A small number of spells (arcane mark, limited wish, permanency, prestidigitation, and wish) are universal, belonging to no school.
A wizard that does not select a school receives the universalist school instead.
While the Wizard entry does call "Universalist" a school, it was likely a poor choice of words. "Universal" is not a school of magic. It is a placeholder for a very limited number of spells that do not fall into a specific school of magic. If you do not choose a school, you default to a "Universalist". If a spell is "universal", it does not belong to a school. Ergo, "Universal" is not an actual school of magic that can be chosen as an opposition school.
It's the difference between throwing a piece of 8x10 off a roof (feather fall) and throwing a paper airplane off a roof (grippli glider). The paper airplane impacts with more force than the unfolded sheet.
Right. But we're comparing dropping a wadded up paper to a paper airplane, not an unfolded sheet. Nobody is saying the Glider will do no damage; they're saying it'll do less.
And I was just commenting on you saying the rates of fall are the same even with the trait. Yes, technically true. But clearly it's not the intent for the Glider to hit with the same force. Because, as I mentioned, if we draw out your real-world analogy, the Glider should be hitting harder because not only is the Glider falling at the same rate, but traveling horizontally, too. Higher rate of speed, more momentum. More momentum means bigger impact with the target. Obviously, nobody is arguing for that. So clearly we shouldn't be pedantic with our physics application in this particular instance. If you're gliding, you shouldn't do as much damage as if you were not, despite the fact that you're technically falling at the same rate (and actually traveling faster).
Well, I mean if we want to get technical about it, the way the ability is written means the Grippli would be travelling faster than a person who simply fell the same distance. But that doesn't really seem like the intent behind the ability. Call this one of those corner areas where PF rules don't strictly adhere to how the same real-world scenario would play out and make a judgment call.
The point of the trait is for the Grippli to reduce the impact of the fall. Thus, the impact transferred to the target should, likewise, be reduced.
James Risner wrote:
Immunity to paralysis has absolutely nothing to do with immunity to unconsciousness.
Yup. The ability does two things on a failed save: cause paralysis, cause unconsciousness. The two are unrelated, except that they are caused by the same thing. Immunity to one is irrelevant to the other and vice versa.
For stealth are (cover or concealment) and non observed status two seperate conditions or does concealment / cover automatically provide non observed status?
That part isn't new, just a more explicit statement of how I've always read the rule. Also, UI came out prior to the last conversation I had about this, so the precise sense stuff came up then. Most people walked away feeling the same as they did before (though your last post's content was not discussed, I don't think - that's a nice find).
I've always been of the opinion that concealment breaks observation. I've had this conversation a number of times. Nothing new has been said or is likely to be. Neither side will be convinced short of a FAQ. *shrug*
RE: Bluff/Hide & why you would ever do it - I can run behind one of six pillars, but if I don't distract you first, you know precisely where I am. So any advantage I have won't last long.
Animal Companions don't have Effective Druid Levels because they are not Druids. Boon Companion does not say your animal companion is treated as four levels higher, it says "the abilities of your animal companion are calculated as though your class were four levels higher". It then explicitly mentions that the EDL cannot exceed your Character Level. So directly after the feat mentions "your class level" is treated as four levels higher, it then mentions that EDL (which only you have, not your AC - the AC's powers are based off of your EDL) is capped by Character Level. I don't understand how that means ACs all of a sudden get Effective Druid Levels when the previously had none.
Boon Companion raises the PC's EDL. So that Druid 4/Fighter 3 you mentioned would have an EDL of 7, because that's what the feat says it does (calculate the abilities of your AC as if your class were four levels higher). Literally all it does is say if your Actual Druid Level (or equivalent) is less than your Character Level, you can act like your Druid Level is higher, for purposes of calculating your AC's abilities. But you can't exceed your Total Character Level. An 8th level Pack Lord can't have two effectively 8th level ACs because that character's ACs have the abilities of what is effectively a 16th level Druid. Boon Companion caps EDL at CL. So single class Druids (and any similar variants) gain no benefit from Boon Companion because their EDL already equals Character Level.
Tyrant Lizard King wrote:
I don't believe it works this way.
A packmaster can have more than one animal companion, but she must divide her effective druid level between her companions to determine the abilities of each one.
Boon Companion wrote:
The abilities of your animal companion or familiar are calculated as though your class were 4 levels higher, to a maximum effective druid level equal to your character level.
This is an order of operations question. Your argument is that you have an Effective Druid Level, which a Packmaster splits between multiple ACs. Afterwards, the Packmaster applies the increased levels from Boon Companion to raise the effective level of the ACs.
The wording from Boon Companion however is that your level (i.e., the PC's level, not the AC's level) is being effectively increased for the purpose of calculating the power of ACs. Animal Companions don't have Effective Druid Levels. You do and your AC's powers are calculated based off of that.
Boon Companion explicitly doesn't let your EDL exceed your class levels. If you apply Boon Companion after splitting ACs, your EDL will exceed your class level. Your claim is that a 6th level Pack Lord can have a level 6 AC and a level 2 AC, since neither exceeds 6. But the math is commutative. Your EDL cannot exceed your Character Level. Your EDL is divided up between your ACs (meaning you determine your EDL prior to dividing). So the EDL should be the same before and after applying Boon Companion. If you calculate one EDL prior to splitting, then assign Boon Companion to raise one AC's level, you now have another EDL with a different value than what your EDL was already determined to be, which is contradictory. Your EDL must be the same before and after assigning levels to your ACs.
Boon Companion applies before splitting, not after.
Boon Companion is intended for pets from classes that give reduced advancement to be able to catch up. It's also for multiclass Druids to have a way to keep their AC on par. It's not for making multiple overpowered ACs.
Diego Rossi wrote:
Chess Pwn is right. The damage stack. Then when you attack you use your abilities, and those include the ability to deal sneak attack to a target with conceal but not full concealment.
Yup. Like I said, no reason to think this is one of those things you have to track separately. URogue basically just gets Shadow Strike for free, it works the same whether multiclassed or not.
I imagine this would be resolved just like the Precision Damage vs. Concealment issue. The same arguments were considered there (only sneak attack specifically called out how it interacts with concealment).
Most likely, all precision damage will be treated the same way (subject to generally the same restrictions as sneak attack with regard to concealment, multiplication, etc.).
Also note the Precision Critical 6th-tier Trickster Path Ability.
Whenever you score a critical hit, double any extra precision damage dice, such as sneak attack damage. These dice are only doubled, not multiplied by the weapon's critical modifier.
Whenever you score a critical hit, double precision damage. The clear implication being that precision damage is ordinarily not increased on a critical hit.
So while the limitation that precision damage is not multiplied on a critical hit is not explicit, the limitation seems to be the intent.
Steven Morgan wrote:
Because there was a mess of different methods of calculating size increases spread across a number of books written over a number of years and they had to do the best they could to make them mesh as much as possible.
I fall into essentially that camp, with the addendum that we might as well play charge now in a manner that works better across the boards. So I allow the oblique charge because, honestly, I see no rational reason not to (other than strict adherence to poor-wording that everybody realizes does not accomplish the intended task).
As noted, this has been hashed out in other threads. But for people who may not be aware of that conversation, please note that the bolded is very much in dispute with thaX's view being in the small minority.
The other view is that if you can treat the weapon as a one-handed weapon, you can do so for all purposes associated with wielding (meaning TWF with THW is perfectly rules-legal).
Boon Companion states that your AC's levels are calculated based on your Effective Druid Level (EDL). It also states that the feat does not allow you to exceed your EDL.
Pack Lords use the Effective Druid Level split up between multiple ACs. However, it is still the same EDL - that part never changes.
Boon Companion does nothing for you here. Your total AC levels for a Pack Lord are capped by your EDL, which is (presumably) the same as your Character Level.
So if you are a single-class Pack Lord, level 8, you can have leveled ACs that total up to 8, but no more. This is an order of operations issue. You're trying to apply Boon Companion after you establish your AC's respective levels. You need to apply it before. Pack Lord says you can split up your EDL between ACs, so you have to know your EDL prior to splitting the levels. Boon Companion says it cannot increase your EDL beyond your character level. Thus, you're capped at character level, then you split them up for your ACs.
Orfamay Quest wrote:
Came into this late, but would say pretty much the same thing. Saying Bardic Knowledge lets you make a Knowledge check in any Knowledge Skill, even untrained, but you're still limited to the DC10 untrained cap makes absolutely no contextual sense.
Everybody can already do exactly that, anyway. I fail to see how you can make a credible argument for that interpretation.
Besides, Specific Trumps General. The Bard rule is unquestionably more specific than the general "No untrained >DC10 Knowledge Checks" rule. So frankly, I don't care if you can't make an untrained >10 Knowledge Check normally; Bards have a rule saying they can, even though it still counts as untrained.
So to continue the trend, lex specialis derogat legi generali (i.e., where two laws govern the same factual situation, a law governing a specific subject matter overrides a law which only governs general matters). How this is still being debated is beyond me. Honestly, how this was debated beyond like 10 posts is beyond me.
A couple notes, bite attacks only get 1.5 STR if they are the only natural attack a creature has (which is true for any natural attack), or if they have a special rule like dragons.
Also, bite/claw/claw attack routines use full BAB for all three, because they are all primary natural attacks. This is a change from 3.5.
Sure, but when taken in conjunction with the rest of the rules (untyped bonuses from the same source don't stack, enhancements from gear don't stack with similar enhancements, multiple instances of a spell don't stack, etc.), the general trend becomes pretty clear: things don't stack with themselves unless you're explicitly told otherwise.
No. An ability bonus, such as "Strength bonus", is considered to be the same source for the purpose of bonuses from the same source not stacking.
Generally, effects do not stack if they are from the same source (Core Rulebook page 208, Combining Magical Effects). Although temporary hit points are not a "bonus," the principle still applies.
Eh, they wrote the rules that accomplished what they wanted and their intention was clear. But this is an issue of give an inch take a mile. I have sympathy for people trying to truly hammer down this sort of thing using a medium that lacks the necessary precision to do so. If they really wanted to be as specific as it would require for what they were trying to get done here, the entry would be voluminous. They tried to go the route where they give an answer that demonstrates what they intend and also clearly communicate the intent, but people still ran with it.
Personally, I can't fault them for at some point saying, essentially, "Fine. We tried to be accommodating, but if you don't want to play along, nobody can do it."
Scott Wilhelm wrote:
Check out the Skulking Slayer if you haven't. It seems like something one could have some fun with. I've plotted a few builds with it, but haven't ever been able to play one.
Please notice that the Two Handed weapons have no particulars about the Off Hand, the only weapons allowed to be wielded by the Off Hand is those that are considered Light or One-Handed weapons. For the character, the weapon is still considered a Two Handed weapon, the size rules have no bearing on how the feat works.
This, specifically, is absolutely, unequivocally, 100% incorrect. Well, the implications you draw from it, anyway (because, mind-boggling enough, you state this correctly then ignore the point in your conclusions).
If a weapon is considered a one-handed weapon for the purposes of weilding, you absolutely can weild it in your off-hand. Why? Because as you noted, "the only weapons allowed to be wielded by the Off Hand is those that are considered Light or One-Handed weapons." And because of the abilities we're talking about here, the weapon is considered a OHW. Seriously, you just said you can off-hand weild a weapon as long as it is "considered" a OHW. That's exactly what is going on here. The weapon is now "considered" a OHW for the purposes of weilding it.
So seriously, how do you disagree with this? You literally just wrote out specifically why it is allowed.
You know what pretend means, right? You don't actually move where the weapon is on the chart; you can just pretend that it appears elsewhere for the purpose of determining how you can weild it and that purpose alone.
You don't need three pages of text. "Weild as a one-handed weapon" covers literally everything. It lets you weild it in every conceivable way just as if it were a one-handed weapon, even though it is not actually one.
Can you do it with a one-handed weapon? If yes, then you can do it if you are allowed to weild a THW as if it were a OHW.
I have no actual horse in this race. I don't have any sort of natural attack build and I don't plan to either. This will probably never come up for me. I was asking for discussion's sake. You are correct in that I have not been convinced. I don't consider the above arguments anything more than opinion. Oh well.
That there's no explicit rule prohibiting this sort of thing (because frankly, it should be fairly obvious and is easily inferable from the rules quoted above) doesn't mean you can do it.
Also, applying logic to the rules set to augment your understanding of how the rules work to cover possibly unattended areas or ambiguous areas is not only something a person should naturally do, but it is an expected feature of the system (as has been verified by developer statements). So there is nothing wrong with "just appeal[ing] to logic".
It is not merely "an opinion" that one cannot attack with a claw while holding something in that hand; it is a valid logical inference derived from reading the existent rules and applying real world understanding in conjunction with that to recognize the intent behind the design of the game is to prohibit doing this. Hold a pencil in your hand, using just the thumb to secure it, then forcefully slap a hard surface. Tell me how effective you think you are with that attack. Tell me how effective you think you can be with that attack while still maintaining your grasp on the pencil and not damaging it in any way.
What your asking about not only appears to violate written rules that apply in a similar (though not this exact) situation. What you are doing does not seem logically or physically valid. Ergo, it stands to reason that unless you can demonstrate, with very credible, valid evidence (i.e., rules language supporting your position), that you cannot do what you want to do.
You can think these are just opinions all you want. I have come across no gm in my personal life who would accept what you're trying to do as valid, nor does it appear that anybody on here would accept what you're trying to do as valid. The ball is, as they say, firmly in your court on this one.
That's not the question. That answer is obvious: Yes. A Belt of Giant Strength gives a permanent bonus to Strength.
The only curiosity is about how temporary bonuses to ability scores effect a character's options.
If you ordinarily cannot do lethal damage with your dagger, then yes you'll always do nonlethal damage. However, making a Sneak Attack is not ordinarily attacking with your dagger; you get significant bonus damage.
Sneak attack is added to the normal weapon damage before that rule comes into play. So if you strike a vital target and deal 1d3-3 points of damage you then have to add your sneak attack damage before you determine the lethality of your strike.
The algorithm then isn't:
The algorithm is:
You can't determine whether your attack with a normally lethal weapon is nonlethal or not prior to attacking (assuming you're not attempting to make a nonlethal attack with a lethal weapon - which isn't compatible with sneak attack, anyway) before you roll damage. Sneak Attack is a part of that damage, just like Vital Strike damage, Critical Hit damage, a Swashbuckler/Duelist's Precise Strike damage, etc. It is all taken into account before determining whether the attack is lethal. Either all of your damage together exceeds 0, or you do 1 nonlethal damage. You do not do 1 nonlethal damage because your weapon attacks are ordinarily weak then add a bunch of nonlethal sneak attack, vital strike, critical hit, or precision damage on top of that. It's one pool of damage, and it's all the same type (ordinarily speaking).
I wonder if you would still consider the weapon "Light" when it is a Smaller version (Small weapon for a Medium creature) or if you would change it so that it is still considered One Handed for the creature, feat or not.
This is explicitly handled in the rules.
The measure of how much effort it takes to use a weapon (whether the weapon is designated as a light, one-handed, or two-handed weapon for a particular wielder) is altered by one step for each size category of difference between the wielder's size and the size of the creature for which the weapon was designed. For example, a Small creature would wield a Medium one-handed weapon as a two-handed weapon. If a weapon's designation would be changed to something other than light, one-handed, or two-handed by this alteration, the creature can't wield the weapon at all.
It seems what is hanging you up on TWF when you can wield a THW in one hand is that you believe THW cannot be used for TWF, as a basic component of their definition as a THW. This isn't in the rules. If it is written down somewhere, please provide the source because it is not a limitation I am familiar with.
What is true is that ordinarily you cannot TWF with a THW. The reason for this is because ordinarily, both hands of effort are devoted to wielding the THW. This isn't the case we're talking about here. If you have an ability that allows you to one-hand a THW, you are no longer restricting the use of your second hand. Therefore, your other hand is free to do the exact same things your other hand would be free to do if you were wielding any other one-handed weapon. That includes wielding a second weapon that you are capable of wielding in one hand (which includes your ability to wield in one hand a weapon which ordinarily requires two hands).
Nobody wants to change any weapons here. The only thing that changes is the character's ability to wield that weapon, specifically, how many hands must be devoted to its use. That is the only thing that changes with regard to the weapon.
The rules do not say SA damage cannot be nonlethal. In fact, it unquestionably can. The rules prohibit you from intentionally using a lethal weapon to get nonlethal SA damage.
That does not mean that your attack with a lethal weapon couldn't be so ineffective that even with SA damage, you do minimal (less than 1) damage. It also defies reason that you could strike a foe so weakly that you do nothing more than maybe cause some slight bruising to the skin, and yet still effectively strike them so precisely that you cause relatively serious harm. It's one or the other. The SA overcomes what ordinarily would be a negligible hit to cause actual damage to a vulnerable target, or the entire attack is ineffective.
Fire damage is fire damage. Damage modifiers apply to weapon damage. So as Claxon said, you add up all the physical damage with relevant modifiers before applying rider effects (like energy damage, poison, etc.).
As I said, treat it like you would Vital Strike. You do not calculate weapon damage, then add Vital Strike damage afterwards; it is all one thing.
EDIT: wraith snuck in there before me. Must have dipped Ninja last level up.
This. It's one damage pool. If sneak attack and other precision damage were a rider, Rogues would virtually never be able to injure anything with damage reduction, particularly if it's 10+.
And the sneak attack damage is the same type of damage as the attack it's attached to. So if the attack does nonlethal damage (e.g., using a sap), so does the sneak attack. If the attack does fire damage (e.g., Scorching Ray), so does the sneak attack.
This question isn't about trying to bump into somebody. This question is about what happens when you unknowingly travel through an invisible person's space.
So yes, abiding by the rules that prevent that sort of movement is, by definition, metagaming. Metagaming, in this context, is simply relying on player knowledge (that would be otherwise unavailable to the character) to influence character decisions. Obviously, some level of metagaming is inherent and necessary to the system. But this isn't one of those cases.
Throwing flour or searching for tracks when your character is already aware there is an invisible creature present doesn't relying on any player knowledge that isn't available to the character.
Being told you cannot move into a seemingly empty square then having your character attack into that square because you as a player know that the only reason you can't move into that square is that there must be an invisible creature present is metagaming.
And that there is no exclusive list of ways to detect invisibility doesn't mean the methods are infinite.
Trying to bump into somebody is different than accidentally bumping into someone while ignorantly passing through their square. And if you bump into somebody, you have pinpointed their location.
Ultimately, you can't really rely too heavily on the "but the rules say this" argument when abiding by these rules overcomes the explicit methods of detecting and pinpointing an invisible character. You have generally a 50% chance of detecting someone by reaching into their square, which you really only do once you are already aware or suspicious of the general presence of an invisible creature. The "you can't move into that square method" is 100% accurate and you don't even require prior knowledge of the existence of an invisible creature, let alone knowledge of their likely or at least possible location.
"But that's how the rules work" is a hard argument to make when "that's how the rules work" seem to fairly clearly overcome how the more specific rules explicitly do work.
This post will convince no one to change their viewpoint. *shrug*
Hugo Rune wrote:
Saying hands do not apply outside of attacks leads directly to the absurd situation I outlined previously where a character can claim they are threatening with/wielding multiple weapons and then chooses the best for any particular AoO. It is also inconsistent with the grip changing FAQ highlighted previously which explicitly hands are required.
I fail to see the problem here. This is how the rules work. You cannot grip switch outside of your turn. So if you end your turn holding your two-handed reach weapon in one hand while holding your longsword in the other, you don't threaten with your reach weapon and cannot attack with it because you aren't wielding it.
But yes, if you have a longsword, a hand axe, a boot blade, a barbazu beard, and a bite attack, you can simultaneously threaten with all of them and then decide, at the time an AoO is provoked, which of those you want to attack with.
The same thing is true if, instead of a longsword and hand axe, you are holding a longspear. You threaten at range, so you can make AoO if one is provoked there. You also threaten adjacent with your other weapons, so you can make AoO if one is provoked there. Obviously, you are still limited to the same number of AoO that you would ordinarily be.
There isn't a problem with any of this. It isn't in the slightest absurd. So long as the weapon is being wielded at the end of your turn, you can make an AoO with it outside of your turn.
Yes, it is how it works. Pathfinder literally cant work any other way.
Pathfinder doesn't work if you limit everything to the most literal reading of the words on the page and eschew common sense, reason, and logical analysis. So no, it decidedly does not work that way. Not only is intelligent reading required to competently understand the rules and play the game, the designer's expect us to use common sense when doing so. Additionally, the designer's also recognize that there actually isn't an explicit rule for everything and every situation. They expect us to be able to fill in the gaps using common sense and logic. Note that they don't tell us to just "make up" whatever we want.
SKR in particular was very open about the design process. He's left a number of helpful posts when these sorts of discussions came up in the past.
But, as Monte says, "the DM is not a robot." Players aren't robots, either. And as James Wyatt says, "You can never write a rule that is so clear that *everyone* understands it." Skip Williams used to get Sage Advice questions like, "Do I have to take Power Attack before I take Cleave?" Obviously the answer is "yes"... but it wasn't obvious to that reader, for some reason. Now, that's a very simplistic example, and the "channel energy class feature" prereq is not a simplistic example, but I think you get the gist of it: sometimes you're going to have to make rulings based on how you think the rules fit together.
Because the game doesn't have a rule for everything, because it assumes the players have common sense to know that you don't need rules for everything.
Unfortunately, we don't have the option of rewording every single effect in all books in the game to clarify corner cases of how they interact with NEA. GMs will have to use common sense on how to parse the two core elements of NEA
There is a trend in a lot of this commentary. And that trend is that the rules are not written as explicitly and all-encompassing as you seem to think. There is grey area. There is room for ambiguity. There is room for inference. And not only is there room for inference, but the designers of the game expect us to do so. The rules are written expecting us to sometimes have to draw conclusions about rules that aren't explicitly stated. Obviously, that's not always ideal. Despite that, the alternative is far worse:
Otherwise you're asking for a game book that has to spell out every single thing so that the most thick-witted person in the world never has to think at all when running or playing.
As for made up you could always cite the other definitions of made up that are equally valid, like I did, that don't have the connotations you are trying to imply.
I used synonyms you have me, so ...
Conjecture/hypothesis/inference are all made up. You have a logical basis for making them up, but that doesn't mean they are real. They may be true, but are not necessarily true. Those are two very different things.
Connotation. Because you keep missing the point.
"Made up" does not, in any way, convey the same meaning as "hypothesis", "conjecture", "logical inference", or "implication". At all.
So in summation:
The nice thing about that quote and a couple that pretty quickly follow is that we have a game developer and former member of the PDT explicitly saying that some of the rules and restrictions are left up to inference.
That was a major bone of contention in this and, particularly, The other thread referenced earlier that gave rise to this one. It was argued that if it isn't explicitly written, it's not a rule. And drawing a conclusion about the existence of a rule by implication is "making things up".
I will have to scour the thread with that ruling but I do believe that one of the devs chimed in that this ruling was based around the assumption of a 2 handed race not those with more than that.
As you and CB have noted, that is correct. Just like the CRB assumes single-class characters when laying out its rules within classes, etc., the rules regarding PCs (including clarifications, FAQs, etc.) tend to presume standard PC races.