Which is the part that confuses me the most. We have already established on both sides that the lighting levels do not change. What a character perceives does not alter the physical world itself. Then we take a look at HiPS:
A shadowdancer can use the Stealth skill even while being observed. As long as she is within 10 feet of an area of dim light, a shadowdancer can hide herself from view in the open without anything to actually hide behind. She cannot, however, hide in her own shadow.
It does not say "As long as she is within 10 feet of an area of dim light relevant to the observer"
It does not say "As long as her enemies perceive her to be within 10 feet of an area of dim light"
It says you have to be within 10' of dim light period.
Lamontius is my hero! Two things, first I'm cannot be sure of the tone of AD's use of the word nerd but you seem to be using it in a derogatory manner(which is funny as he is well known on the forums of Pathfinder so I guess he's being facetious?) which I don't find appropriate even if you are trying to be funny.
EDIT: OOOOOOOHH, AD is talking TO the person with nerd in his forum name! That makes a lot more sense!
Second, people use slang and abbreviated phrases because it is easier for them to type out. I myself held your opinion about the abbreviated phrases because it frustrated me to have to look up new ones all the time and it seemed like they were arbitrary and people just made them up even if no one had ever used them before. After I learned what the phrases meant though I started using them because it was a lot easier to type out especially when I had to use the phrase multiple times.
People speak/type differently because of the changing times and the social situations that they grew up in. The people who use new slang/terms/abbreviated phrases are no more wrong in using them than you are for not changing with the times and adopting this new language. Words adopt new meanings all the time and the word toon adopted the meaning of "character" despite it's origins. Getting pissed off that someone is using a word that you don't use to describe their character is just plain silly. You are in effect being a Grammar Nazi but instead of actually correcting someone's grammar you are reprimanding them for using a word you don't like.
A speed weapon gives an extra attack with a weapon with that property. Another speed weapon gives you an extra attack with a different weapon, a different effect.
Minor quibble, it is the same effect. The argument being made is that because the same effect is being applied to a separate object no stacking is taking place.
Grick wrote:
The weapon is not making an attack roll, the creature wielding it is.
"A masterwork weapon is a finely crafted version of a normal weapon. Wielding it provides a +1 enhancement bonus on attack rolls."
"The wielder of a speed weapon gains an extra attack with that weapon."
Both are properties granted to the wielder by the weapon.
If we go off of this logic then that means that the wielder of the Speed weapon is gaining the benefits of Speed. Because he is gaining the benefits of Speed he cannot gain the benefits of Speed from another weapon because it is a similar effect to Speed that the wielder is already benefiting from. A Speed weapon is in effect a continuous use item that casts a limited version of Haste on the target with the caveat that it can only be used with that weapon. The character not the weapon is gaining the benefits of Speed, and therefore is not allowed to gain the benefits of Speed again, or Haste.
Post it over in the rules boards and the chances of getting a quote from a lead designer improve.
And while I don't have the word "designer" in my name... In fact, I've designed a HELL of a lot of content for Pathfinder. Including large portions of our rulebooks.
But if you're just looking for the response of someone with the word "designer" in their title... yeah. You'll need to post that question elsewhere.
Just to be clear I respect your rulings and consider your rulings to be official responses from Paizo. The problem is that this question gets asked almost twice monthly on the rules forum and in fact there were two separate threads about this issue on the front page just today and no designer has ever weighed in as far as I know. You have made your ruling about it and I thought that would be the end of that but as you say, you don't have the word "designer" in your title so many of people who are arguing opposed to your ruling do not accept it. I guess that answers my question though, I guess i'll just have to deal with the constant arguing about bastard swords or just avoid all threads with bastard sword in the title.
Also, thank you for taking the time out of your day to answer all of our questions. It is much appreciated and you have helped end many an argument between me and my friends.
Spell descriptors have zero in-game effect and is only provided to give hooks to other mechanical effects such as immunities.
Quote:
Most of these descriptors have no game effect by themselves, but they govern how the spell interacts with other spells, with special abilities, with unusual creatures, with alignment, and so on.
The with alignment bit refers to creatures with resistances and other features with respect to "good" spells versus "evil" ones. It doesn't mean casting a spell marked evil shifts your alignment.
Not according to James Jacobs. But then again I have seen too many people argue with James because they don't think his rulings hold any weight to expect this to ever change anyone's mind. Ironically though I have seen on multiple occasions people ask James for his opinion and when he vote in their favor they say "thank you!" but when he votes against them in another thread they say "well you're not a designer so your ruling doesn't count!".
From what i read, i was under the impression that people were calling for not aplying the rules to everyone in the same manner.
Did read that wrong?
Did people not state or imply that the rules were different depending on how well the player and the DM got along?
Most of have been advocating not going out of our way to help someone being a douchenozzle. We weren't saying "forget these rules when dealing with this guy because I don't like him and it will hurt his character" we were saying "you died completely withing the bounds of the rules but because you're being a ninny I am not giving you a mulligan."
I don't think he is outright lying. I think he is coloring the truth with his own bias. If his account is fully accurate, then it would be obvious to the rest of the party and the GM that this player is wrong. Most likely, the player would have a very different account of events.
On the contrary, I think people are far too trusting of the OP most of the time. Just because this guy is the one posting the thread on the forums, doesn't mean he is the one in the right.
That's because when I meet someone for the first time I assume that they are telling me the truth. It must be exhausting for you doubting everything everybody says but for me, unless someone comes and refutes what the person is saying or I know for a fact that they are lying (or if they are saying something ridiculously outlandish) I assume they are being truthful and don't immediately assume that the situation they are describing happened the exact opposite to what they told me.
He starts by referring to himself as a fair dude but the player as a pain in the butt that makes him not want to be fair. Lets get this bias started off right! ^_^
And yet he came onto the forums and asked other peoples opinions to find out if he was being fair. He was trying to be fair to the player by getting a second opinion but since all you care about is his tone "Lets get this bias started off right! ^_^"
Vincent Takeda wrote:
Is also the kind of guy who says 'oh i don't think i like your character build' despite being a legal build before the game even starts
You mean he is the kind of guy who says "You are min/maxing your character and you might make the game less fun for the rest of the party because you will be taking out entire encounters by yourself. Since you won't stop complaining about wanting to play this character I will let you play it but I will not fudge any rolls to ensure your characters survival like I would with the other characters." There is a difference. One side is just being petty, the other side is trying to ensure that everybody at the table has fun and not just one person.
Vincent Takeda wrote:
Despite the fact that the pcs plan had 3 stages of possible success (break grapple, use wings, cast featherfall) the OP only manages to bring the sentiment 'yeah what a dumb plan.
Three stages of success that required he break the grapple first, which he was incapable of doing. The PC had bad rolls to break out of the grapple, then decided on an all or nothing plan to simultaneously kill the Revanant and escape at the same time. I don't know if he got at least one turn before he hit the water but I agree he should have gotten at least one. That being said however it still hinges on the fact that he break the grapple first which, going off of the evidence we have, was not likely.
Vincent Takeda wrote:
After a few forum posts we learn not only was the pc's math wrong, but the gm's math was wrong as well...
Right, the PC's math was wrong and he would have made the check, but the GM's math was wrong which would have made the check harder and so the PC would not have made the check. This was brought up by someone else, the GM is not trying to be vindictive here. If you want to whine and complain and use rules retroactively because you forgot about them you cannot complain when some of those rules that were forgotten about hurt you as well.
Vincent Takeda wrote:
So now we have a situation where the gm can choose 'we both messed up our math and it went wrong lets undo it' and 'we both messed up our math so the best way to handle it is you're dead anyway'.
Right, OR we have a situation where the GM says "we both messed up our math but even if we used the correct math you still would have died. I already told you when you first made this character that its was overpowered compared to the rest of the group and I would not be fudging rolls in your favor if it looked like you were about to die and you agreed to it."
Vincent Takeda wrote:
The question 'am i being fair' then boils down to 'do you do what you do because it seems like an unbiased way of looking at things' or did you decide the outcome of the encounter based on...
He did not DECIDE the outcome of the encounter because the outcome was decided by the die rolls. The PC called into question the GMs handling of the plan to be thrown out of the window. The GM was unsure of the actual rules so he came onto the forums to find out if he handled it correctly and the OVERWHELMING consensus is that he handled it correctly. The secondary question of if he should retcon the PC's character back to life is up to the GM but he is fully justified in not doing so because he already made it clear to the PC that he would not be doing him any favors and as far as I can tell did not cheat to outright kill the PC's character.
What I said were that if you're inferring rules based on bestiary entries, you can come up with more conclusions that were given, not that they didn't follow rules,
False, what you said was:
lantzkev wrote:
Lol I see, so you tell me to prove something, I point out that critters in the bestiary can be completely made up without guidelines at points.
and
lantzkev wrote:
I'm saying that the monsters don't have to follow the rules and in fact most don't. They are given abilities that have no correlation to the rules.
Which clearly shows that you said that monsters apparently don't follow any rules.
lantzkev wrote:
That if you go based off the number of weapons wielded a monk has "8."
It has been said multiple times that this cannot happen. You are purposely putting forth a ridiculous situation and trying to disprove it in a sad attempt to disprove a different point which is a straw man argument. Here is the relevant text that you continually ignore to further your own point:
Unarmed Strike wrote:
At 1st level, a monk gains Improved Unarmed Strike as a bonus feat. A monk's attacks may be with fist, elbows, knees, and feet. This means that a monk may make unarmed strikes with his hands full. There is no such thing as an off-hand attack for a monk striking unarmed. A monk may thus apply his full Strength bonus on damage rolls for all his unarmed strikes.
Since there is no off hand for an unarmed strike you can never receive an extra attack for any limb even if you tried to use unarmed strike using TWF because there is no off hand for you to use while TWF.
lantzkev wrote:
Lastly, MWF does in fact do several things even given my "strict" interpretation of things, it functions identical to TWF (replaces it) and enables you to do things like wield two two handed weapons without racking up a -10 penalty on the second attack
Why would you incur a -10 penalty if you were just using TWF though? You seem to be implying that because you are using one of your two extra off-hands that you NEED MWF instead of TWF or you take the -10. Why is this not the case for the primary attack? Are you not wielding the primary weapon with an off-hand? Your logic dictates that without MWF both attacks would be at -10 and -10.
lantzkev wrote:
It's been amply demonstrated that there is no rule for the issue at hand, and that the inferred rules can easily be taken several ways.
No it hasn't
lantzkev wrote:
As it stands aside from a custom built race, there is no option for PCs to get multiple arms that does not come expressly prohibiting extra attacks from weapons (the closest exception is the tailwhip which provides a natural attack to add into a full attack routine)
Actually think you made a mistake here because the non custom built race that sparked this discussion has multiple arms and doesn't expressly prohibit extra attacks from weapons. Your entire argument was that there was no rule that expressly allows extra attacks from extra limbs. But if you want to change your argument here and say if you have multiple arms that don't expressly prohibit extra attacks then you are allowed to have them then Huzzah! We have come to a conclusion!
lantzkev wrote:
You're more than welcome to go debate in the house rule/homebrew rule forum, but it has no place here.
This forum is for rules and not speculation on rules.
Yes and we are interpreting the RAI of this rule, of which until just recently you were the only one who held your opinion and I think now you are one of three people. So if we go by majority rule, go to the homebrew section lantzkev as you have no place here and can go houserule this however you want!
Suffice it to say though that I think we need a FAQ for this as the combat section was made when two-weapon fighting was the only option available to PCs and so the argument is that since the combat rules only ever mention fighting with two weapons you are limited to fighting with two weapons and cannot gain extra attacks past that.
The feat only makes it clear you do not take a penalty to offhand attacks with all your hands. It makes no sense for a feat that is used instead of two-weapon fighting to do so much more than two-weapon fighting.
It doesn't, it is implied through the wording of the feat that you already get those extra attacks and that all this feat does is reduce the penalties for ALL of your off-hands instead of just one like TWF. All MWF does is extend the penalty reduction past one offhand.
lantzkev wrote:
Without this feat if you have four arms and decide to dual wield two two handed weapons you'd take the full -10 penalty due to two weapon fighting normally only affect one off hand... Hence this feat.
So you're saying that the only purpose of this feat is for people who want to dual wield two handed weapons? That if I am fighting with two weapons the simple act of putting a second hand on it applies the penalty even if I have TWF and not MWF? If I have only TWF and not MWF and I am wielding two two handers does that mean both weapons are at -10 because both have an offhand holding each weapon?
lantzkev wrote:
The two weapon feat in the book does not even grant an extra attack. It's the action of fighting with two weapons that does that (read the combat section)
Exactly, the act of fighting with two weapons gives you an extra attack not the feat itself. So why is it that you assume that the act of fighting with 3 or 4 weapons does not grant you any attacks?
So the argument here is that a Marilith has more attacks than it gets from iteratives and so it is implied that having multiple limbs with weapons gives extra attacks. The counter argument to this is "monsters don't use RULES silly that's not a valid argument!"? If a fighter with two arms starts wielding two weapons he does not need Two-Weapon Fighting to get the extra attack, he just does. All Two-Weapon Fighting does is reduce the penalties accrued from fighting with two weapons. It can thus be logically construed that if you wield more weapons due to having more limbs you do in fact get extra attacks but need Multi-Weapon Fighting to reduce the penalties from ALL of your offhand attacks and not just one.
So in UC, the monk has an archetype called Master of many styles which lets him benefit from multiple style feats at the same time at the cost of the flurry of blows skill. No lets say he is of sufficiently high level to get all three feats for crane, panther, and snake style. Can you walk by an enemy, provoking an attack of opportunity, hit him before his attack resolves with panther style, deflect his attack with crane, attack him because you deflected his attack, attack him because his attack "missed" with snake, and attack again with an immediate action with snake again when your attack connects? Thereby attacking an enemy 4 times on a move action?
Now I know there is some hijinks in here so here are some further questions:
1. To use crane you have to be fighting defensively or in total defense, can you call this before or as part of your initial panther strike to satisfy the requirements?
2. Crane riposte is an AoO for parrying an attack. Snake Fang is an AoO triggered by the enemy missing. Does this count as two separate triggers, thereby letting you make two AoOs on the same target?
3.Panther Claw lets you make retaliatory strikes on a creature attempting to attack you with an AoO up to your wisdom modifier. It does not classify these as AoOs but just attacks, so can you use this with say a 20 WIS to bump that 4 attacks to 8?
4 Panther Parry says that if your retaliatory strike hits you reduce their AoO attack by -2 to hit and damage, does that stack with itself when you hit multiple times?
This seem like it has the potential to make the monk less crappy.
