necronus's page

You've basically shut down my witch, my Tetori monk, my ranger, my rogue, and my terrain-controlling wizard.

First, you and I are agreeing more and more; however, 'Tetori Monk'; really? That is what you are going with? One of the most broken elements of this genre of role-playing games is grappling. A monk that can lock down ANYTHING, steals away from any story, by abusing mechanics.

First and foremost the game is about good storytelling, and mechanics support the story and give the players a means of having fun in a mechanically sound environment. Using loop holes, or specializations that give a character the means to lock down and win every fight with almost no risk, makes the game fun for nobody but that person.

Bad, Orfamay Quest, bad.

Everything else I agree with. A monster that is immune to everything, is a DM's way of saying, I'm to lazy to create an encounter that can't survive past a Save or Suck.

Encounter: Wizard standing on top of dias.

Party, I cast disintegrate!

Wizard evaporates.

To the left, a light springs forth. There is another wizard!!

Party, I disintegrate!

Wizard evaporates.

To the right, a light springs forth. There is another wizard!!

Party, I disintegrate!

Wizard evaporates.

Encounter over.

Party moves in to rescue the three hostages. The cage is empty, with a note saying. I dressed up the hostages in my old robes. Hope you didn't kill them!

That would have been in 1986. An all-paladin campaign, based largely on Arthurian legend, for the local RPG club. Five sub-GMs.

Alright, respect earned. That date gives me an idea of where you are coming from as well.

You are right that most boss fights are cliched. I'm reminded of a boss fight in 4th edition, where it was a dragon we couldn't hit except for on natural 20's, so we killed it by standing next to it and causing auto damage from auras.

To keep it from leaving we blocked the exits and surrounded it, with slow affects.

It was truly a testament to, attrition and time. Truly horrible. Also, due to a miss-print the dragon kept activating his AoE stun all the time as well, which pretty much auto hit us.

So, yes, most 'boss' encounters are bad. You have to be creative, and a good DM.

But everything comes back to that, be a good DM. Which is what this 'advice' thread is for, and you should be offering advice on how to make a boss fight fun and engaging, instead of just stating they are bad as a whole so avoid.

Goldenfrog

We had 3 to 4 DMs that would each run a table of 4 to 6 players, each week. Each table was given a mission/module that was different, but tied to the whole. We would offer information to one group, that would correlate to another. So in our, after the adventure, meta game events players would discuss what they did, what they found out, trade gear and stories; while, piecing together the events in that were transpiring in the campaign world.

It also gave the players the opportunity to build their own teams, or balance out tables with class and player types. We were able to have larger events with each group of players trying to accomplish certain goals.

Different group actions, successes and failures affected the world as a whole.

It was very interesting and quite fun for some time.

Orfamay Quest

You are overly opinionated in things you have no first hand knowledge.

Once you run a campaign for over 20 players, than I will start respecting your opinion.

Which as far as I can tell is, "Boss fights no good. Me no have fun."

Since, you continually berate my concept, which I created more than a decade ago for 3rd edition, that was targeted for a large group of players and not a party of 4 to 5, and have not asked one question or offered any insights that were helpful, I will not be offering any more.

It saddens me that instead of offering valuable inputs, you are just being a typical internet troll.

So troll on. Str 21, Dex 14, Con 23, Int 6, Wis 9, Cha 6

Int 6
Cha 6

Yup, seems about right.

"is always give the boss a way to beat a hasty retreat"

This is a terrible strategy. It is one thing for the boss to make a quick exit right away, it is entirely another to have him fight for awhile than leave at the very end.

I do support trickery though. Maybe this guy was a decoy. A doppelganger. A simulacrum. The boss has a clone already in affect. Or gets resurrected from his missing finger. Comes back as undead. Maybe he has a twin brother. Maybe he has a family, or a father or mother that seeks revenge. Maybe he surrenders, than gets freed by the local, corrupt, government and walks away free, and the party is charged and fined for attacking him.

The, poof, he vanishes and flees is a horrible mechanic to utilize, because you are directly stating it doesn't matter what the players do, boss will live to fight another day. This is a bad, overall strategy.

To counteract this horrible strategy, as a player. The boss fled, so I found one of his fallen minions that was still living. I picked him up, carried him into a nearby building. Had him healed up, cast modify memory on him, and walked out of the room. I than came running in, and told him we were attacked everyone was fleeing, and asked him which safe house was the best fall back position. He told me, I scryed and teleported our party to the location, and then killed the boss as he walked in the front door.

Mandatory plot should be used at a minimum. Instead adapt the plot to the player's actions, or the events that transpire; instead of writing the events before the players do anything.

Sorry, but this just typifies everything that sucks about a cliche'd boss fight. I'd be asking to take 10 on my attack rolls.

I take some offense to your words, since you throw judgement without participating in any of my encounters or offering any questions before tossing insult.

The fight was much quicker than you think. Organization, and skill and multiple DMs helped streamline the fight, much better than large grandiose fights involving a DM and a table of players.

The players weren't high level, which also helps since it limits player's actions because they have less options.

Every player was contributing, and they were working in teams and organizing their strategy through fluid game play.

Of course, based on your comments, it seems you are more interested in throwing stones than productive dialogue. I'm sorry you or your DM were never creative enough to find an alternative that was fun and engaging. So throw away.

For boss fights, I prefer objectives.

If the party can accomplish certain objectives, it would weaken the 'boss' & his attacks/minions. Sort of, what or how the players make decisions and play will dictate the type of final encounter they face.

I feel it is also important to give each player a challenge for the fight. So that nobody is useless.

If the boss is a necromancer, than that seems like a mage duel could play out well. So have minions for the cleric/fighter to deal with.

Potentially have an environmental affect the rogue could turn to the party's favor.

You should know the type of players you have, and what each of their goals are and what is fun for them. Than try and cater to them. Give them all objectives; don't let the fight become targeted to one character at the expenses of others.

Also, to offset challenge rating because of quantity, give the players the ability to do things that give them advantage:

Come up with elements for each player. These elements shouldn't hurt the players if they don't use them.

Also, just because the bad guy is sitting on his throne, and might be motivated to kill the party doesn't mean he will. Maybe his interest in the party gives the players the opportunity to talk to him.

Just because they could fight doesn't mean they can't parley as well.

Of course, this doesn't work as well for dice chuckers.

In a campaign I was involved in, we had enough players to fill 3 tables. So we had a team of 4 DMs working together to provide similar intertwined stories to 3 tables of between 5 and 6 players each.

So we decided to try a Raid boss. Each table of players had their own goal in entering the castle, or they each had their own objectives. Once they completed these objectives they all met up in the court yard, where the raid boss was.

So we had a battle, with 14 players attacking one monster.

I created an 'abomination' that was inspired by the abominations from Warcraft 3. (This was awhile ago)

The Abomination had 2 heads, so it could act on two initiative orders. He had a 20 ft aura that did straight disease damage, paladins were immune. He had AoE melee attacks, cleave (arc 6 connected squares) smash (square 3x3)

His stomach was a giant mouth, he would bite a melee character, swallow him/her whole, than he would spit the character at one of the ranged characters in the back, as a ranged attack.

He had a bile bomb, where he would launch giant acid balls siege style at groups of ranged characters.

He had a ton of hp, with regeneration.

He had weaknesses as well. To prep the party before the fight, they killed a few small ones, so they were able to understand what hurt it, and tactics before going in.

I thought it went pretty well. I ran the Raid boss, another DM maintained Initiative, and other DMs walked around and assisted players.

I guess this is a 'boss' fight in a much larger scale.

Brandon Hodge: I thoroughly enjoyed your response in "OPs response to "are paizo writers on drugs", it was well written.

Many haunts is just over use of lazy writing.

I can see how you would take offense to this. After reading through much of the written materials in these campaign materials, such as Carrion Crown, it is obvious the time and dedication that goes into these works of fiction.

It was my own oversight, that lead me to the claim of lazy writing. Where I didn't mean to point the finger at anyone in particular (which it is, at this time, incredibly obvious that I did), the true meaning of my words was this:

It was my poor attempt to express my frustrations of the great writing that went into the creation of back stories, descriptions that brought those haunts to live; being lost in a mechanic akin to nothing more than a modified, spooky trap.

That is an injustice.

I also, thanks to Jim Groves's insights, had my understanding of what goes into a 'published' module expanded.

Carrion Crown-Prison: In my perfect world, the Prison itself would have been the haunt. So instead of walking into a room and having to immediately deal with the 'haunt encounter', I would envision a party opening a door, witnessing the haunt from safety, and then try and understand what was transpiring, have the opportunity to analyse the situation, discuss among themselves, read through their notes and back-stories they have already been given, and decide if it is worth the risk of trying to deal with this particular encounter and suppress this haunt manifestation (with in the prison haunt) or move on. Maybe, there are some books, or items within the room of value. Maybe, each time they are able to suppress a manifestation, it weakens the haunt as a whole; making the ghosts that manifest a little less powerful.

Through better game mechanics, the existing writing could have reached amazing heights. My frustrations are not in the authors, it is in the bad, standardized mechanics that limited the feel of the game.

So, I do apologize for causing offense, when none was meant. I should have better formulated my thoughts and explained them with more clarity.

Thank you for taking the time to express your concerns.

"approved rules mechanic that the majority does not seem to have a problem with"

I concede that you are right, the rules have been approved. Also, the majority, of posters, might not take issue.

I had a long time friend stand up and walk away from the table when he found out there was a haunt. He detests them enough to leave a campaign and not take part in that campaign, with his close friends. In carrion crown, our GM allowed us to ignore certain rules, such as drawing a haunt siphon and activating it in the same action. In fact, when a Haunt manifests it is a surprise round, and you can not do more than one action; so drawing the siphon is an action, and activating is an action. Which is too many actions.

The majority of the population might not have a problem, because they haven't specifically encountered the issue, or their DM glossed over RAW to balance issues, and they were unaware there was even an issue to begin with.

Just because they are approved rules, doesn't mean they can't change and be made far better.

I would love to see Haunts becoming a grand location template, that brings spooky, balanced game play in a totally new and interesting way.

For what's worth, I wouldn't mind seeing rules for Haunts-v2. If just for clarity, standardization (as you say), and with more robust options.

When you put it like that, its easier to agree. I have felt that way before while writing haunts.

Yes, agreed; I believe this is what my and thrikreed's main issues were, and why we were pursuing revisions.

I would like to see Haunts, being their own entity; a story in themselves, and something that brings a 'unique' element to the game. I don't like the idea of them taking the place of a creature or trap.

I see a Haunt as an environmental affect. Haunted house. Haunted graveyard. Haunted church.

It shouldn't be limited to a room, it should be something more significant.

The Haunt might have an affect in a room, but it should all be one haunt.

The GM benefits. They're able to introduce a hazard that is flavorful, thematic, challenging, and provides XP.

In my opinion, "Players benefit" is the only thing that matters in the game. A GM's goal should always be to make a fun and engaging environment for their players.

I, absolutely, agree that Haunts (when done right) add a great flavorful and thematic experience to a campaign. Of course, so do Monster encounters, traps, and puzzles.

Everything provides XP, so I'm not sure what point is being made with the XP line of thinking.

It is also mechanics based, rather than relying on subjective GM narration. Haunts provide an objective structure to introduce these supernatural hazards.

This is a definite disagreement. The 'subjective' nature of GM narration is what role playing games are based on. After all, the game is about the players having fun, and the ability of the subjective GM is what keeps the game fun and going.

Also, just because rules for haunts are written down, doesn't make them inherently objective. In earlier posts, thrikreed has pointed out the major flaws in the Haunt rules, and so have I. These problems with Haunt mechanics, which seems to be a general consensus, needs to be addressed and fixed.

3.)Honestly, word count plays a factor.

That is a very interesting perspective, and I appreciate this take on my question. That was a line of thinking I hadn't pursued before, so thank you.

Haunts can be a little more flexible in that regard (still, even they have limits).

Haunts have a save or die mechanic... that isn't limits, that exceeds all other mechanics.

4.) This question is too subjective to provide a fair answer.

Don't sell yourself short, I not only understand but respect that answer a great deal. You gave a very fair and detailed answer, that helps develop a great thought process to offer solutions for future GM's and writers.

I liked your answer to 5 & 5(A) especially, about the loot.

Necronus, you have conceded that haunts can be good tools in some instances. I concede that their use requires some thoughtful consideration and not every implementation in the Pathfinder line has been perfect.

I would say, they can be GREAT tools when used in the correct instance. I also agree with you on them not being implemented perfectly, and would counter that the same could be said for monsters and traps as well.

Thoughtful consideration, is definitely the cornerstone to any good encounter; and when not used it can be a great pitfall that has caused many bad encounters.

To be honest, most of my problems with haunts is how close they align themselves with traps, but nullify rogues. The feel of Haunts, to me, is they are just a big Rogue 'screw'.

I think, Haunts should be completely different to monsters and traps. They should have a completely unique feel.

You have stated that a Haunt isn't any different than a puzzle or a trap that you could make.

I would say that I have not encountered a haunt, 'game mechanic' that was even equal to something I could create. Game mechanic only though. Some of the histories, stories, and descriptions of haunts I have read were incredibly well written and worthy of praise.

That being said, what makes me truly sad is how much of this amazing writing becomes lost in bad 'standardized' game mechanics, that have been repeatedly agreed upon as needing work.

The rule for them are a bit iffy. Yes, I agree, I believe the majority of GMs playing Carrion Crown have had trouble with the specific details.

I would also agree, which is why it would be great to get the 'standardized' mechanics of Haunts a bit more balanced and flushed out.

But that doesn't mean the entire system should be scrapped.

Again, I agree, there is no reason to scrap the overall concept. They just need to have an overhaul.

Can a pit trap, using the rules for traps, provide priority targeting to someone with a specific Holy Symbol?

No, a mundane hole in the ground can not do the same thing as a supernatural event. However, a magical pit trap could have any number of triggers, including targeting holy symbols, race, sex, weapons.

then refuting every attempt to come to a consensus by stating that if we don't agree with you then we are obviously just not listening hard enough isn't going to actually get anything out of the discussion.

I kept asking questions that until yesterday people just were ignoring. I then also kept responding to new questions, and was still being ignored.

Also, it seems that you and I agree on most points over all, and if we listed out everything in a list, we would probably come to a very close consensus.

taking an initial stance of confrontational sarcasm

I have re-read all of my previous points, and they were confrontational in the sense I was saying there was a problem, along with thrikreed, and then being ignored or brushed off.

I could not sense any sarcasm from my previous posts, so I am thinking that has to do with the perspective of the reader, of which I apologize.

Sometimes people cannot agree and that isn't the same thing as bruised egos and glad-handing.

I agree that people will not always agree.

I disagree, and wrote up the examples of bruised egos and glad-handing, however, pointing out peoples faults, instead of their content would be vitriolic; and, adding malice has no benefits to productive discussions.

Since the overwhelming response is now, "If you don't like it, just fix it or don't use it". I no longer find this productive.

I had genuine questions, that keep getting ignored or taken as insults. So, I apologize for bruising egos. I do not appreciate the glad-handing.

I wish you all the best, and just remember to enjoy the game.

Haunts are, mechanically, a unique feature.

I would disagree.

You can call them traps, but they aren't.

I would say they do operate in the same fashion as normal or magical traps.

Haunts are similar to traps in that they are location specific, have trigger conditions, have a means to remove them, and have means to detect them.

So you agree they have the same properties of traps.

However, it isn't exclusively perception and disable device, so you aren't hosed if you lack a rogue. Anyone can damage them in a variety of ways, or determine and act upon the dismissal mechanic.

I see, so they are traps that make clerics act as the rogue. Nullifying a rogue. So groups with out rogues can beat them. Well groups without rogues can beat normal traps as well, much easier as well. Also, groups with rogues, have one of their characters nullified. So the rogue gets to stand around with his 'Sword' in his hand waiting for the cleric to, yet again, steal the limelight by doing the rogues job.

That sure sounds fun, lets take the mechanic away from the class that does it, and lets give it to the class that can already do everything else.

Haunts are traps that 'Nullify' rogues.

This means they have far more flexibility than a trap.

No, this means they circumvent rules that were already created and established, to nullify a class in favor of another. It doesn't make them any more versatile. In fact, you could just add 'Haunt' as a descriptor to traps. So this is a Trap [Haunt][Fire] for example.

Which is already an established practice for Bestiary, and sub-types and templates.

The Haunt Template for Traps. See I'm already being more creative, than creating a specific class nullifier, and expanding rules instead of creating new ones.

Versus a perception check DC 15 (assuming players win ties) AND an initiative of 10... a 4th level cleric (+4 perception, +0 initiative) has a 27.5% chance to act, 4th level fighter (+0 perception, +3 initiative) has a 21% chance to act, 4th level rogue (+10 perception, +6 initiative) has a 68% chance to act, and 4th level wizard (+1 perception, +2 initiative) has a 22.8% chance to act... But for the entire party to escape all eight of those checks have to be successful and there is only .89% (yes, less than 1% chance) of that happening.

thrikreed wrote:

That being said, I'd like to point out that rogues have the BEST chance (in the above example an 68% chance to act) in the party to be able to react to the Haunt... They just need a vial of holy water (2d4 damage and assuming the GM rules Haunts undead creatures... more later on this) or heck even a potion of Cure Light (1d8+1) in their off hand before the surprise round started. The problem is that this usually means needing to know there could be haunts around AND giving up two weapon fighting, two handed weapons, spell casting, or anything else they might need that hand for in a surprise round for the entire dungeon/haunted house. Even If they don't do enough damage to neutralize it in the surprise round, in my experience it'll have been worth it because all too many haunts are persistent. This makes it all the more likely that enough damage can be poured on the Haunt to neutralize it before it activates it's effect a second time. (In other words, don't discount the rogues usefulness outside of disabling device it).

As, thrikreed, points out the difficulties for non-rogues to deal with this, 'Rogue Nullifier'.

They can provide a creepy sense of horror to the game and provide the players with an interactive puzzle.

So can, well placed descriptive terms and ambiance. They could have released a Carrion crown CD, for background noise to help set the mood as well. (Also more creative than using a bunch of Haunts)

Haunts are simply another mechanic providing an interesting approach to a problem.How do you provide players with traps that don't require rogues to find and disable, can provide background story, and can increase the 'creepy' factor of an adventure?

First this isn't a problem, that needs to be solved. Second, there are many ways you can create 'traps' for groups without rogues to solve. Example, puzzles: To get through this gate you need to place something in each hole, place the wrong thing and you get zapped, burned, or sprayed with acid. BAM, trap, problem, encounter; Non-existent problem solved, in less than 30 seconds.

Lastly, and this is being stated rhetorically, but you don't have to use them if you don't like them.

Lastly, and this is obvious, this should be an open forum for the exchange of ideas and understanding, not just throw it away if it doesn't suite you.

I hope the "lazy" author of Haunting of Harrowstone, Michael Kortes, was able to pull himself off the couch long enough to pick up the Gold Ennie we won for that adventure.

I'm not sure how to take this, I'm glad you feel the use of Haunts was justified because you were given an award for the Adventure as a whole.

A good haunt, could bring all kinds of meanings and back history, and campaign arc; I would admit, when done right.

I have openly admitted they are a good tool, when done right. As in, one haunt being used to give a feel and understanding of background history for a location.

Here is an example I came up with while responding, instead of putting random, meaningless haunts, through out the jail. The entire structure could have been a haunt, manifesting from the tragedy that befell the jail. It would go well with the ghosts that are part of the premise.

That would add a level of interest, and not just a random trap in this room or that.

Seriously? You're calling the Haunts lazy because they didn't convey horror in a play by post game you partially participated in ? In a format that lacks 90% of the sensory enhancement required to covey that mood? (voice, lighting, music, etc.)?

Answer= No, I'm not

I played this campaign pen and paper at my friends house. I had fun, because it is the people you play with that make it great, no matter the quality of writing.

I said it is lazy, because in comparison to other parts of the campaign it was just not captivating. The haunts acted as traps, that didn't really interest me or anyone else at our table.

Maybe this is because the rest of the jail was cool and interesting, with cool ghosts and interesting interactions.

So, instead of trying to defend the quality of haunts, or point out my ignorance for not recognizing awards. How about you guys actually consider my question.

What benefit do the haunts serve, that couldn't be better served through something else? What makes them so unique and awesome, that makes everyone defend them so.

Yeah, I remember the entire first 'dungeon'/burnt down prison, being full of haunts.

I think One Haunt, could bring great back story. Many haunts is just over use of lazy writing.

I reiterate; what purpose do the haunts, in 'Carrion Crown', serve? More importantly, how do they add value to the campaign/scenario/encounters they are placed in?

A good haunt, could bring all kinds of meanings and back history, and campaign arc; I would admit, when done right.

Which haunts do you guys feel were well done, and why?

Which were done poorly, and need improvement; and why?

First, Haunts are Undead.

Undead are once-living creatures animated by spiritual or supernatural forces.

An 'event' that causes a haunt, are the same types of events that create undead.

You can call them different things, but they are both created from the same event; and the event either creates undead or it creates a haunt or it creates both.

I think at this point, it is very important we ask our selves some questions.

1) Who benefits from the haunt "encounter"
2) What purpose does the haunt serve in, (insert encounter/campaign name here)
3) When should the haunt be used, instead of something else
4) Where do haunts get placed
5) Why not use an undead, or story based encounter instead
6) How, when deciding to use the haunt, does the haunt add more value, instead of something else

Final thoughts: If you are going to use a haunt, why not include an eccentric haunt expert, noncombatant that comes with the party. Finds the haunts, identifies them; explains why they exist, and what needs to happen to cleanse the haunted area.

Then let the challenge be, for the pc's to meet these requirements. Instead of having the haunts just be traps (which IMO serves no purpose mechanically, except you want to prevent the rogue from playing his character; and in the rogues place you want to make clerics even better); you have them be an encounter, or a story/subplot that gives the party role playing opportunity to defeat an encounter through game play; instead of dice chucking.

I guess that doesn't really work though, for all the dice chuckers; but what ever makes you enjoy the game.

What I meant, was why is my solution to your problem somehow invalidated to your authorative judgement. Whereas my authority is meaningless, and yours is the only meaningful one. You are an authority as much as I am an authority - no one has precedence over the other, yet you still dismiss any solution of not meeting your very narrow minded version of what is a fix or not (for the Core game, and not specifically your group) - as if your judgement is all that matters in meeting a solution (even if it actually fixes the problems).

I believe based on the conversation, Thrikreed wasn't saying he was an authority figure, he was saying only Pazio could change the official rules.

Since this is about home brew rules, and not official rules; I do have a question about Haunts.

"What value do haunts bring to a game session?"

IMO: Haunts are a lazy DM tool. Anything a haunt does, a good DM could do without relying on this tool (that seems to have a consensus of needing fixed anyways).

So, in the end how do they actual add value? Why not just use them as written as a guide to lead you to a better solution. You read the haunt, you know what it wants to do. Then just do it better.

Relying on Skill checks, or Perception checks, and specialized characters that can deal damage to haunts seems unnecessary. Well, maybe that level of specialization/power gaming is what DM's want or expect in their campaigns. Still, anything the Haunt does, a better way could be done.

Also, since we are ignoring the rules, since it is home-brew DMing; then there is no reason not to find better ways, or scrap the mechanic and find a better DM path.

When the rules don't actually matter, I know good DMs and they find much better ways of creating and running events.

You should fix it, make it great. Then submit it to Paizo to be included in an FAQ.

Till they put it in an update or FAQ, it isn't RAW, and if it isn't RAW it isn't official.

As a thought, usually if you have claws on your feet that you are attacking with, say like a lion.

You have to pounce and rake.

They don't give you 4 claw attacks.

As was stated by Necronus himself, the conversation should not be about opinions and feelings... Yes, that includes using 'assessment' to disguise your 'opinion'. Sounds like a double standard.

I stated my opinion as an opinion, it was not in disguise. Hence why I didn't say it was RAW, at all. The reason I never mentioned anything about RAW is because RAW doesn't define lethal damage, and RAW doesn't answer the question how this spell works. It is left up to the interpretation of those playing. Felt I was clear on this, if not, maybe now I am clear. Unlike other people, I am stating my opinion as an opinion and I am not trying to disguise this as RAW or claiming my interpretations are RAW.

Maybe you should try it once in a while.

Necronus wrote:

When I include energy attacks, that also includes channeling so negative or positive energy. Also untyped damage, such as vampiric touch.

And by RAW you would be wrong.

How am I wrong? I'm not even sure why you would mention this, since I was merely clarifying that I was including other types of damage with elemental damage, and then I then clearly defined which other types of damage I was including.

Necronus wrote:

I had a friend read the spell, and he is as munchkin as they come. He stated it should work as DR does, and it shouldn't stack with existing DR.

And one uninformed friend does not trump RAW and everyone else that has participated in this thread. The simple fact he hasn't participated in this thread says quite a bit.

No one here is quoting RAW, they are stating interpretations of the rules as they read them. Why would he participate in a thread of people quoting opinions as facts? Why would he even care?

At least he read the spell, and made a judgement call on how he saw the spell working. I never said it was RAW, and since RAW doesn't actually specify anything about the spell or lethal damage, other than interpretations.

Since, there is no clear defined way for the spell to work, I felt it was important to find out what people actually thought. Figured it would be easier to ask, what do you think about this and how do you feel it should work. This way I don't have to wade through a bunch of people misquoting RAW.

Maybe you should try looking at this topic objectively instead of subjectively.

I doubt it will matter, though, since there is no answer that can be found in RAW. That much is clear after all of these posts. It is left up to a GM, or a FAQ.

Agreed

If it helps, you can not take attacks of opportunity against creatures with total concealment. So creatures in fog, or if they are invisible, or if you are blind.

If the creature is hiding, using stealth or hide in plain sight, the question is if you can't see him, does he count as being invisible, if so, you can not take an attack of opportunity against him.

Nuku, that is my assessment. It would only work against P/B/S damage. After reading the spell, looking how it operates, and considering how other spells work and stack with one another I came to the assessment, that it shouldn't work against energy attacks.

When I include energy attacks, that also includes channeling so negative or positive energy. Also untyped damage, such as vampiric touch.

I feel the spell is best suited for just the P/B/S damages.

Even still, imagine a necromancer with a few decent skeletons. He casts ablative barriers on them, they now get +2 AC and it would increase their DR to 10. The spell lasts hours per level, and doesn't cost anything.

I had a friend read the spell, and he is as munchkin as they come. He stated it should work as DR does, and it shouldn't stack with existing DR.

AnnoyingOrange, Thank you.

Per RAW this spell would convert any type of damage into non-lethal damage, I do not think that is RAI because the context and flavor/fluff of the spell suggests otherwise.

RAW doesn't state all damage is lethal damage. People are using RAI to state that all damage is lethal. Non-lethal damage isn't actually damage.

"Rules as written." Basically it means that you translate the words in the rulebook very literally. Taking only what the words actually and literally say into consideration.

This is opposed to RAI... or "Rules as Intended", which is reading between the lines and distinguishing what the writer/editor/dev. probably intended as opposed to strictly what it says. This can be incredibly tricky and dangerous in many situations because sometimes a reader can make a logical leap that the writer never meant.

Determining when its appropriate to use RAW or RAI is something of an art, and is the basis for many, many arguments.

RAI, all damage may be lethal based on the assertion all non-lethal damage is lethal damage.

However, seeing as:

Merciful Spell (Metamagic)

Your damaging spells subdue rather than kill.
Benefit: You can alter spells that inflict damage to inflict nonlethal damage instead. Spells that inflict damage of a particular type (such as fire) inflict nonlethal damage of that same type. A merciful spell does not use up a higher-level spell slot than the spell's actual level.

Ablative Barrier: Invisible layers of solid force surround and protect the target, granting that target a +2 armor bonus to AC. Additionally, the first 5 points of lethal damage the target takes from each attack are converted into nonlethal damage. Against attacks that already deal nonlethal damage, the target gains DR 5/—. Once this spell has converted 5 points of damage to nonlethal damage per caster level (maximum 50 points), the spell is discharged.

What is the point of the spell stating lethal damage gets converted into nonlethal.

When a feat states converts damage into nonlethal damage.

Why specify, if all damage is lethal damage, then why must Ablative Barrier state lethal damage and not just damage.

"the first 5 points of damage the target takes from each attack are converted into nonlethal damage"

I am using the RAW definition of how Merciful Spell changes damage to prove it is unnecessary to use the word lethal to define damage.

It is only in the instance of this singular spell that knowing what lethal damage is, makes a difference.

When I started this thread, I was hoping for a constructive conversation.

Instead all I get are people quoting RAI by them as RAW, and people holding on to the thread of descriptions as a Rules.

This is pointless, since it seems there is nothing in the book that directly states all damage is lethal damage. No one even wants to consider how the spell is supposed to work, or discuss why. Everyone wants to rant on about their opinion on RAW as if it is the only way for it to all work.

You must be correct. What was I thinking, it must of been an oversight on my part to assume someone made a mistake when the one and only spell that deals with lethal damage, a vague term that everyone seems to assume therefore it must mean, in a way that no other spell does.

It changes both weapon damage, spell damage, and supernatural damage all into nonlethal damage.

It doesn't matter if you already instant healed damage using DR, or that DR doesn't stack with itself, only the best applies.

It doesn't matter if you resisted part of the damage with fire resistance for example.

Lets ignore how damage operates in all other instances, for this one spell. That must be the intention of this spell. To ignore all other printed rules, and do what you say it does.

I apologize for thinking there was a problem with using an uncommon and unused term in reference to spells as a sign that there was something must be wrong.

I guess I must be wrong in my assertion that a spell that works with all other forms of DR and Resistance just stacks with them no problem.

I guess if my character gets hit with an axe for 10 slashing damage, 5 fire damage from flaming, 5 cold damage from frost, 5 electricity damage from shocking, 5 acid damage from corrosive would only take 5 regular damage and 25 nonlethal since that must be how this ablative barrier works.

Guess it turns force damage into nonlethal as well, because so many spells work against force.

Yup that's how this spell was intended to work, it does what no other spell, feat, extraordinary, spell-like, or supernatural ability does.

So, glad I posted here. That way I learned that a term used to explain a relationship but goes undefined in context to the rest of the game is unimportant and not worthy of further thought or consideration.

So glad I asked for view points, and instead get lectured on how to read correctly.

So glad people understand and interpret RAW in such a way they don't actually need to justify their opinions or thoughts.

So glad to find out that everyone but me is infallible.

Sure glad everyone is in agreement that this spell was designed to stack with all other spells, abilities and protections. That it was designed to stop even nonresistable damage from sources like vampiric touch.

This all now makes perfect sense to me. There is no room for consideration, no errors here at all, lethal damage is all damage. After all a character with 400 hit points taking 10 points of damage suffered lethal damage.

After all 10 points of damage dealt to a creature/character with 400 hit points is:

le·thal (lthl)
adj.
1. Capable of causing death.
2. Of, relating to, or causing death. See Synonyms at fatal.
3. Extremely harmful; devastating: accusations lethal to the candidate's image.

The most interesting thing is that if ablative barrier didn't exist, it wouldn't matter what lethal damage was or if spells did lethal damage.

Without ablative barrier, the issue of what lethal damage is and if spells and supernatural abilities deal lethal is immaterial.

Even so, you are all correct, this one spell that does something that no other spell does or has ever done must be correctly written and work just as you say. It works against everything. It turns epic damage into nothing more than a bad bruise that goes away in an hour or so.

Thank you all for stating the RAW rules to me, and educating me on how the rules are infallible in this case. That it is all so clear and concise that I should of just known from the beginning that lethal damage is all damage. After all it makes perfect sense after all everything is classified as lethal damage, unless it is doing nonlethal per the book. It isn't necessary to state that all damage is lethal damage unless it is nonlethal damage because this relationship is obvious and doesn't need to be written down, because why waste space in the book. After all its best not to waste ink or space. It would take to much time to write the one line anyways.

Thank you again for making everything so clear. I'm so glad that everyone is open minded and took time to consider and discuss what was intended and what impacts would be made on the game.

It is nice that everyone expressed the same view point of just because it isn't written doesn't mean its not RAW. So glad I learned something new. Thank you all once again for your unbiased regurgitation of RAW.

So... What excuse are you going to use to ignore this evidence? Are you going to say "It's not part of the rules because it's a feat description?" Yup, it is and that makes it part of the rules.

Honor.

Only you thrikreed, would quote flavor text and expect it to be considered a rule.

Merciful Spell (Metamagic)

Your damaging spells subdue rather than kill.
Benefit: You can alter spells that inflict damage to inflict nonlethal damage instead. Spells that inflict damage of a particular type (such as fire) inflict nonlethal damage of that same type. A merciful spell does not use up a higher-level spell slot than the spell's actual level.

The actual feat, does not at all mention lethal damage. If you cared more about what the rules said, instead of trying to be correct in your assessment you wouldn't be grasping at flavor text or short descriptions that don't use the same language under the complete description.

This is what it seems the Rules Message board is, a bunch of people quoting opinion as RAW.

No discussion on what or how something should be, just a bunch of rules lawyers arguing their opinions as the guise of something else.

If you want to have a discussion on ablative barrier or lethal damage as it stands, it is simple. There are no clear cut rules, no explanation that clearly states how these two things operate.

If you wish to discuss, how they should operate I'm all ears. Otherwise it is evident that none of you actually can prove anything, and the more I have listened to the more I have realized no one is capable of solving this, since the problem will go unresolved till Paizo makes a FAQ or ruling update.

Thank you for helping me realize there are no clear rules on this issue.

I won't pay any more attention to your opinions, unless they are explained as opinions and why you believe what you do.

State an opinion as fact, and it will be ignored from now on.

Thank you again.

Thanks for agreeing with me, there are no defined rules involving this and needs some clarity, FAQ or Errata.

Nonlethal Damage with a Weapon that Deals Lethal Damage: You can use a melee weapon that deals lethal damage to deal nonlethal damage instead, but you take a –4 penalty on your attack roll.

Lethal Damage with a Weapon that Deals Nonlethal Damage: You can use a weapon that deals nonlethal damage, including an unarmed strike, to deal lethal damage instead, but you take a –4 penalty on your attack roll.

I state my opinions on a subject that can not be proved by either party.

Lethal damage is undefined, and the majority of it being used is describing weapon damage.

The only find otherwise, was under environmental damage.

No one has come forth with any sort of clear definition showing spell damage is anything more than just damage, or damage of a certain type, such as fire damage.

Show in the book were it defines spell damage as lethal.

How is lethal damage even a thing? A fireball acts differently on a building than a slashing weapon.

Yet they both do lethal? Nonsense.

Terms that are clear from their meaning in the English language don't need a rules definition.

A fireball does Fire Damage. That is clear that it not only does damage, but the type is fire. You resist it with Fire Resistance or Fire Immunity, and it does more damage if you are Vulnerable to Fire.

I'm sorry, where does it state anything about this being lethal damage?

Oh I know, you are saying that it is assumed, since it isn't actually written anywhere.

That's always the best policy assuming.

Oh I'm sorry, the spell provides DR, if there was a descriptor for DR, this spell would have it.

You seem to be ignoring that.

Nuku, you are quoting an interpretation of the rules.

It doesn't state that anywhere.

This is a Rules Forum, RAW only.

You could, however, state "All damage should be lethal unless it is considered non-lethal, that is what I believe is implied within the book."

Fireball states it does Fire Damage. Not fire lethal damage.

You are interpreting rules and stating them as facts.

Protection from fire doesn't stack with Resist Fire.

Multiple forms of DR do not stack with one another.

The game is built around the principle you can't stack protections.

Yet you think, no big deal, lets allow this spell to stack with all the others.

Oh, and you feel like stating opinions as facts.

Nice job.

This is why lethal damage needs to be defined.

Or

The spell needs to go through an errata.

Or

There needs to be a FAQ involving the spell/damage

or

Ablative Barrier works against all damage, however a character can not benefit from any other form of resistance or DR.

Example, you resist 5 fire and have ablative barrier up. Ablative barrier wouldn't work against fire damage. It would against all other types of damage.

Threatened Squares: You threaten all squares into which you can make a melee attack, even when it is not your action. Generally, that means everything in all squares adjacent to your space (including diagonally). An enemy that takes certain actions while in a threatened square provokes an attack of opportunity from you. If you're unarmed, you don't normally threaten any squares and thus can't make attacks of opportunity (but see Unarmed Attacks, page 139).(pg 137)

Threatened Squares: You threaten all squares into which you can make a melee attack, even when it is not your turn. Generally, that means everything in all squares adjacent to your space (including diagonally). An enemy that takes certain actions while in a threatened square provokes an attack of opportunity from you. If you're unarmed, you don't normally threaten any squares and thus can't make attacks of opportunity.

Yeah, they changed all of one word in the definition of Threatened Square. The word Action changed into Turn.

Total Concealment: If you have line of effect to a target but not line of sight (for instance, if he is in total darkness or invisible or if you're blinded), he is considered to have total concealment from you. You can't attack an opponent that has total concealment, though you can attack into a square that you think he occupies. A successful attack into a square occupied by an enemy with total concealment has a 50% miss chance (instead of the normal 20% miss chance from an opponent with concealment).

You can't execute an attack of opportunity against an opponent with total concealment, even if you know what square or squares the opponent occupies.

Total Concealment: If you have line of effect to a target but not line of sight, he is considered to have total concealment from you. You can't attack an opponent that has total concealment, though you can attack into a square that you think he occupies. A successful attack into a square occupied by an enemy with total concealment has a 50% miss chance (instead of the normal 20% miss chance for an opponent with concealment).

You can't execute an attack of opportunity against an opponent with total concealment, even if you know what square or squares the opponent occupies.

Yup so they took out the "(for instance, if he is in total darkness or invisible or if you're blinded)".

This was a HUGE change, one word and an entire parenthesis giving examples.

That language no longer exists - I wonder why that is? If it is the same why did they change the wording. If its not the same... well we know where that leads us.

The language is the same. The reason they didn't include what I posted was because that wasn't in the book. It was an article written by Skip Williams, clarifying the rules. When they hit <Ctrl> C and <Ctrl> V, they must have missed this, which would be easy since it wasn't in the book to start with.

They made a number of changes to 3.5, which is why I play and discuss Pathfinder, not 3.5 or 4.

However, in this instance they kept the wording 98% the same, and all the words that everyone keeps quoting and telling me I am incapable of reading and understanding are the same in both books.

I guess, the reason I always looked at these differently because back in 2004, I knew you couldn't threaten while being blind. I'm guessing thrikreed did as well.

Then when we started discussing it here, everyone jumped on a bandwagon of unawareness, since they either never played 3.5 or didn't how it originally worked that way or that there had been a ruling that spelled the whole thing out very clearly.

3.5 cover wrote:

Cover: You threaten a creature that has cover against your attacks, but you cannot make an attack of opportunity against such a foe.

Thank you for pointing this out, it really helps clarify threatening conditions versus attacks of opportunity.

Okay, I just want to double check, if you are blind you don't provide flanking, but can still receive flanking bonus, correct?

RAW 3.5 rules state you don't threaten while being blind. RAW PRD rules do not specify, because the 3.5 rule wasn't in the player's handbook it was a separate ruling or article on the subject. When they created pathfinder under the OGL they copied the book, and not all of the rules that would be found elsewhere.

Unless the developers of pathfinder, want to rule otherwise, at this point it seems very obvious that you do not threaten while being blind. You do threaten when they have cover.

As a secondary note.

Concealed Creatures: You don't threaten any creature that has total concealment against you (though you can attack into the concealed creature's space and hope for a hit). The blindsight special quality negates foes' concealment when they're within range. Some special qualities, such as blindsense and scent, can reveal an unseen foe's location but don't negate concealment. Similarly, you can use a Listen or Spot check to locate an unseen creature, but that does not negate concealment, so you cannot make an attack of opportunity against that foe.11/02/2004

http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/rg/20041102a

Maybe it is bad form to post a rule, from 3.5 on a Paizo forum, but after reading an old 3.5 book and comparing the carbon copy that is in the pathfinder book, I felt that quoting a ruling on the open gaming license at this point (page four) was necessary.

I'm not passing it off as RAW. I'm passing it off as a piece of critical thinking. I'm passing it off as a easily understood conceptual idea. RAW neither favors nor is against the abstraction. Developers sometimes talk about the abstraction (feel free to search the forums, you'll find them). There is an abstraction of grid locations. An abstraction of rounds (real world everyone takes their actions near simultaneously - the round merely represents a 6 second interval of action - taken in the abstract concept of turns). There are abstractions of other things as well - the rules talk about some of these things, but they never talk about them being abstractions - they talk about them as being game mechanics.

RAW should ALWAYS be tempered by GM adjudication - but the rules forum doesn't care about that.

I believe you stated the forum is for RAW discussion only.

If you would like to have a pow wow and sit around a campfire and talk as DMs or Players, then sure I agree with you on a lot of things.

However, you can't take the stance that RAW this and RAW that, then turn around and say, hey now lets just do what makes sense in any give situation.

You are sending out mixed signals.

PRD wrote:

"If you're unarmed, you don't normally threaten any squares and thus can't make attacks of opportunity."

You don't normally threaten if you are unarmed, so you cant make attacks of opportunity.

You can't execute an attack of opportunity against an opponent with total concealment, even if you know what square or squares the opponent occupies.

So being unarmed normally implies you don't threaten so you cant take an attack of opportunity.

You can't see your opponent so you (don't threaten) can't execute an attack of opportunity, even if he knows what square he is in.

This seems like a logical jump.

You can't make an AoO if you don't threaten the square.

Hunh, he actually went and said that. Let's finish his quote though.

By basing whether you threaten the square on whether you can make an AoO, you've got a recursive definition.

recursive definition, what is that???

re·cur·sive
/riˈkərsiv/
Adjective
Characterized by recurrence or repetition, in particular.
Relating to or involving the repeated application of a rule, definition, or procedure to successive results.

HMMMMMMMMMM.

So saying that you can't make an AoO because you don't threaten, is lik saying you don't threaten because you can't make an AoO!!!

No way, he said that on page one.

How did I miss, him agreeing with me.

I'm sorry is

'See abstraction of grid alignment.'

is this a rule somewhere, detailed in the book or did you pass your own judgement and opinion off as RAW, again?

Not at all, how do you even begin to asses what square you should be attacking.

If you are enlarged, and can effectively attack 20 squares, how can one claim you threaten all of these squares when you are blind.

I might understand if you have whirl wind.

But being blind means you have to guess what square they are in, therefore you can not attack a person directly, and you can not take attacks of opportunity.

Not being allowed to takes attack of opportunity could imply you ignore the entire section detailing how to take the attack of opportunity.

We don't know. We have to take a stab in the dark.

Your stab in the dark threatens the world, though according to your definition, even if the world isn't there.

What happens if you are attacking creatures that can mimic and they claim they are your friends and not to attack them.

How would you know to threaten.

Seems obvious the DM just shouldn't allow anyone to threaten when they are blind, since they don't even know where they are walking.

This logic escapes everyone, because the rules written by some one at some point in time, that were then copied into this book states so.

So when you are blind, and you can not take attacks of opportunity and you can not attack when it is not your turn, and you can not attack a person, you can only attack into the square that you hope he is in; this translates into you threaten all squares you can reach.

So a colossal sized blind zombie still threatens everything within 25 feet of itself.

But a creature encased in a cocoon of stone or webbing or what ever thing that prevents you from attacking it directly, but is still in a space you can occupy is threatened per your claim, that all it takes is to threaten is to be able to attack a square.

Your premise seems very flawed. So, to support your premise you decide to make everything else coincides to your will, to maintain that your original premise still holds water.

That wall of stone separates our squares so I can not attack the square.

Well guess what, the caster decided to cut the square in half with it, so the guy is now squeezing into the square.

So you still can attack into the square so you still threaten the square so you still threaten him.

What about a wall of force, do you threaten the square till you realize there is an invisible wall in between you?

The flawed premise you decide to base everything on causes more problems, than anything else.

What is so wrong saying there could be some clarification.

Especially since everything we are debating is open gaming license to begin with.

You'd be wrong, because blindness and concealment are defined in enough detail to conclude that being a threat is not off the table with those conditions.

I don't believe you meant it this way, but saying it is not off the table implies, that you may or may not threaten a creature when you are blind.

If combat is fluid, how well can a blind person keep track of where the enemy is. What do you do as a GM to prevent them from being able to see what is going on during a fight?

How do they know what square to threaten? Are they threatening all squares equally?

Since you seem pretty reasonable and you've been paying attention, I would you Forseti... Do you need to be able to make a melee attack into square when it is not your turn to threaten a square? Is this synonymous with AoO, since there is no other way to make a melee attack into a square when it's not your turn? Can you say why or why not? Maybe cite some rules that you're basing your decision on?

Good question, how does one attack when it is not there turn if they are forbidden from taking attacks of opportunity?

You can attack through doorways when the door is open, ofcourse, and if it has been sundered, or has been damaged enough for the weapon to go through. This is common sense type stuff.

The door can not be sundered. However, I appreciate the comment that it just needs to be damaged enough to attack through.

thaX: the point of the wall is similar to the point about blindness. According to the rules, that have been stated you can and do threaten a person on the other side of a wall.

Of course you and I both agree this is incorrect, as stated you must have some means of attacking the person.

This point about the wall is, in my case, to illustrate the problems with this definition of threatening a square is the same as threatening a creature, and the only requirement is to be able to attack a square.

People are very resistant to this alternative idea, that threatening a square is not the same as threatening a creature.

So, we make points of how ridiculousness it is to believe you threaten something on other other side of a wall, or in the ethereal plane.

It is very hard to break down a wall, when the other side keeps patching it and not being objective.

The wall question comes from two parts.

Part one, two characters are flanking a goblin that is encased in a wall of stone.

They can attack the square the goblin is in, therefore they threaten the square the goblin is in, therefore they threaten the goblin, therefore they flank. According to the rules people keep stating.

Part two, a character is being flanked by two people. He defensively casts a wall of stone between him and one of the other people. That person can still attack the wall that is in the square, thus he can attack the square, thus he threatens the square, thus he threatens the wall and the person in the square, thus he is flanking the person that cast wall of stone still.

Part three, a person is standing next to an arrow slit, someone comes up from behind him, and another approaches him from the other side of the wall on the other side of the arrow slit. Are we saying that the guy that is outside of this arrow slit that has almost but not quite total cover, still threatens the guy on the other side of this wall?

According to the rules that have been set forth, you need only threaten a square by being able to attack the square to threaten all the creatures in the square.

This is what everyone keeps stating.

It's just an assumption that you need to be able to attack a creature to threaten it.

You stated this as if it was extremely important and made perfect sense. The reason it doesn't fit the rules is because the rules are incomplete and don't define threatening a creature, at all, you have to assume how to threaten based on other rules, pertaining to Attacks of Opportunity.

Even reading this quote in just English, with no game context doesn't make any sense.

All of this is a real simple fix.

Threatening a Creature: To threaten a creature, first the creature must occupy one of your threatened squares. Next you must be able to both target the creature and be capable of attacking the creature, even when it is not your turn. You can not threaten a creature that can't suffer an Attack of Opportunity; you still threaten even if you have used all of your Attacks of Opportunity for the round.

Logically, you shouldn't threaten something you can't attack. Quoting an interpretation of a rule in the book, as if it were Gospel is just annoying.

It is okay, to admit there is a problem with what is written, or that it is unclear and not fully developed.

Listening to everyone quote an interpretation of what they feel RAW means, is starting to bother me. You realize that it is an opinion. None of this is directly spelled out. All you do is tell me how I'm wrong, and quote lines of text; and ignore anything I say about why it does or doesn't comply. Disregard anything you don't agree with, and claim you are just stating RAW, while I'm just wrong.

If you truly believe there is no problem with "threatening a square" being the same thing as "threatening a creature"; why are there so many loop holes to this opinion? Loop holes that work based on this definition of "threatening a squares" and not "threatening a person".

The saddest thing to me is that so few people are even willing to say, yeah this is messed up.

Flanking a guy that is standing on another side of a wall shouldn't work.

Being flanked by an ethereal creature shouldn't work.

Flanking an incorporeal creature in a 5ft block makes no sense.

If all it takes to flank is "threaten a square", then what is the point of saying threaten or threaten a creature?

Why does it not just come out and state that you threaten all creatures that occupy a threatened square, all the time.

Why leave any ambiguity in the words? Why is it so freaking hard for you people to admit it isn't 100% clear, and there is a problem?

Does it hurt your gaming pride so much you can't even see the other side of the argument?

I still think it is sad that according to your definition you can threaten through walls, but in my definition you can't. Yet people keep telling me I'm nuts and have no idea what is going on.

Sad, really sad.

You know all to well that you can't attack through walls. Why ask something to which you already know the answer?

Since when did not being able to attack a person mean you can't threaten them?

Oh wait, that is what you are saying when you state all you need to do is threaten a square to threaten a person.

You say one thing. You mean another. Yet, it is me that is

No, you haven't. That is the point, wall banger.

I'm wall banging because you don't even understand that you are contradicting yourself.

AoO and threatening a square is not connected, you only need to threaten a square to be able to make an AoO.

It is connected, they are a part of the same section Attacks of Opportunity. To say they are not, is to apply no RAW rule that states a section titled after an action has no connection with anything within.

If you can make a melee attack into a square, you threaten that square. That mean you threaten any within that square.

Then you threaten on the other side of a wall if it is less than 5 feet thick.

Being blind does mean one would not get an AoO, but he still threatens the darn square.

It also means you can not attack the creature, just like total cover does.

Oceanshieldwolf:

My stance is that to truly threaten someone, they must be in your threatened squares and you must have the means to attack them.

First is the easy part, standing in a square you threaten. Everyone I believe agrees on this step.

The second part, everyone seems to discount stating it is unnecessary and not RAW. (That being said a few people do agree with my assessment, for the most part anyways.)

I feel, after reading the rules, that it is implied that you must be able to attack the target at the very least, not just his square, to threaten the creature itself.

People assume a part titled, Threatened Squares means Threatened Creatures.

People assume that, Threatened Squares is not a part of Attacks of Opportunity.

People assume that being able to attack the square is good enough to threaten the creature, even if they are never allowed to attack the creature directly, and can't make attacks of opportunity against the creature, they still threaten the creature.

My argument is threatening a square is part of threatening a creature. If you can't attack the creature, you can't threaten the creature. If you can't take an attack of opportunity against the creature I'm not sure if you should threaten it either.

However, that makes regular cover a little bit more interesting.

I am standing next to you.

I cast wall of stone between us, it is 2 inches thick

Do you still threaten me?