I don't think what I said was so much "rude" as it was realistic, though I did intend it to be an off-hand quip, rather than a hard critique of the company.
Michael Sayre wrote:
...which hasn't happened often in the last year or so.
This is an indicator that the company (Paizo here, not the Paizo developers/designers) doesn't care about it. Sure they will still make money from it as long as they can; that doesn't mean that they aren't in the process of phasing it out. It is totally understandable, from a business point of view, that it makes more sense to put resources on the new version, rather than the old version, as well as to make what profit it can from the old version. That said, it still means they don't care about it; if they did, they'd have managed to free up a day for the devs to work together on a new FAQ sometime within the last year. As for organized play; I was under the impression that PFS was a separate entity from Paizo; is this "organized play team" a Paizo development team who do this as part of their job as Paizo employees? If so, then I guess Paizo does care enough about 1E to do as you say. But, then, those guys certainly aren't making system FAQs; they are thus irrelevant as to whether it is worth FAQing anything system-wise.
As for why I felt it may be FAQable; other riposte class abilities tend to use either an immediate OR an AoO, not both, and generally don't require setup as well. I guess, by definition (since I couldn't find anyone else asking about it) it isn't frequently asked, but it seems inconsistent with other similar class features.
I've got a new quandary for you peoples; the Sleepless Detective PrC gets an ability called Predictive Riposte.
Predictive Riposte (Ex) wrote:
: At 8th level, a Sleepless detective’s insight into human nature allows her to predict and counter her opponents’ attacks. As a standard action, she can designate an opponent within 30 feet as the target of her predictive riposte, gaining a +4 insight bonus to AC against that opponent’s attacks. Once per round, after a melee attack from the designated target misses her, the detective can spend an immediate action to make a single melee attack against that opponent as long as it is within her threatened area. This counts as her attack of opportunity for this round. If the detective’s attack hits, she may add her sneak attack bonus on her damage roll. The bonuses from this ability last until the end of combat, or until the detective designates a new target of her predictive riposte.
This indicates that it is an immediate action (which uses up the swift for the next round), then goes on to indicate that it counts as "her" attack of opportunity (singular, but I think it's probably obvious that if they have more than 1, it would only use 1; feel free to debate that too, if necessary).
Is my reading that this uses both an immediate action and an attack of opportunity (in addition to the standard action before, to designate) correct?
IF Paizo actually cared about Pathfinder 1E, would this be FAQable?
As far as I can tell the special "quenches normal light sources" thing is only for spells (and, by extension, Spell Like Abilities); since the "spell level" of the darkness spell plays into that rule, there's not a sensible way to adjudicate this Su ability using those rules for spells.
It looks like those powers are agnostic as to the source of light; so the first simply lowers light levels in the 10 ft radius by 1 level; a torch (in an otherwise dark location) has normal light for 20 ft, then dim for another 40 ft (at least if I'm reading the table correctly). So, if a barbarian with the first power was holding a torch it would lower the light level to dim for the first 10 ft, then normal for the next 10 ft band, then back to dim for the 40 ft after that. With the second power it would lower it to darkness (2 levels) for the first 20 ft, then it would still be dim for the remaining 40 ft.
Ah, the classic "I don't like it so it's homebrew" argument. Classic.
I suspect that many GMs (and certainly PFS, since they absolutely abhor anything they didn't already think of) would put a kaibosh on this; but that is irrelevant to the question of if it is RAW. Furthermore, there are certainly GMs who follow the axiom of "let them" and would allow this, just for giggles (especially if there wasn't anyone in the party filling the front line role already).
Generally speaking this kind of detail would only matter to the DM, which means it can almost always simply be hand waved (if (s)he wanted a Gargantuan dragon, (s)he probably would just use one that already is). Honestly the Hover feat thing is far, far more likely to come up as a player thing, where some modicum of RAW/RAI as opposed to pure DM fiat might actually be helpful (depending on the table; some have a high tolerance for the DM just saying it works this way, while others would like some sort of logic behind the decision). For the dragons tuff, though, they were kind enough to provide a simple table where you can just go "oh, this dragon is Garg now, I guess it flies this speed, does this much damage with each of these attack, it can do a tail sweep for 2D6 and its breath weapon is this long now. Not too terrible... not nearly as bad as figuring out how much damage a Giant's greatclub does when it changes size... where you have to go to the "two steps forward one step back, do the hokey-pokey" table for damage dice size changes. Fortunately people have made summary tables of that as well, so usually you can skip the hokey-pokey.
As for the appeal to authority, I was largely joking with that; appeal to authority, after all, is a logical fallacy. ;)
I think both fly speed/class and breath weapon size should have been designed to function like size or breath weapon damage; ie should have had some basis level dependent upon the particular species with that basic value being upgraded via age class. It would have been easy enough to do that and result in the same values they have with the table, but then there would be far less question about the weirdness of dragons changing sizes in other ways besides age. Like, why would a bigger dragon automatically fly faster and, despite not having a more powerful breath weapon, they have a bigger one? Nonetheless; it is as it is. I think the special attacks make perfect sense to be based off of size, though; even though they operate differently from ordinary natural attacks they (like rend and rake, for example) effectively are just attacks (in the sense of attempting to damage an enemy, not int he sense of an attack roll) with part of the body.
Having Fuzzy-Wuzzy and blahpers both agree with a particular interpretation certainly makes for a great appeal to authority, especially when it agrees with the only relevant RAW presented. :D
Still, if anyone can find anything else indicating otherwise, I'm still open to seeing it... but given the evidence thus far, it really should be actual RAW or RAI from designers/writers, as opposed to just "I don't think it should be that way."
Minor correction, though: Large dragon has a tail slap, medium does not, so that is the transition that would have to occur (rather than Huge to Large).
Dave Justus wrote:
It would be clear if what you describe about dragons were the only case (ie they each had their own separate monster manual entry with what happens at each age category). However, that is not the case. There exists a section about how to determine the capabilities of a true dragon based upon their base type and age class. One of the aspects that is determined by that combination is their natural size. From their size, several other aspects are determined, including damage from natural weapons (I'm assuming, of course, that no one would argue that their natural weapon damage would not scale based on magically increased size), as well as the things listed: flying speed/class, breath weapon size (but not damage), as well as whether they are capable of performing certain physical capabilities of size (tail sweep and crush). It is these latter two that are most similar to Hover, in fact; they both allow a physical action based (partially) on the size of the creature, rather than some other factor (HD, age category, space, BAB, etc).
I cannot take seriously anyone who argues, without some RAW quote, that the accessibility of the dust up thing from Hover differs WRT magical size change, from the Crush and Tail Sweep of a true dragon. I would argue that anyone making such an assertion is attempting RAI or table ruling (probably based upon some perceived balance issue), rather than a serious RAW analysis.
So; if they are different, please provide the RAW that indicates that one works one way and the other works another? If they work the same (ie either both instances gain the capability or both do not) then that is a reasonable assertion without further RAW support; then we can delve into the WHY.
On the question of why:
Size is affected by age category, but not dictated by it; otherwise an Ancient Gold dragon and an Ancient Crystal dragon would be the same size (and have the same fly speed, ability to crush and tail sweep, and the same breath weapon dimensions). This is what I meant when I said "not directly" related to age category. Without external factors the combination of specific dragon type and its age category determines its size, which determines those things.
That does not mean that you are incorrect about whether the capabilities change, however.
Another example with a similar situation is the Hover feat. Do you also think that a medium winged creature with the Hover feat who magically becomes large still cannot create the debris cloud effect, since their natural size is not at least large?
I will elaborate further, if needed, once I am back to a computer.
Another way to say what everyone is saying is that you calculate reach from any edge of the creature's space, not from its center. So a creature (regardless of size) with 15 ft reach would be able to reach all of the squares in its space as well as anything within 3 squares of its space. You would have to be 20 ft (4 squares) above the top of the worm to be out of reach.
I am curious what the consensus is on the effects of magical size changes on dragons. Presumably virtual size changes (such as strong jaw) would only affect their natural weapons' damage, not any other aspect of a dragon's capabilities related to size.
Edited to remove aura, which is based off of age category.
I believe all of the relevant text follows.
Given all that it appears that it is incorporeal for anyone except the phantom blade himself, since that clause is the last part of a sentence describing what happens with other people.
For the phantom blade themselves, since it has ghost touch, regardless of whether it is incorporeal or not, it affects both corporeal and incorporeal things equally; it, effectively, exists on both the Prime and Ethereal plane (or similar, depending on the particulars of the cosmology in your game).
Presumably, since it is incorporeal for anyone else, it could be wielded by incorporeal creatures (other than the phantom blade), but only against other incorporeal creatures, and would not have any special abilities or such for that creature.
I suppose you could say that it ignores (corporeal) armor and shields, but it would also ignore (corporeal) targets wearing such things.
Phantom Weapon wrote:
Phantom Weapon Ability Descriptions wrote:
A phantom weapon has special abilities (or imparts abilities to its wielder) depending on the wielder’s spiritualist level. These abilities are cumulative. A phantom weapon normally refuses to use any of its abilities when wielded by anyone other than its phantom blade, and acts as an incorporeal masterwork weapon of its type.
Phantom Touch (Ex) wrote:
A phantom weapon is always treated as a ghost touch weapon, regardless of weapon type or any other abilities modifying the weapon. If the phantom weapon would ever be destroyed, it is instead harbored in the spiritualist’s consciousness for 24 hours.
The cantrip one makes some sense: original level of the spell is 0, so being dazed for 0 rounds means not being dazed. Not that it isn't legal, it is just that you're using a 3rd level slot to cast a cantrip with no additional effect.
Not sure how produce flame or fire wall are "not legal", however.
No, they cannot;
The only exception to this is the requisite item creation feat, which is mandatory. In addition, you cannot create potions, spell-trigger, or spell-completion magic items without meeting its prerequisites.
Wands are spell-trigger items; you have to have the spell that is contained within.
Fith fever is an injury vector disease, so I think that isn't much of a danger (well, unless the natural weapon wielder is in the habit of scratching themselves). They may have to keep thier mouth open until thier first attack if it is a bite, though (or risk washing the filth off, yum!).
One might even think that blunt weapons wouldn't be very suitable for this feat, and, yet, no such exception is made, so I guess you can coat your sap or whip with it and knock your foes out while you give them a disease. (you only have to succeed at the attack, not do any damage, so it doesn't matter if it is subdual damage or whether subdual damage counts as damage).
The feat has lots of silly things you can do. :)
1) Yes; it doesn't specify manufactured weapon, so you can coer natural weapons.
If what you are saying is true, then those class abilities are nearly completely useless; even a plain +1 weapon has a requirement of Craft Magic Arms and Armor. If the fighter or occultist needs to meet crafting requirements (and, since we're talkign RAW here, they must either meet all of them or none of them; anythign else woudl DEFINITELY require special language to account for it), then they need that as well as a caster level. The only way to apply the construction requirement of "creator must have the chosen combat feat and its prerequisites" is to also apply the requirement that they have Craft Magic Arms and Armor and have the spell magic weapon.
I do not believe that is how it works; the RAW do not specify any of that at all, nor do they imply it, as they do not mention any sort of crafting or construction at all. Imbuing is different.
So, given that I believe they do not need to meet the construction requirements in order to imbue a weapon special ability, I believe that applies to all available weapon special abilities. Thus, the only (RAW) limit on the feat imbued with Training would be that it must be a combat feat. In theory it could even be a combat feat that the imbuer could not benefit from, because they do not meet the prerequisities. They are unlikely to do that, but it does look RAW.
I think you are making a typical mistake of attempting to apply "common sense" or "game balance" to RAW; they do not apply. In this case it is worth remembering that there is no reason at all to need to answer "how is the feat chosen and where does it come from?" At least the latter part; obviously the feat is chosen by the imbuer, but where does it come from? Magic, this is magic.
This is the relevant FAQ.
So we need to step up twice (because Strong Jaw steps up the size twice). The first step is easy; 12D6 -> 16D6. Done.
Step 2 is a bit harder; the various rules to apply don't seem to give any additional insight. So we have to try to extrapolate. I would tend to be a bit conservative on this, so I'd apply the same jump for this step as is applied for the previous (2 in this case) steps; +4D6. However, an argument could be made that the rate of increase seems to be accelerating; there's 4 jumps that are only +1D6, then 2 jumps that are +2D6, then 2 that are +4D6, so, perhaps, after 16D6, the next jump should be +6D6 or +8D6. All of that is just how you want to read the pattern, though, so it is up to the GM.
This is all, of course, assumign that this 12D6 attack is not from a Guargantuan or Colossal creature; if it is, the spell spells it out nicely; it becomes 24D6 because instead of increasing it by 2 sizes, instead it simply doubles it.
You can always fail to meet a prerequisite to magic item creation (other than the magic item creation feat itself) by accepting a -5 penalty to your Spellcraft (or other appropriate skill) check. That nicely sidesteps any problems with making Training weapons to meet all situations.
Warrior Spirit, though, does not seem to require that you meet construction prerequisites for the abilities you may grant your weapons at all; otherwise it would need a rule about caster level and item creation feat (Craft Magic Arms andArmor), and, probably, to address the need to make a spellcraft (or other) check. It appears that Legacy weapon is worded similarly. Thus, for those, you do not need to meet any of the ordinary crafting prerequisites; you just need sufficient advancement in the class ability and a suitable weapon.
If Training listed information about the creator in the "Description" section of its listing (ie, effectiely, the effects of the enchantment) then you may have a point about it being useless, but it doesn't; it only lists the thing about the creator in the "Construction Requirements" section, which is irrelevant to the gien class abilities.
Popular among those who seek to impersonate skilled warriors, a training weapon grants one combat feat to the wielder as long as the weapon is drawn and in hand. The feat is chosen when this special ability is placed on the weapon. That feat cannot be used as a prerequisite for any other feats and functions for the wielder only if she meets its prerequisites. Once chosen, the feat stored in the weapon cannot be changed.
Ironically, real grease can be flammible AND smother fires! Since this whole thing is about RAI/interpretation/etc (RAW is exactly as presented by Azothath has presented; not flammible but also doesn't extinguish, Call ofVoid is more about the magical energy that affects living creatures in a particular way, and create water merely creates normal water, which you can do with whatever normal water can do), you can literally do whatever you like in your games. Some people like the "magic is magic, naff" explanation, others like "magic is superscience that the controllers do not fully understand, but it obeys physics, in its way" explanation, some have other approaches. Only one should probably apply in any given game, and then the GM should do their best to make sure things are internally consistent with that without having to go too crazy house ruling (or with, if that is to the group's taste).
Maybe they only call it "grease" because their scientific understanding is insufficient for them to understand that it is actually a super-fluid that is completely air permeable, but not, itself, flammible. Thus is cannot be lit on fire, but will not put fires out. Its only effect on the enironment is making it slippery.
Meanwhile, despite create water itself being useless for putting out a fire, the water that it actually creates is still water, and, therefore, useful for dousing fires.
Fiendish Boon is a SLA, so, ordinarily, most things that affect the spell(s) it emulates should also affect it. There are certain exceptions (anythign that requires a particular spell slot or increases the effective spell slot level required), but normal non-metamagic feats generally apply.
Added Summons almost certainly applies, in some fashion, but the restriction that it only summon a single monster may preclude it from having an actual effect.
If you choose NOT to have SLAs act as spells like this, then you severely nerf summoners, since thier summon monsters is an SLA, so I would recommend against house ruling (at least as a general rule) in any way that requires stuff to explicitly call out SLAs as being effected by stuff for spells.
As for Summon Evil Monster; it would add the creatures to the list, but it would not relieve you of need to pick "a single creature and that creature must either have the chaotic and evil subtypes or it must be a fiendish animal." I'm pretty sure that still rules Efreet out. There's also the issue that "creatures summoned using this spell cannot use spells or spell-like abilities that duplicate spells with expensive material components (such as wish)." So it really doesn't matter that you couldn't get an Efreeti.
I thought that is what you were saying? What I'm saying is this: you do not have to fleshwarp, any more than you have to pull out the arrow. If you choose to do either, you do not have to make a Heal check. If you choose not to you take damage. If you choose to use Heal and fail it does not increase the amount of damage you take relative to not attempting a Heal check at all. If you succeed, on both, it reduces the amount of damage you woudl take had you not even attempted to Heal check.
They are exactly parallel. Thus, the logic behind the one used as an example applies to the one not used as an example.
Are you asserting that you cannot pull out the barbed arrow WITHOUT attempting the Heal check?
To clarify my argument: deciding to initiate the action (pulling out the arrow or fleshwarping) is what triggers the damage, the Heal check merely acts to reduce the amount of damage taken as a result of the initiated action.
The fleshwarping will do no damage at all if you don't do it, too. But the text of what the Heal check does, specifically, is very similar; it is an optional check that you can make to reduce damage. In both cases the Heal check is optional; with the arrow you can just rip the barbed arrow out and cause the damage, no Heal check required.
I went ahead and looked up barbed arrow so I could see the relevant text relating to the specific example given:
A barbed arrow hitting a target has a 50% chance of wedging in. If this occurs, the arrow will cause an additional 1d6 points of damage upon removal, unless a Heal check at DC 15 is made.
This mirrors pretty closely the wording involved in the fleshwarping use of the HEal skill, so I think Fuzzy-Wuzzy is correct; this combination works, and you will only ever do 1 or 2 points of Con damage at the conclusion. Of course the other possible Con damage would not be reduced, as it is from the failed use of Craft (Alchemy) and Heal plays no part in it.
this: "This functions as summon monster III..." indicates that you are, in fact, summoning it, utlizing the summon monester III rules (except as altered by the text).
As for whether it is specifying that you cannot use higher to get multiple lower, I suspect that was the original thinking involved, however it would apply to other ways of getting multiples as well, I believe.
I don't think there is a pure RAW answer to this; there are multiple threads discussing characters carrying characters, with all kidns of theories about the carrying character being treated as a mount, the carried character treated as a carried thing (until its turn), etc, etc.
Given that there's no pure RAW solution here, that leaves it to RAI (houserules) and table variation.
Both of the suggested ideas have merit. But I don't think either is pure RAW; player characters are not mounts, otherwise they can't act/fight properly; they would have to be under the guidance of the "rider." And the idea of subtracting the distance moved by the carrier from the carried creature's movement max sounds good, but there's nothing in any book that I have heard of that supports it (its not like the bat is jumping here; it is sitting still, relative to its perch).
To me it seems that #2 is the closest.
The recursive requirement satisfaction doesn't work for me; not only because you can't use a feat to qualify for itself, even after retraining, but because this doesn't change the text of feats, but only what certain feats apply to. So, you must have WP (Sling) to get on board this train. BUT once on board, you only need stuff relating to sling; this feat seems to make you (because of prereqs) proficient with and WF and/or the weapon training bonus for any ranged or thrown weapon with sling in its name. Further you reload any of them w/o provoking and as a free action, and you get +1 damage. And any other sling feats (but not sling-staff, etc) would apply to anything with sling in the name (solong as it is ranged/thrown). That is the literal wording, even if they do not expound upon it explicitly.
In other words, this changes the weapons, not the feats. So In the hands of a slipslinger, a sling staff is a sling. So is a sling-a-majing. But WF (sling-a-majing) doesn't apply to slings or sling staves. (in case it isn't clear, sling-a-majing is a purely hypothetical ranged or thrown weapon).
Hmm, IC. I still think it is likely that the 15 ft should be counted as movement, but, given that that part is still well within RAI territory, a GM could decide the other way.
I think, tactically, treating it as "3 squares", rather than 15' probably makes more sense; it makes it consistent WRT attacks of opporunity; if the disarmed person wants to get thier thing they are going to have to make a move action to move (drawing an attack of opportunity for leaving a threatened square), and, for certain squares, a potential second AoO for picking the thing up (using thier standard as a move action to do so). Given that, if you're playing at all a reasonably highly tactical game, then it probably should be read as 3 squares, rather than 15'.
My reasoning for thinking it is likely that is should be counted as movement instead is that it is specified as feet, rather than squares; that's it. No game balance reasoning at all, simply that it is closer to RAW (ie the wording is in feet).
For #3, yes, the weapon cord would prevent the weapon from flying away.
for #1 & #2 I'm not sure it is precisely RAW, but they probably intended that you use the Thrown Splash Weapon "missed the target" rules. If so, then it would be a d8, with 1 indicating towards the disarmer. Since Greater Disarm specifies a distance in feet, I would use that as if it were movement; so, if it is on a diagonal it would move 2 squares away (so they still couldn't simply 5 ft step and be on the square); if it is one of the straigth directions it would be 3 squares.
It is worth noting, however, that none of my answer for #1 & #2 is strictly RAW; it would be RAI at best. Perhaps someone else has a citation that doesn't require making a jump to a "similar" situation.
Since it doesn't indicate that levels combine/stack, they would not; you'd have to keep track of which class you got each hex from.
As for effective witch level; looks like an oversight. I'm not 100% confident on what that means vis-a-vis RAW; probably something terrible, like your witch level is 0. For RAI, I'd say your interpretation is a perfectly acceptible one; use the rogue level. Unless you are playing PFS, I would assume that that is how it works, but mention it to your GM in case their assumption is different.
For a decently RAI take on the trait in Race Builder, a GM could decide that it grants proficiency to the appropriate weapons if they are not exotic weapons, and treats them as martial weapons if they are exotic. This would match up well with what it does for Elves.
As for them explaining themselves; I think Fuzzy-Wuzzy is right, and would further add that with v2 coming, they are unlikely to clarify anything in v1 at all, much less the stuff they were disinclined to clarify before.
Your shifting of pronouns is a bit confusing, so I'll have to guess what you meant by your example. Suffice it to say, the duration goes to the beginning of the appropriate turn.
Since this is something that happens on your turn, you would get 2 following turns, and the effect would disappear at the start of the 3rd following turn.
So if Mr. A Cleric utilizes this on turn 1, then casts something on turn 2, and does something else on turn 3, then just before he starts his actions on turn 4, the effect would be gone.
Alternately, looking at it from the target's perspective: