The rules specifically state you CAN brace both the corners AND the opposing walls. The climb skill specifically states to apply both modifiers if both modifiers apply.
In any case, nothing in the spell tells you how to climb out either. It gives a climb DC. It expects you to go read the climb skill. Included in the climb skill are modifiers if you brace.
- Gauss
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
phew, rules lawyers sure suck the creativity out of the game :)
In our games rule #1 is : if it's a fun idea, it happens - maybe tune it up or down a little so everyone has a fair chance. The rules are welcome to go screw themselves, if it means everyone is having a better time.
...
Right below the Climb DC Modifier table states:
* These modifiers are cumulative; use all that apply....
I believe what Cold Napalm is trying to say is that yes, you can use all that apply. However, both do not apply. Since it says you must brace to use one, you can not brace to use the other. So both do not apply.
I am not yet sure if Cold Napalm is correct about that or not. I am trying to imagine if there is any helpful way in which one could brace against against both sides of a corner and the opposite corner. I'm just not sure.
It probably would not be too hard to convince me either way. So if I was GM, I would probably allow it. Then go the the rules forum and see if I could get a consensus before the next session.
I actually think the contention is that you can't necessarily "brace" in the pit at all, because while we know the dimensions, we do not know the actual shape of the walls inside.
To be honest, I'd rather go the simplest route and use the DC set by the spell, rather than arguing about whether you can brace in corners and whatnot.
|
Keep in mind that a 10ft-creature will probably have good strength anyway, and likely not have such a hard time climbing out. However, even if you can beat the climb check, you're still climbing at 1/4th your speed, or 1/2th your speed if hurrying (at higher DC). You could spend a full-round action to climb to the top (out?) if you take the high DC and have 30ft movement, but that would at best leave you on the edge, making a new saving throw, and a sitting duck for a bull rush, so it's not all that happy.
I can also say with pretty high confidence that the DC of the climb checks for these spells were set and balanced assuming no bracing.
You can maybe argue that you could use the reduced DCs for bracing by RAW, but I'd argue that there's no way it's RAI, or the spell would have mentioned as much.
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
I can also say with pretty high confidence that the DC of the climb checks for these spells were set and balanced assuming no bracing.
You can maybe argue that you could use the reduced DCs for bracing by RAW, but I'd argue that there's no way it's RAI, or the spell would have mentioned as much.
What's the point of having the bracing rules in the Climb skill if they weren't allowed to be used unless spelled out in the particular situation?
What's the point of having the bracing rules in the Climb skill if they weren't allowed to be used unless spelled out in the particular situation?
For the other 99% of the time that you're climbing in a situation not explicitly defined by a spell?
(Hyperbole coming) That's like asking why there are rules for dealing with extreme cold when Chill Touch deals 1d6, or why we have rules for how much damage a dagger deals when a Spiritual Weapon cast by a priest of Pharasma obviously deals 1d8.
|
|
The rules specifically state you CAN brace both the corners AND the opposing walls. The climb skill specifically states to apply both modifiers if both modifiers apply.
In any case, nothing in the spell tells you how to climb out either. It gives a climb DC. It expects you to go read the climb skill. Included in the climb skill are modifiers if you brace.
- Gauss
Yes you apply all modification that apply...but you can not brace both the corners and opposing walls. NOTHING in the rules says you can brace both...nothing in real life says you can do it either. And like I said, it is assuming that you can even brace anything to begin with.
Actually it does state it in the rules. Right on page 91 as I keep quoting. "These modifiers are cumulative; use all that apply." This statement is part of the same table that has the corner and opposing walls modifiers.
And the walls are what you brace on. We are talking about chimneys here etc.
You have opposing walls? Makes the climb easier. You have perpendicular walls (forming a corner) then that makes the climb easier. You have both? Ask anyone experienced in climbing, it REALLY makes it easier. I do not understand why you are having a hard time with this.
- Gauss
|
|
Actually it does state it in the rules. Right on page 91 as I keep quoting. "These modifiers are cumulative; use all that apply." This statement is part of the same table that has the corner and opposing walls modifiers.
And the walls are what you brace on. We are talking about chimneys here etc.
You have opposing walls? Makes the climb easier. You have perpendicular walls (forming a corner) then that makes the climb easier. You have both? Ask anyone experienced in climbing, it REALLY makes it easier. I do not understand why you are having a hard time with this.
- Gauss
Yes use all that applies does not mean that BOTH APPLY. For the freaking hundreth time, you can only brace one of the options. If your bracing opposing walls, the fact that there is a corner doesn't help one bit as you can't brace a corner AND opposing walls. I rock climb (not the man made stuff, real large cliff sides) and there is at NO point you can EVER brace a corner AND opposing walls. So you get the better of the two.
The statement that the modifiers are CUMULATIVE does mean that both apply.
These modifiers are cumulative; use all that apply.
Now, if you still say both are not cumulative, what exactly does that sentance mean?
As for your experience, great. :) I am glad you are a rock climber. That means you should be aware that climbing a chimney (4 close walls surrounding you) is easier than a canyon (2 opposing walls). Such Chimneys and canyons exist all throughout southern utah. I know rock climbers, I used to do a bit in my youth. I know a chimney is far easier than a canyon.
- Gauss
|
|
For what it's worth, I've asked JJ.
Interesting. It appears that you can use the bonus, or both of them if large.
So climbing out isn't all that hard per se, particularly with a few ranks in climb. It just takes time.
|
|
The statement that the modifiers are CUMULATIVE does mean that both apply.
These modifiers are cumulative; use all that apply.Now, if you still say both are not cumulative, what exactly does that sentance mean?
As for your experience, great. :) I am glad you are a rock climber. That means you should be aware that climbing a chimney (4 close walls surrounding you) is easier than a canyon (2 opposing walls). Such Chimneys and canyons exist all throughout southern utah. I know rock climbers, I used to do a bit in my youth. I know a chimney is far easier than a canyon.
- Gauss
Your focused on cumulative and ignoring the use all that APPLY. For both to apply you have to brace both the corners and opposing walls.
And no your wrong, having all 4 walls does not make it any easier then two. The thing is that those chimney in SW america is pretty much uniform in dimension as it goes up and a such pretty easy to deal with. those canyons are not...and the variance to the size is what makes canyons more difficult...not the fact that there are two less walls. Now if you can brace again BOTH opposing walls (your back and legs and your arms for instance)...well then that is different and you would get a -20 (two opposing wall reduction). But you could not do that as a large critter for a 10x10 I believe.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
And you are ignoring cumulative. In any case, JJ has spoken and he has stated that both apply. Exactly what the rules state.
Out of curiousity, how is my experience with climbing chimneys vs climbing canyons (both of which had basically the same surface) 'wrong'? Do you have an arbitrary judge on what my experiences are?
My experience: climbing the same material (sandstone) with approximately the same roughness and distance apart a chimney is significantly easier than a canyon. Now, I am not stating that all chimneys and canyons are uniform in dimensions. I am stating that comparing the same distance between walls the chimney is easier. Now, how does this compare to a Pit spell? The distance between walls is uniform. For a large creature, the pit is just a chimney.
Back to the rules, the rules state -5 for a corner with perpendicular walls, the rules state -10 for opposing walls, the rule state both are cumulative and to use all that apply. Nowhere does it state they are NOt cumulative. Then JJ states that both apply.
Summary: Create Pit's Climb DC drops by 15 if the creature is large and uses the rules to drop the climb DC by 15.
- Gauss
But you could not do that as a large critter for a 10x10 I believe.
A large creature is 10x10. How could they not get both sets of walls?
Also, while I don't think you should get to reduce the DC below what the spell says, I really see no reason you could brace in a corner and against opposite walls at the same time.
But then, as someone who is not a mountain climber, I don't really understand why a corner is helpful at all anyway.
Saying that you can brace against both walls is like saying that the modifiers for tracking DC are cumulative.
Are there 30 people in the party? Yes. -10 DC
Are there 27 people in the party? Yes. -9 DC
Are there 24 people in the party? Yes. -8 DC
Are there 21 people in the party? Yes. -7 DC
Are there 18 people in the party? Yes. -6 DC
Are there 15 people in the party? Yes. -5 DC
Are there 12 people in the party? Yes. -4 DC
Are there 9 people in the party? Yes. -3 DC
Are there 6 people in the party? Yes. -2 DC
Are there 3 people in the party? Yes. -1 DC
For a total of -54 to the track DC for tracking a group of 30 people. The rules CLEARLY say all the modifiers are cumulative.
Sorry, but the rules just don't work that way. It's common sense that you can't brace a corner AND two diametrically opposed surfaces simultaneously just as much as it's common sense that the above redundant DC modifiers aren't cumulative.
In a mid to high level campaign the rogue got hit with a hold person and failed his saves - problem was that it came from a rod and was quickened. Next spell was pit - GM said no saved allowed as he was held, kinda sucked for him.
Your GM obviously can change things, but denying him a save is against the rules. You can make Reflex saves when paralyzed, they just take a massive penalty (-5) because your effective Dex is 0.
Ravingdork, it is also common sense that (barring magic) you cannot shoot a primitive singleshot muzzleloader more than once in 20seconds. And yet Pathfinder allows primitive muzzleloaders to shoot 3 times in 6 seconds at level 6 without using magic.
The rules state the climb DC modifiers are cumulative, James Jacobs stated they are cumulative. They are cumulative.
The Tracking DCs you listed are not cumulative because they are all the same modifier (every 3 creatures being tracked is one modifier). This is two separate modifiers that some of you believe should not be cumulative. It is fine to houserule this but the rules state otherwise.
- Gauss
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I find it funny that a guy who says he's a rock climber, can't seem to grasp the fact you can brace with both your legs and arms to make climbing easier.
I mean, really. I've done similar things when working in houses or, you know, actual pits we've dug with machinery. You can brace with your legs, and your arms, to make climbing out of a hole a piece of cake. As long as you've got the physical strength for it anyway and aren't wearing 80 pounds of tools hanging from a belt.
I'm with Gauss.
If you can only brace across, use the 10 modifier. But if the hole is small enough that you can brace across and be in a corner or reach a side wall as well as an opposing wall then add the 5 modifier as well.
Examples:
Narrow hallway: brace with back & legs +10
Corner: +5 as you can reach to the side as well
Narrow chimney or end of narrow hallway: both the above.
Defenition of narrow varies with your size.
Reading the spell I don't see anything that lists an impedement to bracing.
As for the most entertaining place to use a pit spell I'd say it is a shallow lake or river that someone is wading across. You'll need to house-rule the area of effect but the pull of the pit will expand with the depth of the water.
If one of your players was trapped in a pit created by a create pit spell, and said player claimed that he could climb out easily by bracing against the walls (as per the climb skill), thereby reducing the spell's listed DC, would you allow that? Or would you assume that the DC listed in the spell already took things like that into account? How would you rule it in your games? What do you think the intent behind the spell is?I would ABSOLUTELY allow it. The DC listed in the spell is the base DC, and as such is completely open to various modifications like bracing and the like. That is the intent of the spell.
Of course... the player would have to SAY they're "bracing" or whatever.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
If one of your players was trapped in a pit created by a create pit spell, and said player claimed that he could climb out easily by bracing against the walls (as per the climb skill), thereby reducing the spell's listed DC, would you allow that? Or would you assume that the DC listed in the spell already took things like that into account? How would you rule it in your games? What do you think the intent behind the spell is?I would ABSOLUTELY allow it. The DC listed in the spell is the base DC, and as such is completely open to various modifications like bracing and the like. That is the intent of the spell.
Of course... the player would have to SAY they're "bracing" or whatever.
Emphasis mine.
|
|
And you are ignoring cumulative. In any case, JJ has spoken and he has stated that both apply. Exactly what the rules state.
Out of curiousity, how is my experience with climbing chimneys vs climbing canyons (both of which had basically the same surface) 'wrong'? Do you have an arbitrary judge on what my experiences are?
My experience: climbing the same material (sandstone) with approximately the same roughness and distance apart a chimney is significantly easier than a canyon. Now, I am not stating that all chimneys and canyons are uniform in dimensions. I am stating that comparing the same distance between walls the chimney is easier. Now, how does this compare to a Pit spell? The distance between walls is uniform. For a large creature, the pit is just a chimney.
Back to the rules, the rules state -5 for a corner with perpendicular walls, the rules state -10 for opposing walls, the rule state both are cumulative and to use all that apply. Nowhere does it state they are NOt cumulative. Then JJ states that both apply.
Summary: Create Pit's Climb DC drops by 15 if the creature is large and uses the rules to drop the climb DC by 15.
- Gauss
But the rule isn't that you get the - to DC when those things EXISTS, but when you can BRACE with them. I don't disagree that you can stack them when they apply, I disagree with the fact that they don't apply at the same time and the only time it would apply is if you could brace both opposing walls (because you can do that if your big enough)...just not sure if a large critter would be big enough to do that in a 10x10.
|
|
But you could not do that as a large critter for a 10x10 I believe.A large creature is 10x10. How could they not get both sets of walls?
Also, while I don't think you should get to reduce the DC below what the spell says, I really see no reason you could brace in a corner and against opposite walls at the same time.
But then, as someone who is not a mountain climber, I don't really understand why a corner is helpful at all anyway.
Well a large critter may take up that 10x10 square, but that does not mean they are fully using up every bit of that space either. I know I usually can't brace both walls on a ~5x5 chimney (back and legs generally too far to get good pressure)...but a ~4x4...yeah totally doable. But I am only 5'10"...maybe if your a tall medium, you could do so on a 5x5. So a tal large could maybe? Shurg.
Anyways corners are helpful because you can brace like opposing walls...but since you are apply pressure at an angle, it is harder then opposing walls.
You humans, etc will argue about anything.
|
|
I find it funny that a guy who says he's a rock climber, can't seem to grasp the fact you can brace with both your legs and arms to make climbing easier.
I mean, really. I've done similar things when working in houses or, you know, actual pits we've dug with machinery. You can brace with your legs, and your arms, to make climbing out of a hole a piece of cake. As long as you've got the physical strength for it anyway and aren't wearing 80 pounds of tools hanging from a belt.
Except of course I never said I was an expert...just that it is something I have done (getting old...no longer really do it anymore...too many broken stuff in my body...like my knee, back, hip...)...and more importantly I DID mention bracing both walls (which should be a -20 in that case).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I see nothing in the spell description that indicates the pit is square. Therefore, all pits are round.
I see nothing in the spell description that indicates the pit is square. Therefore, all pits are round.
Actually, it says 10 ft by 10 ft hole. It does not, however, say a 10 ft diameter circle, a 5 ft radius pit or anything to that effect. To the best of my knowledge, every time something has a circular area, it's called out in the effect by giving it's size a X Diameter or X radius.
Since it lacks the diameter or radius language, it must be a square.
considering the word '10 ft by 10 ft' literally means '10ft square' or '10ft^2' i'd say it DOES say its a square!
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
If one of your players was trapped in a pit created by a create pit spell, and said player claimed that he could climb out easily by bracing against the walls (as per the climb skill), thereby reducing the spell's listed DC, would you allow that? Or would you assume that the DC listed in the spell already took things like that into account? How would you rule it in your games? What do you think the intent behind the spell is?I would ABSOLUTELY allow it. The DC listed in the spell is the base DC, and as such is completely open to various modifications like bracing and the like. That is the intent of the spell.
Of course... the player would have to SAY they're "bracing" or whatever.
Repeating for those who apparently missed it.
Well, for fun you can cast create spiked pit on the ceiling, then cast reverse gravity, then everyone can fall up for damage, then cast create spiked pit directly below them, and end the reverse gravity spell, and let them fall again the opposite direction for additional damage! Lots of additional damage. you can also cast mount instead of the second pit and have the horse "fall" onto them. then cast the second pit.
If I ran the game, I'd run it as a round pit because I hate/don't use a battlemap at all and so do not need to make everything square for convenience.
If I used the spell in someone else's game, I'd expect them to follow James Jacobs' advice.
And you are ignoring cumulative ...
Actually no. CN is not ignoring cumulative. CN agreed that if both applied at the same time they would be cumulative. CN is disagreeing that they both apply at the same time.
... In any case, JJ has spoken and he has stated that both apply. ...
I've read through those couple of pages in the link twice and I can't find were he states that. Where is that particular post.
... Exactly what the rules state. ...
The rule does not state that both apply. The rule states that if both apply then they are cumulative.
---
I have never done rock climbing. However, I have climbed in buildings. As I recall, when stopping to rest, if you can put your back in a corner and can easily put both feet against other walls that are basically the same distance away. Then I was more stable. But I always had to move out of the corner to continue climbing.
And if I do a vector sum of the forces involved, I can not see how it could help. If your back is in a corner, the opposing walls are no longer perpindicular to the pushing force your foot would apply. So you would have to constantly apply a sideways force with the outside of your leg to keep in position. Then your foot would just want to slide on the surface as soon as you moved 1 of your feet.
Might work if the area were somall enough that you are not really pushing against the corner at all but are really using all for walls. Right shoulder and arm with left leg and foot on opposing walls. Then Left shoulder and arem with right leg and foot on the other pair of walls.Not sure what that would gain you over just using the opposing walls except maybe a slight decrease in tendency to slide sideways.
The closest I can come is when trying to asend in vertical ductwork (pretty slick surface). Then I would actually put my back in the middle of onw wall and use hands and feet in the opposing corners. It was the almost the oonly way I could climb in slick ductwork. It was extremely slow and required alot of flexibility. The equivalent use in this situation would require arms approximately 12 ft long.
But this may be too must reality/physics for a game. I am not 100% sure it could not be useful so I could probably be talked into it by my players. I certainly don't think it is worth the vitriol i'm seeing in this thread for 5 boonus to a climb check that doesn't come up all that often.
Staggering Fall from the Rival Guide is a great way to make Pit spells more dangerous.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
If I ran the game, I'd run it as a round pit because I hate/don't use a battlemap at all and so do not need to make everything square for convenience.
Yet the stated intent is that it's square. So when you say you'd "run it as a round pit" when the intent is a square, that means you're saying "run it the opposite of how it's intended".
Sometimes things are actually square, regardless of if there's a grid involved. Create Pit is one of them. If you'd prefer to houserule it as round in your games, go for it. Just be honest about it being your preference instead of labeling everyone who runs it as intended as just "making everything square for convenience".
Preferences are good things. :) You don't have to justify them by trying to establish some kind of moral high ground first. Just come out and say "I prefer X". Embrace your preferences; they make you who you are!
Yet the stated intent is that it's square. So when you say you'd "run it as a round pit" when the intent is a square, that means you're saying "run it the opposite of how it's intended".
I'm referring here to James Jacobs response in this post.
When Gauss asked him "Is this a square (with corners and opposing walls) or radius (circle) spell?" his response was, "Square. That's a LOT easier to handle in a grid-based combat system."
OP. One thing I have not seen in this thread is using pit spells as a means of hiding.
-Cast one on the ceiling.
-Fly up in to it.
-Cast Illusionary wall.
-Watch those guards walk right underneath you.
OP. One thing I have not seen in this thread is using pit spells as a means of hiding.
-Cast one on the ceiling.
-Fly up in to it.
-Cast Illusionary wall.
-Watch those guards walk right underneath you.
Why use 3 spells to hide, when one can just cast Invisibility?
It's impossible to fold a piece of paper 10 times
Kydeem:
James Jacobs' 2nd response to question 2
James Jacobs' final response to question 2
Question 5 asks if you can apply both the -5 and the -10 modifiers. He answers yes, if you are the same size as the pit. This corresponds with what I have been saying.
- Gauss
It's impossible for a man to simply fold up a piece of paper 10 times using only his hands, especially if it's only a 10x10 sheet of paper. Keep reading, and you'll see people mention that.
Mythbusters had to use a HUGE piece of paper that is extremely thin, and they had to have a bulldozer come in and flatten it for them. There is no way you can fold a 10x10 piece of paper in combat.
Also, even if you could fold up some paper a number of times, the person should be granted a strength check to burst the confines of the paper, similar to how Enlarge Person does. If they succeed, the burst the confines safely, if they don't they take damage and may be under conditions similar to drowning/asphyxiating and could die from that method. It all depends on the material used.
You can fold a 10x10" piece of paper, with your hands, a theoretically infinite number of times. To say otherwise is just a bunch of malarkey. I can even prove this with video evidence: This guy gets ~1000 folds by the time he is done, and his paper was even smaller than 10x10". :P
You can fold a 10x10" piece of paper, with your hands, a theoretically infinite number of times. To say otherwise is just a bunch of malarkey. I can even prove this with video evidence: This guy gets ~1000 folds by the time he is done, and his paper was even smaller than 10x10". :P
Depends on what you mean with folding.
If you mean folding it in half a number of times, ten requires mechanical aid.
Just folding it and unfolding isn't what we're talking about here.
...
Question 5 asks if you can apply both the -5 and the -10 modifiers. He answers yes, if you are the same size as the pit. This corresponds with what I have been saying.
- Gauss
Ok, thx. Somehow I kept reading past that.
While I agree that a RAW interpretation could certainly suggest the cumulative -15 DC for a large creature in a pit spell, I also find this ruling ridiculous considering they went out of their way to use the words "Chimney".
Why would they even use the words chimney if they weren't trying to describe a 4 walled vertical climb?
The interpretation I've been using is if you are bracing on the opposing walls, then you are not bracing on the perpendicular walls, therefore you use the -10 DC, and not a cumulative -15.