>>Ask *Mark Seifter* All Your Questions Here!<<


Off-Topic Discussions

4,401 to 4,450 of 6,818 << first < prev | 84 | 85 | 86 | 87 | 88 | 89 | 90 | 91 | 92 | 93 | 94 | next > last >>
Paizo Employee Designer

Xethik wrote:

Are you tuning into the Geek & Sundry's Critical Role Pathfinder game tonight? I've plugged the show in the past, but now they are playing Pathfinder! Wooh! Hype-hype!

I believe it is tonight at 7 pm PST!

Didn't watch it, but it's cool that they're playing Pathfinder!

Paizo Employee Designer

Lou Diamond wrote:
Mark what would you price a Rod of Maximize Channel and a rod of Empower Channel? 3 x a day like other Metamagic rods.

The question would be how high a level of effect you consider channeling to be. It scales with level in damage and DC, so at high levels, it's arguably the equivalent of your top-level spell in some ways. However, unlike witches and kineticists, for whom it's a primary feature on par with spells, channel is less of a key impact role to clerics. On the other side, the limited use of channel means that 3/day could well be most or even all of your uses in the day, which compensates somewhat for the lower prominence. I'd say possibly charging like the 6th-level metamagic rods might work for maximize and empower (more for persistent on a dazing channel though), but honestly I wouldn't recommend making more meta-ability rods overall, as they lead to unusual side effects.

Paizo Employee Designer

2 people marked this as a favorite.
tivadar27 wrote:

Ok, hopefully a simple one Mark (but of course it won't be...):

When two (Medium) creatures occupy the same square, are they considered squeezing? If so, does/should this affect rules for moving through an allies square?

It's not as simple as it seems. In most situations, you shouldn't be able to end your turn in the same square as another Medium creature legally, and most abilities that allow it tell you what happens, so you should just use those rules instead (for instance Monkey Shine gives the enemy penalties that mimic squeezing while not giving you any penalties). Without such an ability to describe the result, the rules only say that you are squeezing while moving through another creature's space, but right afterwards they remind you that you can't end your turn like that. There's several reasonable ways to adjudicate what happens if you wind up somehow in someone else's space in such a way that you technically didn't "end movement in an occupied square" (say waking up from unconscious while somebody is standing on your body). One reasonable way to look at it is that you are still "passing through" until your next turn, when you have to move or be ejected, though it might also be reasonable to eject you right away. Of course, in situations where nobody just moved and both want to keep the space, it makes it tougher to adjudicate who gets ejected. I could also see a GM ruling that nobody gets ejected and both take squeezing penalties; really the "two creatures, same space, nobody just moved there" situation is a rules corner case that doesn't have a specific ruling right now.

Paizo Employee Designer

wraithstrike wrote:

It seems as though the question of whether or not guantlets actually count as unarmed attacks for the purpose of monk abilities, and even the amulet of mighty fist is still alive. It has come up several times in the forums.

Is this on the PDT "to do" list or do we need an FAQ?

I remember this one from before I worked here. I seem to recall seeing flip-flopping between books and vaguely remember a then-official post, but I'm not sure what happened exactly. An FAQ request could work.

Paizo Employee Designer

MichaelCullen wrote:

Mark how does the Foresight spell work?

Some parts are pretty straight forward others seem to be fairly vague.

foresight wrote:

This spell grants you a powerful sixth sense in relation to yourself or another. Once foresight is cast, you receive instantaneous warnings of impending danger or harm to the subject of the spell. You are never surprised or flat-footed. In addition, the spell gives you a general idea of what action you might take to best protect yourself and gives you a +2 insight bonus to AC and on Reflex saves. This insight bonus is lost whenever you would lose a Dexterity bonus to AC.

When another creature is the subject of the spell, you receive warnings about that creature. You must communicate what you learn to the other creature for the warning to be useful, and the creature can be caught unprepared in the absence of such a warning. Shouting a warning, yanking a person back, and even telepathically communicating (via an appropriate spell) can all be accomplished before some danger befalls the subject, provided you act on the warning without delay. The subject, however, does not gain the insight bonus to AC and Reflex saves.

1.) What constitutes impending? Is a volcano erupting in 10 minuets impending? Also what constitutes "danger or harm", how about harm to one's reputation (in view of Ultimate Intrigue)?

2.) What is meant by, "you are never surprised"? I assume this means you can always act in the surprise round, how does this work with traps? What about non-dangerous things that may cause a normal person to be surprised?

3.) Can you give an example of a "general idea of what action might best protect you"?
How do you run these warnings?

4.) If the shouting a warning or yanking a person back can be accomplished before the danger befalls the subject, how much time does the warning provide? I assume yanking a subject would be a standard action.

I know that much of this falls into GM discretion, but it would be nice if you...

Yeah, this one's tricky. The last time I've had to hardcore adjudicate it was in 3.5, when our group had a high-level wizard who was known for taking low-Wisdom actions. Essentially, I would give warnings just before the wizard tried to do something that would have a negative effect, which included stepping into the trigger area of a trap "Don't step there!" or "Take cover!", so he became the party minesweeper. I had a little voice I used for it, kind of quick, staccato, and curt. Never being surprised is a little simpler, in that it would mean you always act on the surprise round, like a diviner. Fortunately, I've never had a wizard try to cast it on someone else, but shouting and telepathy are talking, which can usually be done off-turn. The ability to yank before the befalling danger is almost certainly meant to be out of combat only, as it's logistically impossible otherwise.

Paizo Employee Designer

Haladir wrote:

Hi, Mark.

Rules question for you...

Should spell effects that deal positive energy damage do full damage or half damage vs. incorporeal undead?

RAW states that the channel positive energy class feature does full damage against incorporeal undead, but implies that positive energy spell effects from a corporeal source only do half damage.

(BTW, I've houseruled that positive energy spell effects do full damage against incorporeal undead at my table.)

Thanks for your opinion on the matter!

I agree with everything you said, including in the BTW. As you said, RAW states that the channel positive energy class feature does full damage against incorporeal undead, but implies that positive energy spell effects from a corporeal source only do half damage. Our group has houseruled that positive energy spell effects do full damage against incorporeal undead in our games.

Paizo Employee Designer

Lou Diamond wrote:

Mark, if a firearm was made of adamantine do you think it would be fair to reduce the misfire by 1 and negate the chance for the firearm to explode on a second misfire?

Do you think it would be ok for an advanced rifle to be a breach loader move action to load
Reduced to a swift action to load with rapid reload or expert loading deed?
The rifle would do 2d8x4 with a 80' range increment.

Do you think it would be fair rules wise for a non magic scope to give a+1. To hit and a +2 to confirm a critical hit?

I would say that reducing misfire for the adamantine material wouldn't be fair, since misfire attempts to balance the firearm system, and in that vein, neither would ignoring the catastrophic effects of a second misfire.

I'm not sure exactly what the question is asking for the advanced rifle, but advanced firearms are extremely powerful and will probably invalidate the math of many opponents, so tread lightly with them.

A non-magic scope that gives those bonuses could totally be fair as long as you carefully consider the price and the bonus type (magic or not isn't what matters, in other words; there's no reason it has to be magic to be awesome). For instance, it would be cool to make it an enhancement bonus as sort of an alternative to magic enhancement for a tech-savvy character to build, but if it had a bonus type that stacked, it would ramp up offense for existing whether it's magic or not. Then again, guns missing isn't too common anyway, I suppose.

Paizo Employee Designer

Luthorne wrote:
I was looking at the Consolidated Skills and Grouped Skills rules from Pathfinder Unchained, and was wondering, how would you handle the +1 skill point option for a favored class bonus? For Consolidated Skills, I'm leaning towards +1/2 a skill point per level, and for Grouped Skills...pretty sure +1/2 a skill specialty per level would be too much...maybe +1/4? +1/5? Or would you just suggest disallowing that favored class option altogether in favor of racial options or the +1 hit point?

For consolidated, I'd definitely agree with +1/2 skill point. For grouped, if you look at the math, putting all your points into the FCB would normally be worth half a specialty/group or less (a specialty costs twice as much Int as 1 skill point per level, and a group generally costs 2 or more skill points per level with the exception of 2+Int classes), so I agree that disallowing it altogether is best for grouped. Keep in mind that consolidated is meant to work similarly to current characters with fewer skills involved and grouped intentionally changes drastically the character's skills from normal Pathfinder (if you consider Pathfinder to be "linear" in bonuses, grouped is faster than linear, as high-level characters not only get better at skills but get dramatically more variety in skills).

Paizo Employee Designer

2 people marked this as a favorite.
The NPC wrote:

Mr. Mark Seifter,

For the corruption system we know that some undead state, probably vampirism, and lycanthropy will be covered. Can you tell us what other creatures or creature types will be covered? Something fiendsih or aberrant maybe?

Hmm...something fiendish? Something aberrant? Those two ideas certainly sound cool! I can't wait for you guys to see the corruptions, even just the art is cool (if you're coming to Paizocon, I kid you not, the art seminar is often one of the best ways to see cool stuff if you're good at guessing from the pictures because the pictures often go deeper into future products than the discussions of products do). The way we did the art for the corruptions in particular was super cool, the artist did a great job, and they incorporated lots of little details I asked for really well, like the symbol of Zura on <redacted> <redacted> <redacted>.

Paizo Employee Designer

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Protoman wrote:

Finally found the post you made about pointing you to threads where it's been "no response required" and it wasn't just my faulty imagination/memory of such a post.

Instead of "no response required" how about "Answered in the FAQ" with no actual answer found anywhere?

Ethereal creatures, incorporeal or not? brings up a confusing situation of whether ethereal creatures count as incorporeal or not. It's an old thread but I think it came up when folks were wondering if ring of blinking would also grant wearers immunity to non-magic attacks, and a quasi-DR/magic (where the magic attack is only half damage) like with incorporeal creatures since the blink spell ethereal creatures are incorporeal, but spells like Ethereal Jaunt and Etherealness simply state insubstantial.

This has been a confusing question since 3.0, specifically back when ghosts used to do this weird manifesting thing that caused them to shift between being ethereal and material but incorporeal. I believe the resolution is that ethereal things are not incorporeal (unless they were already incorporeal, like a ghost that casts ethereal jaunt), though they are even more protected from most attacks than an incorporeal creature in that they are on a coterminous plane of existence, so most attacks automatically don't work.

Paizo Employee Designer

TrinitysEnd wrote:

Okay, I have a question for you. First time asking you, normally my go to guy is James, but I felt this was more in your ball park.

Vigilante has the ability "Perfect Vulnerability"

D20PFSRD wrote:
As a standard action, the vigilante can cleverly strike his foe where that foe is weakest. This attack targets the foe's touch AC, and the foe is denied her Dexterity bonus against the attack. Once a foe has been the target of perfect vulnerability, she can't be the target of the same vigilante's perfect vulnerability for 24 hours. A vigilante must be at least 8th level to select this talent.

Now is this a Touch Attack, or a Normal Attack that targets Touch AC? As for the reading, it reminds me a lot of Early Firearms which says,

D20PFSRD wrote:
When firing an early firearm, the attack resolves against the target’s touch AC when the target is within the first range increment of the weapon, but this type of attack is not considered a touch attack for the purposes of feats and abilities such as Deadly Aim.
The reason I ask if for feats such as Power Attack. I look forward to hearing your answer!

The firearms rule has an exception explicitly to allow Deadly Aim, which perfect vulnerability doesn't, so it wouldn't apply Power Attack or Deadly Aim. Of course, whether or not you deal the extra damage, there's lots of devious ways to use an attack that is often against AC of around 10, regardless of the foe. >:D

Paizo Employee Designer

1 person marked this as a favorite.
captain yesterday wrote:

Holy s%+~! Captain Yesterday has a rules question!

Q. How many times can you select a resonant power for implements.

Example: An Occultist selects Transmutation twice, does she/he then get to add +2 to two ability scores, or do they just get the extra spells.

What!? The end is near! The sky is falling! Yesterday has become tomorrow today. Hello from the world of tomorrow!

...

Er-hrm. Now where was I?

The text isn't completely clear, and remember it's Jason's class, so I'm not the company expert. That said, Logan and I did some assisting work on it, so I'm fairly familiar. After reading each of the relevant sections over a few times, I think each implement would have a resonant power but they wouldn't stack with each other because they would be multiple instances of the same ability. For non-transmutation implements, this was already probably obvious, but because transmutation gives a choice, it might not occur immediately to refer to the general rule on multiple copies of the same ability. Presumably if you set them for both ability scores, you would pick which one overrides like you would with multiple polymorph effects, giving you flexibility but not both, and the even more clever way to get an advantage would be to arrange your implements so one has prebuffs and one has in-combat spells and then hand the prebuff implement to an ally. Now granted, I see the logic of the people who say there's only one resonant power period, but I'm in favor of this reading because it gives you a good reason to help out your allies, and encouraging teamwork over self-centered play is something I enjoy.

Paizo Employee Designer

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Cap Yesterday, Compulsive FAQer wrote:
Gisher wrote:
captain yesterday wrote:
Holy s@~%! Captain Yesterday has a rules question!
Say it ain't so, Captain!

With a hand still twitching from clicking.

It is NOT a gateway question! I can stop whenever I want!!!!!!

smooths out comically messed up hair, straightens shirt with a quiet dignity.

Q. If a Paladin is Greased, does he fall.

Metaphorically I mean.

It's less likely than for most heavy-armor classes due to divine grace, so I'd say not unless the GM would rule a very religious fighter would also fall, given the same results.

Paizo Employee Designer

HWalsh wrote:

Mark, here is one that bothers me...

What is the justification for Celestial Healing? Its laughable compared to Infernal Healing, requiring Caster Level 20 in order to match Caster Level 1 on Infernal Healing.

These two spells are Campaign Setting and Player Companion spells, so they're not in my wheelhouse. Obviously due to the common meta of using CL 1 wands to heal in between fights, there's going to be contention with any new 1st-level healing spell, just as there's been with infernal healing, so likely any decision was tangentially related in some fashion to that meta-defining aspect that places a bizarrely high weight on such spells over other spells. That's mere speculation, of course.

Paizo Employee Designer

Luthorne wrote:
Luthorne wrote:
I was looking at the Consolidated Skills and Grouped Skills rules from Pathfinder Unchained, and was wondering, how would you handle the +1 skill point option for a favored class bonus? For Consolidated Skills, I'm leaning towards +1/2 a skill point per level, and for Grouped Skills...pretty sure +1/2 a skill specialty per level would be too much...maybe +1/4? +1/5? Or would you just suggest disallowing that favored class option altogether in favor of racial options or the +1 hit point?
Also, how would you rule the extra skill point humans get by default for either of these? +1/2 a skill point per level for Consolidated, perhaps? Not sure what would be appropriate for Grouped, either...

I'd agree with +1/2 for consolidated. For grouped, it's actually quite tricky. One solution that fits fairly well with the math is to say that humans with the skilled racial trait can combine that racial trait with trading out their FCB (pinky-promising to take 20 levels that would grant FCB I guess? Not sure how to adjudicate that?) to get 1 extra specialty, since mathwise the skilled racial trait and all your FCB combined come out to the same as +4 Int, which is normally required to add a specialty. Maybe Logan has some ideas in that regard; grouped skills was his baby (he also wrote consolidated, but we kind of all agreed on the general shape of that one, whereas Logan masterminded the whole concept of grouped skills and the way it would play with your expectations of how skills progress in the game).


Pathfinder Companion, Maps Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

Characters who are blinded must move at half speed unless they make a DC 10 Acrobatics check.

Characters who have hampered movement due to poor visibility count each square as two.

1) Is there any effective difference between movement costing double and moving at half-speed?

2) Why does the blinded condition allow a fairly-easy Acrobatics check to negate and darkness doesn't?

Paizo Employee Designer

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kalindlara wrote:

Mr. Seifter: I had this come up in PFS a couple of weeks ago, and it looked a little uncertain to me. I'm interested in your perspective.

How do Combat Patrol and Bodyguard interact? Does CP increase the range at which you can use B? Do you need Vanguard Style (which seems to explicitly call out this combination)?

Hopefully my question makes sense. ^_^

Huh, interesting combination. I tried to draw myself some diagrams of possible situations, and I'm pretty sure this is the way it works when combining the two in a vacuum, assuming you're on board with Bodyguard requiring both adjacency and threatening the foe, which I know isn't universal on the boards but is how I played it for my own Bodyguard character in PFS (I tend to go conservative, since that character is absolutely ridiculous even if you do):

Bodyguard requires me to be adjacent to my ally to use it, and Combat Patrol only cares about enemies that provoke, and it only lets me move when an enemy provokes. Thus, I definitely can't move from being not next to an ally to being next to that ally with Combat Patrol after the ally gets attacked, since I can't trigger Combat Patrol unless the enemy provoked, and it doesn't provoke if I'm not adjacent. However, what this does allow me to do is to be adjacent to my ally but not the enemy, who attacks, thus provoking from my increased reach and causing me to move to a spot that's still adjacent to my ally but within range of my melee weapon to attack (if any exists). Vanguard Hustle, however, is even more powerful. It explicitly lets me do the thing I started this paragraph by saying I otherwise can't; all allies in my Combat Patrol reach now count as adjacent, and it seems (though I'm really not sure) that I probably don't have to use up my Combat Patrol movement to become adjacent to the ally either, but can instead stay where I am as long as I either move (or stay if I'm already there) where I am in regular reach of the foe and the ally remains in my reach too. For a typical Combat Patrol build's reach, that probably allows you to use Bodyguard on your whole party in most indoor environments.

Sovereign Court

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion Subscriber
Mark Seifter wrote:
*helpful wall of text*

This lines up pretty well with my interpretation. Thank you! ^_^

Paizo Employee Designer

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Whew, finished! Now I won't have anything else to update for a bit unless someone else follows my game designer page on Facebook and puts me at 100, forcing me to convert a new CRB poison to the Unchained poison rules (as per a vote on what I would do at 100).


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion, Maps Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Mark Seifter wrote:
Whew, finished! Now I won't have anything else to update for a bit ....

What about my post that got buried in your wall of replies? :)

Paizo Employee Designer

Joana wrote:
Mark Seifter wrote:
Whew, finished! Now I won't have anything else to update for a bit ....
What about my post that got buried in your wall of replies? :)

Oops! You bring up a good question that has been one that's vexed me for a while, even before I worked here. I don't have a great answer here. I feel like the idea of not being able to see (either a specific creature or at all) could be streamlined to combine darkness, blindness, invisibility, stealthing characters, and more, but that isn't how it works in the CRB, so you'd kind of have to make your own houseruled Grand Unified Theory to do it (our group kind of has one that's worked for us so far where we mostly treat them all the same). I'm not sure why blinded creatures get the easy check but darknessed creatures can't do it at all. It might be either a left hand/right hand artifact or a thought meant for permanently blind creatures who learn how to deal with it compared to someone just cast into darkness suddenly?


Pathfinder Companion, Maps Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

Thanks for the reply, Mark. My guess is it was a case of the person writing one condition misremembering exactly how the other was worded. You get a similar disconnect between the grease spell, which halves movement rate, and an ice sheet, which doubles movement cost.


Mark, thanks for addressing the magical darkness issue. So when your blog post refers to the phrase "magical darkness" as used in the Daylight spell, it specifically means an area of supernatural darkness and not just an area where the light level has been lowered by a darkness spell?

Blog wrote:

6. Here I Stand, in the Light of Day

OK, so what about daylight? We've been putting that one off until now because it simply doesn't work like other light and darkness spells. As it says "Daylight brought into an area of magical darkness (or vice versa) is temporarily negated, so that the otherwise prevailing light conditions exist in the overlapping areas of effect." Daylight comes in, if necessary right after those last two bullet points in section 5:

If no other light spell is sufficient to overcome the darkness spells in the overlapping area, and if there is a daylight spell active in the overlapping area, the daylight spell's special negation clause kicks in (regardless of the spell level of daylight and the darkness spell; it just works, always). This means that you negate all the magical light changes in the area and bring it back to prevailing conditions. As a side effect of negating the magical darkness, those nonmagical light sources activate again (while they are not ambient, they were still part of prevailing conditions). Other magical light sources still are not active in the area; they had their chance to attempt to negate the darkness spells and didn't, so they were not part of the prevailing light conditions, instead subsumed by daylight's more powerful special negation clause.

Paizo Employee Designer

Gisher wrote:

Mark, thanks for addressing the magical darkness issue. So when you used the phrase "magical darkness" in your blog post, it specifically means an area of supernatural darkness and not just an area where the light level has been lowered by a darkness spell?

Blog wrote:

6. Here I Stand, in the Light of Day

OK, so what about daylight? We've been putting that one off until now because it simply doesn't work like other light and darkness spells. As it says "Daylight brought into an area of magical darkness (or vice versa) is temporarily negated, so that the otherwise prevailing light conditions exist in the overlapping areas of effect." Daylight comes in, if necessary right after those last two bullet points in section 5:

If no other light spell is sufficient to overcome the darkness spells in the overlapping area, and if there is a daylight spell active in the overlapping area, the daylight spell's special negation clause kicks in (regardless of the spell level of daylight and the darkness spell; it just works, always). This means that you negate all the magical light changes in the area and bring it back to prevailing conditions. As a side effect of negating the magical darkness, those nonmagical light sources activate again (while they are not ambient, they were still part of prevailing conditions). Other magical light sources still are not active in the area; they had their chance to attempt to negate the darkness spells and didn't, so they were not part of the prevailing light conditions, instead subsumed by daylight's more powerful special negation clause.

Ah, that's the rub, unfortunately. Daylight uses magical darkness to mean any magic darkness spell, and so do I in the blog. Deeper darkness, and the blog, use "supernatural darkness" to mean the special light level lower than darkness. But there's some evidence that rules material sometimes uses "magical darkness" to refer to the "supernatural darkness" from deeper darkness (shield of darkness is a good example where we can 100% tell this happened because it claims that "magical darkness" is an illumination level), and what I'm saying is Nightmare Fist seems like it might be doing so. It's all sort of a side effect of not having clear enough definitions for these things when the CRB came out (the two terms "magical darkness" and "supernatural darkness" aren't in a glossary or anything either; I just took them out of the daylight spell and the deeper darkness spell for the blog), and then further books with multiple authors means everything is even more tangled up. Oh light and darkness! There's a reason I put it on my blog FAQ list with grappling, simulacrum, and divinations. :/ Because those terms ("light level below darkness" and "area where there's a darkness spell") are so similar in name (and were never strictly defined either), it's pretty much impossible to figure out which one an individual ability means without looking for contextual clues in the individual ability.


Thanks for explaining that! I can see now why I was confused by the terminology. Sadly it seems that my Esoteric Magus won't be able to qualify for Nightmare Fist then since Deeper Darkness and Shield of Darkness aren't on the Magus spell list. I had planned on using the Tiefling SLA or the Darkness spell to qualify.

Paizo Employee Designer

Gisher wrote:
Thanks for explaining that! I can see now why I was confused by the terminology. Sadly it seems that my Esoteric Magus won't be able to qualify for Nightmare Fist then since Deeper Darkness and Shield of Darkness aren't on the Magus spell list. I had planned on using the Tiefling SLA or the Darkness spell to qualify.

It's honestly not the least bit your fault; it's our fault for being confusing and using that term to mean two things.


Quote:
but because transmutation gives a choice, it might not occur immediately to refer to the general rule on multiple copies of the same ability.

Not trying to question or debate your comment, just hoping for some clarification.

First, what is this "general rule on multiple copies of the same ability." So I can be sure to be on the same page.

second,
I'm curious if there's a way to tell when this general rule applies or not.
Example is Evil Eye, as it seems to meet this "multiple copies of the same ability", you use evil eye multiple times on someone and each works as long as you're doing different options.

Unless you mean having multiple instances of the same ability available to a character. Like having inspiration or channel energy from multiple classes. Which, if I understand correctly, you just track separately and decide which pool to use from. Or like having multiple Monk Unarmed Strike tracks, you track each separately and decide which value you're using when you make the attack, because you have all of them, but you can only use one at a time since the are effecting the same thin.
These I feel are different because they are all giving the same thing, while the resonant power is giving different enhancement bonuses. Thus why I feel it's more like evil eye.

TLDR What is the general rule on multiple copies of the same ability, where is it found and how can I know if it applies or not?


Mark Seifter wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:

It seems as though the question of whether or not guantlets actually count as unarmed attacks for the purpose of monk abilities, and even the amulet of mighty fist is still alive. It has come up several times in the forums.

Is this on the PDT "to do" list or do we need an FAQ?

I remember this one from before I worked here. I seem to recall seeing flip-flopping between books and vaguely remember a then-official post, but I'm not sure what happened exactly. An FAQ request could work.

Please do! I brought it up to Hero Labs recently to request maybe a house-rules option to set gauntlets to not be the same as unarmed attacks since they were currently adding in amulet of mighty fists and Quain Martial Artist trait and Weapon Focus/Specialization when I'd rather go for a more conservative approach of "none of that" until official words comes in.

They responded that their decision was because Paizo replied to them when they sent a direct message asking about gauntlets and other "unarmed" weapons like brass knuckles/cestus/spiked gauntlet/etc.

Quote:

1) Could you clarify how gauntlets should interact with feats and class abilities? Currently we aren't allowing it to be selected independantly of unarmed strike, and treating it as unarmed strike for SOME effects (weapon focus: unarmed strike also provides gauntlets an attack bonus, but monk increased damage does not increase gauntlet damage).

Should any effect that targets unarmed strike (like monk unarmed strike damage) affect gauntlets as well? Can gauntlets be selected as an independant weapon at all? What about the other direction (if you can select weapon focus: gauntlet, should it's attack bonus apply to unarmed strikes)?

At issue is the Weapon of the Chosen line of feats, which require weapon focus in the your deities favored weapon, in conjunction with choosing Ng the Hooded as your deity (who has the gauntlet as his favored weapon). Since gauntlets can't be chosen for weapon focus, there is currently no way to legally satisfy the pre-req in HL.

And just for completeness sake, are the various other "like unarmed strike" weapons (brass knuckles, cestus, locked gauntlet, spiked gauntlet, rope gauntlet) also subject to this ruling, or are they different? If so, how?

Gauntlet is actually an unarmed attack, not a separate weapon, so it can’t be enchanted (it uses amulet of mighty fists instead) and it uses all the unarmed strike stuff. All the others are separate weapons and work like manufactured weapons.

I italicized+bolded what I believed to be Paizo's response since the email reply wasn't formated

While I don't still agree with it, it's totally fair that's why they're going with the decision they made.

Since that clarification still isn't stated anywhere so far on the Paizo site/FAQ/forum, I'm still hoping for something official declared publicly so at least that debate gauntlets/unarmed strike can mostly be over with. I doubt me quoting an email response from licensed company holds much weight to others.

Note: I'm currently still not agreeing with it because "Weapon Focus (gauntlet)" is still a thing what with Shield Gauntlet Style prerequisites and from SKR's responses to the topic from the past.

Sovereign Court

Pathfinder Pawns Subscriber
Mark Seifter wrote:
It might be either a left hand/right hand artifact or a thought meant for permanently blind creatures who learn how to deal with it compared to someone just cast into darkness suddenly?

Try it at home on a moonless night. Shine a light in your face for about 1 min, then turn it off and keep your eyes open. A big part of the brain seems to be allocated trying to see, as the eyes shift from full light to low-light condition. I'd say it takes away a lot of your concentration.

Then, afterwards, just walk around the house with your eyes closed. The brain doesn't waste time anymore trying to discern shapes visually, and you're now fully devoted to your other senses.

Paizo Employee Designer

Chess Pwn wrote:
Quote:
but because transmutation gives a choice, it might not occur immediately to refer to the general rule on multiple copies of the same ability.

Not trying to question or debate your comment, just hoping for some clarification.

First, what is this "general rule on multiple copies of the same ability." So I can be sure to be on the same page.

second,
I'm curious if there's a way to tell when this general rule applies or not.
Example is Evil Eye, as it seems to meet this "multiple copies of the same ability", you use evil eye multiple times on someone and each works as long as you're doing different options.

Unless you mean having multiple instances of the same ability available to a character. Like having inspiration or channel energy from multiple classes. Which, if I understand correctly, you just track separately and decide which pool to use from. Or like having multiple Monk Unarmed Strike tracks, you track each separately and decide which value you're using when you make the attack, because you have all of them, but you can only use one at a time since the are effecting the same thin.
These I feel are different because they are all giving the same thing, while the resonant power is giving different enhancement bonuses. Thus why I feel it's more like evil eye.

TLDR What is the general rule on multiple copies of the same ability, where is it found and how can I know if it applies or not?

It would be the "Same Effect with Differing Results" rule, but that said, I wasn't thinking of that FAQ. You're right that it might apply. It makes its ruling by claiming that the different evil eyes are actually different effects, but clearly at least some abilities must follow the general rule or we have a six-line paragraph for no reason, but it's not clear exactly what does. Thanks for mentioning the FAQ; I'd say it muddies the waters a bit more, and now it's ambiguous enough to need a FAQ (basically whether it would count as different effects like the three evil eyes). To muddy even further, I dug back through old versions and I think the seemingly-contradictory language in the class about whether or not duplicate implements get a resonant power came from two things: first, after the beta, Jason removed one of the two resonant choices from each implement to simplify the class (before, there were two resonant options depending on what your implement ones; the coolest resonant powers that he removed he reworked into focus powers), so that necessarily changed the language (before, you could definitely have two implements, one with each of the two resonant powers, which was nice for people who double-dipped a school). Then, when the class hit the editors, the editors realized that the whole class was super-murky between the physical implements and the selected implement school (in that it originally called both of those things "implement" almost everywhere), so they did a heroic job of trying to square out the two for the benefit of occultist players.

So to answer your TLDR: The general rule is the last one applies, CRB 209, and I actually am not sure of a scientific way to know when it applies, as that FAQ on evil eye didn't give a thorough explanation of how to decide when to apply it, but it did mention other abilities than evil eye, potentially increasing its scope as a FAQ beyond evil eye.

Paizo Employee Designer

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Purple Dragon Knight wrote:
Mark Seifter wrote:
It might be either a left hand/right hand artifact or a thought meant for permanently blind creatures who learn how to deal with it compared to someone just cast into darkness suddenly?

Try it at home on a moonless night. Shine a light in your face for about 1 min, then turn it off and keep your eyes open. A big part of the brain seems to be allocated trying to see, as the eyes shift from full light to low-light condition. I'd say it takes away a lot of your concentration.

Then, afterwards, just walk around the house with your eyes closed. The brain doesn't waste time anymore trying to discern shapes visually, and you're now fully devoted to your other senses.

Yep! I agree with this effect's occurrence, which is why I suggested the general idea as a possible explanation, but the trouble is that blindness could be sudden (blindness/deafness spell) and darkness, barring magical sudden darkness, is usually something that lasts for a while, so walking in lasting total darkness wouldn't trigger a transition but would instead be more similar to walking around with eyes closed.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber

Sorry! I didn't mean to complicate things. I was just curious.

no more rules questions, Captain, no more rules questions.

Paizo Employee Designer

5 people marked this as a favorite.
Protoman wrote:
Mark Seifter wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:

It seems as though the question of whether or not guantlets actually count as unarmed attacks for the purpose of monk abilities, and even the amulet of mighty fist is still alive. It has come up several times in the forums.

Is this on the PDT "to do" list or do we need an FAQ?

I remember this one from before I worked here. I seem to recall seeing flip-flopping between books and vaguely remember a then-official post, but I'm not sure what happened exactly. An FAQ request could work.

Please do! I brought it up to Hero Labs recently to request maybe a house-rules option to set gauntlets to not be the same as unarmed attacks since they were currently adding in amulet of mighty fists and Quain Martial Artist trait and Weapon Focus/Specialization when I'd rather go for a more conservative approach of "none of that" until official words comes in.

They responded that their decision was because Paizo replied to them when they sent a direct message asking about gauntlets and other "unarmed" weapons like brass knuckles/cestus/spiked gauntlet/etc.

Quote:

1) Could you clarify how gauntlets should interact with feats and class abilities? Currently we aren't allowing it to be selected independantly of unarmed strike, and treating it as unarmed strike for SOME effects (weapon focus: unarmed strike also provides gauntlets an attack bonus, but monk increased damage does not increase gauntlet damage).

Should any effect that targets unarmed strike (like monk unarmed strike damage) affect gauntlets as well? Can gauntlets be selected as an independant weapon at all? What about the other direction (if you can select weapon focus: gauntlet, should it's attack bonus apply to unarmed strikes)?

At issue is the Weapon of the Chosen line of feats, which require weapon focus in the your deities favored weapon, in conjunction with choosing Ng the Hooded as your deity (who has the gauntlet as his favored weapon). Since gauntlets can't be chosen for

...
It was probably an accident, but if someone was trying to make a claim that none of those was a separate weapon, they definitely cherrypicked that e-mail response from Lone Wolf. The full response was literally only one sentence longer than the part they snipped, and that other sentence is super important:
E-Mail, Bolded New Sentence wrote:
Gauntlet is actually an unarmed attack, not a separate weapon, so it can’t be enchanted (it uses amulet of mighty fists instead) and it uses all the unarmed strike stuff. All the others are separate weapons and work like manufactured weapons.

Basically Herolab asked our Licensing Coordinator who asked me, so I asked Jason, and he said that gauntlets are basically just a way to do lethal damage with your unarmed strikes, not an actual weapon (basically an inexpensive modifier for unarmed strikes that's in the unarmed strike category) and can't be enhanced on its own, whereas all those other weapons are listed separately as weapons, including spiked gauntlet.

Paizo Employee Designer

captain yesterday wrote:

Sorry! I didn't mean to complicate things. I was just curious.

no more rules questions, Captain, no more rules questions.

No worries!


Mark Seifter wrote:

It was probably an accident, but if someone was trying to make a claim that none of those was a separate weapon, they definitely cherrypicked that e-mail response from Lone Wolf. The full response was literally only one sentence longer than the part they snipped, and that other sentence is super important:

E-Mail, Bolded New Sentence[/quote wrote:
Gauntlet is actually an unarmed attack, not a separate weapon, so it can’t be enchanted (it uses amulet of mighty fists instead) and it uses all the unarmed strike stuff. All the others are separate weapons and work like manufactured weapons.
Basically Herolab asked our Licensing Coordinator who asked me, so I asked Jason, and he said that gauntlets are basically just a way to do lethal damage with your unarmed strikes, not an actual weapon (basically an inexpensive modifier for unarmed strikes that's in the unarmed strike category) and can't be enhanced on its own, whereas all those other weapons are listed separately as weapons, including spiked gauntlet.

Ok so to clarify:

1) There's no Weapon Focus (gauntlet) option, but one uses Weapon Focus (unarmed) instead? And this applies for all the other weapon specific feats/options out there. If so I guess Shield Gauntlet Style is gonna need an errata/clarification.

2) Amulet of mighty fists would apply to gauntlets, but what about brawling armor, since it just states +2 to unarmed attack and damage rolls? What about monk's robes on a non-monk, would that be 1d8 gauntlet damage?

3) Do monk's finally get a nice thing? Can monks (and brawlers without close weapon mastery) equip gauntlets of special materials and benefit from their increased unarmed damage dice?

4) If it can't be enhanced and relies on amulet of mighty fists instead, I guess that it'll explain why I can't find any +X gauntlets easily (just wondrous item gauntlets) and makes sure monks still can't have cheap unarmed strike enhancements.

5) Since gauntlets are probably gonna see a big increase in functionality I better ask this now: would medium and heavy armors (except breastplates) made from special materials like mithral or adamantine grant free special material gauntlets that come with the armor, or are they regular steel varieties and gotta pay separately for them to be special material weapons?

There might be more questions down the line when I or others think of more since this is the first time any designer/developer give such a concrete position on gauntlets as unarmed strikes equivalent.

A FAQ would definitely help!

Paizo Employee Designer

Protoman wrote:
Mark Seifter wrote:

It was probably an accident, but if someone was trying to make a claim that none of those was a separate weapon, they definitely cherrypicked that e-mail response from Lone Wolf. The full response was literally only one sentence longer than the part they snipped, and that other sentence is super important:

E-Mail, Bolded New Sentence[/quote wrote:
Gauntlet is actually an unarmed attack, not a separate weapon, so it can’t be enchanted (it uses amulet of mighty fists instead) and it uses all the unarmed strike stuff. All the others are separate weapons and work like manufactured weapons.
Basically Herolab asked our Licensing Coordinator who asked me, so I asked Jason, and he said that gauntlets are basically just a way to do lethal damage with your unarmed strikes, not an actual weapon (basically an inexpensive modifier for unarmed strikes that's in the unarmed strike category) and can't be enhanced on its own, whereas all those other weapons are listed separately as weapons, including spiked gauntlet.

Ok so to clarify:

1) There's no Weapon Focus (gauntlet) option, but one uses Weapon Focus (unarmed) instead? And this applies for all the other weapon specific feats/options out there. If so I guess Shield Gauntlet Style is gonna need an errata/clarification.

2) Amulet of mighty fists would apply to gauntlets, but what about brawling armor, since it just states +2 to unarmed attack and damage rolls? What about monk's robes on a non-monk, would that be 1d8 gauntlet damage?

3) Do monk's finally get a nice thing? Can monks (and brawlers without close weapon mastery) equip gauntlets of special materials and benefit from their increased unarmed damage dice?

4) If it can't be enhanced and relies on amulet of mighty fists instead, I guess that it'll explain why I can't find any +X gauntlets easily (just wondrous item gauntlets) and makes sure monks still can't have cheap unarmed strike enhancements.

5) Since gauntlets are probably gonna see a big increase...

I'd say you should make a FAQ request for it; I bet it'll see clicks!

I'm not confident about (3) because on the surface it sort of makes sense, but they can't be enhanced, which also includes they can't be mwk, and some materials count as mwk. It would seem that (1), (2), and (4) might be the case given the premise, and (5) depends on (3) to even be a question, but if applicable, it would likely cost more in the same way that presumably the shield spikes on a wooden shield aren't wood and get materials and magic separately.


Thanks for the follow-up on the implements. It's sad that it's confusing, but nice that I wasn't missing something super obvious.

A question about the unarmed strike questions.

So weapons are their own weapon, cool. But what about these lines?
"Emei Piercer... and turns unarmed strikes into piercing attacks."
"Cestus... If you are proficient with a cestus, your unarmed strikes may deal bludgeoning or piercing damage."

Do these turn the unarmed strike (and gauntlet too it seems) into a (B or S) weapon?

Community Manager

Removed some posts and their responses. Keep it clean and PG-13, please.


Mark Seifter wrote:
TrinitysEnd wrote:

Okay, I have a question for you. First time asking you, normally my go to guy is James, but I felt this was more in your ball park.

Vigilante has the ability "Perfect Vulnerability"

D20PFSRD wrote:
As a standard action, the vigilante can cleverly strike his foe where that foe is weakest. This attack targets the foe's touch AC, and the foe is denied her Dexterity bonus against the attack. Once a foe has been the target of perfect vulnerability, she can't be the target of the same vigilante's perfect vulnerability for 24 hours. A vigilante must be at least 8th level to select this talent.

Now is this a Touch Attack, or a Normal Attack that targets Touch AC? As for the reading, it reminds me a lot of Early Firearms which says,

D20PFSRD wrote:
When firing an early firearm, the attack resolves against the target’s touch AC when the target is within the first range increment of the weapon, but this type of attack is not considered a touch attack for the purposes of feats and abilities such as Deadly Aim.
The reason I ask if for feats such as Power Attack. I look forward to hearing your answer!
The firearms rule has an exception explicitly to allow Deadly Aim, which perfect vulnerability doesn't, so it wouldn't apply Power Attack or Deadly Aim. Of course, whether or not you deal the extra damage, there's lots of devious ways to use an attack that is often against AC of around 10, regardless of the foe. >:D

Thanks for the response! I had kind of figured this was the case which is why I wanted to know beforehand. Still think it is quite powerful, just wanted to know if I needed to homerule it in the Living Campaign I run to not allow it. (Cause that would be pretty powerful, imo)

Paizo Employee Designer

TrinitysEnd wrote:
Mark Seifter wrote:
TrinitysEnd wrote:

Okay, I have a question for you. First time asking you, normally my go to guy is James, but I felt this was more in your ball park.

Vigilante has the ability "Perfect Vulnerability"

D20PFSRD wrote:
As a standard action, the vigilante can cleverly strike his foe where that foe is weakest. This attack targets the foe's touch AC, and the foe is denied her Dexterity bonus against the attack. Once a foe has been the target of perfect vulnerability, she can't be the target of the same vigilante's perfect vulnerability for 24 hours. A vigilante must be at least 8th level to select this talent.

Now is this a Touch Attack, or a Normal Attack that targets Touch AC? As for the reading, it reminds me a lot of Early Firearms which says,

D20PFSRD wrote:
When firing an early firearm, the attack resolves against the target’s touch AC when the target is within the first range increment of the weapon, but this type of attack is not considered a touch attack for the purposes of feats and abilities such as Deadly Aim.
The reason I ask if for feats such as Power Attack. I look forward to hearing your answer!
The firearms rule has an exception explicitly to allow Deadly Aim, which perfect vulnerability doesn't, so it wouldn't apply Power Attack or Deadly Aim. Of course, whether or not you deal the extra damage, there's lots of devious ways to use an attack that is often against AC of around 10, regardless of the foe. >:D
Thanks for the response! I had kind of figured this was the case which is why I wanted to know beforehand. Still think it is quite powerful, just wanted to know if I needed to homerule it in the Living Campaign I run to not allow it. (Cause that would be pretty powerful, imo)

I'm happy that you were going to run it the way that works for your living campaign regardless of what I said; it's super important to know your group or campaign's metagame and make decisions that work for you, no matter how I or another staff member thinks something works!


You realize, of course, that if you guys were to rule that gauntlets made out of a special material don't bypass that type of DR, there's going to be a huge blow up about it?


Mark Seifter wrote:
Whew, finished! Now I won't have anything else to update for a bit unless someone else follows my game designer page on Facebook and puts me at 100, forcing me to convert a new CRB poison to the Unchained poison rules (as per a vote on what I would do at 100).

Seems my post's ranks in stealth really come in handy ;)

Link

Paizo Employee Designer

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Tels wrote:
You realize, of course, that if you guys were to rule that gauntlets made out of a special material don't bypass that type of DR, there's going to be a huge blow up about it?

Oh, I've been on the boards long enough to have been a fan living through all those other clarifications on these kinds of weapons; you're definitely right, in fact more so--No matter what the ruling is, if there's an official ruling on these guys, there's going to be a huge blow up about it.

Paizo Employee Designer

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kaboogy wrote:

Are there any plans to release more VMC options? I would love to see a Kineticist option. The best thing about it is that they give single class-locked characters, like casters and such, more options to versify. It's a shame it's not legal in PFS...

Btw, did you see my post about Dragon Style? There were quit a bit of conventions, so I thought you may have missed it.

It'd have to be in an Unchained-style book, and we haven't announced any such book, so not unless we announce another Unchained-style book.

Oops, you have hide in plain sight there! Our group had to rule on this question vis-a-vis Unchained monk unarmed strike and houseruled it to use 3 to 1 Power Attack at the time (since a two-handing temple sword Unchained monk would get 3 to 1 Power Attack), even though we thought that technically that isn't what the rules say. As usual, Feral Combat Training is a different beast in terms of "what seems fair", since it can wind up applying large amounts of damage to a full attack with a whole bunch of natural weapons. I'd say rule however is best for your group.

Shadow Lodge

PRD wrote:
If a warpriest also has levels in a class that grants cleric domains, the blessings he chooses must match the domains selected by that class.
PRD wrote:
Diminished Spellcasting: A crusader chooses only one domain and gains one fewer spell of each level than normal.

So, if I wanted to multiclass for instance a Crusader Cleric and a Warpriest, how does this really work? Firstly, it doesn't seem right that an Archetype should be able to alter a totally different Class (without giving that other class Benefits also). But, secondly, what about if it's the other way around, and a Warpriest (who already has two Blessings chosen and in play) takes a level of Crusader Cleric? Do they suddenly loose one of their Blessings?

Similarly, because the Warpriest entry doesn't specify Cleric, but rather "in a class that grants cleric domains", what happens when those classes only get 1 Domain to begin with? Such as a Druid or Inquisitor. Again, does the Warpriest just loose out on a Blessing with nothing in return? Or if an Inquisitor or Cleric instead has an Inquisition rather than a Domain, and it doesn't match up with any of the Blessing options?

Honestly, I don't see any good reason for the rule to be there to begin with, but for games like PFS, it's there so we are stuck with it. :P

Paizo Employee Designer

1 person marked this as a favorite.
DM Beckett wrote:
PRD wrote:
If a warpriest also has levels in a class that grants cleric domains, the blessings he chooses must match the domains selected by that class.
PRD wrote:
Diminished Spellcasting: A crusader chooses only one domain and gains one fewer spell of each level than normal.

So, if I wanted to multiclass for instance a Crusader Cleric and a Warpriest, how does this really work? Firstly, it doesn't seem right that an Archetype should be able to alter a totally different Class (without giving that other class Benefits also). But, secondly, what about if it's the other way around, and a Warpriest (who already has two Blessings chosen and in play) takes a level of Crusader Cleric? Do they suddenly loose one of their Blessings?

Similarly, because the Warpriest entry doesn't specify Cleric, but rather "in a class that grants cleric domains", what happens when those classes only get 1 Domain to begin with? Such as a Druid or Inquisitor. Again, does the Warpriest just loose out on a Blessing with nothing in return? Or if an Inquisitor or Cleric instead has an Inquisition rather than a Domain, and it doesn't match up with any of the Blessing options?

Honestly, I don't see any good reason for the rule to be there to begin with, but for games like PFS, it's there so we are stuck with it. :P

Let's throw in hypothetical classes with three domains too while we're at it. I would run the application the same--match blessings one-for-one with domains where possible, then pick the rest as you choose. If you had one domain, then gained two blessings (one matching the domain and one of your choice) and later somehow gained a second domain, it'd have to match the second blessing. And so on. It seems like the most reasonable way to adjudicate this.

Paizo Employee Designer

Also, might as well preempt inquiries by saying that Jason is out today, so no FAQ this week. As we get closer and closer to Paizocon (holy crap, it's only three weeks away now!), I'm anticipating less likelihood of FAQs too, but I'm hoping we can do at least one in those intervening two weeks.

Sczarni RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

Why not drop a controversial FAQ the first day of PaizoCon and let the whiners get it out of their systems for a few days before responding?

Paizo Employee Designer

Thomas LeBlanc wrote:
Why not drop a controversial FAQ the first day of PaizoCon and let the whiners get it out of their systems for a few days before responding?

That's not how we roll, at least not by choice. We'd rather be around, not unable to respond.


Mark Seifter wrote:
Thomas LeBlanc wrote:
Why not drop a controversial FAQ the first day of PaizoCon and let the whiners get it out of their systems for a few days before responding?
That's not how we roll, at least not by choice. We'd rather be around, not unable to respond.

Yeah, I remember the last time that happened, when the ACG was released. Having people out of the office during that time seemed very negative impact on the company.

4,401 to 4,450 of 6,818 << first < prev | 84 | 85 | 86 | 87 | 88 | 89 | 90 | 91 | 92 | 93 | 94 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Gamer Life / Off-Topic Discussions / >>Ask *Mark Seifter* All Your Questions Here!<< All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.