I imagine that they're just busy. It doesn't help that when they make rulings on anything controversial they get ridiculed for doing the exact thing people are asking for. So they would have to spend even more time discussing an issue before deciding on a ruling.
That would be fantastic. Poor corrections are counterproductive. That is to say, their hastily drafted FAQ's are counterproductive. They don't even take that long to discuss issues; they just take forever to address them in the first place. It's a good game, which is why we're here. But that doesn't mean they do everything right.
I guess we could all join the fawning contingent who favorites every blessed dev post that appears, but I'd rather keep it real. They were so backward on the mounted charge FAQ, for example, that they had to redraft rage lance pounce as a result. Mounted combat nevertheless remains a mess. The FAQ request system is poor. They must be aware of this fact. I wish they would own up and correct it. Blaming fans of the game for being disappointed in stuff that's legitimately disappointing is not the answer.
What about damage over time effects, like Acid Arrow?
If you're not making an attack roll, you're not dealing smite damage.
As a background, Smite used to apply only to a "normal melee attack", in 3.5. Obviously that's changed to include ranged, but there are several parts of the current ability that make it very clear it's talking about weapon attacks (which generally get extended to spells with attack rolls).
It says "attack rolls... and... damage rolls"
It says the attacks bypass DR
It talks about a "successful attack"
If you want to smite with a fireball, create a custom metamagic feat.
An authoritative tone isn't enough. Your bullet points are not persuasive. Got anything else?
You must have a very different idea of resolution than I do.
To quote Ssalarn from last week, "The only upside to this is that it brought attention to an issue very much in need of it, and hopefully at the end of it there will be one consistent set of rules."
Because a designer wandered into a topic he thought he understood, then realized he didn't so decided to nip it in the bud, we have a ruling that highlights way worse issues with the system than were originally under discussion. We also know for a fact that different devs had totally different ideas about how mounted combat worked. Official or not, we know from SKR and JJ, the most prolific dev posters in the forums, that they did not see the rider as charging when the mount was charging. So, the idea that this "clarification" communicates how the designers always intended mounted combat to work is a joke, and actually a bit insulting.
It also made sense that it could, because it worked with the mounted combat action economy as previously described (your so-called "context of the rules). They nerfed something that didn't need it, because they didn't want Vital Strike to stack, not because inventing a new kind of charge made more sense in the broader context of the system. They didn't address that at all, and so now there is (thankfully) an outpouring of demand to give the mounted combat rules an overhaul.
Really, what SKR said is still true in many if not most cases. If SRMF is to be believed, we have confirmation that a mount and rider maintain separate action economies except in the case where the rider wants the lance/spirited charge benefit. Otherwise, anyone who ever made the argument that a rider atop a charging mount is always considered charging was and is still wrong. It is only the case during aforementioned condition and was "clarified" in this way to keeping from combining with Vital Strike, a misguided mission in itself.
I don't see the point in rehashing arguments over rules that no longer exist. FWIW, no, SKR did not say he was upholding CRB. But he was commenting on CRB rules, explaining how they worked, and in doing so affirmed what was already written there. That is where it mattered.
They don't directly say a lot of things. So what? The point is that there used to be good reason to believe that a rider was allowed a standard action when riding a charging mount. Vital Strike is a special standard action. It seemed to fit. Nothing in CRB indicated otherwise, only the wording of some feats. JJ responded generally to complaints concerning these apparent discrepancies that such feats were meant to be read with the understanding that the rider and mount maintained separate action economies, maintaining CRB. That SKR quote was just an affirmation of CRB as well. Others disagreed, but it made sense. But now that they changed that part of the rules to mean something else, we're evaluating the new discrepancies. Ho-hum.
This discussion is very interesting and has many implications for the Smite Evil ability.
I'd say the discussion is mostly absurd and the implications are as they ever were. Once it's clear that Smite Evil is an ability centered on the paladin rather than the target, any pretense that the wording is vague can be dropped.
Using common sense to overlook obvious peccadillos in the system is what we were doing before. SKR ans JJ showed us how. Now a ruling comes up combined with a stern warning to rely only on official cannon, not forum posts no matter who they come from. Now, we're being told, "Please, use common sense." Uh, sure, lemme get right on that.
I'm still stuck on this mission to keep Vital Strike from being usable in creative niche ways. For me, the rules mastery aspect of the game is as much about the archetypes these mechanics bring to mind as the combat effectiveness they provide. When I originally came across the synergy of Spirited Charge and the Vital Strike chain, it suggested a build less Strength-based: a careful striker who relied an superior technique over brute strength. (The Knight of Flowers versus Clegane comes to mind). Understanding the rules as I did pre-FAQ, I appreciated the flexibility that helped bring about a unique build that I enjoy and hasn't broken anything. Under the new ruling, the archetype of the gentleman lancer who prevails through superior technique over brute force (e.g., max strength + power attack + furious focus) is a harder sell, an also-ran who "doesn't really work" in Golarion. Even though this won't affect my current game, it bums me out to see it unsupported by IMHO unwarranted changes.
Turns out, the text for Lance in the weapon section of the Paizo doc says the same thing as PFSRD, so in this case it's a moot point. They'll need to FAQ the Lance listing as well, since as Stephen said, it doesn't count until it's official.
Yeah, that's what I was trying to point out. The FAQ needs to make sense in the related areas.
Yes, I understood it the first time when you wrote:
Quote:
I'm showing you the development and intent of the FAQ. If PDT needs to make corrections in other sections to get it all to match up, I hope they are reading our comments so they can go ahead and make what they intend clear.
Actually, I've been active in this thread from the beginning, so showing me the development isn't necessary. In fact, I believe I was the first one to bring up Vital Strike with a Mounted Charge in this thread, not that it matters. My point has been that nothing matters except official text, because that's what Stephen pointedly said in response to one of my comments. By that guideline, the rule is still unresolved. You may recall Stephen's comment:
Quote:
Second, it does not force anyone playing the game to participate in or wade through message board threads (some of which can be a thousand or more posts long) in order to find official rulings. Many of us enjoy doing such things, but not everyone, and it should not be seen as a requirement for playing Pathfinder.
Whatever he says in this thread to explain the FAQ means as much, or as little, as any SKR or JJ quote I can find, which is why I haven't posted those. It's also why Stephen's comments, while appreciated, should not be taken too seriously, following his own advice. I'd like to believe otherwise, but he strongly advises against.
No, a heavy horse is a horse that isn't a light horse. Going to the entry for horse in PFSRD, it is actually listed as "Horse, Light." Then there is "Horse, Heavy" as a separate entry. t's very clear which one the paladin gets.
Yes, I've thought about the same scenario and come to the same conclusion: he's inside your reach with the lance, so you can't do it with the lance. Choosing to penalize the rider who bends, or "lunges," down with his scimitar is fine for a house rule, I guess, but RAW says nothing of the kind. Don't forget your +1 for higher ground.
As a standard action, you're concentrating on maintaining a 60ft cone to reveal information.
As a move action, you focus that cone on a single individual/object at the exclusion of all else, to determine more quickly if the object of your focus is evil.
Except, as Malachi pointed out, the 60 ft range of the single target effect can easily put the target outside the cone. The idea that the cone narrows from its initial area of effect into something like a beam requires yet more inference, as the text offers no such thing. You can do the thing in the first sentence or the thing in the second sentence. It's considered the simpler more straight forward interpretation for good reason.
Don't expect this to be answered in the FAQ anytime soon. There have been far more vexing issues with a slew of requests that have been ignored for quite some time. Since the staff seems to consider it already answered, I seriously doubt they will add anything.
The "one must start the engine first" argument requires far more inference and unpacking than the either/or interpretation. Seeb's final point really shows just how clumsy it is. Even though it's been quoted many, many times ....
Quote:
At will, a paladin can use detect evil, as the spell. A paladin can, as a move action, concentrate on a single item or individual within 60 feet and determine if it is evil, learning the strength of its aura as if having studied it for 3 rounds. While focusing on one individual or object, the paladin does not detect evil in any other object or individual within range.
Doesn't the last sentence clarify it? The spell, unlike the bolded portion above, does not have this limitation after concentrating for three rounds. Quite the opposite (note the intentional sentence fragment, grammar nazis *wink-wink*). If using the second ability, you cannot, as written, simultaneously use the first (I.e., Detect Evil as per the spell), unless one would like to argue that a Paladin must use a Standard Action plus a Move Action in order to nerf the benefit of the Standard Action (maintaining concentration). I find this absurd. They are distinct, separate uses.
That would never fly with any of my groups. We all insist on transparent play. It's not a question of trust, just proper etiquette. Gamer friends are plentiful here, so there'd be no reason for me to settle for such a situation. Unfortunate that some feel they don't have much of a choice. The very idea of humoring a player who prefers to roll privately, no matter how honest their reputation, would come across as bizarre to anyone I game with.
I guess I don't feel you're "wrong" for your schtick, but I would personally be among the eye-rollers at the table. As others have said, it's okay until you're called out. You've been called out. Be a good sport, and pleasantly surprise your friends with a fresh approach.
I would never be so demanding as a player. What kind of nerve does it take to tell a DM what treasure he should provide? I do think the other players are being jerks for declining to resurrect, but I see no reason for you to bend over backwards for this guy. The other players have spoken. It's their game too. Caving sets a poor precedent.
Like others, I notice your obvious bias. It's just that I'm not bothered by it. I have a bias against obstinate jerk-offs too! Keep the integrity of your game. Offer the obvious front runner options that have come out of this thread that you're comfortable with The rest is up to him.
I would personally ignore any arguments that suggest your ultimate duty is to make sure everyone has fun, as if it trumps all other concerns. What a hackneyed sentiment! Each partipant shares that responsibility, and the precise meaning of it depends on the group. Happy gaming!
15 people marked this as FAQ candidate.
1 person marked this as a favorite.
Any talk of Radiant Charge I've seen in the forums indicates that it can only be used once a day. I don't see anything in the text that limits it as such. I understand that it uses all Lay On Hands, and a Paladin won't replenish those uses until the next day, but I don't see anything that says the feat can't be used again even when all LOH are expended, for the Cha bonus. Thoughts?
I hope this hasn't already been discussed to death. I did some searches and haven't found this addressed.
Spoiler:
When you charge, you do so with the power of faith.
Prerequisites: Lay on hands class feature.
Benefit: When you hit with a charge attack, you can expend all of your remaining uses of lay on hands to deal extra damage equal to 1d6 per use of lay on hands expended + your Charisma bonus. This damage comes from holy power and is not subject to damage reduction, energy immunities, or energy resistances.
I like that the OP is trying to make this an interesting role playing opportunity. I'm perplexed by any advice suggesting he should do (next to) nothing.
mcbobbo's suggestion to lean toward LN is really interesting. Some seem to believe that you have no character justification for judging, as if only goody-goodies are judgmental. On the contrary, some of the worst, most unjustified, pieces of crap in the world are harsh judges. Bad people often judge better people especially harshly. I do not see a character conflict. That is to say, you don't need to make an alignment change for your character to be a judgmental prick, but it could be neat-o.
Is your Ninja really the kind of guy to write an angry letter? It's your character, of course, but I'm with everyone else who found this odd.
Is your DM onboard with this dramatic conflict? I personally think it's authentic for a Ninja and Paladin to get along badly. The fact that you want to make this a sticking point in the relationship of these two characters is great. If, on the other hand, this is just a smokescreen for a disgruntled player wanting to teach another player a lesson, then I recommend rethinking the whole thing. If it were me, I'd talk to my DM about roleplaying PC personal conflict. There's a possibility for rich experience if all concerned are up for it.
I say keep it real. Are they strong enough to handle your final encounter? Who cares? Either way, they legitimately made it there. Let them play it out. One of the best features of table-top rpg's is the open-ended problem solving. If they are too weak, they should learn that lesson. That's the double-edged consequence of being clever. After all, a humbling defeat is fine story pulp. You can redirect it from there. You may have to rethink some hooks, but your work needn't go wasted. If they win the encounter, well, they win! Good for them. You wanted clever and engaged players, and you got them. You're lucky. Retool those encounters and stick them in your next adventure.
