, text. Bolding mine where found.

Community Standards:
Pathfinder Society is an inclusive community with a diverse membership. We are committed to fostering a safe environment for everyone, regardless of  gender identity or gender expression, sexual orientation, nationality or ethnicity, religious beliefs or background, age, neurotypicality, physical ability, physical appearance, body size, or other differences. We also wish to give room for players to develop a wide variety of characters, trusting our players to regulate their actions in a public setting and to treat each other with respect. When participating in public Pathfinder Society events, be mindful of any controversial or edgy concepts in your character and consider limiting them to bylines or dice rolls. Dysfunctional or uncooperative play will not be tolerated. Behaving in a hateful or disruptive fashion simply because “It’s what your character would do” means you’ve probably lost sight of the purpose of organized play and may be asked to amend your behavior or leave the table. Extreme or repetitive cases of inappropriate behavior will be resolved by asking the offender to leave the table or venue.
The full Pathfinder Society Community Standards policy may be found paizo.com/pathfindersociety/policies. Roleplaying Guild games that take place on paizo.com are also subject to the Community Guidelines that exist for the forums in addition to the Community Standards policy, and may be subject to moderation as needed.

Linked policy for community standards:
"Community Behavior Policy
The Pathfinder Society (PFS) is an inclusive social event open to everyone. It is our intention that everybody enjoys gaming in a safe and fun environment. While conflict between characters may arise, at no time should a player feel excluded or threatened at the table. We ask all participants to respect their fellow players and to work together to create positive memorable experiences. To this end, we reserve the right to refuse participation to any person for inappropriate or illegal conduct. All refusals of participation must be accompanied by a reason, duration of refusal, and the criteria for rejoining PFS activities.

Inappropriate conduct includes, but is not limited to, the excessive use of foul language, physical or verbal aggression/intimidation, lewd conduct, inappropriate physical contact, unwelcome sexual attention, slander, stalking and harassment/discrimination based on gender, gender identity and expression, age, sexual orientation, disability, physical appearance, body size, race, ethnicity, or religion.

Complaints under this policy should be brought to the Event Organizer or a Venture-Officer, who will work to resolve the issue or escalate the issue to the next level of Venture-Officer. As an alternative, issues may be reported to the Organized Play Coordinator (OPC) via email at pathfindersociety@paizo.com. Issues will be resolved at the lowest level possible. In case of escalation, the OPC is the final arbiter of any dispute arising from application of this policy.

Nothing in this policy is intended to discourage any person from calling the police or other appropriate organizations. Event organizers or Venture-Officers are available to help participants contact local law enforcement, provide escorts, or otherwise assist those experiencing harassment to feel safe for the duration of the event. We value your attendance.

While not illegal or even necessarily inappropriate, we recognize that PFS organized play campaign includes themes that may result in uncomfortable situations arising at the gaming table. In these instances, we request players identify the issue to the table Game Master (GM), whether vocally or by passing a note. We ask that GMs help the table respect attendees' sensibilities and reduce/redirect problematic themes once identified. Participants asked to stop any problematic behavior are expected to comply immediately or will be asked to leave the table.

It is our intention that everybody enjoys gaming in a safe and fun environment. While conflict between characters may arise, at no time should a player feel excluded or threatened at the table. We ask all participants to respect their fellow players and to work together to create positive memorable experiences. Once again, the intention of PFS org play is to provide a safe and fun environment. The above guidelines reference how we may achieve our goals. By sitting at a PFS table, participants are agreeing to the terms and conditions of Pathfinder Society organized play."

Scarab Sages

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Rysky wrote:
Lorewalker wrote:
Rysky wrote:
So PFS groups can arbitrarily decide what is evil and what isn't now, really?

Not what's evil... what is non-offensive to the group.

Again, it is still evil since it is treated so in official paizo material(sometimes...). It just isn't banned behavior unless the GM says so(since it's a group game that is always an option). You still have to deal with the consequences.

Except Tonya just said that ruling that Cannibalism is evil has been superseded and so in PFS it is not Evil.

Unless I (hopefully) misunderstood what she was stating, in which case I apologize.

Does PFS need a ruling that fighters get bonus feats?

No, because it is part of being a fighter.
When referencing cannibalism the text of the game usually considers the act evil(with a noted exception in an early book which can be found in this thread). Being that it is in a Paizo book... doesn't that mean we don't need a PFS specific ruling?

But even then it is still up to the individual GM to decide how evil the act is... some may consider it lightly evil and thus requires many infractions. Some may consider it on par with murder. Some may have not paid that much attention to the issue and have to come up with something on the spot.

So, really... not much has changed with this. Other than the campaign recognizing that some groups will find some things offensive that others may not. So, they have decided to let the individual GMs limit some kinds of behavior as needed instead of limiting everyone.

Scarab Sages

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Rysky wrote:

And you wouldn't be using them to try and justify your argument for you either.

In PFS it is Cannibalism, you can debate otherwise in a home game, but not in PFS until Campaign Leadership declares otherwise.

To be honest, he wasn't using them to justify in a vacuum. He was attacked over his stars and gave a counter argument.

But, honestly, he isn't banned from having a cannibal character. He just has to suffer the consequences. IE, the GM decides how evil it is and picks a number of offenses before moving the character towards evil. His character can then use the atonement spell to move his alignment back or perform other highly good deeds to achieve the same end.

Silly? Yes. But it is still following the rules. Especially since the spirit of the "don't do x" rules tends to be "don't offend your fellow players." And it sounds as if he is not offending them.

Of course, I still think it is silly that you can skin and wear sentient creatures with no issue.

Scarab Sages

1 person marked this as a favorite.
SCPRedMage wrote:
Lorewalker wrote:
To simplify your life you could just wear a Phylactery of Faithfulness. It would require the GM to advise you if an act would be against your alignment or against your god and it is not meta.

The Phylactery of Faithfulness is considered something of a joke in PFS, because GMs are already required to do exactly that in PFS, and it's even recommended to do so as a "feeling" or "vision" from one's deity.

I brought it up purely because it was a non-meta way to handle it as that was a concern that was brought up. Also, plenty of GMs do not follow that little rule you are talking about.

1 to 50 of 374 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | next > last >>