Incorrect MDT (at least on the encumbrance rules) --
Note how encumbrance is not listed as something that gets adjusted? That means it doesn't get adjusted.
Only Permanent bonuses and Drain affects carrying capacity.
Because, as I said, encumbrance is not a statistic, it is a status. You don't have a heavy encumbrance stat, you are heavily encumbered, which has an effect on your movement.
Your argument is that because there's no mention of of a status adjustment, the status doesn't affect you. This is the same as arguing that a strength adjustment doesn't affect your being dazed. While it's a correct argument, you are then using that to say it doesn't affect when you gain the encumbered status, which is wrong.
You gain the Encumbered status when your carried weight exceeds an amount determined by your strength. It has nothing to do with the sections of the rules you keep quoting over and over again.
I'll say it again. Encumbrance is not a statistic for your character, it is a status your character gains if you carry more than a specific amount, which happens to be based on strength. If your strength is up or down due to spells or rage abilities then the amount of weight required for you to gain an encumbered status fluctuates as well, because it's strictly a lookup on a table. The character sheet treats it like a stat, but it's not. If it were, it would be in the section on statistics, which it's not. It's under additional rules.
1. The rules are the same, whether your a PC or NPC. Exhaustion is a nasty effect either way. Ray of Enfeelbement is nasty either way. A low strength just makes it that much rougher.
Possibly but unlikely -- because if you have low strength you are obviously not relying on it.
2. Figuring encumbrance is simple, you should already know how much your carrying, just cross reference that number to the weight allowance chart. Takes seconds.
After of course you pick up the book open it to the right page and check it -- besides by the rules completely unneeded since temporary bonuses and ability penalties and damage don't affect encumbrance
3. You hurt the wizard with an int penalty. His DC's drop through the floor, making it all but impossible for his spells to stick. Furthermore, if his modified int is less than 10 + spell level he can't cast the spell, even if he has it memorized. A Magus who takes a minimal is going to eventually encounter this problem. Int drains are less common than str drains though.
However he doesn't have to rely on spells that need save throws -- ray of exhaustion still has an effect -- applying twice will guarantee it. So will haste, summon moster enervation, etc.
4. Penalties are only less than damage until they cripple you. At that point, damage becomes irrelevant. Your not dealing and the other side is.
That's not quite correct -- penalties can't drop you and are easier to clean off. Also they can't drop you at all -- maximum they can do is put you to 1 -- unlike damage. In fact if you take a penalty and then enough damage to drop you below 1 you'll lose penalty until you are still at one (example you get hit with ray of enfeeble for 14 of your 15 points of str then a strength damage ability for 4 points of str -- you're still at 1 since the penalty can't drop you below 1 -- four points of penalty just got replaced with actual damage).
To put things in perspective, I've had players reduce a giant to the level of staggered commoner with debuffs. I've had NPC's do the same to frenzied berserkers. The rules work the same either way. Starting a character, especially one intended to be a front line fighter, with a 7 strength just makes you much more vulnerable to these effects than other front line fighters. Instead of needing multiple effects to become crippled, just one can do the job. Getting hit with a single effect is much, much more likely to happen than having multiples stacked on...
That's fine -- I'm not against the rules working -- I'm against this pointless and gamist house rule you are insisting on.
That's a VERY weird way to look at it, mate.
So, if a guy loses inteligence, wisdom, charisma or whatever, he can't cast spells either? Or AT LEAST looses his bonus ones, cause it's a table too?
Yes, they do.
Staff has confirmed this. You lose access to those spells until your stat is restored. Same way with strength, your maximum possible weight before being encumbered is your base strength, you lose that until the stat is restored, same as you lose access to the 1st level spell slot your 20 INT grants you if it drops to 15. If you restore your int, you get the spell slot back. If you restore the strength, you up the amount of load you can carry before becoming encumbered.
That's a VERY weird way to look at it, mate.
So, if a guy loses inteligence, wisdom, charisma or whatever, he can't cast spells either? Or AT LEAST looses his bonus ones, cause it's a table too?
Yes, they do.
Staff has confirmed this. You lose access to those spells until your stat is restored. Same way with strength, your maximum possible weight before being encumbered is your base strength, you lose that until the stat is restored, same as you lose access to the 1st level spell slot your 20 INT grants you if it drops to 15. If you restore your int, you get the spell slot back. If you restore the strength, you up the amount of load you can carry before becoming encumbered.
Only if its from drain.
|
Would it be brokkedee-brokkedee-brokken to allow someone to have a feat called Fencing Grace which was identical to Dervish Dance but just swapped out the word 'scimitar' for 'rapier'?
It would suit the flavour of my Magus better and, to be honest, it seems weaker (because rapier is already piercing, so you're not getting as many little extras).
edited for clarity, after Name Violation posted, thanks NV.
Clearly not, as the Magical Weapon property "Agile" from the new Pathfinder Society Field Guide allows the wielder of the Agile weapon to choose to apply his dex bonus to damage instead of strength. Only a narrow range of one-handed light melee weapons can have this property, but a repier qualifies.
Agile is a magical weapon property equivalent to +1.
While it would be somewhat expensive, you could enchant a +1 Agile, Keen rapier, too.
You might want to just save your gold, get the agile rapier, and take another feat instead :)
A little thing I like to call proof
Q: I am confused on the different types of Ability Damage, Drain, and Penalty. Plus some spells like ray of enfeeblement and touch of idiocy seem to even have special rules. How do these effects really work?
A: (James Jacobs 4/23/10) Ability damage only results in a penalty to actions associated with that ability score; it does NOT make you lose access to feats or spells that require ability score minimums, since your actual ability score does not lower. Only ability DRAIN can make you lose access to spells you can cast or feats that have prerequisites. But it's not that simple. Some effects that cause ability damage or ability penalties DO have additional effects. Touch of idiocy is one such spell, since it says in the spell's description that it affects the target's ability to cast some or all of its spells if the penalty imparted to the ability score drops low enough. This is an exception to the general rule for ability scores and applies only to touch of idiocy (the point of the spell, really, is to be a lesser version of feeblemind that screws over spellcasters, after all). Ray of enfeeblement, on the other hand, does NOT have this type of language. It merely works as a normal penalty to an ability score.
So -- you are wrong.
A little thing I like to call proof
So -- you are wrong.
A little something I like to call, don't misquote the Dev's
Q : Question about how a spell works.A : I'm not really sure; I'm not really tracking the FAQ or rule threads. I tend to work on the Golarion side of things and leave the rules to Jason and Sean.
That's the first quote I ran across for JJ in his ask me anything thread, but there's others on the boards where he's repeatedly stated that any answer from him is strictly how he would rule in a game, and not official canon rules. Any rules answers have to come from Jason Bulmahn or Sean Reynolds. And there's plenty of places where JJ has stated he disagrees with official errata and FAQ.
EDIT : So, I am not wrong.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I didn't misquote a thing -- that's his full on post. Just because he's not tracking it doesn't make the post irrelevant.
He has Sean Reynolds track the FAQ -- however I didn't misquote JJ at all -- false accusations are nice though keep it up!
It's doubly funny because your post isn't even relevant -- or correct:
What he actually said -- in your specific link:
Pathfinder rule that seems to get the most queries.I'm not really sure; I'm not really tracking the FAQ or rule threads. I tend to work on the Golarion side of things and leave the rules to Jason and Sean.
As for my quote Original Post says I'm still right
Since you aren't in agreement -- that makes you wrong.
So I just sat down and read through the rules for Ability Score damage, penalty, and drain on page 555 of the core rulebook, and it does indeed look like the rules don't work exactly as I thought. Part of the problem is that ability damage doesn't actually reduce an ability score's actual total, which is counterintuitive on some level.
So here goes.
Ability damage only results in a penalty to actions associated with that ability score; it does NOT make you lose access to feats or spells that require ability score minimums, since your actual ability score does not lower. Only ability DRAIN can make you lose access to spells you can cast or feats that have prerequisites.
But it's not that simple. Some effects that cause ability damage or ability penalties DO have additional effects. Touch of idiocy is one such spell, since it says in the spell's description that it affects the target's ability to cast some or all of its spells if the penalty imparted to the ability score drops low enough. This is an exception to the general rule for ability scores and applies only to touch of idiocy (the point of the spell, really, is to be a lesser version of feeblemind that screws over spellcasters, after all).
Ray of enfeeblement, on the other hand, does NOT have this type of language. It merely works as a normal penalty to an ability score.
So taking it that way...
1a) A 12th-level wizard with a 16 Intelligence takes a 3 point Intelligence penalty from Touch of Idiocy. What is the highest level spell he can cast, sixth or third?Third.
1b) A 12th-level wizard with a 16 Intelligence takes 3 points of Intelligence damage. What is the highest level spell he can cast, sixth or third?Sixth.
1c) A 12th-level wizard with a 16 Intelligence takes 3 points of Intelligence drain. What is the highest level spell he can cast, sixth or third?Third.
2a) A fighter with 13 strength and the Power Attack feat takes a 3 point Strength penalty from Ray of Enfeeblement. Can he Power Attack?Yes.
2b) A fighter with 13 strength and the Power Attack feat takes 3 points of Strength Damage. Can he Power Attack?
Yes.
No.2c) A fighter with 13 strength and the Power Attack feat takes 3 points of Strength Drain. Can he Power Attack?
As you can plainly see -- he even gives examples.
|
Possibly but unlikely -- because if you have low strength you are obviously not relying on it.
Absolutely everyone relies on a minimum level of strength, even arcane casters.
After of course you pick up the book open it to the right page and check it -- besides by the rules completely unneeded since temporary bonuses and ability penalties and damage don't affect encumbrance
A good DM screen eliminates even this minimal requirement
However he doesn't have to rely on spells that need save throws -- ray of exhaustion still has an effect -- applying twice will guarantee it. So will haste, summon moster enervation, etc.
If the wizard has a wide selection of spells not allowing saves memorized. That choice had to be made in advance though.
That's not quite correct -- penalties can't drop you and are easier to clean off. Also they can't drop you at all -- maximum they can do is put you to 1 -- unlike damage. In fact if you take a penalty and then enough damage to drop you below 1 you'll lose penalty until you are still at one (example you get hit with ray of enfeeble for 14 of your 15 points of str then a strength damage ability for 4 points of str -- you're still at 1 since the penalty can't drop you below 1 -- four points of penalty just got replaced with actual damage)....
And my initial point was, with a strength of 1 your not going to be able to lift the weight of your weapons and armor off the ground. Your now encased in a prison that weighs more than you can lift.
A wizard or sorcerer "might" manage to operate with a strength of 1.
If they have minimal equipment and are using Leomund's Secret Chest to store the majority of their supplies. ( A personal favorite, though not for encumbrance reasons.)
And my initial point was, with a strength of 1 your not going to be able to lift the weight of your weapons and armor off the ground. Your now encased in a prison that weighs more than you can lift.
A wizard or sorcerer "might" manage to operate with a strength of 1.
If they have minimal equipment and are using Leomund's Secret Chest to store the majority of their supplies. ( A personal favorite, though not for encumbrance reasons.)
Correct -- however since you can't start with a strength of 1 the only way to get it to matter for encumbrance is with drain (possibly aging).
From what i have seen Abraham spalding is correct by the rules as they are now, anything else is a house rule (for once the rules are pretty clear).
I don't say which makes sense and which doesn't, i only say that the way the rules are written now it makes the game run smoothly (i hate to have to calculate a bunch of staff when a penalty or damage incurs, it's enough to do so when a drain happens) and doesn't bone the fighters and melee guys in general.
I didn't misquote a thing -- that's his full on post. Just because he's not tracking it doesn't make the post irrelevant.
He has Sean Reynolds track the FAQ -- however I didn't misquote JJ at all -- false accusations are nice though keep it up!
It's doubly funny because your post isn't even relevant -- or correct:
Except that I was not quoting him in reference to this topic, and stated so in my message. I was quoting him to show he has stated that it is Jason and Sean that handle official rules decisions, not him. He is creative director, and while I respect his opinions, they are just those, his opinions, not official Paizo policy on rules.
Thus, you did misquote him as you quoted him as an official source for rules answers, which he himself has said is not his roll. My quote was to illustrate that. As to JJ having Sean do anything, I don't think JJ gives orders to Sean. I believe, as Sean has stated before, rules are round-robbined with Jason, Sean, James, and a couple of others, and then Jason makes the final rulings and Sean implements them.
So yes, my quote was relevant to my point, the fact you choose to ignore my point and try to denigrate it does not mean it was not relevant. Additionally, you may quote as much of James as you want, but if you go look at his own posts, you will find posts by him stating that it is Jason and Sean that handle the official Paizo rules responses.
And so, along that point, yes, you did misquote him. You misquoted him by representing him as the person who makes decisions on rules interpretations, which he himself has said he is not, and that any responses of his (especially in his ask anything thread) are just the way he would rule in his own game. Please don't try to misquote him as official canon, he doesn't like it, and it's deceptive.
And so, along that point, yes, you did misquote him. You misquoted him by representing him as the person who makes decisions on rules interpretations, which he himself has said he is not, and that any responses of his (especially in his ask anything thread) are just the way he would rule in his own game. Please don't try to misquote him as official canon, he doesn't like it, and it's deceptive.
Can you point to anything that makes what he said wrong?
I also never said he was official canon -- only that he was staff saying exactly what I was saying -- something you have claimed to have but not provided.
Also it's not 'his house rules' that's still the rules -- nobody has stated he was wrong... unless you have proof of that?
Because everything he said in that post follows RAW -- which nothing you've presented here does.
And so, along that point, yes, you did misquote him. You misquoted him by representing him as the person who makes decisions on rules interpretations, which he himself has said he is not, and that any responses of his (especially in his ask anything thread) are just the way he would rule in his own game. Please don't try to misquote him as official canon, he doesn't like it, and it's deceptive.Can you point to anything that makes what he said wrong?
I also never said he was official canon -- only that he was staff saying exactly what I was saying -- something you have claimed to have but not provided.
Also it's not 'his house rules' that's still the rules -- nobody has stated he was wrong... unless you have proof of that?
Because everything he said in that post follows RAW -- which nothing you've presented here does.
You presented him as an official answer, and then said it proved everyone who didn't agree with you was wrong. So yes, you quoted him as official Paizo canon.
If you instead, wish to back track on that, and say 'HEY! JJ agrees with me! NYAH NYAH!' the that's fine and 100% correct (although a little juvenile if you say it that way, I'd suggest instead 'Hah! James agrees with me!' instead, honestly).
I quoted rules at you, you simply choose to ignore the quoted rules and say I'm interpreting them wrong. I instead say that you are not interpreting the encumbrance rules correctly.
I suggest we both simply Flag it for FAQ and be done with it, as it's rather obvious that I think your interpretation is off, and you obviously prefer yours.
You didn't quote *edit* the correct rules -- and you ignored the very rules on the things you tried to quote on -- temporary bonuses and ability penalties/damage do not reduce the ability score.
It's very simple really -- and it states as much. Only permanent ability bonuses and ability Drain actually changes the stat.
So if it isn't one of those things your stat doesn't change.
You quoted that we look at our strength score which is right -- but our strength score doesn't include temporary bonuses, ability penalties or ability damage as per the rules for temporary bonuses, ability penalties and ability damage.
And you'll note that in the thread JJ was providing official clarification -- he even mentions as much:
That was what he was officially doing at the time -- he even mentioned he planned at the time to get it clarified in the FAQ -- please note this means it doesn't need errata'd since it isn't wrong.
And so, along that point, yes, you did misquote him. You misquoted him by representing him as the person who makes decisions on rules interpretations, which he himself has said he is not, and that any responses of his (especially in his ask anything thread) are just the way he would rule in his own game. Please don't try to misquote him as official canon, he doesn't like it, and it's deceptive.Can you point to anything that makes what he said wrong?
I also never said he was official canon -- only that he was staff saying exactly what I was saying -- something you have claimed to have but not provided.
Also it's not 'his house rules' that's still the rules -- nobody has stated he was wrong... unless you have proof of that?
Because everything he said in that post follows RAW -- which nothing you've presented here does.
You presented him as an official answer, and then said it proved everyone who didn't agree with you was wrong. So yes, you quoted him as official Paizo canon.
If you instead, wish to back track on that, and say 'HEY! JJ agrees with me! NYAH NYAH!' the that's fine and 100% correct (although a little juvenile if you say it that way, I'd suggest instead 'Hah! James agrees with me!' instead, honestly).
I quoted rules at you, you simply choose to ignore the quoted rules and say I'm interpreting them wrong. I instead say that you are not interpreting the encumbrance rules correctly.
I suggest we both simply Flag it for FAQ and be done with it, as it's rather obvious that I think your interpretation is off, and you obviously prefer yours.
Not to me an A-Hole, but I think your interpretation is way off mate. And I don't think FAQing it, would make the cut for paizo. But I'll help out. Although, to me the answer is simple.
Not to me an A-Hole, but I think your interpretation is way off mate. And I don't think FAQing it, would make the cut for paizo. But I'll help out. Although, to me the answer is simple.
You're not, you've been very polite, unlike Abraham.
However, there are two ways to interpret the rules. The first way, Abraham's way, is that your carrying capacity is an actual stat, adn that stat is not affected by changes to STR because it's not listed under str adjustments.
The other way to interpret it is that encumbrance is a status. It acts like a status, not a statistic. If you are lightly encumbered (normal status), you move normally. If you are moderately encumbered, you have reduced speed, reduced ac. And if you are heavily encumbered, you gain all those penalties as well as being unable to run, and some more ac loss. That does not act like a statistic, it is a condition.
Abraham's interpretation ends up with someone with a 30 str who get's nerfed for 25 str of loss being able to carry 1600 lbs without effort. This is someone who's so weakened that they've lost a total of +12 off their str skills, their str checks, their damage, their attack, all because, presumeably, they are too weak to move their arms. If they lost another 4 str, they'd be exhausted just moving. But, per Abraham's interpretation, this person who is exhausted just walking is still able to pick 8000 lbs (4 TONS!) off the ground and stagger around with it. But, they are too weak to actually move themselves at the same time.
My interpretation on the other hand, leaves all Abraham's rules in tact, works exactly as James enumerates, but has our theoretically str nerfed character unable to lift 4 tons and drag it along with him as he staggers around in an exhausted state.
Now, given two ways to interpret the rules, I land on the side that doesn't result in a stupid result, and an exhausted kitten weak barbarian who can haul 4 tons with his weak body is just way way way too stupid for me to allow in my games, or to allow as a valid interpretation of the rules.
Encumbrance isn't a status -- after all it isn't listed as a status or in the status section or anything of the like. In fact encumbrance really can't be a status since it's a non-specific effect.
Carrying Capacity is a stat -- and one that has penalties the more of it you use -- those penalties are called encumbrance but at what point you are encumbered varies from character to character according to:
Size, strength, and number of legs you have.
There isn't an "encumbered" condition.
*I have been a bit rude today -- apologies it's been a long and stressful week -- I thank mdt for putting up with it as long as he has. He's still wrong -- but he has been rather understanding.
However I would like to see any quote you have suggesting that my position is in error from the Staff, because this is a claim you made first, and haven't supported.
Making such a claim and then not providing support and trying to handwave it away when someone provides such to the contrary of what you claimed is... well... hard to accept.
*I have been a bit rude today -- apologies it's been a long and stressful week -- I thank mdt for putting up with it as long as he has. He's still wrong -- but he has been rather understanding.
No problem, I've had those weeks too (actually, having one now). :)
However I would like to see any quote you have suggesting that my position is in error from the Staff, because this is a claim you made first, and haven't supported.Making such a claim and then not providing support and trying to handwave it away when someone provides such to the contrary of what you claimed is... well... hard to accept.
I never said staff had weighed in on this, and this is part of why I have not been responding to all of your requests, because I took it as you being a rude get and making up tales about me. However, with the apology above, I'm assuming you are just misreading a post I made? The only post I made that invoked the staff was this one :
Xum wrote:That's a VERY weird way to look at it, mate.
So, if a guy loses inteligence, wisdom, charisma or whatever, he can't cast spells either? Or AT LEAST looses his bonus ones, cause it's a table too?
Yes, they do.
Staff has confirmed this. You lose access to those spells until your stat is restored. Same way with strength, your maximum possible weight before being encumbered is your base strength, you lose that until the stat is restored, same as you lose access to the 1st level spell slot your 20 INT grants you if it drops to 15. If you restore your int, you get the spell slot back. If you restore the strength, you up the amount of load you can carry before becoming encumbered.
Note that I only commented on staff confirming loss of access to spell slots. If you have a quote of me saying staff ever weighed in on weight (Hah! Pun!) then please point it out and I'll apologize for a typo.
Yes, they do.Staff has confirmed this. You lose access to those spells until your stat is restored. Same way with strength, your maximum possible weight before being encumbered is your base strength, you lose that until the stat is restored, same as you lose access to the 1st level spell slot your 20 INT grants you if it drops to 15. If you restore your int, you get the spell slot back. If you restore the strength, you up the amount of load you can carry before becoming encumbered.
That's where you said it -- which is why I kept asking for proof of such a position, I've not seen anything on the subject from staff since the thread that JJ was in, and at the time it was my understand he was taking an official position on that subject (since he came in to provide clarification -- something you do when you are officially providing such -- not when you are simply offering your houserules).
Yeah JJ did at one time in that thread enspouse such a position -- but then he 'actually looked in the book' and realized that I was right (not being rude, but it's still true).
EDIT:
My position is this -- You claimed staff had confirmed your position. That's claiming that you had proof that this was the way it was intended to work. You basically said, "Trust me because the people behind it have said that this is right."
But then you didn't provide the quote to prove they had actually said any such thing. Can't claim confirmation from the Staff for something then wave it off when I can provide a counter claim from the Staff.
It's rude because:
1. You are claiming something and then not backing it up.
2. You are calling me a liar (JJ was officially clarifying stuff in that thread as it's from the time he was doing the FAQ), and
3. then handwaving off my Staff comment as 'unimportant' when you brought the subject up to begin with -- and didn't provide support for your position that staff had confirmed your position.
Yes, they do.Staff has confirmed this. You lose access to those spells until your stat is restored. Same way with strength, your maximum possible weight before being encumbered is your base strength, you lose that until the stat is restored, same as you lose access to the 1st level spell slot your 20 INT grants you if it drops to 15. If you restore your int, you get the spell slot back. If you restore the strength, you up the amount of load you can carry before becoming encumbered.
That's where you said it -- which is why I kept asking for proof of such a position, I've not seen anything on the subject from staff since the thread that JJ was in, and at the time it was my understand he was taking an official position on that subject (since he came in to provide clarification -- something you do when you are officially providing such -- not when you are simply offering your houserules).
Yeah JJ did at one time in that thread enspouse such a position -- but then he 'actually looked in the book' and realized that I was right (not being rude, but it's still true).
Ok, Now I'm confused. You're saying that the quote above is that I am saying that devs confirmed your str nerf affects your encumbrance? But that is *NOT* what I was saying, and you can read that. The spell slot loss is what I was referring to, not the weight.
*sigh*
But in context of what he said -- remember he quoted you at the time and was continuing the logic of what you had claimed -- that since it worked that way for encumbrance that it worked that way for mental stats too (a position that the staff haven't confirmed for a default rule).
Now -- don't stress too much about it -- I'm seeing where we have our differences more clearly now... however I'm explaining where I was coming from so you may see my position (on this part) clearer.
Mdt Buddy, I think your interpretation of what Encumbrance is, is very valid, and I understand you.
But the part of the rules that's REALLY important in this is where it says, as pointed earlier, that when you take damage or penalties to an ability score, that score does NOT change.
That's why it's impossible to agree with you, see?
Although, I do understand that it would make more sense and be more "REal"
EDIT.: Read Stéphanes post.
*shrug*
I guess I just don't see how it makes any sense to interpret it any other way. Call it a house rule or whatever, to me, if I have +4 enhancement to str from bull strength, I can lift more, because, you know, I'm stronger. By the same token, if I've been poisoned, and my muscles are weakened, I can't lift as much. :)
I still think that, RAI, whether they are RAW or not, is that if you are weaker than normal, you can't lift as much as normal. :)
Let me offer some different ideas on the fluff for a minute mdt:
Lets say you pop some pills -- you feel stronger, you swing a bit harder you think you can handle more... but really you can't. Your body hasn't changed, it's still the same strength it had before you just got a feel of being stronger. Now instead you find this book on exercising and start following its instructions and actually do fortify yourself and you actually are stronger... but until that happens you actually try and lift that heavier object and you're going to snap something. This is the difference between a temporary boost and an permanent one.
Now consider when you are sick -- you aren't actually weaker -- your body has the same capacity that it's had before when it comes to lifting and what have you -- but you don't feel like it's there. This is ability damage or penalty -- you really aren't weaker... but you sure feel like you are. Another example would be some downers or tranquilizers -- your body can still handle the same amount it could before... but you can't use your body as well. You physically can still handle as much even though you can't bring yourself to do it because of the drugs influence.
Now lets take it a step further and say something has really permanently hit you -- you've taken some drain -- you feel weaker because you are weaker. Now this is ability drain -- you are weaker and you feel it -- you got a really nasty wasting disease and it's eaten away your muscles.
Ok Abraham, let's look at those.
I've been hospitaled with Pneumonia once, and should have been a second time. It lasted two weeks the first time, and three weeks the second time. That's not enough time to lose muscle mass.
However, for those two and three week periods, I could barely lift my own arms. Carrying my plate from the stove to the couch to eat left me physically wasted and my hands trembled. I had trouble lifting my glass. Now, I wasn't drained of muscle mass, I had the same muscle mass before and after the sickness. However, I couldn't use that muscle mass. I didn't have the energy in my body. This is exactly like str damage, I can't use my full strength, even though there was nothing wrong with my muscles. My body couldn't convert energy to muscle use due to being too busy fighting off the sickness. Same effect for a poison, there's nothing wrong with the muscles, but they can't get enough energy conversion to be used. In both situations, you can't exert those muscles to their full capacity, and that affects how much you can carry, because your not able to fully power your muscles.
Now, lets look at the other side, the drain. This is like Anthrax or being laid up for a couple of months in bed. In both situations, you've lost actual muscle max, and your maximum strength is affected. Even after you recover from the anthrax or get out of bed, your muscles simply arent' there to be used, even if you have enough energy to power them.
The commonality between these two (and the your examples above, if you will be honest) is that in all the situations, you can't pick up as much as you could normally, either because the muscles are damaged, or because the body itself can't power the muscles you have.
I've never heard of, and can't possibly imagine, a situation where you are physically weak but can still dead lift your maximum weight on a barbell.
EDIT :
As to your temporary boost, your example is a poor one, sorry. Drinking an energy drink gives you energy, and let's you operate at peak muscle mass for a bit, and yes, you can lift more, for a very short time. Then your energy runs out.
A better example of a D&D temp boost to strength like Bull's Strength would be dosing someone with PCP. The body's self protection mechanisms get shorted out, and they dump massive amounts of adrenaline into their blood string. They get stronger, and they can lift things they couldn't before (We've all heard of the woman lifting a 2 ton car off her child due to adrenaline surges).
Which is exactly what the temporary boost is -- how is that a bad example? It's extremely short, it's not much of a boost... but it's exactly what this is a temporary boost that doesn't really help much.
As for pneumoia -- okay that's not quite the example I was going for -- I was thinking more of the common flu or a 'simple' cold. Even with the Pneumonia I would suggest you hit zero -- barely able to do anything and essentially helpless -- that sounds about right to me considering that's what happens when your strength damage equals your strength score. Everything was still there but you couldn't use it because you got too much damage. I imagine the first time you "failed your save" wasn't so bad -- probably not the second time either -- by that third/fourth/fifth save? Yeah you were wiped.
PCP actually damages you -- so it would be more like something that gives the temporary boost only with after effects that are nasty.
People take a bit of damage here or there from the cold or what not and still go to work and still do their job -- remember generally you don't have to operate at extreme capacity in 'day to day living' even with lifting -- it's still within your light range -- you just feel horrible doing it -- you don't want to... but you still do.
Don't forget that the Cords take up the shoulder's slot, thus preventing the use of a Cloak of Resistance.
Mule Cords out the APG fix the encumbrance problem just fine with +8 Strength for encumbrance purposes, and for only 1000gp to boot!
There are rules for adding other magic item abilities to an existing item. Just make it a Mule Cord of Resistance +5 and now it has the properties of both items. Costly, but effective.
human magus 3rd lvl 18 dex human fighter 3rd lvl 18 str
fighter variant - weapon master
4 feats / 1 arcana 5 feats
weapon focus weapon focus (bastard sword)
weapon finesse (scimitar) power attack
dervish dance furious focus
arcane strike shield focus
close range (arcana) exotic weapon proficiency
attack / damage attack / damage
basse attack +2 -- base attack +3 --
masterwork weapon +1 -- masterwork weapon +1 --
main stat (dex) +4 +4 main stat (str) +4 +4
weapon focus +1 -- weapon focus +1 --
arcane strike -- +1 power attack -- +2
arcane pool +1 +1 class variant +1 +1
total +9 +6 total +10 +7
AC: 22 chain shirt +4 AC: 22 full plate +9
dex +4 shield +2
shield spell +4 feat +1
AC: 18 touch AC: 10 touch
This is the bext min/max comparison I can come up with. Very close comparison. A few mor HP's for the fighter and slightly stronger weapon damage, especially for 2 handing the weapon with loss of AC. Magus does gain the advantage of the off-hand attack with the ray of frost spell every turn (+6 touch attack) and a greater critical threat but with a -2 weapon attack. All said and done, both are quite powerful, especially with the magus being a 3rd level CASTER. Please add your comments!!!
|
|
You are correct, but it is not only a change from 3.5 it's one that doesn't sit well with people.. thus the resistance you're seeing here and the disbelief.In 3.5, there were no real rules for ability penalty, and under the interpretation "Str penalty affects encumbrance", ray of enfeeblement was a die-no-save spell. Maybe it's a great game-design, but maybe it's not.
Anyway, the origin of this discussion is someone who explained that if a PC dumps Str, he would let the PC do, and then bones him. Thus, I was mentioning that it doesn't work as he want, because that what I would do at a table: if the DM allows dump stats, then the DM allows dump stats, he shouldn't invent some rule to screw the character afterward: if he doesn't want any dump stat, he should simply say "no ability under 10" at the beginning. The DM can try to disbelieve what's clearly written in the book, but he only creates a rule to bone a PC he accepted in the first place.
and anyway, that's (again) a houserule which screw the Fighter in favor of the Druid (and other class witch don't need many stuff), then hey... Even if you like this houserule, you should forget it as soon as possible (except if you plan to play without any non-caster).
Can you restate this in a way that makes sense to folks who speak English on these boards?
|
so dervish dance with a rapier? not broken. Just cange the word like you said.Would it be brokkedee-brokkedee-brokken to allow someone to have a feat called Fencing Grace which just swapped out the word 'scimitar' for 'rapier'?
It would suit the flavour of my Magus better and, to be honest, it seems weaker (because rapier is already piercing, so your not getting as many little extras).
Except you can't use the Agile enchantment or Pirhanna Strike or any other ability requiring a finessable weapon with a Scimitar even if you have Dervish Dance. A Rapier does not have that restriction.
For myself I am not a fan of the Dervish dance magus thing - leads to a pretty monochrome set of builds and feat choices, but different strokes for different folks.
Are discussing using the Bard archetype 'Dervish Dancer' or a feat I can't locate in the PRD?
|
The feat is from ISWG (A Golarion setting book), hence its absence from the PRD which contains only the setting-neutral stuff. You can find it on the PFSRD instead. It's still OGL.
The feat is from ISWG (A Golarion setting book), hence its absence from the PRD which contains only the setting-neutral stuff. You can find it on the PFSRD instead. It's still OGL.
Thanks!
|
For myself I am not a fan of the Dervish dance magus thing - leads to a pretty monochrome set of builds and feat choices, but different strokes for different folks.Are discussing using the Bard archetype 'Dervish Dancer' or a feat I can't locate in the PRD?It would be a feat that you don't seem to be able to locate, which is strange as the Bard archetype gives it as a bonus feat..
-James
Dervish Dancer bard archetype does not give it as a bonus feat.
Dawnflower Dervish bard archetype does, but comes with serenrae baggage.|
|
OK, so I assume it takes 24hours for mule cords to take effect...or temporary Str Is accountable on the table, even as a penalty. Immediately.Muleback Cords don't actually change your Str, so it's never a "permanent" stat bonus. They say you treat your Str as 8 higher when calculating carrying capacity, and that's all they do: Change the number you use to calculate carrying capacity.
These thick leather cords wrap around the wearer's biceps and shoulders; when worn, they make the muscles appear larger than normal. The wearer treats his Strength score as 8 higher than normal when determining his carrying capacity. This bonus does not apply to combat, breaking items, or any other Strength-related rolls except the amount of equipment or material the wearer can carry.
And encumbrance is based on Str.
The point is the same - consider a belt giving a Str bonus instead - for 24 hours, it's temporary.