Clover

fretgod99's page

Organized Play Member. 3,236 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists. 2 Organized Play characters.


1 to 50 of 331 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Once you activate a weapon's property, you don't have to deactivate it. When you sheath your flaming longsword, the next time you draw it, it will still be flaming. So that helps with some of the time issue.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I think they haven't gone back to it because it's a one weapon corner case, meaning it's likely not high on the priority list.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Magic wrote:
A small number of spells (arcane mark, limited wish, permanency, prestidigitation, and wish) are universal, belonging to no school.
Wizard wrote:
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.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ridiculon wrote:
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).


1 person marked this as a favorite.

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.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

If somebody wants to guarantee accessibility of healing in a pick-up game, they should play a character that gets access to healing. Being disappointed because someone else also isn't playing the type of character you're not seems silly.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
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.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Until they clarify, I will read it as Cover/Concealment break observation.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
D@rK-SePHiRoTH- wrote:
fretgod99 wrote:
Nothing new has been said or is likely to be. Neither side will be convinced short of a FAQ. *shrug*

Actually something new has been said.

In Ultimate Intrigue, designers stated that "the reason why you need cover or concealment" in the first place, is to avoid observation. They also state that, for that purpose "dim light or a curtain work just fine".

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).


1 person marked this as a favorite.

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.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I don't really think Sneak Attack is one of those things that needs to stack. You just get extra dice to add to your attack when your attack qualifies. And if it dies qualify, add all relevant dice from all sources.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

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.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Tyrant Lizard King wrote:

People may confuse this feat to only apply to multiclass characters because they think "Max effective druid level equal to character level... my max druid level IS my character level" or something of that nature... No. It's the max effective druid level of the animal companion... not to exceed your character level.

If you are a level 8 Druid with 2 companions at level 4, you can take this feat twice (once for each animal) and have 2 animal companions at effective druid level 8!

This loses steam beyond that however as a level 20 Druid with 2 at 10 with this feat twice allows 2 animals at Druid level 14. Still usable IMO, especially if you're going for a pack theme.

I don't believe it works this way.

Packmaster wrote:
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.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
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.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
BigNorseWolf wrote:
I don't know when the ship of thesius needs a rechristening cerremony but i'm pretty sure its not every time they pump the bilges.

This was poetic.

That is all. Carry on with the discourse.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Cavall wrote:
No means no. Literally. Turning a no into a "technically " means youre pouring tea down someone's throat. Stop that.

Kudos for the reference. I love that video.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

*sees a PDT response*

Oo! Nice to see this resolved! I mean, it shouldn't have needed further clarification *cough* gang-up ranged flank faq *cough* but at least that should solve everyth-

*keeps reading*

G@#%+%mit.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
thorin001 wrote:
Saethori wrote:

You are mostly correct. The only exception is that precision damage is NEVER multiplied on a critical, even if it's a flat number and not extra dice.

All your examples are accurate.

Actually there is no generic rule preventing precision damage from being multiplied. Sneak Attack was prevented by virtue of being extra dice. But the Swashbuckler's extra damage is specifically called out as not being multiplied it the ability. There would be no need for that caveat if there was a blanket prohibition on precision damage being multiplied.

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.

Quote:
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.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Steven Morgan wrote:
Chess Pwn wrote:

No, small 1d10 is a small weapon so it only goes up 1 step of the chart instead of two. A medium 1d10 goes up two steps. Because that's the rule laid out in the FAQ.

No, increases to damage dice work as a "virtual" or fake weapon size increase.
Okay thanks for the information,not sure why they did it that way, but i will go with it.

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.


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


Claxon wrote:
he mentioned that it was not technically in line with the way the rules were written

More precisely, during that time he felt a lot of people on the forums were being pedantic (see his video podcast with LPJ for context) and I read his post as saying two things:

  • If you think I'm wrong, then Ride-By-Attack doesn't work RAW.
  • I'll make a note to get that changed if needed.
See, I fell into the camp of, by RAW Ride By Attack doesn't work and the rules for charging should be changed/clarified.

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).


4 people marked this as a favorite.
thaX wrote:

I will only post here once.

Whatever rules is being looked at, correlated or interactions between the two, nothing is allowing a Two Handed weapon to be wielded in the Off Hand.

Oversized or no, it is still considered a Two Handed weapon for that character, even if he can wield otherwise.

I did a rules breakdown in another thread about this issue, specifically about the Earthbreakers among other things. Light and One Handed weapons can be wielded in the Off Hand. Two Handed weapons do not have any reference about the Off Hand, however, and can not be.

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).


1 person marked this as a favorite.

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.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Orfamay Quest wrote:

Just as a little note to all the amateur rules-lawyers in this thread: there are actually a set of formal principles that are pretty much common to all Common Law jurisdictions about how to interpret laws.

One of those rules --- which applies from Australia to (New) Zealand, including Canada, the United States, and the United Kingdom, among others.... --- is the so-called "presumption against surplusage" which states that if a particular interpretation would render something in the law redundant, useless, or ineffectual, the other interpretation is binding. (If you want the Latin, it's verba cum effectu sunt accipienda, "words are to be taken as having an effect.")

This particular dispute is a classic example of the situation the rule was designed to address. One interpretation grants bards only an ability that they already have (along with every other character class including commoner). This ability is therefore redundant.

This observation alone is sufficient to say "well, that interpretation is wrong. Not merely wrong, but obviously so."

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.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
thaX wrote:

So the confusion is mostly when a character has a bite attack. When using Manufactured weapons, the Natural attacks are secondary, thus getting the -5 and half str. If the bite is used on it's own, it would become the primary attack at full bonus, and be 1 1/2 times str, as that is how bites are.

The main thing is if a character has claws, they can not use the weapon in that hand and the claw at the same time. (it is one or the other) Typically, the natural attacks are less damage and do not get magical assistance at later levels.

Weirdo, the penelty is the -5 for the natural attacks, the same as when a primary is used and the lesser attacks are at that same penalty (Bite, claw/claw)(full, -5/-5)

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.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

All I'm saying is that the PDT appears to follow the general principle that things from the same source do not stack, unless you are specifically told otherwise. The example FAQs simply support the general proposition. I'm not saying they actually address this specific scenario.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Aelryinth wrote:

Claxon, that ruling is directed at stats. I.e. two abilities that grant Charisma to saves do not stack, unless they grant different bonuses (i.e. one typeless, one a resistance bonus).

The Defender ruling just irked me.

==Aelryinth

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.

FAQ wrote:
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.
FAQ wrote:
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.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Sacredless wrote:
Claxon wrote:
Sacredless wrote:
Woah, that FAQ is tripe. o.o And I don't mean because it prevents trick like this, but because, AS USUAL, they wildly overcompensate.

Just for your information, they rewrote it like 3 times and every time somebody came back and was like "Ha! But you still left in this loophole the way you wrote it and I intend to abuse it!"

And thus, they were forced to write it in a way that left no wiggle room at all and vastly overstepped what they had originally intended to do.

They wrote their rules three times in a way that it was easy to exploit. That doesn't make me very sympathetic towards them making an unnecessary blanket statement from a place of panic and screwing up a fourth time.

Hell, they didn't have the same problem with feats, so why for prestige classes?

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."


1 person marked this as a favorite.

You say "house rule", I say "recognizing a clear oversight in the port over from 3.5".

*shrug*


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Scott Wilhelm wrote:

I really like the idea of marrying Dirty Tricks with Sneak Attack Damage, say getting a character with multiple natural attacks; use the first attack and Quick Dirty Trick to make your opponent Blind, then enjoy Sneak Attack Damage on all the rest.

I didn't mention a build like that on this thread though because the OP's focus is on Teamwork Feats.

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.


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


1 person marked this as a favorite.

And all of that is superceded by the specific rule in the feat/ability that tells you you can weild a THW as if it were a OHW.

Your version is "You can weild this THW as a OHW. But only sometimes and in some ways that we never describe or give you the specifics on. So not really like a OHW."


3 people marked this as a favorite.

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.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

It will be the same regardless of order in the end. The base creature's size increases, which changes the base attack damage. INA then works to improve base attack damage. So whether you get it prior to the size increase due to leveling or after, it will not matter.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
jmclaus wrote:
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.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Byakko wrote:

To be clear, the specific example which triggered this FAQ request:

Can a character with a natural strength score of 12, who is wearing a Belt of Giant's Strength +2 consistently, take the Power Attack feat when they level up?
(with the understanding that they can only use the feat while their total strength is at least 13)

NOTE:
Wraithstrike's initial post and question is misworded as it implies we're asking about short duration buffs to ability scores rather than long-duration (over 24 hour) enhancements from items.

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.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

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:
1. If (Weapon Damage +/- STR) > 0, then Lethal
2. If Lethal, then Sneak Attack is Lethal, Else Sneak Attack is Nonlethal.

The algorithm is:
1. If (Weapon Damage +/- STR + Sneak Attack) > 0, then Lethal, Else damage is 1 Nonlethal

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).


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

Equipment wrote:
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.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

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.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

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.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
wraithstrike wrote:
richard develyn wrote:

Let's say you are a little hobbit rogue with a dagger and very low strength (-3 bonus) and you hit with a bit of sneak attack (1d6) and your dagger is +1 flaming.

Damage is 1d3 - 3 + 1d6 + 1 (dagger) + 1d6 (fire)

What's going to happen here:

Do you roll 1d3-3+1 first, turn that into 1 non-lethal hp of damage (minimum - assume you roll a 1), then add another 1d6 (lethal or non-lethal) for sneak and 1d6 (lethal or non-lethal) for fire?

Or do you roll 1d3 + 1d6 - 2 and only turn into non-lethal if you roll two 1s?

Richard

You roll all the damage together. If the creature has fire resistance then you would roll the normal damage and the fire damage seperately.

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.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
OilHorse wrote:
Byakko wrote:
The list does not say it's finite, and there are indeed spells and powers that can detect invisible creatures which are not mentioned there. As it doesn't say in that link one way or another about how movement into an invisible creature's square is handled, you must refer to the rules that actually do exist. These rules are found in the movement section. Following the clearly printed rules is not metagaming.

Bingo.

How is trying to bump into someone metagaming, but throwing flour into an area, or searching for tracks not?

Seems to come down to space covered and action required.

If a mundane action help take a notch out of the power of magic then I definitely have no issue. It is not like you pinpoint the invisible person, they still get all benefits of being invisible.

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*


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Best practice is to believe that the author's intent is Paizo's intent unless presented with pretty significant evidence to the contrary. That does not exist here, despite what could have been worded more clearly.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
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.


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

SKR wrote:
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.
SKR wrote:

I can read a rule and understand how it works. Jason or Stephen can do the same. We talk to each other after our readthroughs to clear up any questions we have. But that still means it's possible for me to read the rule and interpret the answer as "π," and for Jason and Stephen to read the rule and interpret the answer as "22/7." All three of us are right, it's just in some corner cases where the slight differences in our rightness is an issue. Or, to look at it differently, it's possible for all three of us to agree that it's "22/7," and when the book is published have a player point out that using π instead of 22/7 affects things elsewhere in the game.

***

Do I think that most of the rules are clear enough for a typical player? Yes. Do I think that many of them are too wordy and could be written in a more clear and concise manner? Yes. Do I think that confusion about an unclear rule means you're stupid? No. There are unclear rules in the books.

SKR wrote:
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.
SKR wrote:
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
SKR wrote:

The game assumes the GM can read, can use logic to determine whether or not a character is flanking, how much cover a table provides, monster tactics, and so on. Assuming the GM has common sense allows us to have a 576-page rulebook instead of a 1,200-page rulebook.

There is a HUGE amount of knowledge that the game assumes you know, because knowing that is common sense. For example, the descriptions of the races in the Core Rulebook don't say "humans need air to breathe, humans need food and water, humans need to pee and poop, humans contain blood, humans are alive, humans walk on two legs." You can infer some of those things with other parts of the rules (Suffocation, page 445; Starvation and Thirst, page 444; Injury and Death, page 189) but some of them aren't stated anywhere because it's common sense.

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:

SKR wrote:
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.

*--------------------------------------------------------------*

Calth wrote:
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 ...

Calth wrote:
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:
1. The rules do not explicitly cover every situation
2. This is by design
3. You are allowed to draw inferences about implicit rules based upon explicit rules
4. This is also by design
5. The game requires people to read the rules, in context and as a whole, while utilizing common sense and reading analysis
6. You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

How was the issue confused more by them saying, "No. The Gang-Up FAQ covers this. You can provide flanking but don't benefit because you're not making a melee attack"?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Talonhawke wrote:

The hands of effort is also speaking as SKR repeatedly said about Standard PC races.

Proof that monsters do in fact have rules and aren't just put together at a whim.

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".


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

1 to 50 of 331 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | next > last >>