wraithstrike's page

Wat if I use a token like a bird token than the bird fly’s on a creature w the poison ???

That is an attack and the token does not have the ability to attack.

Objects can't make attacks unless it has a special rule saying it can.

Why not just poison a weapon and throw the weapon at someone, or use a ranged weapon?

wraithstrike wrote:

What monsters are using "Claw + Slam / Pincer + Slam" from the exactl same "hand"?

edit:Sadly they are not doing anymore FAQ's. They didn't even keep up with FAQ's when PF1 was the only system they had to support. I appreciate what they did do, but I still feel like they dropped the ball on some of the easier questions.

I didn't go far into in-depth searching, just enough to find one example for Claw/Slam and Pincer/Slam. Nachzehrer (PAP #119) has both a Claw attack and a Slam attack, which as listed on the generally accepted chart would both be an arm attack.

As for the Pincer/Claw attack, first one I was able to find was Champion Automaton (PCS: Construct Handbook) - which has both x2 Pincer attacks and x2 Slam attacks. It also has the wording which if it grabs with a Pincer, it turns into 'another' slam attack, so there isn't confusing that it has both of them. And unless I'm missing something, I only see two arms.

It might be the case that they're ruling hands and arms as separate for natural attacks just like how they're ruling mouth and horns as separate (albeit as previously stated, some Gore attacks use the mouth not the horn).

Thanks for replying. That's strange since it only has one slam attack despite having two arms. If the rules allow for two attacks per limb it should have two slam attacks in addition to the claw attacks.

I would chalk it up to this being an outlier just like how one adventure had illusions that could actually damage you despite illusions not normally being able to do so.

There's also the fact that no published eidolon does this, and I doubt it's because no dev would have thought of it if it was intended to work that way.

I've always allowed monsters to do the same thing as players so if they think this is ok they shouldn't have problems with an NPC Eidolon being able to do the same. Sometimes it's not just about what you can do as a player, but if you should do it.

After this session/campaign you may want to houserule it.

edit: As for the champion automaton it loses access to a pincer in order to have a slam attack. It's not getting the pincer and slam attack in the same way your players are trying use it with the eidolon.

RIP Gary

Your contributions to Paizo are deeply appreciated.

My condolences go out to your family and friends.

The boards will be a little less smurfy without your presence.

Trokarr wrote:

The FAQ that is being referred to is this one.

Half-Orc--Toothy: Does this alternate racial trait stack with the Razortusk feat (page 168) granting you two bite attacks?

This is one of those areas where we tried to get at the same idea multiple ways. In this case, the answer is no, unless you somehow manage to get an extra mouth. Generally speaking, natural weapons can only be used once per round each. This also applies to the Animal Fury barbarian rage power (Core Rulebook, page 32).

Huh, I did not know that FAQ. Thank you!

It's amazing how much they managed to not make a general ruling here, and I'm in awe how the sentence "Generally speaking, natural weapons can only be used once per round each." is able to simultaneously sound on-topic yet not doanything.

Still, it's a "close enough to RAW" on at least that front.

wraithstrike wrote:

You can use the same body part in some situations, however no monster used the exact same location on the body that I can recall.

I already linked one above, the hybrid form wereboar, which uses teeth for bite and gore.

Azothath wrote:

generally with this kind of thing if there isn't a Rule allowing it, it is not allowed.

The options say you gain natural weapons, and the general rules say "you receive additional attack rolls for multiple limb and body parts capable of making the attack" CRB pg. 182. The problem is that nothing definies where one body part ends. This is really a case where you need a rule to disallow it.

I already accounted for the bite and gore in my comment.

You can use the same body part in some situations, however no monster used the exact same location on the body that I can recall.

As an example a bite attack uses the mouth, and a gore attack would use the head.

However I accidentally erased some text that tied all that together in a manner that made sense. So that's my fault.

What I'm looking for is a claw/pincer/slam combo(2 out of 3) on the same limb.

The problem that I am currently having with the Manufactured + Natural Attacks rules as stated in the Attack Action rules is that it specifically calls out the Manufactured Weapon being used rather than just referencing different Natural Attacks using the same limb. (i.e.: "For example, you cannot make a claw attack and also use that hand to make attacks with a longsword.")

This also brings up the issue that several existing monsters have attacks that conflict with this ruling, such as Gore + Bite both using head, Claw + Slam / Pincer + Slam both using Hand. So it's hard for me to argue with people who use it in my group when there are examples of these monsters that don't fit the ruling.

Probably too late to ask Paizo to make an FAQ on which Natural Attack is attached to which limb and which attacks can/can't be stacked on each other. Especially when the group I play with has practically ran out of replay credits and Paizo is dead set on letting 1e society fizzle out without granting more replays credits. lol

You can use the same body part in some situations, however no monster used the exact same location on the body that I can recall.

As an example a bite attack uses the mouth, and a gore attack would use the head.

I don't know of any monsters that claws and slams from the same limbs.

What monsters are using "Claw + Slam / Pincer + Slam" from the exactl same "hand"?

edit:Sadly they are not doing anymore FAQ's. They didn't even keep up with FAQ's when PF1 was the only system they had to support. I appreciate what they did do, but I still feel like they dropped the ball on some of the easier questions.

Diego Rossi wrote:

Belafon wrote:

CRB page 180 wrote:

Speed

Your speed tells you how far you can move in a round and still do something, such as attack or cast a spell.

Humans have a movement speed of 30' per round but can move twice (for a total of 60'). So the spell's movement speed/rate isn't necessarily the limiting factor.

Humans have a basic speed of 30', and a Flaming sphere moves 30 feet per round.. They are two different statements.

You’re trying to parse the language way too fine. You are trying to draw a distinction between

Quote:

Your speed tells you how far you can move in a round

And

Quote:

It moves 30 feet per round

Saying “a movement speed per round is different than a movement per round” isn’t supported in the rules and in this particular case would lead to the conclusion that flaming sphere can only be moved once per round but aggressive thundercloud can be moved twice in a round because “it has a fly speed of 20 feet.”

Diego Rossi is correct. It is specifically giving you a hard limit.

You use this action to make the spell effect move X feet per round.

"Per round" is a completely different thing than "per move action".

If they wanted you to move it multiple times per round it would have said you can move the sphere 30 feet each time you use a move action.

Is it game breaking to allow it to work per move action? Likely not outside of some corner case, but what's game breaking and what the rules actually are, are two different things.

Some abilities are action based, and some are round based. The sphere is round based.

You can't use the movement speed of a creature to counter Ross's argument because movement speed isn't round based, it's action based.

If you get more move or standard actions you get more chances to move.

The hard limit is generally on the actions you have.

As an example if you have the ability to make additional move actions, and you have 30 feet of movement you can move 90 feet because there is no limit on how far you can move in a round. There is only a limit on actions you can use to move.

An example of this is the choker. They can move 30 additional feet because they get an extra move action. There is also a shirt that grants an additional move action.

Another example is a creature that gets 2 full round actions.

It can move 4 times it's move speed in one round because it gets 2 turns in the same round. This would allow it to double move twice or withdraw twice in the same round.

Speed is specifically a creature stat. The spell is question doesn't have a speed. It has a distance it is allowed to move, which is 30 feet per round in this case.

The issue here is a confusion of the distance limits on an ability with movement speed for a creature. Barring certain situations most things that are not creatures don't have speeds, and yes I'm aware of aggressive thundercloud.

The two are not the same.

As for aggressive thundercould as written you could move it twice in a round as long as it hasn't entered the same space as another creature, even though I don't know if that was the intent because it has a move speed, and is not limited by any "per round" language barring contact with a creature.

You can argue that flaming sphere was badly written, however unless you have precedence from other rules or Paizo is nice enough to update PF 1 FAQ's* there really is no way to prove they just worded it incorrectly.

*PS: We all know the PF1 FAQ is toast.

I would say it works like C.

There is no rule to cover this but I'd say physical attacks affect the body of the possessed.

Mental attacks affect the mind.

If you use magic jar as a starting point, which is reasonable at no point are the mind and body attacked by physical attacks which is what energy drain would be.

Here is my next question.

What technical hurdles would I have to jump through to fix Paizo maps that aren't playing nicely?

I have no interest in mastering photoshop, GIMP, or anything else. If it's something I can learn in an hour or less I'll do it.

If there is no quick fix, then would it be possible to hire someone to fix the maps? If so what skillset(s) would that person need?

Has anyone tried using AI based or automated image enhancement programs to make the maps in modules and AP's more suitable for VTT use?

If so which software did you use?

I thought I'd ask her first before sinking time and money into the various options.

I have no interest in editing with GIMP.

I have no idea if the flipmaps are VTT ready, but I guess it could work for them also.

I've been told this one has the 10 foot square grid maps. Are all of the maps this size, or are there 5 foot sqaure grid maps?

I can make it work. I just don't want to, and I may consider another adventure instead.

I'm mostly sure I read a statement that Paizo was going to make the module maps interactive. They would work backwards towards older modules.

Assuming I'm not imagining things is this still an ongoing project? If so is there an estimated date of completion.

PS: This supposed to included PF 1 modules from what I understood.

A full guide to all Paizo APs with ratings can be found here.

In general, Abomination Vaults and Strength of Thousands get highly rated, as does Age of Ashes (albeit with some difficulty concerns).

Thanks for the link.

If you had to name 3 or at least one PF2 AP that you like the best what would would it be?

PS: I tried doing a search, and I got nothing so I don't know if my search-fu failed.

Thanks for the replies. Maybe giving both ideas is the best way for me to go about it.

As long as they're not the same trait type he should be able to take both traits. I don't think the 3d20 idea works by the rules, but I'd allow it. I'd just inform him that it may not be optimal in case he wants to trade them out later on because "they suck", and he didn't realize it at the time.

wraithstrike wrote:

By that logic a lot of FAQ's are rules changes even though we know they are only giving a better explanation on text that should have been written better initially.

A lot of FAQs are rules changes, that's why they say they'll be reflected in the next errata (and then never put in). That's why there's been multiple back-and-forth FAQs on how half-elfs/orcs work, along with multiple different times FAQs changed what SLAs qualify for. Heck, there's even an FAQ that grants brand new class features to a class. Or are you going to argue that all of those are just clarifications of intent?

Nothing in the rules expressed their intent for it to only work with melee weapons, especially when things like pretending you're going to shoot someone with your bow, only to drop it and punch them in the face instead are things that are thematic to feinting.

I didn't say none of them were rules changes. I'm saying more of them would be rules changes by more definition.

However I was also assuming the culture of the boards is what it used to be. I made a post speaking to this. Trying to convince people to view things like I do is silly. It's much easier to have us do things in a similar manner so if you get time feel free to comment on my post.

Disclaimer: This might belong in general discussion.

I've noticed over the years that many of the disagreements about the rules come down to whether those debating see the rules as "What the devs intended" vs "These words are used and intent doesn't matter".

When I first got here most people were going by intent, but that was over 10 years ago.

However if I'm helping someone in the forums and they don't specify I'd like to know what PoV I should use.

wraithstrike wrote:

It specifically says what type of attack is needed.

Sure, you still had to make a melee attack in order to take advantage of the feint, never said otherwise, but you didn't need to use a melee weapon to feint.

This meant that stuff like swift action feinting before charging as a rogue in order to get sneak attack off was viable.

Quote:

Therefore there was no rule allowing for ranged feints, and the "normal" section of the "Ranged Feint" feat didn't create a new rule.

Uh, no? You failed to provide any rules (aside from the normal line on ranged feint) that disallowed using ranged weapons for feinting. I'm perfectly aware that ranged feint is pretty much the only thing that allows you to benefit from feinting with ranged weapons, but that's a different thing than I brought up.

You brought it up so I know you're aware of it. I'm saying the normal section of that feat wasn't used to make a new rule.

Rules that aren't written in legalese, and later have their intent clarified don't count as new rules. That's not how it works.

By that logic a lot of FAQ's are rules changes even though we know they are only giving a better explanation on text that should have been written better initially.

I'm not saying that makes sense or that it was intended to work that way.

See when discussing the rules there are two basic camps.

The "most literal interpretation camp", and the "we can't read the rules like a robot and ignore context" camp.

I'm in the latter.

Some who are in the former type likes to say, "Well you can't read minds or know developer intent".

When I was active here more often I not only predicted FAQ's, but the devs often used the same wording I used, so my results and other people's blow that excuse out of the water.

The rules aren't written like a technical manual, and if we used the logic of "Well it doesn't exactly say.....", there are a lot things that we could argue that 99% of us know were not intended.

The other point to consider in the rules forum is that when the poster ask a question are they asking for the "well if you're pedantic enough you can..." interpretation, OR they're looking for intent.

95% of the time people want intent.

There was a topic here that I think was deleted.

It went into ridiculous interpretations of the rules that had some merit if we were overly literal, and ignored context.

Of course it was was all in good fun, and I understand having those discussions if we're just messing around, however in the context of a real game when people are looking for real answers it's a disservice to fellow posters to do that.

This line of thinking is just like how shield master was intended to allow you to ignore twf penalties when using a shield while TWF'ing, but the way it was originally written, twf was never called out so one could argue(pedantically) that it reduced all penalties.

Derklord wrote:

Chell Raighn wrote:

FYI: there are a few instances of feats with Normals that create rules where there previously were none. These created rules are continually held up as being RAW

Do you have examples of normal sections making rules that are actually recognized as rules?

Ranged Feint, before Ultimate Intrigue was published you could use ranged weapons to feint enemies or feint with melee weapons from a distance. If you ignore the existence of the feat, you can still do so.

That's incorrect. The CRB specifically calls out feints being intended for melee weapons.

Feint
".....If successful, the next melee attack you make against the target does not allow him to use his Dexterity bonus to AC (if any). This attack must be made on or before your next turn.

It specifically says what type of attack is needed.

The Improved and Greater Feint, don't mention "melee" because that rule is already in the book, and in order for them to allow an exception they'd need something that says "This feat also allows you to make feints with ranged weapons".

I'm not saying it has to be worded exactly like that, but it would have to be clear that it's allowing you to break a normal rule just like it's clear they're reducing the time for a normal feint, with "Improved Feint".

Benefit: You can make a Bluff check to feint in combat as a move action.

Normal: Feinting in combat is a standard action.

Therefore there was no rule allowing for ranged feints, and the "normal" section of the "Ranged Feint" feat didn't create a new rule.

As you can see it brings up the normal rule, and then the benefit of it taking a lesser action.

The same thing(showing which rule you get to ignore) happens for Greater Feint

Benefit: Whenever you use feint to cause an opponent to lose his Dexterity bonus, he loses that bonus until the beginning of your next turn, in addition to losing his Dexterity bonus against your next attack.

Normal: A creature you feint loses its Dexterity bonus against your next attack.

Greater Feint's purpose is to allow you to extend how you benefit from the feint. It shows this by contrasting how long you normally benefit from a feint, and then showing how long you benefit from a feat with this feat.

Therefore there was no rule allowing for ranged feints, and the "normal" section of the "Ranged Feint" feat didn't create a new rule.

Lately I've been trying to come up with ideas for things to play in 2e and each time I ask how to build it in the Advice board, I've gotten similar responses: that the character concept I'm thinking of isn't doable with 2e's options unless I do something completely different and "reflavor" it, usually because it's either too MAD or requires too much multiclassing or because of how casters and martials are balanced in this edition, and it's making me very frustrated.

You can multiclass into a caster class as a martial, but your casting will be a joke. You can multiclass into a martial as a caster, but then you'll be so useless with your weapon it might as well be for show. If you want to melee as a Druid, you HAVE to Wild Shape, even if you have a cool sword you want to use instead. You can play a gunslinging mage, but forget being able to use those cool gunblades, the action economy allows air repeaters and bayonets only! The only way to be EFFECTIVE means to play your class in the most straightforward way possible, the same boring ways everyone else has already played them, or else have to ask your GM if you can "reflavor," and that just feels like cheating to me. Like my concept is "too good for the rules everyone else is using," sneer sneer, and if I was treating the rules SERIOUSLY I'd stick to concepts that are actually workable within them.

I want to like this edition, but every time I come up with a new concept I run into this problem: whatever I want to play is something the rules aren't balanced to support, unless I want to water down the concept to its most generic form, or be satisfied with the cognitive dissonance of playing with a square peg in a square hole and insisting it's round in spite of all observable rules. It's making it hard to enjoy the process of character creation at all, which in turn prevents me from, you know ACTUALLY PLAYING THE GAME. What do I do?

The openness of PF 1 gave you more possibilities, but it also meant more things could go wrong.

PF 2 reduced the chance of similar errors, but the freedom to do what you want also suffered.

Greater security will reduce freedom in most situations. It's a delicate balancing act. I'm not saying PF 2 is wrong, but it may be the wrong game for you, just like PF 1 is the wrong game for others.

So...This is a very old and classic question. Will the improved familiar become dumber than its non-familiar kind? I have gone through a lot of posts. And I have never find an official answer to that. If any dev sees this by accident, please tell me the exact answer for this question. It would be much appreciated.

There is no official answer, and they're not going to answer it, just like they left a lot of other easy PF1 questions unanswered.

As a GM I'd go with the higher score. It doesn't make sense for an improved familiar to have it's intelligence reduced.

If a GM were to rule that improved familiars were dumber I'd likely wait until they could have their regular intelligence before accepting them.

I should have been more precise: I don't need a rules conversion, but a setting conversion. How can I set those adventures in Golarion?

There are a few discussions on that topic in the forums. You just have to do a search and decide which ones make the most sense to you.

Nobody did anything in great detail that I'm aware of, but there were some good ideas.

You can't really assign a number accurately because the builds, even if nothing obscure is chosen, can vary greatly.

How a GM runs the game is also going to skew perception if you're looking for real(not just theory) effectiveness of a class. As an example some GM's will do things like try to steal or destroy a wizard's spellbook. Most don't, but it will definitely impact how useful the class is. The same thing can apply to a cleric's holy symbol.

In addition the skill of the player, and how much they're going to push the envelope is also going to have considerable impact.

As an example sorcerers have been labeled as "blasters" by some people, but they don't have to blast to be the most impactful class in most combats.

Wizards on the other hand can be great blasters, even if it's not seen as the most optimal use of the class.

Similar examples can be applied to other classes.

Knowing your goal for this document outside of assigning numbers would be useful. If you already stated the goal I apologize in advance.

If it's just to get numbers I wouldn't worry about it because the numbers can't really tell the full story. You'll get a better understanding of them by seeing them at your table.

If a creature(even large and bigger) moves(not talking about a 5 foot step) out of a threatened area it provokes.

The game has been understood to be this way by just about everyone, including the devs.

They've killed monsters this way. I'm too lazy to find the url, but their gaming exploits do exist online.

You(OP) can choose to let them not provoke, but those are the rules.

You can also go to other forums and ask them what they think. 99% of them will say the creature provokes.

<Goes back into hiding>

They'd still be dead. They'd just be a corpse with no visible damage.

As a corpse(object) it jat hot points, but as an object.

1. The intent is to have a building. Whether or not it has to be a fully enclosed building with no outside area isn't covered in the rules.

As a GM if someone wanted to have a garden I wouldn't care as long as they didn't try to get any mechanical benefits.

Spell descriptions tell you the benefits. Anything else is up to the GM.

2. It depends on your GM. The mansion isn't really inside the other mansion. You only create the entrance to the other mansion since each mansion basically exists in a pocket dimension.

However, if your GM comes from 3.5 there was a thing about creating extradimensional spaces inside of other extradimensional spaces. It causes problems in 3.5/Pathfinder, the kind of problems that get parties wiped.

This is because of how bags of holding interact with each other and portable holes. This comes from 2nd edition when there was a table that made bad things happen.

PS: By the rules this should only happen with the bag of holding and the portable hold.

for normal outsiders not native and what about aberrations do they natural age as well?

Normal Outsiders do not age.

Aberrations do age, but how they age would depend on the specific aberration. These things don't come up in most games so it's up to the GM to determine the lifespan of each aberration unless Paizo highlighted that specific monster in a book.

I banned the antagonize feat because it makes no sense to me. I also don't allow Disjunction because it basically requires people to remake their characters on the spot. However, those also apply to the NPC's so I guess they may not count.

Unless it was essential to a campaign or mission I don't see myself banning something. As an example if they can easily rescue an important NPC by teleporting into the enemy's HQ and teleporting back out, I'd make it so that teleporting in and/or out wasn't possible.

Another example is that if the campaign involves going against drow I'd be less likely to allow someone to just happen to be the only good drow in the area.

PS: If getting to the NPC easily didn't mess interfere with the plot then I'd let them use teleport.

I'd say no. It's against the letter of the rules, and it also seems to be against the spirit of the rules.

This is a problem as old as dungeons, and it’s one that every GM has to figure out. How do you justify battling your way through a dungeon without fighting every inhabitant all at once? Why don’t the monsters seem to notice the sounds of slaughter emanating from the next room?

Typical answers include:

-- The monsters are selfish, and don't care about their comrades.
-- Infighting is common in this lair, so a bit of scrapping isn't cause for alarm.
-- Sounds carry strangely in the dungeon.
-- My guys do respond intelligently! I have cascading guard stations here, here, and here. Doesn't everyone?
-- I suspend my disbelief and play the damn game.

I’m betting you all have your own methods for this one. So as an exercise in better dungeon-building, share your rationale! (And, for the sake of argument, let’s assume that “dungeons don’t make sense which is why I don’t use them” is a less-than-useful answer.) All clear? Ready? Go!

(Comic for illustrative purposes.)

If they can hear it, they'll show up if I'm GM'ing. This assumes there isn't a reason for them to ignore combat such as them being told to guard an area, or setting up an ambush of their own.

Another thing I don't do is assume bad guys have every buff applied. If a buff is less than 10 minutes per level the bad guy has to have some idea the PC's are coming.

So what class(es) would you change and what about those class(es) would you change?

I'd give the rogue(reflex and will) and fighter(fort and will) two strong saves. I'm going to playtest it the next time I run a game.

Fighter-I think it would benefit from something like the abilities from the 3.5 Book of Nine Swords that gave it options.

Rogue-Maybe allow the rogue to do sneak attack damage for X number of times per day without meeting the normal requirements. This can be useful when another party member just refuses to flank, or there is nobody to flank with.
-----

I'd let a monk using monk weapons do his unarmed strike damage through his weapons. Since they can't wear armor I'd also have a magic item that boost his unarmed attacks, for those who choose to go unarmed. That would free up the neck slot for the amulet of natural armor.

Alternately, I'd let him use his ki points to enhance his unarmed attacks so they can gain the properties of some magical weapons. I don't know the exact mechanics.
-----

I'd probably let rangers choose from the druid companion list.

Thanks everyone.

Does anyone know what happened to the FAQ rules for 1st edition? Now the page just shows the 2nd edition rules. I understand the focus on 2nd edition, so if they've been moved to Nethys and someone has a link I'd appreciate it.

Don't make it a long hallway, and if the party runs the guardian can chase them. Make it fast by giving it a 50ft movement. I doubt the entire party will be that fast.

If they try to nickel and dime it to death give it fast healing. As for the hallway, put a door behind the guarding. Put traps or some magical ability on the door it's guarding so it's not easy to get past it.

Be sure to add an alarm so that if the party gets to the door while the guardian is away it knows to return. It doesn't have to be an audible alarm.

That way if the guardian decides to hide, and ambush them it has the option to do that instead of being stuck by whatever it's guarding every time. Now the party will be having to watch their backs, and can't just use an overly simple tactic.

I'd directly ask them why they aren't <insert thing they should be doing>. For some reason people don't often "get" something until someone ask them why they're not doing it.

Iterative attacks and secondary natural attacks have an attack reduction. For example, the second attack in a full-attack routine at +6 Base Attack Bonus or higher is made at -5, as is a secondary natural weapon attack when attacking in concert with other weapons.

If one of these penalized attacks strikes and features the grab universal monster ability, does the grab feature also use the -5 penalty?

Yes. Grab is using your CMB, and penalties(to include penalties from iterative attacks) that apply to your attack rolls apply to CMB rolls.

Combat maneuvers are attack rolls, so you must roll for concealment and take any other penalties that would normally apply to an attack roll.

So when you make that 2nd attack that reduction to your attack roll also applies to your CMB rolls.

Stereotypically, this topic comes up when someone's significant other joins the game. You'll also see it with best friends, longtime partymates vs. newcomers, or old GMs with younger players "ruining" their table. Either someone is getting preferential treatment, or someone else is getting the shaft.

It doesn't have to be heavy-handed "rocks fall and you die" type stuff either. Close rules calls might always go well for one player and not another. Prerequisites might get ignored one way and stringently enforced for someone else. It can even be something as simple as monsters that just happen to attack the disfavored player first.

My question to the board is this: When you encounter GM favoritism out in the wild, how do you deal with it as a player? How do you know if it's "real" or just in your head? And if you're a GM who's been accused of this, what's the best way to respond?

(Comic for illustrative purposes.)

I'm pretty good at being objective, and noticing BS when I see it. I've luckily never been the victim of it, however I did leave a game because of it happening to someone else.

The times I saw it, a person was allowed to blatantly ignore the rules.

As an example someone was allowed to climb without making a climb check, and they climbed at their normal walking speed. They didn't have any race or class based special abilities, magic items, or anything else that would have allowed this.

You may ask, "Could the GM have not known the rules?".

Someone else was asked to make several climb checks to do the exact same thing.

CR 4 is about right. It's designed to mostly cast with spells, and the damage output isn't really that good. It has a high attack bonus, but the AC isn't going to give the melee types too much trouble.

It'll start off pretty well with the high stealth and init modifier, but after the surprise round things will likely turn around.

Tigers are a CR 4, and if they get the jump on you in the surprise round it's going to hurt a lot more.

Melee based monsters will have a difficult time with this. Casters have the ability to harm multiple characters at once so they're better at taking on parties by themselves. They also have defenses based on miss chance, and unlike AC and DR it's not as easy to optimized against.

If you insist on using a melee based monster I'd also give it abilities that allow it to disrupt(apply negative conditions, damage, other bad things) multiple combatants in some ways. In other words it's going to have some abilities that are similar to spells, even if they're not technically spells. As an example if it can make a large part of the ground difficult terrain, or it has a powerful breath weapon.

Another option is to give it ranged attacks, that allow it to play keep-away as long as possible can also help.

I'd also make sure to not completely nerf the player's abilities, just to help the monster.

Scott, Pathfinder has specific definitions for things. Those overrule the normal usage. Nothing in the pathfinder version of having the dead condition says you can't act or take actions.

Another example of PF having it's own terms is how it multiplies damage.

In real life if I triple the number 3 I get the number 9, and if I double it I get 18. 3x2= 6 6x3=18

In pathfinder you add multipliers, not in stead of multiply them. So if I try to add use an ability that triples damage, and one that doubles damage I end up with 5x damage not 6x damage. So in PF land that 3 only comes up to a 15.

If you have rules text that says dead people can't move or take actions then simply provide a quote from the book.

AKA

IF you're going to say the rules for pinned didn't say

denied its Dexterity bonus to Armor Class

you are not allowed to move or take any actions

If you are going to say the rules make this claim that it is in the rules then the burden of proof is on you to provide the reference.

Now maybe you're thinking that I don't think dead people should act. You're correct, but I'm also not arguing that going by intent is a bad thing.

Now maybe you'll say there are exceptions in extreme cases, but what's extreme will vary by person, and even if you say it makes sense to not go by exactly what's in the book in extreme cases it still means we have to go by intent, no matter if it's for 99% of the rules or 1%.

This wouldn't quite work.

DEATH ATTACKS wrote:

Source PRPG Core Rulebook pg. 562

In most cases, a death attack allows the victim a Fortitude save to avoid the effect, but if the save fails, the creature takes a large amount of damage, which might cause it to die instantly.
Raise dead doesn’t work on someone killed by a death attack or effect.
Death attacks slay instantly. A victim cannot be made stable and thereby kept alive.
In case it matters, a dead character, no matter how he died, has hit points equal to or less than his negative Constitution score.
The spell death ward protects against these attacks.

You'd still be at negative hitpoints with everything that goes with it.

I wasn't calling out death attacks specifically, but they should still work. You still skipped the dying condition. At no point were you every bleeding out.

The fact that death effects take you directly to the number of hit points needed to make you dead meets the claim I made.

Feel free to explain it to me like I'm 5 if you have too. I'm not understanding why being at negative hit points is a factor.

Another way to die instantly is to take enough hit point damage all at once. As an example if you go have 60 hit points, and a 14 con, and someone hits you for 75 points of damage you go directly to having the dead condition.

The following should be another post, but I don't feel like making two posts.

Other methods of going bypassing the dying condition:

Death by con drain or damage also works, not as an insta-death method, but it bypasses the dying condition.

For the record, and those who don't know me, I don't think it was intended for dead people to take actions. This is just an experiment with regard to how rules can be use incorrectly if we read them as literally as possible. I really wish I could find that other thread that talks about similar situations where the rules fall apart if you read them too literally.

Bonus:There is a rule(shieldmaster feat) saying you get to ignore penalties. It meant penalties in a specific situation, but as written it applied to all penalties with regard to attacking with a shield so in theory it could have applied to Power Attack penalties.

You do not suffer any penalties on attack rolls made with a shield while you are wielding another weapon.

They did FAQ it, so don't try to pull one over on your GM's. :)

No, they did not errata the text to my knowledge. They expect for you to know the proper context, and not try to ignore the penalties beyond using a shield while TWF'ing.

No doubt there are hundreds of other examples that could be pulled from these forums - places in the rules where it is possible to come to different conclusions based the actual wording of the rules.

There used to be a thread that listed these. IIRC it was done more to make light of the situation than to collect answers.

I couldn't find it the last time I looked for it so I'm wondering if it got removed.

I wish they'd publish two documents, a physical one, concise, enough to play - literally a handbook, and a digital one, in which they aren't limited length, where they could explain, develop, anticipate ambiguities and provide meaningful examples of instances of implementation of the rules. For this whole thread is nothing but the result of constraints of the physical book.

The issue is that they still need to spend time to make the ruling, and for a long time they were not doing it. SKR ended up being the one to handle a lot of it when he was here. After he left it seemed to fall to the guy who does the Twitch channel. He was giving answers on his Twitch channel for a while during the time when PF2 was new. That didn't last more than a few videos, and eventually the rulings stopped coming altogether.

Now that PF1 is an old product they're definitely not going to devote any time to it.

The only way any of the leftover questions possibly gets answered now is if we someone took up a collection fund in some way to pay them extra money.

Scott Wilhelm wrote:

That's actually not true.

Nothing in that link says dead characters can't take actions. So it actually is true.

To back this up the paralyzed condition specifically calls out not being able to take actions.

Paralyzed: A paralyzed character is frozen in place and unable to move or act. A paralyzed character has effective Dexterity and Strength scores of 0 and is helpless, but can take purely mental actions. A winged creature flying in the air at the time that it becomes paralyzed cannot flap its wings and falls. A paralyzed swimmer can't swim and may drown. A creature can move through a space occupied by a paralyzed creature—ally or not. Each square occupied by a paralyzed creature, however, counts as 2 squares to move through.

This isn't the only situation where movement or actions are restricted. Stunned and a few other conditions also call out not being able to take actions, or at least severely limit what can be done.

The dead condition says no such thing so...

If Paizo intended for someone with the dead condition to not be able to take actions or move it would say so. ;)

Even if it were argued that someone going from being unconscious to or dying to dead still has those conditions, it's possible to go from full hit points directly to being dead.

So the person/creature with the dead condition still has no RAW limitation preventing them from taking actions or movement.

PS: I houserule it at my table that someone with the dead condition can't take actions or move, but that's a houserule.

wraithstrike wrote:

Now it can be argued that they wanted to make it more severe, and go from flat-footed to denying the dex bonus across the board, however it would made sense to be more clear in such a statement since this FAQ was supposed to be a clarification of intent, not a rules big rules change, which is what it would be if dex based characters had to try to escape pins without using their dex bonus. It would be almost impossible, and in some cases it would be impossible

I think it is problematic to make RAI arguments at all. I have a few reasons for saying this:

In most cases, the intent of the rules can only be a matter of conjecture. On this thread, I have shown that it can be at least as compellingly argued that their intent was indeed to change the rules.

The basic relationship between Paizo and us is customer-business. We are the paying customers, and we have rights to a certain basic level of quality. In other words, we are not responsible for what Paizo meant to say. They are responsible for what they did say. The gatekeeper-pushback I get from stating this simple truth is mystifying, like some contributors to this thread must actually be Paizo-paid sock-puppet posters or something. You get that, right, Wraithstrike? When I say this, I am actually advocating for you, for your rights as a customer.

Paizo themselves went against the rules when they created the Pathfinder Core Rulebook in the first place. While they did make changes, most of the text of the Pathfinder Core Rulebook was lifted whole cloth, cut, and pasted from the Dungeons and Dragons 3.5 Players' Handbook. The intent of the rules, the intent of the authors, therefore, was that the rules be used to play Dungeons and Dragons, not Pathfinder! Paizo's intent of the rules can only be to go against the intent of the rules! When you do go against the intent of the rules, what you are doing is what Paizo itself did, and therefore you are playing the game in the highest and oldest tradition....

Every rules argument is an RAI argument since every rule has to be interpreted. Even when someone says "RAW" they're still making interpretation.

If you look at some "RAW" based arguments/disagreements two people can be reading it differently because their interpretation is different. If there was only one way to read the rules we'd all read them the same way.

A specific example of this was whether or not a multiclassed cleric can use spells from another class to turn into cure/inflict spells.

The verbiage is:

"Spontaneous Casting: A good cleric (or a neutral cleric of a good deity) can channel stored spell energy into healing spells that she did not prepare ahead of time. The cleric can “lose” any prepared spell that is not an orison or domain spell in order to cast any cure spell of the same spell level or lower (a cure spell is any spell with “cure” in its name)."

Nothing there limits them to casting only cleric spells to use cure spells, but an FAQ makes it clear what the intent was. The character is still a cleric, even if it has levels in wizard.

You have to use context to figure out the way the devs intended things to work.

Part of getting the rules right is understanding developer intent. Honestly it shouldn't be that way, but things are what they are.

That's how I've been able to get my predictions of what an FAQ will be, even when the exact wording disagrees. I can count on one hand the number of times the dev team came back with a different ruling.

As an example the haste spell was once written to rule out unarmed strikes. It wasn't intentional. It was just a byproduct of how the text was written. I brought attention to it, and the dev team(Actually SKR when he was still here) said that was not the intent, and there was clarification on in a later FAQ.

In theory I understand this could add to that total of me being wrong, and I understand that me being confident because I've been mostly correct in the past doesn't make me correct this time.

If you're going to make a big change like that, you have to be clear about it.

They even had a blog post around grapple, and they didn't mention it then either.

Just to be clear, I wasn't saying the FAQ has never been used to change the rules. I'm saying that was the case here. The FAQ specifically calls out clearing up a contradiction. The contradiction was the interaction of being flat-footed with regard to losing dex.

The distinction matters because being flat-footed is worse than just losing dex. When you're flat-footed you can't take attacks of opportunity, in addition to losing dex.

It even says "To sum up the correct rules" right after it mentions a "contradiction".

Now if they're using it to change a rule, why not just say that?

There's a big difference between "We're going to give you the correct version of the rules." vs "We're going to make a big change with regard to how this works and make being pinned a lot more powerful.

In that case why bother with making it sound like you're trying to fix a contradiction if you're doing a rewrite on how pinned works?
---

Making the core rulebook is no more going against the rules that if I created Wraithfinder based off the 3.5 rules or some 3rd party company creating their own version. The rules are open for this reason.

You are right we're not responsible for what they meant to say, but that doesn't mean they're going to word things in a way that's clear to everyone.

They've even said, and I'm paraphrasing, "The book isn't written in legalese and they expect us to interpret things".

Maybe you don't think that's what they should do, and I understand.

I don't completely disagree, and I partly wish they had more standardized wording when it came to writing rules.

They intentionally avoided this partly because some of their material is written by freelancers, and they wanted them to have more freedom with how they write things.

I know Paizo switches words up too. As an example in the perception skill section they use "creatures" and "opponents", but if your buddy is invisible, I'm sure you don't get to autodetect him if he's hiding in a room you happen to enter. This is also another example knowing when to use context. Otherwise a player can say "He's not an opponent so despite the 55 stealth check I know exactly where he is."

I'd expect more GM's to give you the raised eyebrow look.

Part of them not wording things in a better manner is partly why it took forever to get people to understand that you could sneak attack from a stealthed/hidden position.

PS: The stuff written by freelancers is checked, and sometimes rewritten by Paizo. I didn't want you to think they had people write the rules, and made no attempt to check the quality of the submission.

Scott I wasn't trying to be rude, but I do see how it came across that way.

In any event I found that old text I was looking for. It explains how " denied its Dexterity bonus" came to be.

There was a contradiction between the grapple rules and the pinned rules. So in order to avoid saying you were flat-footed they use the " denied its Dexterity bonus" term, assuming everyone would know what it meant.

Here is the flow:

1. The old pinned rule said:

A pinned creature is tightly bound and can take few actions. A pinned creature cannot move and is flat-footed.

2. Then there were various discussions about it on the forums, and contradictions were noticed.

3. They then made an FAQ and Errata that says this:
"Update: Page 568—In the Pinned condition, in the second sentence, change “flat-footed” to “denied its Dexterity bonus."

That's only part of the FAQ.

I'm going to link to the FAQ, but above it I'm going to put the entire FAQ text below.

In the quoted section I'm going to put my own verbiage in italics and bold it so it's clear where the rules and my words are separate.

Grapple: There are some contradictions between the various rules on grappling. What is correct?
To sum up the correct rules:

1) Grappling does not deny you your Dex bonus to AC, whether you are the grappler or the target.

2) A grappled creature can still make a full attack.

3) Being pinned does not make you flat-footed, but you are denied your Dex bonus.

Update: Page 195—In Table 8–6: Armor Class Modifiers, in the entry for Grappling, delete the superscript “1” after the +0 in the Melee and Ranged columns. In the third footnote, change “flat-footed and cannot add his Dexterity bonus” to “denied its Dexterity bonus”

This "“denied its Dexterity bonus" is referring to the bonus to AC. That's why it's under "Armor Class Modifiers" as mentioned above. If you go to the table and look at "pinned" this matches up to show that it's talking about AC.

Update: Page 201—In the If You Are Grappled section, in the fourth sentence, change “any action that requires only one hand to perform” to “any action that doesn’t require two hands to perform.” In the fourth sentence, change “make an attack with a light or one-handed weapon” to “make an attack or full attack with a light or one-handed weapon”

Update: Page 568—In the Pinned condition, in the second sentence, change “flat-footed” to “denied its Dexterity bonus.”

This also had to change under the pinned condition to show that you don't get your dex bonus to AC

Now it can be argued that they wanted to make it more severe, and go from flat-footed to denying the dex bonus across the board, however it would made sense to be more clear in such a statement since this FAQ was supposed to be a clarification of intent, not a rules big rules change, which is what it would be if dex based characters had to try to escape pins without using their dex bonus. It would be almost impossible, and in some cases it would be impossible

FAQ link

wraithstrike wrote:

So all I can say is you can think that Paizo changed the ruling and forgot to make text clarifying they're doing things differently from 3.5

I think it is abundantly clear that Paizo does Grappling differently from 3.5!

In 3.5, you began a Grapple by making a Touch Attack. In Pathfinder, you don't.

Did you speedread my quote "forgot to make text" which would actually account for the grappling rule change since they actually did change the grappling rules in a very distinct manner?

I'm seriously asking. If you didn't miss it then I'm not understanding what how your comment actually disagrees with what I said.

If you go by the rules as intended, and he makes a perception check to find a hidden person it counts the entire room.

If he's looking for a trap, hidden door, and so on he's supposed to choose a 10 foot area. This isn't in the CRB. It's a relic of 3.5 that didn't make print in the CRB, but it comes up in the Pathfinder Unchained book.

When I saw this I asked a dev about it, and they clarified that was the intent, however the CRB was still never edited.

I'm aware that some of you are going to need proof, and I would also, so I will provide proof.

Disclaimer: I don't think the FAQ makes this into a hard rule, but it does show intent.

Link to the FAQ explaining this

PS: I didn't use the 10 foot search rule in 3.5 or Pathfinder because I felt like it took up too much time.