Red Dragon

Robert A Matthews's page

991 posts. Alias of Robert Matthews 166.


RSS

1 to 50 of 991 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

I think you mean Planar Ally, not Planar Binding. I'd allow Blood Money to provide the 500gp but not the offerings. The creature actually takes the offerings as payment for performing the task. It takes 1 round to negotiate the terms of the spell with the summoned creature. In this time, the offerings will have disappeared and can't be used. Not to mention that even if you did convince the creature with the Blood Money offerings, and they disappeared the next round, it would probably either kill you or teleport out.

Edit: Not to mention the fact that the spell has a 10 minute casting time and many GMs like to rule that you can't use Blood Money on a spell that can't be completed in the same round you cast Blood Money.


zylphryx wrote:
Incorrect on the skeleton example .. .the morningstar DOES bypass the DR5/Bludgeoning.

I don't believe anyone has said that it doesn't.


How about just treat women at the table as if they were a person just like anyone else instead of some mystical creature you have to appease in order to hold its interest? It doesn't matter what gender someone is, everyone is prone to confusing a rule, forgetting things, and being new to the game.


If the light is dim, he would still be able to see his normal distance, just not as well. Hence the 20% miss chance for concealment other creatures get in combat. In turn giving them the ability to use stealth against the human. It doesn't clearly spell out how well you can see in dim light(or bright light for that matter), but a simple ruling that I would most likely use is that whatever distance you determine is reasonable to be able to clearly see, read, etc. in bright light, half that distance you would be able to do that in dim light. There are no clear rules on that, so it's totally up to GM interpretation.

Edit: Curious how this would even come up since most parties will have access to dancing lights, light, continual flame at a pretty low level. If they don't have that, a +1 weapon can shed light as if it had a light spell on it as well. Either way, hope my post helps.


Lincoln Hills wrote:
Since the DR text genuinely seems to me to have two equally valid rules-as-written interpretations, I'd cast my vote for the one that's less stupid when I imagine it. Sadly, I don't get a vote! FAQ it if you don't feel confident that your interpretation is correct.

Seeing as how this is the first time I have ever seen this come up, and cannot find anything about it with the search function, I'd say it's pretty safe to say this does not qualify as a FAQ. Generally something is FAQ worthy if it Frequently comes up.

I know how I'd run it in my game, and I'm fairly certain that the vast majority will run it the same way. No FAQ needed IMO.


It gives you DR 3/- against piercing weapons. Firearms do bludgeoning and piercing damage. I'd say that this doesn't apply to firearms because of the bludgeoning damage.


The fact that the GM let the paladin slaughter the entire village before falling should be a pretty clear indicator that this was a setup. Committing the first evil act should have instantly made the paladin fall. If I were the player I'd be retraining my paladin levels first chance I got.


Thrown weapons can be considered one handed or light based on the rules for two weapon fighting with thrown weapons.

Combat, Two-Weapon Fighting wrote:
Thrown Weapons: The same rules apply when you throw a weapon from each hand. Treat a dart or shuriken as a light weapon when used in this manner, and treat a bolas, javelin, net, or sling as a one-handed weapon.

I would probably just count any light melee weapon with a range increment as a light throwing weapon as well. Weapons besides the ones listed, you'll have to use your best judgment to determine whether they are light or one-handed.


Since when is it evil to kill good aligned creatures? The alignment of the creature you are killing should have no bearing on whether it is evil or not. It is very possible to kill someone who is Lawful Good without committing an evil act. Whether or not this is evil should depend on the intent of the Paladin. All that aside, if the goblins truly were innocent and didn't threaten anyone at all before the combat began, then sure it was an evil act ableit an unintentional one.

It sounds like he was tricked into doing this, so atonement should work with the 500GP cost as the spell specifically says that it works on unwittingly committing an evil act.

Atonement wrote:
If the atoning creature committed the evil act unwittingly or under some form of compulsion, atonement operates normally at no cost to you.

Gotcha stories like these are why I will probably never play a Paladin.


Wiggz wrote:
Robert A Matthews wrote:
Zhayne wrote:

Seems clear-cut to me. It says you have to save vs all spells. Doesn't say a thing about spell-likes or supernaturals, so you don't have to save.

Since the ability title is merely flavor text, can be renamed, and has no bearing on the functioning of the ability or the personality of the character, using it as any kind of justification is meaningless.

I would say that you have to save against spell-like abilities.

Magic wrote:
A spell-like ability has a casting time of 1 standard action unless noted otherwise in the ability or spell description. In all other ways, a spell-like ability functions just like a spell.
All is a very inclusive term.
Do SLA's provoke AoO's just like spells?

All means all.


Zhayne wrote:

Seems clear-cut to me. It says you have to save vs all spells. Doesn't say a thing about spell-likes or supernaturals, so you don't have to save.

Since the ability title is merely flavor text, can be renamed, and has no bearing on the functioning of the ability or the personality of the character, using it as any kind of justification is meaningless.

I would say that you have to save against spell-like abilities.

Magic wrote:
A spell-like ability has a casting time of 1 standard action unless noted otherwise in the ability or spell description. In all other ways, a spell-like ability functions just like a spell.

All is a very inclusive term.


Serpent wrote:

It's a miss chance, so use the rules for miss chance (with the exceptions mentioned in the spell description). :)

Since the flavor reason for the miss chance is timing, it's a reasonable house rule to allow a timing-based attack (=readied attack) to lessen the miss chance.

But RAW? Nope, clearly not.

This. The rules don't support it. This is strictly GM fiat.


If you used call animal, nothing is stopping you from using Wild Empathy while the spell is in effect to make the animal stick around after the spell wears off. In fact, it would stand to reason that most Druids and Rangers probably use this spell whenever they are seeking a new animal companion.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Wiggz wrote:

I'll toss another log on the fire - if a Barbarian has the ability to actually cast a spell or use a spell-like ability himself (multi-class, gestalt or even a racial ability), I can't find a single RAW that disallows it.

I didn't see this part addressed so I'd like to address it.

Rage wrote:
While in rage, a barbarian cannot use any Charisma-, Dexterity-, or Intelligence-based skills (except Acrobatics, Fly, Intimidate, and Ride) or any ability that requires patience or concentration.
Magic wrote:
To cast a spell, you must concentrate.

That should clear up that little tidbit.


True Seeing sees into the Ethereal Plane if you focus on it. See invisibility can see any ethereal creatures or objects within your line of sight.


Broken Prince wrote:
Why can't he have an animated shield to? Surely if two shield is twice the AC... I forget if eidolons can use shields? No armour, but I think they could use shields. Get ten shields easy :)

Shields are weapons so fair game.


Human Fighter wrote:

I wanted to avoid going nuts on interpreting and justifying things, because it is pretty simple to just read something and understand it for what it's saying, at least in my opinion.

As mentioned before, interpretation is subjective, and people seem to not look at the big picture of things when they explore this avenue. This feat can be exploited, but what I interpret as the original intent was to give people a break for investing tons of stupid stuff and getting a reward at a BAB +11. Yes, there are short cuts, but that's not my fault, and people using that to support their argument because of how stupid the exploitation of the feat is, doesn't matter when it comes down to the fact of what is written. I wish my experience on the boards would be more fair minded and not drift over to just arguing interpretation on something so clear, when we're in the rules section.

I click link and read "unofficial FAQ", and how they write they intend to add it to the future erratta. Well, it never happened. Maybe someone goof'd before, and thus it was never added? I don't know for certain, and no one else here does, so it isn't official, and it was never added, so it can't fly. You can take that into your home game, and use it for guidance I suppose, but I sure as hell know that if I tried to argue something that seemed crazy, that I'd get a song and dance about it.

Again, I recognize crazy stuff, but I live a life where I try and be objective and fair. How can any progress be made when people post in a rules forum with misinformation based on their subjective view points, and not the facts? Admit this is what it says, and move on, and if you desire include your interpretations. I don't care what your buddy thought when he read it, because I can use my imagination and quickly figure out that they looked at the pre-reqs and other things and just justified their interpretation, and ignored the facts.

It only works that way if the GM says it does. Don't count on that happening though, unless you are the GM.


Show up at my table and try to do this. I can't imagine any PFS GM would let the feat work like that.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Rikkan wrote:
Does max dex limit your touch armour class?

Yes it does, since your touch AC is just your AC without armor, natural armor, and shield bonuses.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

One time we had a player get glued to the air. He was hit by a tanglefoot bag while under an airwalk spell. We ended up deciding that since he is walking on the air as if it were the ground that the tanglefoot bag glues him to the air.


Can we just ban Animate Dead from society play already? That spell only serves to cause problems in a campaign where being evil isn't allowed. No matter how you try to slice it, animating the dead is evil.


blahpers wrote:
Majuba wrote:
blahpers wrote:
Majuba wrote:
50% roll comes at the beginning of the turn - no effect that round.
Bestow curse mentions no such limitation.

Not a limitation, just how it works.

You have restored my faith in the order of the universe, thank you.

: )

Please enlighten me. Where do the rules specify that this is "how it works"?

The rules don't have to specify.

Game Mastery Guide pg 8 wrote:
The Game Master should know what each character is capable of, as well as the abilities of the nonplayer characters and monsters, and should be prepared to pass judgment on any contradictory or disputed interpretations of the rules. And while it’s important for the Game Master to be fair and hear out players’ opinions and arguments, a good Game Master has the confidence and resolve to hold firm once he’s made a decision.


We can't make your GM better understand the English language. That requires effort on his part. Just accept his houserule and move on. He's the GM. If you can't get past this problem, find a new GM.


You don't have to read the rules like a robot guys. It is obviously intended to apply to familiars as well. If I ever sat down at a table and the GM told me that this feat didn't work on my familiar, I would get up immediately and leave that table. PFS doesn't take away your ability to use common sense™. I've been at several tables where the GM and players work together on playing things out differently than how a scenario is written. I tend to quote this a lot and I feel it is very appropriate here:

Rules Forum Sticky wrote:
Paizo firmly believes it is the privilege and responsibility of the GM to make rulings for unusual circumstances or unusual characters.

Also,

Rules Forum Sticky wrote:

I really need an answer on this question and there’s no FAQ for it yet. What should I do?

Have the GM make a ruling and move on. Even if you’re playing in a Pathfinder Society campaign: sometimes the GM has to make a ruling so the game can proceed.


I would rule that it doesn't take effect until next round. The creature is already taking its turn. No the rules don't clearly state that, but when you are the GM you get to make the call.


MattR1986 wrote:

You can use Remove Curse to counter it (which you obviously can't do unless you somehow and for some reason cast a spell then as an immediate action counter it), but you need Dispel Magic and automatically pass.

edit: it depends on if you interpret it to mean counters and dispels in a redundant way as it counters it and thus removes it, or if you can use it as Dispel Magic as well.

It's saying that it both counters and dispels. Break it up into two sentences. Remove Curse counters Bestow Curse. Remove Curse dispels Bestow Curse. There is no other way to interpret it if you are using the English language to interpret it.

Quote:

I'd never noticed that. So removing a bestow curse with remove curse is automatic. Neat.

I wonder if major curse is defeated the same way. It does say that it "functions as bestow curse".

I'd say no it doesn't work. Major Curse even though it functions as Bestow Curse is not Bestow Curse. It is a different spell completely even if it is similar. You could say that since it functions as Bestow curse the line that says "it can be removed with a break enchantment, limited wish, miracle, remove curse, or wish spell." might mean you can remove it. In that case, you'd have to make a caster level check as it is still a different spell.


MattR1986 wrote:

Wrong.

Quote:

Remove curse can remove all curses on an object or a creature. If the target is a creature, you must make a caster level check (1d20 + caster level) against the DC of each curse affecting the target. Success means that the curse is removed. Remove curse does not remove the curse from a cursed shield, weapon, or suit of armor, although a successful caster level check enables the creature afflicted with any such cursed item to remove and get rid of it.

Remove curse counters and dispels bestow curse.

How does what you bolded make me wrong? If anything it makes me right. Casting a diametrically opposed spell as a dispel automatically works.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

There is no caster level check regardless of whether you cast it or if someone else did. Remove Curse specifically dispels Bestow Curse.


No need for FAQ, just run it how you want.


Does anyone actually rule that you can't use grab on an AoO? I've never seen it. Is there actual disagreement on this or is this a perceived problem?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Oort wrote:
The "he" in question is Mr. Risner. Apologies for grumpiness, but at this point I'm kinda done with being dismissed. Discourse I like. Spending half an hour trying to figure how to explain my logical viewpoint only for it to be passingly referred to as "not adding to the discussion" is pretty frustrating.

You are fighting a losing battle my friend.

“You cannot reason people out of a position that they did not reason themselves into.”


2 people marked this as a favorite.

The problem with situations like this is that some GMs only apply this level of scrutiny to Paladins. If a Lawful Good character that wasn't a Paladin did what this Paladin did, this discussion wouldn't even be happening. If it doesn't affect a non-Paladin character, it doesn't affect the Paladin either.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

The party was attacked in the woods by this wyvern. Why is it that some people always want to try and negotiate with something that just tried to kill you? He's a Paladin, not a Monk with a Vow of Peace. There is a difference. A wyvern just attacked them in the woods, if he lets that wyvern live, think of who else that wyvern will attack. In the interest of protecting people, and for the good of the weak, he can't let this creature live. The wyvern was a coward who fought without honor by ambushing the Paladin. There is no discussion to be had. Who cares if the party is full of foolishly forgiving diplomats?

This is why I always refrain from playing a Paladin. Many GMs try to distort just about anything you do and label it an evil act.


Azten wrote:
If you can Cast a Ray of Enfeeblement on yourself, you're set. While RoE effects you, your Strength score can't go below 1.

Too bad strength damage doesn't actually reduce your strength, otherwise that would be a hilarious way to use that spell.


What is a man?:
A miserable little pile of secrets.


It replaces armor training so yes you will only have a speed of 20(or 15) feet. Where did you get the idea that you can't use acrobatics while wearing medium or heavy armor? You can make the checks just the same, but instead of applying a -4 armor check penalty when wearing a breastplate, you have 0 armor check penalty when jumping, tumbling, swimming, etc. I have a corsair and I like it. Get a buccaneer's breastplate, it really matches the theme and still gives you 30 feet of movement.

Edit: Ah. Now I see. You can't use acrobatics to move through threatened squares with medium or heavy armor. You can still do everything else with acrobatics.


Mokshai wrote:

cevah, I am a bit confused on the reading of that.

From what it reads to me, is that if the spell is provided by someone else, you still don't have the requirement of the spell, and it is still a +5.

Could you explain how having the spell is the same as not having the spell?


Azten wrote:

You must hate how FCB's work with Toughness. ;)

ob·sti·nate
ˈäbstənit/
adjective
1.
stubbornly refusing to change one's opinion or chosen course of action, despite attempts to persuade one to do so.

nit·pick [nit-pik] Show IPA

verb (used without object)
1.
to be excessively concerned with or critical of inconsequential details.


Keep in mind that each level of Summon Nature's Ally spell is a different spell. It won't apply to every Summon Nature's Ally spell you cast. So if you choose Summon Nature's Ally I, it won't apply to Summon Nature's Ally II.


The gecko is still an animal. It does what it is trained to do. It has no concept of who is an ally and who is an enemy. Unless it has the "exclusive" trick, anyone can make an animal do tricks with the Handle Animal skill. A combat trained gecko knows the "down" trick, so you can make the gecko stop attacking with a DC 10 Handle animal check. Without its master alive to give it a different command, it will obey whoever is handling it at the time. This is the RAW answer, but you are fully within your right to encourage more roleplay than just simply rolling a die.

I've had this idea in my head for a long time, but I've thought about making a character with a huge bonus to Handle Animal and whenever I come across a mounted enemy I would push their mount(DC 25) to do the "Throw Rider" trick. Many laughs would be had.


GoldEdition42 wrote:

It is a Feat to help your 1st level character survive that hit from a one-armed goblin with no depth perception.

Toughness has saved one of my 1st level characters more than once. A solid (if not exciting) Feat for any class.

Or a crit from a raging halfling barbarian ;)


Shadrayl of the Mountain wrote:
MattR1986 wrote:
Arkhios wrote:

Kneeling and sitting is addressed a bit vaguely, and I couldn't find anything that supports or goes against that if one could use a bow while kneeling or not.

By common sense I could argue, that yes, I can shoot with a bow while I'm kneeling, without penalty, since I'm capable of pulling the string as much back as if standing up.

As well, by common sense, pulling a bow-string while sitting is nigh-impossible, like while prone (which is, on the other hand, addressed in the rules, although I couldn't find where exactly on a short notice)

So, is it possible, rules-wise, to shoot with a bow while kneeling?

I'm no expert on archery, but realistically, no, you could not use a bow really from kneeling. I suppose you could but it would not be easy. People get this confused notion of archery from watching Lord of the Rings where Legolas uses a bow like he's Neo from the Matrix. You need planted feet and time to properly draw and release. That being said, most of what's realistic goes out the window in D&D with how you can move and shoot 4+ times in 6 seconds. I would say yes with shortbow, no with longbow which is usually ~6 feet.

Google Lars Andersen- he can shoot 10 arrows in 4.9 seconds. He can also shoot accurately while running and jumping, including shooting multiple arrows in mid-jump.

I would bet shooting while kneeling would be child's play to any experienced combat archer.

There's all sorts of speed archers out there these days. It's really pretty fun to watch. :-)

Thank you for that. That was really intriguing. I always thought it was strange to be able to fire so many arrows in one round, but seeing it done makes much more sense. I never even thought of holding all the arrows in hand while firing. Those ancient techniques are really something. Being able to shoot 10 arrows into the air before the first one hits the ground is all the proof anyone should need that this is possible.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Skeld wrote:
Vod Canockers wrote:
Oddly enough I proposed that the Next printing will just have to include a dictionary of all the words used in the text of the rules. in the What does it mean to 'wield' a weapon? thread of July 2013.

That's a fine idea, but they aren't going to add anything to the CRB that breaks pagination.

Cyrad wrote:
I actually don't want them to rule on this. It's one of those common sense things that answering it may end up creating more problems than it solves, like the mounted combat FAQ. A GM can simply rule when a character is wielding a weapon as situations may vary. Common sense should tell you that you're wielding a weapon if you're capable of making attacks with it.

I'm 99% with you on this. I'm against the continued codification of minutia, believing instead that this kind of stuff should be left to the GM. The game works much better when there's wiggle room. However, there is a non-trivial segment of the population that is unable to function well unless they have a printed rule somewhere to point at. The hardline pro-RAW, anti-houserule stance of PFS fuels much of the "rules angst."

-Skeld

The development team agrees with you.

Rules Forum Sticky wrote:
Paizo firmly believes it is the privilege and responsibility of the GM to make rulings for unusual circumstances or unusual characters.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
James Risner wrote:
Cyrad wrote:
Common sense should tell you that you're wielding a weapon if you're capable of making attacks with it.
So what does common sense tell you about wearing a spiked gauntlet that is enchanted with something that matters when "wielded" and then using a two handed Greatsword to attack?

Common Sense™ tells me that when wielding another weapon in that hand, you are not able to make attacks with the gauntlet. Therefore you are not wielding it.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Vod Canockers wrote:
Skeld wrote:

I'd like to propose a new book for Paizo to release at GenCon 2015: Ultimate Definition.

It would contain every* game term contained in the Pathfinder lexicon, in alphabetical order. There would no longer be a need for questions like this. It could even include the gaming definition of the word "is."

-Skeld

* - At least until the September 2015 books are released.

Oddly enough I proposed that the Next printing will just have to include a dictionary of all the words used in the text of the rules. in the What does it mean to 'wield' a weapon? thread of July 2013.

While we're at it maybe we should ask them to include a definition of the word "is" in the rules. Don't stop until the CRB is 1200 pages.


James Risner wrote:
Robert A Matthews wrote:
getting a +8 enhancement bonus for the price of a +7. Even still, it's only a better option when used by a Barbarian because

You can't buy a +7 enhancement bonus and items are priced based on who can use them most effectively. Not on the average user.

Not sure exactly what you are trying to say. Either way, I'm going to bow out of this discussion as I doubt this issue will ever come up in any game I am GMing. Courageous is a suboptimal choice until you reach about level 15 or so. If you apply the interpretation that it only works for saves then it is always a suboptimal choice and there will never be a good reason to buy it.


Interesting. I guess if you had a +4 Furious Bane Courageous weapon and you were fighting the right creature then yes, you could get +4 to your morale bonuses. You are getting a +8 enhancement bonus for the price of a +7. Even still, it's only a better option when used by a Barbarian because the bump to strength combined with the bump to attack rolls, saves, and damage will stack. Even then it is only while you have rage and a spell in effect at the same time. Take either of those out and it is better to just have a flat enhancement bonus. Unless getting +1 to saves is really worth giving up the +1 to hit and damage you would be getting otherwise. It only really seems to become powerful at higher levels(when you can afford a +7 weapon).

To be honest, I'm not sure why I'm arguing this anymore, people are convinced courageous is overpowered when it does less damage with less +to hit than a flat enhancement bonus. I wouldn't buy a courageous weapon anyway even with the allegedly overpowered interpretation as it isn't as good as just getting a furious weapon and just increasing the enhancement bonus. At least then you have the bonus all the time and don't depend on a spell. Without the spell in effect you are worse off than someone who just adds an enhancement bonus to the weapon.

I still hold that what people really have a problem with is furious. Courageous isn't "overpowered" until you add furious to it.


Ilja wrote:
Robert A Matthews wrote:
Midnight_Angel wrote:
Mapleswitch wrote:
Weapons max at +5 enhancement / +5 special quality. 5/2 round down = 2. Courageous gives either a +1 or a +2 to other morale bonuses.

Furious: Enhancement counts as 2 higher when raging

Bane: Enhancement counts as 2 higher against certain enemies

Boom - +9 Enhancement Bonus. Which, all of a sudden, increases every single morale bonus by +4.

Magic items can't have an enhancement bonus higher than +5.
AFAIK, that only applies for crafting. There's been several threads and I believe dev comments clarifying it, IIRC.
Magic Weapons(not from the crafting section) wrote:
A weapon can't have an enhancement bonus higher than +5. Use these lines to determine price when special ability are added in.

Please provide citations from the developers stating otherwise as they directly go against the RAW.


1 person marked this as FAQ candidate.
Midnight_Angel wrote:
Mapleswitch wrote:
Weapons max at +5 enhancement / +5 special quality. 5/2 round down = 2. Courageous gives either a +1 or a +2 to other morale bonuses.

Furious: Enhancement counts as 2 higher when raging

Bane: Enhancement counts as 2 higher against certain enemies

Boom - +9 Enhancement Bonus. Which, all of a sudden, increases every single morale bonus by +4.

Magic items can't have an enhancement bonus higher than +5.


5 people marked this as a favorite.

Can we not FAQ every little issue that comes up? No wonder we never get any answers to our questions.

1 to 50 of 991 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>