setzer9999's page

setzer9999 wrote:

Ssalarn wrote:

setzer9999 wrote:

Gauss wrote:

Ssalarn, no it wasnt. I asked him today (or yesterday, I forget) a more focused question that did not involve Manyshot.

HERE IT IS

- Gauss

And, funny enough, JJ's response supports both sides of our argument. He is saying it is a standard, yet he is also saying you don't have to declare that its a full-attack beforehand... which lets Manyshot do its thing before declaration.

Did you skip right over my link where JJ specifically says Manyshot doesn't work the way you want it to?

His rulings are in opposition to one another. When not presented with Manyshot as part of the question specifically, the way he rules it indicates that it would work. His objection to this comes as a "its too good" clause after the fact. This is a good guideline for WRITING a rule, or good advice, but its still not actually a rule.

See my post about 5 up. It's ridiculous that when employees and creators of the game weigh in, you still feel the need to argue. It's disrespectful to every member of the staff who takes the time to communicate with an ungrateful fanbase.

Its disrespectful to assume that I'm being disrespectful. I've enjoyed many of JJ's responses, and he's answered several of my questions. Regardless, posts are not rules. You can say its "annoying", "ridiculous", or "disrespectful" as much as you like, but nothing is actually an official rule of the game unless it is printed, in the prd, or in an FAQ/errata. That's what a rule is.

Anything else, and it is advice on how to house rule a tricky bit of the written rules.

Leave this game. That's all I have to say.

Also, just thought of something else... stone shape is often thought of as more powerful than it is. What level is the scroll? Assuming it is at the base level, you can only manipulate 19 cubic feet of stone. That isn't as much as it sounds like. If you wanted to leave the "cubes" 1 foot deep, you couldn't even block a normal doorway in a typical home from top to bottom, you'd leave a gap at the top. So, depending on how big your door is, the stone might not be all that wide, allowing for the chance to break through it with a bludgeoning weapon.

Also, since giving them darkvision would just be cheap... how about something more memorable, like giving them arcane sight? Then, in the darkness, they can see where there are beings as colored spheres of light in the darkness (because the "light" is in their mind, magically, not in the actual room). It would still be hard to hit people due to all the overlapping auras, so I'd still say miss chance is in play, but they could discern friend from foe, and at least be given the opportunity to attack squares where they think they are without things being ridiculous. They could also see the aura and spell effect from where the deeper darkness is emanating with it, and it grants detect magic.

If the kidnapping and slavery was legal the paladin couldn't do anything about it with out risking his powers.

I don't want to threadjack, but good GODS I would hate to play at a table you GMed. I don't mean offense, but wow. Being Lawful is an attitude, albeit a Cosmic attitude, not just a mindset, but much more than that. It is not about following "laws". Anyone can draw a line in the sand, and because they are stronger than the other people on their side of that line, start abusing them and call it their "law". That is a perversion of the term law, and though Lawful Evil creatures may also behave that way, they are following a cosmic mindset of law that focuses on what they think is right in a "Might makes right" sort of fashion.

A Paladin, being Lawful Good, follows a "Justice makes right" code. What justice is there in someone deciding that it is ok to enslave and rape people just because they are stronger and on the other side of some arbitrary line like a border on a map? I'm sorry, but there seems to be widespread problems with this in the community where Paladins are going to fall because they violate the "laws" of Evil societies when they oppose them. I, on the other hand, would make them fall for not being Good for NOT opposing such practices, and treat them as heroes for opposing such things.

Sure, depending on the situation, sometimes just whipping out a sword and going to town on a bunch of aristocrats in a LE city would still be murder... but storming in and killing slavers who are stripping people naked and raping them? You'd make a Paladin fall for that? Give.Me.A.Break.

Trying to recreate a combat/damage system which is both "realistic" and playable is at best a Herculean task. Many grey haired GMs have had similar complaints (including myself and Monte Cook who wrote a nice essay on "The Unscalable Wall of Realism" ) and found that the more "realistic" we made our game systems the more the complexity made the game unplayable. But for what it is worth you may find the following statistics interesting and helpful in yur tweaking of the rules:

The LD50 (50 % of people will die) for falls is 4 stories, or 48 ft, and the lethal does for 90% (LD90) of test subjects is 7 stories, or 84 ft (

The LD50 for burns (any cause lava, fire etc) is 80% of skin (in 2000 it was 30% in the pre antibiotic era my best guess would be 10% or even 5%.

The LD50 for trauma/shock (Probably the best real world analog to being hit with an arrow/broad sword or magic missile) has to do with restoring blood flow to the coronary, cerebral and hepatic arteries within 45mins (the so called golden hour in ER medicine) It is worth noting that this has very little to do which what kind of device caused the trauma be it a great sword, a .45 or a baseball bat.

The odd thing with trauma is the the seemingly random nature in which it claims its victims. One man survives 30+ blows of a baseball bat while another is hit by a baseball and dies instantly. I have personally seen people die in as short as 5 mins from a very narrow penetrating wound and other survive a "through and through" gunshot wound to the chest after walking 10 mins to the ED. The point is that real world trauma- what actually causes death in humans - is very complicated and difficult to recreate by even the most dogged game writer.

That is actually pretty much a lot more in line with doubling fall damage per unit fell actually. As for other types of HP loss, yeah, its much easier to do anecdotal luck/divine favor/morale/minor nicks types of descriptions for those.

The Alexandrian posted a great article on calibrating your expectations in D&D 3E back in 2007. Everything he says applies pretty well to Pathfinder.

Boiled down in a nutshell, level 1 characters are equivalent to real-world above average humans. At level 3 or 4 you're close to, if not at, maximum real-world performance. Once you hit level 5 you are definitely at heroic fantasy levels (you can represent any of the mortal characters in Lord of the Rings using a 5th-level D&D character).

Beyond 5th level you're literally into super-heroic fantasy on a par with the sort of things you see in The Avengers and other recent Marvel movies.

I'd say you need to re-visit what you expect from Pathfinder in terms of realism and, if the assumptions made by the system don't suit your needs, then adopt one of the variants that have been suggested (like E6) or even switch to a game that represents nitty-gritty realism better (like GURPS).

This thread has made me take a look at doing a conversion over to E6. I have the feeling that I really don't much care for high-level play after all the way it is in stock dnd/PF. I still haven't had a campaign go over level 5 as it stands, but the more I experience the game, and the more I read ahead into other modules and campaigns and creatures/spells at higher CRs... the more I think, as you said rightly, I may not be into it.

I think E6 looks very tempting because its just dnd/PF with less levels and more feats. If you know the rules, you already know the rules.

If I do just stick with PF, I'm going to have to make a concerted effort to make sure it's understood that characters that CAN live through such things are blessed with divine or diabolical energies whether they know it or not, cleric or not, and ARE superheroes/villains. I'm fine with, more than fine with, here FOR the fantasy... I just need some verisimilitude and explanation for the fantasy, that's all.

Also, though this is off-topic kind of, the scaling of some classes vs. others due to a lack of design consistency between 3.5 and second edition leaves a noticeable gap between magic users and physical types later in levels. I might try to see if I can't incorporate E6 and realm management type stuff ala 1st and 2nd edition. Perhaps the characters might find a way to breach level 6 someday through some epic reasons, the whole campaign can become being ABOUT transcending mortality :) later on.

But for now, I haven't had the time to prepare such things, and am working from published paizo stuff. In that meantime, I just wanted to come up with a way to have hazards and falls and the like not be so ridiculous.

So, to those who don't think you can separate yourself from your summons initiative... can a summon ready or delay an action? If so, how would that be treated if it doesn't have an initiative?

I think the spell text refers to the first round, because the resolution of your spell is happening at that point. Since it is a conjuration spell that has no concentration, after the summon appears and starts rushing off, it is then no longer tied to the summoner other than that it has been made an ally.

It's presence in the plane it was called to is short lived, yes it can be banished, but the summon itself isn't a spell effect. Its an actual creature, the spell effect just only being what pulled it from another place with enough energy to keep it in this new place for a short while before it "rubberbands". That's my take anyway.

I agree that it could get out of hand to keep track of so many initiatives, but despite the spell text, I'm not seeing anything that says you can't change initiative after the fact.

Think about it this way... a normal initiative goes "immediately" where it belongs too. Initiative count "18" goes "immediately" before initiative count "17"... but delay and ready actions can change that. I'm still not convinced that you can't split a caster away from the initiative of his summons.

jupistar wrote:

What I'm against is a whole bar full of people rolling initiative and acting prior to the person who throws the punch that starts the fight.

Here's how I'd do it, and I think you'll find it satisfactory:

Things are getting heated between the two groups: Alice, Alan, and Aaron parked in Bob, Barney, and Betty's carpool spot. Alan decides to throw a punch.

When Alan announces that intent, we roll initiative. Alan will get to act in the surprise round automatically, because he's starting it. However, everyone else gets to make a check to see if they see the punch coming (if they're in easy view, I'd make it Sense Motive instead of Perception).

If Bob succeeds on that check, he gets to act in the surprise round. He "saw it coming". If Bob also rolled higher initiative than Alan, then he not only saw it coming, but was quick enough to do something about it - though if Bob throws a punch of his own, then everyone who failed their check to see Alan's intent will see Bob's punch and tell Security that Bob started it, so Bob might choose to delay instead (or go total defense because he's a pansy).

The only way the whole bar acts before the (intended) first punch is if the whole bar makes the check for awareness and wins initiative. Unlikely, but if it happens, then just say that everyone knew Alan was that kind of guy. ;)

Han Shot First
In this case, Han tells the GM that he's stealthily drawing his weapon under the table. Han then says "I shoot Greedo". The GM asks for initiative rolls. Then, Greedo makes a Perception check to see if he notices the gun. He fails it, so he doesn't get to act in the surprise round. Han, being the only one with an action in the surprise round, uses his standard action to fire his pistol, getting sneak attack on Greedo and ending the fight before the first normal round.

I favorited this post. Very nicely done. This appears to both be RAW, and a competent application of that RAW that should help anyone (including me) with such situations. Thanks.

Edit: Oh and by the way, I can see someone making the argument that its not RAW because by RAW, all of these people are "aware" of each other, which would mean there is no surprise round. However, you have to be aware of your OPPONENTS... and it would be ridiculous to assert that you are aware of your opponent if you don't know he IS your opponent, so... thought I'd preempt that argument. Surprise round! :P

Vorpal is a magic weapon effect, and as such, it cannot have an occurance or roll of it's own. Weapon effects require, and take place based on, the successful attack rolls and, where specified, confirmed critical hits of the weapon to which they are ascribed. The text regarding vorpal is worded in a slightly odd way, but given that vorpal itself cannot have a d20 roll, the d20 roll referenced in the effect is the attack roll of the weapon that has the vorpal property, not some non-existent roll for vorpal itself.

Confirming the critical hit on the natural 20 roll described in the vorpal weapon property entry in the rules is reffering to confirming the critical made with the weapon, not the vorapl ability itself (again, vorpal doesn't get a roll, so there is nothing to confirm regarding vorpal directly). The reason a roll of natural 20 is called out instead of it saying simply "upon a critical hit" is not to make it easier for a vorpal weapon to activate by being some weird case where a weapon effect goes off all by itself instead of based on the weapon's critical hit. If that were the case, you could just roll infinite amounts of d20 checks without even attacking, and cut off infinite heads. The roll is for the WEAPON, not the effect. In the case of vorpal, the wording of the effect is written as it is to spell out that the critical hit made with the weapon must also be a natural 20, and not a critical hit made with increased threat range.

Vorpal does call out that undead and constructs are affected by vorpal but, aside from vampires, not killed by the loss of their heads. This is not because vorpal is an effect separate from criticals. It is already stated in the general magic weapon effect rules that while such creatures are immune to the extra weapon damage dice of a critical hit, they are not immune to the magical effects of a confirmed critical. So, this stipulation about undead and constructs cannot be used as evidence that vorpal is an effect that can take place regardless of the weapon's critical. In fact, it is, if anything, more evidence that vorpal is simply a weapon property that goes off on a critical hit with a weapon that has it as a property... not on its own.

Therefore, fortification effects would prevent vorpal. They do not prevent vorpal directly. Arguments that vorpal isn't a critical hit are moot. I agree vorpal isn't a critical hit. It isn't. It is an effect on a weapon that only takes place if a critical hit takes place.

Some would argue that fortification doesn't negate vorpal or other magical effects that rely on criticals. Those that make this argument state that fortification only eliminates the extra damage dice when it is effective, but allows critical hit effects to still go off. This too is incorrect. Fortification says that "the critical hit or sneak attack is negated AND damage is instead rolled normally."

Two things are emphasized above. Firstly, and most importantly, it says the critical hit or sneak attack is negated. It doesn't say that the extra damage dice are negated... it says the whole critical hit or sneak attack is negated... and then also, secondly, points out that this means you roll damage normally. This isn't pointed out because not getting the extra damage dice is the only thing that occurs due to the negation. It is an "AND" statement, like a clarification or reminder. The fact is, the critical hit is NEGATED, so there is no critical at all... and if there is no critical, there is no critical hit effect.

TL;DR
If a vorpal weapon does not confirm its critical hit, the vorpal effect does not occcur. A critical hit that activates a vorpal effect must occur on a natural 20 roll only, not on increased threat range. Successful rolls to confirm fortification effects negate criticals entirely, they don't only negate their damage dice. Since a critical hit does not occur when fortification is successful, vorpal cannot be activated in such cases, because the critical hit never happened... it was negated.

Please discuss.

setzer9999 wrote:

Bob Jonquet wrote:

setzer9999 wrote:

This is flawed reasoning

Bob's stuff

my stuff

Actually setzer, the rules have not changed one word from 3.5 to PF. they were carried strait over. The only thing lost (that I know of) was the example of taking ten on a climb check - (that it is allowed) - which was dropped due to IP (I think). and even that example showed that you could T10 when under the stress of failure (though not in combat) - which...

What? I know I said I was done with this thread but that is just too much.

What I am trying to get across is that there is sufficient logic to support both positions. If you cannot see that, no one can even attempt to convey their interpretation because you will just dismiss it outright.

And what I am trying to convey is that there IS NOT evidence to support both positions in the Pathfinder Rulebook RAW. There is simply no text that says anything about not taking 10 in any situation except for if it is distracting or dangerous. There. just. isn't. The fact that there is text that "implies there might be a reason" in a single class feature ability, does not override the entirety of the way the core mechanics of skill checks work. The game has been written, re-written, and worked on by dozens of people writing and copy/pasting. There are bound to be errors. Unless the rule is VERY clear that you can't take 10 on a skill, you can take 10 on the skill. If Lore Master makes you confused, fine, you're confused, but the rule on taking 10 in the skill check section of the rules says that yes, you can take 10.

I'm not just arguing that you can take 10. I'm also taking it a step further and saying that in the PF RAW, there isn't even enough evidence to even marginally support the other side of the argument.

Now, the RAI of the developers may be the opposite of this... but if it is, they didn't write it well then. If they release an official FAQ/Errata about it, I'd abide by it one way or the other. But RAW... there is not enough (or any) evidence to limit you from taking 10 on any skill except UMD and swim in stormy conditions. If you can find the line where it says so, please link it (not Loremaster which as written just basically pointlessly reiterates that yes indeed you can take 10).

The way the RAW is, there is nothing that says you can't take 10 on a skill check except in UMD (always) and Siwm (for stormy water, it clarifies this as a specific condition that shouldn't be up for GM determination). As written, there is nothing in the take 10 rules or in any of the other skill check rules that limit anyone from taking 10 on their checks.

So, if you rule otherwise, you are house ruling.

As for the fuzzy part, where SKR and others are trying to determine what is "easy" or what is "dangerous or distracting", you can try to make yourself feel better by arbitrarily calling something "too hard or dangerous for a take 10" when it really shouldn't be, and say you are following RAW, but it's really just a "cleverly" disguised house ruling. Just because you don't want something to be easy doesn't mean it isn't actually easy. If it causes that much trouble, perhaps the skill check was poorly conceived for that part of the adventure and so much shouldn't be riding on a check that can be overcome by taking 10...

setzer9999 wrote:

My stuff

it does not say "your allies" = "you and your allies"

It says:

"your allies" almost always means the same as "you and your allies."

almost always does not equal always. That is a misread of the FAQ.

I am well aware of the "almost always" text, and that is the entire problem I have with the wording. It DOES mean they are equivalent... UNLESS you DECIDE that you want it not to be, and the wording leaves that completely open to be the case... The fact that it leaves it open to interpretation is my entire problem with the rule. This neither refutes nor supports my "position" because the entire point of my thread is that the language you bolded leaves the rule unclear for official ruling. Personally, I just would never take this feat for a PFS game, and avoid any controversial rules in my character builds in general because a rule should really not be this open to interpretation imho.

By your reading, the "teamwork feat" outflank only needs one person. After all it just says:

Quote:

Whenever you and an ally who also has this feat are flanking the same creature, your flanking bonus on attack rolls increases to +4. In addition, whenever you score a critical hit against the flanked creature, it provokes an attack of opportunity from your ally.

By your reading, you should be able to take this feat, and, as long as you are flanking, you would get all the bonuses.

This is flawed. You count as your own ally, yes, but flanking has specific rules. Outflank says nothing about changing the mechanics of flanking. It only says it increases the bonus you get for doing so. You are your own ally according to the FAQ, yes, but you are still only one ally. Even with the FAQ text, if you are by yourself, you cannot flank, even if you are your own ally, because flanking requires an ally on each side of your opponent, and you as a single ally cannot accomplish this.

Even if you interpret Gang Up the way I propose is RAW, it still wouldn't work if you are alone, because it still requires 2 allies. Flanking requires 2 allies (including yourself).

For Escape route, you are "adjacent" to yourself in a logical sense, but "adjacent" is not defined in the rules. However, "adjacent square" IS defined in the rules, and you cannot be in a square adjacent to the square you are currently in... that is a geometric impossibility for a large object. You are also not "moving" in your square as it pertains to grid movement. Yes, fluff-wise the body of your character is "moving" to swing a sword, but a "move" is a specific action in which you leave one square and enter another, so no, even with my interpretation of the FAQ, Escape Route would not function by yourself.

"You count as your own ally unless otherwise stated or if doing so would make no sense or be impossible. Thus, "your allies" almost always means the same as "you and your allies."

and

Gang Up...
Benefit: You are considered to be flanking an opponent if at least two of your allies are threatening that opponent, regardless of your actual positioning...

So, by RAW, Gang Up should let you flank if only one other ally besides yourself is threatening your target. Is this correct? It is certainly "possible" and for it to "make no sense" is waaay to open to interpretation. I personally think it makes sense, as the spirit of the feat seams to be that you remove the need to actually flank to flank, and given that you have a character here that is on the front line that has had to take 13 Int and 2 feats to get it, it seems reasonable.

Any thoughts? Official input?

Its always good to have statements on how confusing rules are supposed to work from an official source so +1 for keeping these FAQs coming. Its really helpful especially to new players and groups to read things like this to know problem rules before they become an issue at the table.

Re: Mirror image/cleave, its good to know what the official rules are, for something like a PFS game. As for a home game, especially if I'm GMing it, I'd still vote for or rule that you can cleave the images. The official ruling makes no in-world sense. It seems like the official stance on the rule is derived entirely on grid mechanics, instead of envisioning the behaviors the characters would exhibit if such circumstances could occur in "real life". Really, since its not a "will save" type of illusion messing with the fighter's head, "realistically" he could just cut through all of the images in one sweeping cleave, since a "cleave" is not actually multiple attacks, its one big attack over an arching area, for which the mechanics of this game require multiple attack rolls purely for mechanics sake ;)

To illustrate with "hyperbole", it gets kind of ridiculous if a mirror image stops a 20 foot tall giant from hitting his target because of some images when his weapon is likely filling most of the 5 foot square as he swings through it (in which case he'd hit all the images and the caster all at once, as would someone taking a sweeping arc through it with a normal sized sword...)