Kwauss while I understand your concerns, the devs have ruled time and again that abilities do only what they say they do. Nothing more or less.Wet is also not a condition in PF. So water elementals might make everything they touch wet. They may even leave a trail of mud, just not difficult terrain mud.
Also like how I think a fire elemental gives off light and can lite torches. They are made of fire and fire has rules for it. The fire being animated doesn't change the rules of fire (same thing for water).
If they can leave a small amount of water then they can leave a large amount of water. It will just take longer to do so.
Fire elementals also don't give off light by the rules. Does it make sense? Sure it would, but that has nothing to do with the rules.
If I search hard enough I can probably find a dark area with fire elementals in a published adventure. Elementals are also not animated fire. Fire does not have DR. What they are can't really be logically explained because being able to hurt any of them(core elementals) with weapons other than an earth element really makes no sense. Air elementals should probably really have rules similar to incorporeal creatures.
Hi all,
May someone please tell me, why druids so overpowered?
Ahem... I'LL handle this!
Wizard is Core.
Oh, wait, so is druid -- dang. Well, never mind.
If names has no meaning, then the condition "death" does not imply a character is in fact dead, and we shouldn't use the name of the condition to assume the character cannot act.
There is no rule defining what's rules and what's fluff. So if you're only going to go by the rules, how does that work? Wouldn't the base assumption be that everything in the core _rule_book is rules, and that exceptions should be noted in the rules?
Or is that the one single case where intent is more important than what's written?
If names has no meaning, then the condition "death" does not imply a character is in fact dead, and we shouldn't use the name of the condition to assume the character cannot act.
There is no rule defining what's rules and what's fluff. So if you're only going to go by the rules, how does that work? Wouldn't the base assumption be that everything in the core _rule_book is rules, and that exceptions should be noted in the rules?
Or is that the one single case where intent is more important than what's written?
Are you arguing semantics or are really having trouble understanding what I was saying?
I think the stance that "fluff" is irrelevant to the game at it's core and that only explicitly written things are part of the base game is strange at best and downright hurtful for the game at worst.
To me it seems the stance tend to be less "Only written rules are part of the rules" and more "Only what I consider relevant written rules are part of the rules".
For example, there's nothing in the rules saying that ability names are not part of the rules - hence, "drench" is just as much part of the rules as the rest of the stuff (since there's no RAW rule stating otherwise). And drench is defined as "wet thouroughly; soak", so that's what it does.
Likewise, in this context, a ninja is a ninja. Yes, you can use the class chassi to be something else, but _that_ would be going away from what's written in the rulebook.
You seem to take the stance that only the rules are part of the base game and everything else is fluff that has no bearing on the rules, but you have no rules-based way of separating fluff and rules and instead use your own arbitrary judgement. So what the argument comes down to is, "the rules are what I like them to be".
I'm not saying that things like ability names are always deciding factors, because I don't see "RAW" and "fluff" as some completely separate parts nor do I see "RAW" as more core to the game than the fluff. I find it silly to claim that only the written rules define the game, while at the same time dismissing any request for a written rule supporting that stance as "semantics".
Fluff, RAW, RAI and ordinary uses of the language are not separate clearly distinguised things black and white things. They're a big grey mess, and all are part of the base game. Because after all, to claim that RAW trumps RAI you have to guess that that is the _intent_ of the rules, since it's not written.
I think the stance that "fluff" is irrelevant to the game at it's core and that only explicitly written things are part of the base game is strange at best and downright hurtful for the game at worst.
I would not say it is completely irrelevant. Like I said sometimes fluff can help you figure out RAI, but fluff/flavor are not rules in and of themselves. They can be rule aids.
To me it seems the stance tend to be less "Only written rules are part of the rules" and more "Only what I consider relevant written rules are part of the rules".For example, there's nothing in the rules saying that ability names are not part of the rules - hence, "drench" is just as much part of the rules as the rest of the stuff (since there's no RAW rule stating otherwise). And drench is defined as "wet thouroughly; soak", so that's what it does.
Written rules are most of the rules, with some measure of ability to figure out intent. As an example the "dead" condition does not state that you can not take actions while other conditions do, but I don't think any GM will allow you to take actions while dead.
Likewise, in this context, a ninja is a ninja. Yes, you can use the class chassi to be something else, but _that_ would be going away from what's written in the rulebook.
Things like this are why I try to reinforce that flavor and rule are not equal. I am sure you saw my earlier of example of the ninja class.
You seem to take the stance that only the rules are part of the base game and everything else is fluff that has no bearing on the rules, but you have no rules-based way of separating fluff and rules and instead use your own arbitrary judgement. So what the argument comes down to is, "the rules are what I like them to be".
The devs(people who make the game) have also said you only get what the rules give you. It is NOT just me. The rules come down to what are you specifically allow to do mechanically. Anything beyond that is a houserule barring examples like the death condition.
I'm not saying that things like ability names are always deciding factors, because I don't see "RAW" and "fluff" as some completely separate parts nor do I see "RAW" as more core to the game than the fluff. I find it silly to claim that only the written rules define the game, while at the same time dismissing any request for a written rule supporting that stance as "semantics".
The devs do see it that way. That is why flavor text is never listed as supporting text in rules by the devs, and why it is almost never altered in errata. I would say never, but someone might find an example. In short the mechanics are the rules. The flavor text are just decoration.
Fluff, RAW, RAI and ordinary uses of the language are not separate clearly distinguised things black and white things. They're a big grey mess, and all are part of the base game. Because after all, to claim that RAW trumps RAI you have to guess that that is the _intent_ of the rules, since it's not written.
Actually RAI trumps RAW since RAI(rules as intended) is how the game works, and the FAQ shows that.
If RAW is written to have more than one possible meaning, then the devs say we meant interpretation A.
I don't have to guess. Most of us don't. The rules are not perfect, but it is far from a guessing game most of the time.
edit: Normally the flavor text is written separately from the mechanics. Check the feat section for examples of this.
Things like this are why I try to reinforce that flavor and rule are not equal. I am sure you saw my earlier of example of the ninja class.
Likewise, in this context, a ninja is a ninja. Yes, you can use the class chassi to be something else, but _that_ would be going away from what's written in the rulebook.
And it's why I try to reinforce that the text in the rulebook isn't the end-all be-all of games, rather than try to make up some arbitrary distinction between different parts of the text in the rulebook, and have corresponding parts act differently at different times (names as fluff or names as rules).
That's a solution that tends to be much more consistant and less prone to having dead be dead but drench not be drench and fire not be fire.
The devs(people who make the game) have also said you only get what the rules give you. It is NOT just me.
The devs have also said that you have to use common sense to play the game.
That is why flavor text is never listed as supporting text in rules by the devs, and why it is almost never altered in errata. I would say never, but someone might find an example. In short the mechanics are the rules. The flavor text are just decoration.
So, are names flavor text? And I refer to specifically the name of the "dead" condition and the "drench" ability.
Actually RAI trumps RAW since RAI(rules as intended) is how the game works, and the FAQ shows that.
If RAW is written to have more than one possible meaning, then the devs say we meant interpretation A.
I don't have to guess. Most of us don't. The rules are not perfect, but it is far from a guessing game most of the time.
So, how does this work together with claiming that Drench doesn't Drench and that Fire isn't Fire? How is that letting RAI trump RAW without having to guess?
Do you mean the intent is clearly that drenching isn't drenching and that fire isn't fire?
|
It might be fall under the rule of cool, but if he is a "by the book" GM, then I can see him not allowing it.I did say that was mostly in jest. But it just seems SO obvious to me that a fire elemental could light flammable objects on fire that I actually would at least suspect that a GM who disallowed it was deliberately being a jerk as opposed to making what he thought was the correct ruling.How is saying no being a jerk in this case?Letting a fire elemental essentially have free access to the ignite cantrip and a water elemental free access to the create water cantrip is absolutely something that I'd allow in my games, including when I run PFS.
In PFS I'd claim it was allowed by both the "reward creative solutions" rule and the "don't be a jerk rule" (mostly a :-) on the second one).
I have already show that the burn ability allow fire elementals to se things on fire.
They can attack an object? Yes.
Objects that fail the save against the burn ability catch fire? Yes.
A unattended object has any way to make a reflex save? Only if magical.
So a fire elemental can set an object on fire.
As an example, see this post: link
Common sense may be uncommon (ha ha), but I'm not going to write a column of text on every single item in the game to explain the ins and outs and what-should-be-common-sense aspects of that item. "A warhammer can be used to pound in nails, iron spikes, pitons, or other spiky items." "You can use a dagger to cut pieces of meat from a roasting pig, lamb, or cow." "You can use a battleaxe to chop wood or chop down trees."
One could potentially add to that, "You can use a fire elemental to burn things" and "You can use drench to drench things". Granted, he doesn't, but that's the very point: He can't write that for everything. Or should we assume that the intent now is that we can cut meat from a pig, lamb or cow - since we know that's the intent - but can't cut from a chicken since it's not in the rules and hasn't been said explicitly? Like how you can put people on fire but not wood since the rules don't explicitly state you can?
And it's why I try to reinforce that the text in the rulebook isn't the end-all be-all of games, rather than try to make up some arbitrary distinction between different parts of the text in the rulebook, and have corresponding parts act differently at different times (names as fluff or names as rules).That's a solution that tends to be much more consistant and less prone to having dead be dead but drench not be drench and fire not be fire.
I don't know what you mean by end all be all of games, but for the most part it does apply that way to rules, and it is not arbitrary.
Basically what I am saying is that you have flavor text and rules(mechanic) text. I am not saying the flavor text is not useful for figuring out the intent of the mechanic text. I am saying the flavor text is not a rule.As an example the flavor text for cleave is that you make one attack the hits two opponents. The flavor text is that it requires more than one attack roll.
The devs have also said that you have to use common sense to play the game.
That is true, and common sense to me means to not apply extra rules that serve no purpose. Drench making a spell component pouch wet is an extra mechanic that leads to more problems. Drench only affects fires. That is it. You can say the water elemental leaves water everywhere, but the rules don't support it. Maybe it stays 100% on his body. There is no rule saying that if he leaves things wet the water would replenish itself, and since the being is a fanatasy being it does not have to follow real life physics of how water works.
So, are names flavor text? And I refer to specifically the name of the "dead" condition and the "drench" ability.
Names are neither flavor nor rules, but they can be an aid depending on the situation.
So, how does this work together with claiming that Drench doesn't Drench and that Fire isn't Fire? How is that letting RAI trump RAW without having to guess?
Do you mean the intent is clearly that drenching isn't drenching and that fire isn't fire?
Drench does exactly what it says it does. It could have been called "extinguish". That is why people should not get to caught up in names.
That fire elemental might be fire, but you are once again dealing with a fantasy creature. Being close to a fire elemental should be harmful if it was a fire that size, but by the rules it actually has to hit you to cause you any harm.
Do you have players suffer heat exhaustion if they have a fire elemental traveling with them all day long?
It might be fall under the rule of cool, but if he is a "by the book" GM, then I can see him not allowing it.I did say that was mostly in jest. But it just seems SO obvious to me that a fire elemental could light flammable objects on fire that I actually would at least suspect that a GM who disallowed it was deliberately being a jerk as opposed to making what he thought was the correct ruling.How is saying no being a jerk in this case?Letting a fire elemental essentially have free access to the ignite cantrip and a water elemental free access to the create water cantrip is absolutely something that I'd allow in my games, including when I run PFS.
In PFS I'd claim it was allowed by both the "reward creative solutions" rule and the "don't be a jerk rule" (mostly a :-) on the second one).
I have already show that the burn ability allow fire elementals to se things on fire.
They can attack an object? Yes.
Objects that fail the save against the bur ability catch fire? Yes.
A unattended object has any way to make a reflex save? Only if magical.So a fire elemental can set an object on fire.
I was referring to both of his statements together.
As an example, see this post: link
Common sense may be uncommon (ha ha), but I'm not going to write a column of text on every single item in the game to explain the ins and outs and what-should-be-common-sense aspects of that item. "A warhammer can be used to pound in nails, iron spikes, pitons, or other spiky items." "You can use a dagger to cut pieces of meat from a roasting pig, lamb, or cow." "You can use a battleaxe to chop wood or chop down trees."One could potentially add to that, "You can use a fire elemental to burn things" and "You can use drench to drench things". Granted, he doesn't, but that's the very point: He can't write that for everything. Or should we assume that the intent now is that we can cut meat from a pig, lamb or cow - since we know that's the intent - but can't cut from a chicken since it's not in the rules and hasn't been said explicitly? Like how you can put people on fire but not wood since the rules don't explicitly state you can?
That does not mean your suggestion is an actual rule. Drench puts out fires. That is it. I explained upthread how allowing it to do anything more is well beyond the scope of what is written. It does not drench people. It is not a crop watering tool. It puts out fires.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yes I do agree the bard is performing, but not using the perform skills unless called for.
This just opens another can of worms - now a bard can do their 'whisper performance' if they only want to effect their adjacent comrades (which can get louder later). They now have an ability that's better than a spell (a partial Silent Spell), since spells need to be in a normal spoken voice. Maybe they can start with a visual performance (since it's quiet and allows you to sneak up on the bad guy) and switch to an audible one when people start to spread out during battle (it doesn't say you can't switch, only that you choose a mode when starting).
And I thought the conclusion is that it is using the perform skill (as it says so), but not requiring a check?
You just gave m,e a wicked idea to blow a vein of my GM.
Message + audible bard performance. Now he can use it at 100'+'/level while whispering.
LOL, I don't think he will allow that.
|
|
I think the stance that "fluff" is irrelevant to the game at it's core and that only explicitly written things are part of the base game is strange at best and downright hurtful for the game at worst.I would not say it is completely irrelevant. Like I said sometimes fluff can help you figure out RAI, but fluff/flavor are not rules in and of themselves. They can be rule aids.
Too many people decide arbitrarily what is fluff and what not. Think about cackle and the people that was saying: "You can cackle silently as the rules don't say anything about making noise while cackling, that is only fluff." and how it ended.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Too many people decide arbitrarily what is fluff and what not. Think about cackle and the people that was saying: "You can cackle silently as the rules don't say anything about making noise while cackling, that is only fluff." and how it ended.
Supernatural abilities don't have somatic or verbal components, so by the rules saying you needed to make noise to do it was wrong. It's now been specified as an exception to that rule, so now it does. If things don't say they are exceptions then they aren't; inconsistencies with RAI and RAW in that case was a failure with the text.
Too many people decide arbitrarily what is fluff and what not. Think about cackle and the people that was saying: "You can cackle silently as the rules don't say anything about making noise while cackling, that is only fluff." and how it ended.I think the stance that "fluff" is irrelevant to the game at it's core and that only explicitly written things are part of the base game is strange at best and downright hurtful for the game at worst.I would not say it is completely irrelevant. Like I said sometimes fluff can help you figure out RAI, but fluff/flavor are not rules in and of themselves. They can be rule aids.
Generally speaking only sonic based SU's need to be heard. Cackle was given an exception.
|
|
Too many people decide arbitrarily what is fluff and what not. Think about cackle and the people that was saying: "You can cackle silently as the rules don't say anything about making noise while cackling, that is only fluff." and how it ended.Supernatural abilities don't have somatic or verbal components, so by the rules saying you needed to make noise to do it was wrong. It's now been specified as an exception to that rule, so now it does. If things don't say they are exceptions then they aren't; inconsistencies with RAI and RAW in that case was a failure with the text.
QED. You have decided that a piece of the rules is fluff. Even more interestingly you have decided that half of a phrase is fluff.
Let's see what the specific rule for Cackle say:
Cackle (Su): A witch can cackle madly as a move action. Any creature that is within 30 feet that is under the effects of an agony hex, charm hex, evil eye hex, fortune hex, or misfortune hex caused by the witch has the duration of that hex extended by 1 round.
So what is the rule?
A witch can cackle madly as a move action.You have decided that cackle madly is fluff and that phrase is:
A witch can use this ability as a move action.
As far from RAW as possible while keeping the ability.
Deciding what piece of a phrase or even what specific word is fluff as the result better suit you is decidedly wrong.
Generally speaking only sonic based SU's need to be heard. Cackle was given an exception.
Not an exception to the SU rules, a specific rule of the ability. specific trump general. The problem is that people play pick and choose as it suit them.
Yes, that is fluff. "Cackle Madly" has no in game definition, so it's fluff. RAW it does not say that your mad cackling has to be audible. Later on this was errata'd, but that was to make RAW match the RAI.
EX:
You may burn the target badly as a move action. The target within thirty feat takes on the Fatigued condition.
What is burning the target badly? Does that first line have any bearing on the effect of the ability? As written you are "burning" someone, but not dealing fire damage and would seemingly bypass fire resistance.
Abilities don't do anything more than what they say they do in a RAW environment. Later on that made up ability could be errata'd to be blocked by Fire resistance/immunity, but as written the burning is fluff.
That does not mean your suggestion is an actual rule. Drench puts out fires. That is it. I explained upthread how allowing it to do anything more is well beyond the scope of what is written. It does not drench people. It is not a crop watering tool. It puts out fires.You can totally drench people with Drench...
You can drench a creature or an object. People are creatures and I imagine plants would count as objects so you could drench them as well. I've used it for drinking water and, as far as I can tell, that seems to be the only thing that I've done that would really be outside of its realm by RAW.Range: close (25 ft. + 5 ft./2 levels)
Target: one creature or object of size Large or smaller
Duration: 1 round
Saving Throw: Reflex negates (object); Spell Resistance yes (object)A sudden downpour soaks the target creature or object. The rain follows the subject up to the range of the spell, soaking the target with water. If the target is on fire, the flames are automatically extinguished. Fires smaller than campfires (such as lanterns and torches) are automatically extinguished by this spell.
I dont know if you are serious, but I was talking about a monster special ability, not the spell.. :)
Too many people decide arbitrarily what is fluff and what not. Think about cackle and the people that was saying: "You can cackle silently as the rules don't say anything about making noise while cackling, that is only fluff." and how it ended.Supernatural abilities don't have somatic or verbal components, so by the rules saying you needed to make noise to do it was wrong. It's now been specified as an exception to that rule, so now it does. If things don't say they are exceptions then they aren't; inconsistencies with RAI and RAW in that case was a failure with the text.QED. You have decided that a piece of the rules is fluff. Even more interestingly you have decided that half of a phrase is fluff.
Let's see what the specific rule for Cackle say:
Cackle (Su): A witch can cackle madly as a move action. Any creature that is within 30 feet that is under the effects of an agony hex, charm hex, evil eye hex, fortune hex, or misfortune hex caused by the witch has the duration of that hex extended by 1 round.So what is the rule?
A witch can cackle madly as a move action.You have decided that cackle madly is fluff and that phrase is:
A witch can use this ability as a move action.
As far from RAW as possible while keeping the ability.
Deciding what piece of a phrase or even what specific word is fluff as the result better suit you is decidedly wrong.
Generally speaking only sonic based SU's need to be heard. Cackle was given an exception.Not an exception to the SU rules, a specific rule of the ability. specific trump general. The problem is that people play pick and choose as it suit them.
We know specific trumps general, but I think most of the people saying it would not work were going by how things generally are. Following a pattern is not a bad thing. I was saying it would not work, and I support the witch when others say it is OP.
PS: A specific rule that does not conform with the norm is an exception.
The silence spell as an example does not stop SU's with a flavor of being sound based unless specifically stated. The cackle is specifically stopped by silence, which I need to remember.
|
|
Yes, that is fluff. "Cackle Madly" has no in game definition, so it's fluff. RAW it does not say that your mad cackling has to be audible. Later on this was errata'd, but that was to make RAW match the RAI.
EX:
You may burn the target badly as a move action. The target within thirty feat takes on the Fatigued condition.What is burning the target badly? Does that first line have any bearing on the effect of the ability? As written you are "burning" someone, but not dealing fire damage and would seemingly bypass fire resistance.
Abilities don't do anything more than what they say they do in a RAW environment. Later on that made up ability could be errata'd to be blocked by Fire resistance/immunity, but as written the burning is fluff.
It has a dictionary definition, you decided not to apply it. Same thing as not applying the "dead" definition because there isn't a dead condition.
When something has a dictionary definition and there isn't a game rule defining it differently you use the dictionary definition, you don't disregard it but the hexes creators often forget that.And your example is very different from what is pointed out. You have two phrases that seem unrelated, the phrase in question is only one and it is clearly a rule. without that rule the cackle hex would not only be silent, but it would be a standard action.
You guys have tried to disregard half of a rule, the half that you felt was inconvenient, keeping the part that was convenient (using a move action instead of a standard).
- * -
PS: A specific rule that does not conform with the norm is an exception.
Your post in this thread gave the impression that you meant something done after the hex was published, but the exception is part of the hex from the start.
I support the witch when others say it is OP.
The witch isn't OP, but it has a lot of exceptions, something that is annoying. And making the hex SU instead of SLA create a lot of rule holes, as you can't use the basic assumptions in the magic section.
Kwauss while I understand your concerns, the devs have ruled time and again that abilities do only what they say they do. Nothing more or less.Wet is also not a condition in PF. So water elementals might make everything they touch wet. They may even leave a trail of mud, just not difficult terrain mud.
Also like how I think a fire elemental gives off light and can lite torches. They are made of fire and fire has rules for it. The fire being animated doesn't change the rules of fire (same thing for water).
If they can leave a small amount of water then they can leave a large amount of water. It will just take longer to do so.
Fire elementals also don't give off light by the rules. Does it make sense? Sure it would, but that has nothing to do with the rules.
If I search hard enough I can probably find a dark area with fire elementals in a published adventure. Elementals are also not animated fire. Fire does not have DR. What they are can't really be logically explained because being able to hurt any of them(core elementals) with weapons other than an earth element really makes no sense. Air elementals should probably really have rules similar to incorporeal creatures.
Fire gives off light and fire elementals are made of fire. Just because the fire is making up a creature doesn't mean the rules for fire stop applying.
Can horses climb trees in Pathfinder?
If my PF character is carrying his maximum load in ice, and then enters a lake, does the ice make him sink to the bottom of the lake so he can walk around?
I know both of the RAW answers.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Can horses climb trees in Pathfinder?
The problem with this is that it encurages like "I use ray of frost to frees the wet flood to make it slippery." or "I pour water into the lock and cast ray of frost on it. When the water freezes its volume increases, cracking open the lock". Which have both things I actually read around here. And with that you can stop giving spells levels and limiting them per day. Why learn grease when ray of frost can do it?
I'd just like to see all the common posters here, who readers take as authorities (like Wraith), giving better answers than 'the ability doesn't say that so it doesn't do that', but more likely 'although not listed in the ability, it should probably by extension of the name have that effect.' Teach people how to RPG, not MMORPG, even in the rules forum, I recommend.
This sounds like the opposite of a problem. This sounds really cool (pun not intended).
I think my overall point has been made in the back and forth.
Even Wraith won't let a paladin use RAW to lay on hands without use of a hand. Slavishly following RAW can be as complicating as using RAE/names (some won't agree to 'as complicating' but I think we can all see examples where it is somtimes).
Similarly, I won't let fire elementals hide in normal darkness, and when my player wants to hide them at the bottom of a vat of oil to surprise people (and only ignite it when they use their burn ability), I'm going to say no. Also, when a bard in my campaign wants to 'stealth perform' using quiet jokes (you know, whispering the banana knock-knock joke over and over) to avoid alerting monsters in the next room, they'll have to use dance, and people will lose their bonus if they lose sight of them. Despite their request being perfectly in line with RAW.
Rules text dictates the minimum an ability does (which is what the Devs are ruling on), but the implementation/manifestation of the ability is up to the GM, and I think should absolutely be guided by fluff/flavor text/names. I just hope that people posting and helping other players will remember this, and encourage others to do so.
I believe it's no longer a RPG when this last filter is not applied by the GM.
Actually, I'd allow a lot. But I probably wouldn't allow Lay on Hands with other appendages.
Fire gives off light and fire elementals are made of fire. Just because the fire is making up a creature doesn't mean the rules for fire stop applying.Kwauss while I understand your concerns, the devs have ruled time and again that abilities do only what they say they do. Nothing more or less.Wet is also not a condition in PF. So water elementals might make everything they touch wet. They may even leave a trail of mud, just not difficult terrain mud.
Also like how I think a fire elemental gives off light and can lite torches. They are made of fire and fire has rules for it. The fire being animated doesn't change the rules of fire (same thing for water).
If they can leave a small amount of water then they can leave a large amount of water. It will just take longer to do so.
Fire elementals also don't give off light by the rules. Does it make sense? Sure it would, but that has nothing to do with the rules.
If I search hard enough I can probably find a dark area with fire elementals in a published adventure. Elementals are also not animated fire. Fire does not have DR. What they are can't really be logically explained because being able to hurt any of them(core elementals) with weapons other than an earth element really makes no sense. Air elementals should probably really have rules similar to incorporeal creatures.
How much light does a fire elemental give off? Where does it say it follows ALL of the rules for fire? Why is it not destroying any building it is contained in by virtue of it being made of fire? etc etc
How do get to pick which aspects of fire apply, and to what degree if they are not in the book?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Can horses climb trees in Pathfinder?
If my PF character is carrying his maximum load in ice, and then enters a lake, does the ice make him sink to the bottom of the lake so he can walk around?
I know both of the RAW answers.
RAW they can but no expect for a GM to allow it. That is why I mentioned RAI earlier, and not RAW.
I should bring this up next time someone says they play by 100% RAW.. :)
Fire gives off light and fire elementals are made of fire. Just because the fire is making up a creature doesn't mean the rules for fire stop applying.Kwauss while I understand your concerns, the devs have ruled time and again that abilities do only what they say they do. Nothing more or less.Wet is also not a condition in PF. So water elementals might make everything they touch wet. They may even leave a trail of mud, just not difficult terrain mud.
Also like how I think a fire elemental gives off light and can lite torches. They are made of fire and fire has rules for it. The fire being animated doesn't change the rules of fire (same thing for water).
If they can leave a small amount of water then they can leave a large amount of water. It will just take longer to do so.
Fire elementals also don't give off light by the rules. Does it make sense? Sure it would, but that has nothing to do with the rules.
If I search hard enough I can probably find a dark area with fire elementals in a published adventure. Elementals are also not animated fire. Fire does not have DR. What they are can't really be logically explained because being able to hurt any of them(core elementals) with weapons other than an earth element really makes no sense. Air elementals should probably really have rules similar to incorporeal creatures.
How much light does a fire elemental give off? Where does it say it follows ALL of the rules for fire? Why is it not destroying any building it is contained in by virtue of it being made of fire? etc etc
How do get to pick which aspects of fire apply, and to what degree if they are not in the book?
Where does it say they don't follow all the rules of fire?
Fire elementals don't have an exception text and they do quite well at burning down wood buildings.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think my overall point has been made in the back and forth.
Even Wraith won't let a paladin use RAW to lay on hands without use of a hand. Slavishly following RAW can be as complicating as using RAE/names (some won't agree to 'as complicating' but I think we can all see examples where it is somtimes).
Similarly, I won't let fire elementals hide in normal darkness, and when my player wants to hide them at the bottom of a vat of oil to surprise people (and only ignite it when they use their burn ability), I'm going to say no. Also, when a bard in my campaign wants to 'stealth perform' using quiet jokes (you know, whispering the banana knock-knock joke over and over) to avoid alerting monsters in the next room, they'll have to use dance, and people will lose their bonus if they lose sight of them. Despite their request being perfectly in line with RAW.
Rules text dictates the minimum an ability does (which is what the Devs are ruling on), but the implementation/manifestation of the ability is up to the GM, and I think should absolutely be guided by fluff/flavor text/names. I just hope that people posting and helping other players will remember this, and encourage others to do so.
I believe it's no longer a RPG when this last filter is not applied by the GM.
Putting a fire elemental into oil just seems like a terrible idea. If someone really tried this I would just make an on the spot ruling. Since they are made of fire, but having them embrace all the qualities of fire may go against what the game intends I would have to decide how much they are just like fire so we have an understanding. I really hope I never have to do that. So far nobody has tried to hand paper to one in my game or anything similar to it.
We already agree that flavor/etc should guide a GM's decision.
I will put it like this. What is reasonable to allow is different from what is actually a rule, and both of those are different from what is directly against the rules.<----Best short explanation I can give.
Your post in this thread gave the impression that you meant something done after the hex was published, but the exception is part of the hex from the start.
Sometimes when rules are made the devs don't think of certain things so when an FAQ is requested they make a decision on it. That is what happened here. Other SU's will say how they work with relation to sound if they rely on sound. The cackle ability made no mention of it before the FAQ so it was an add-on, not an original feature of the ability.
|
|
Can horses climb trees in Pathfinder?
If my PF character is carrying his maximum load in ice, and then enters a lake, does the ice make him sink to the bottom of the lake so he can walk around?
I know both of the RAW answers.
RAW they can but no expect for a GM to allow it. That is why I mentioned RAI earlier, and not RAW.
I should bring this up next time someone says they play by 100% RAW.. :)
You need both hands free to climb,
Horses can't climb. And bighorns can't, too ;-)
|
|
Sometimes when rules are made the devs don't think of certain things so when an FAQ is requested they make a decision on it. That is what happened here. Other SU's will say how they work with relation to sound if they rely on sound. The cackle ability made no mention of it before the FAQ so it was an add-on, not an original feature of the ability.
Your post in this thread gave the impression that you meant something done after the hex was published, but the exception is part of the hex from the start.
Cackle madly?
Can horses climb trees in Pathfinder?
If my PF character is carrying his maximum load in ice, and then enters a lake, does the ice make him sink to the bottom of the lake so he can walk around?
I know both of the RAW answers.
RAW they can but no expect for a GM to allow it. That is why I mentioned RAI earlier, and not RAW.
I should bring this up next time someone says they play by 100% RAW.. :)
You need both hands free to climb,Horses can't climb. And bighorns can't, too ;-)
Good to know. I remember trying to tell someone their camel could not climb. I wish I had not missed that quote. I guess that also means no climbing and fighting at the same time, for normal bipeds that is.
I missed the ice question. If he breaks the ice he gets to make a swim check I would assume or sink. Of course he can just not try to swim and sink, but I don't think he needs a heavy load to "not swim". <--This is me not looking at the book. As for walking on the bottom I would have to check the rules. Nobody has ever tried it in my games because normally they are trying to swim.
Cackle madly?Sometimes when rules are made the devs don't think of certain things so when an FAQ is requested they make a decision on it. That is what happened here. Other SU's will say how they work with relation to sound if they rely on sound. The cackle ability made no mention of it before the FAQ so it was an add-on, not an original feature of the ability.
Your post in this thread gave the impression that you meant something done after the hex was published, but the exception is part of the hex from the start.
Here is a specific sonic based SU
Roar (Su) An androsphinx can roar up to three times per day as a standard action. Each progressive roar has a different effect, depending upon whether it is the first, second, or third of the androsphinx's roars for that day. All of these roars are sonic effects that fill a 60-foot-radius burst, centered on the androsphinx; the save DCs are Charisma-based. Sphinxes are immune to all of the effects of an androsphinx's roars.
First Roar: Affected creatures become frightened for 2d6 rounds (DC 19 Will negates). This is a mind-affecting fear effect in addition to being a sonic effect.
Second Roar: Affected creatures are paralyzed with fear and deafened for 1d4 rounds (DC 19 Will negates). This is a mind-affecting fear effect in addition to being a sonic effect.
Third Roar: Affected creatures take a 2d4 penalty to Strength for 2d4 rounds and take 2d8 points of sonic damage. Creatures smaller than the androsphinx are knocked prone. A DC 19 Fortitude save negates the Strength penalty and being knocked prone.
From the silence spell:
Creatures in an area of a silence spell are immune to sonic or language-based attacks, spells, and effects.
Cackle is not language based. It is not sonic based, but yet silence still stops it, so like I said it has a rules exception. Without the FAQ saying it needs to be heard, the ability would work even if you could not hear it
Cacophonous Roar (Su) Once every 1d4 rounds as a standard action, a jotund troll can emit a cacophonous roar from its nine heads. All creatures within a 60-foot spread of the troll must make a DC 19 Will save or become confused for 1d4 rounds. This is a mind-affecting effect. The save DC is Charisma-based.
This ability is not a sonic affect, so it would not be affected by silence. Before the FAQ for cackle it also would have worked even if silence was up, just like this ability.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Can horses climb trees in Pathfinder?
If my PF character is carrying his maximum load in ice, and then enters a lake, does the ice make him sink to the bottom of the lake so he can walk around?
I know both of the RAW answers.
RAW they can but no expect for a GM to allow it. That is why I mentioned RAI earlier, and not RAW.
I should bring this up next time someone says they play by 100% RAW.. :)
You need both hands free to climb,Horses can't climb. And bighorns can't, too ;-)
By that logic bears and big cats can't climb either.
Drench does exactly what it says it does. It could have been called "extinguish". That is why people should not get to caught up in names.
'Dead does exactly what it says it does. It could have been called "unhealable". That is why people should not get too caught up in names.'
How are these different, from a rules standpoint?
Drench puts out fires. That is it.
Dead prevents you from being healed and starts your bodys decay (which does nothing). That is it.
I explained upthread how allowing it to do anything more is well beyond the scope of what is written.
Likewise, allowing Phantasmal Killer to do anything more than prevent you from being healed is well beyond the scope of what is written. And likewise, allowing a dagger to cut up a pork steak is well beyond the scope of what is written.
I don't see how the water that makes up the elemental would stop following the rules of water from a RAW standpoint.
Elementals are made of actual things that have rules associated with them. As far as I can see nothing says those things being animate prevents those rules from still applying.
*I see no reason that you couldn't train a horse to climb. It's not possible to train a horse like that in the real world, but PF chars can have handle animal checks that or orders of magnitude larger than anything anything an actual person could do. Your base horse is unlikely to attempt a climb and is less likely to be successful, especially since they would need to be trained to use a knotted rope.
isn't it funny how this thread started out being about overpowered druids?
Drench does exactly what it says it does. It could have been called "extinguish". That is why people should not get to caught up in names.'Dead does exactly what it says it does. It could have been called "unhealable". That is why people should not get too caught up in names.'
How are these different, from a rules standpoint?
That is my point. Whether you call it drench or extinguish it does the exact same thing. What that "thing" is, is listed in the monster entry.
Drench puts out fires. That is it.Dead prevents you from being healed and starts your bodys decay (which does nothing). That is it.
What is your point here?
Likewise, allowing Phantasmal Killer to do anything more than prevent you from being healed is well beyond the scope of what is written. And likewise, allowing a dagger to cut up a pork steak is well beyond the scope of what is written.
I already said I was an RAI person, not a RAW so trying to use RAW arguments will get you nowhere with me.
Just to be clear when reading the rules you have to do it in context. Nothing in the context of the water elemental makes it into an endless water supply.
So if you are done saying things I agree with such as your last paragraph you can move on to your next argument.
I don't see how the water that makes up the elemental would stop following the rules of water from a RAW standpoint.
Elementals are made of actual things that have rules associated with them. As far as I can see nothing says those things being animate prevents those rules from still applying.
*I see no reason that you couldn't train a horse to climb. It's not possible to train a horse like that in the real world, but PF chars can have handle animal checks that or orders of magnitude larger than anything anything an actual person could do. Your base horse is unlikely to attempt a climb and is less likely to be successful, especially since they would need to be trained to use a knotted rope.
I was assuming the other poster who mentioned the horse meant vertical cliffs, and not going up 45 degree slopes.
As for elementals the rules tell you what you can do mostly. The book would never end if it had an all inclusive "can't" list.
If a GM wants to rule that a spell compontent pouch gets wet he could, but there is no rules support for it. Another GM could rightfully rule that all of the water stays attached to the water elemental because it is part of the creature's body. Basically it boils down to how the GM see things. However rules are concrete things so when I say the rules don't allow it I am not saying there is no way to say it is game rule. As an example there is no rule saying a greatsword can get dirty. But for a GM to say it gets dirty if you put it on the ground is not "wrong". However it is still not a rule. It makes perfect sense to say things on the ground get dirty. It would be against the rules to apply the broken condition to the sword just because it gently touched the ground.
Do you now see the difference between what is not a rule, and what is against the rules?
The same things applies to elementals leaving water around. It is not in the rulebook so it is not a rule.
I don't see how the water that makes up the elemental would stop following the rules of water from a RAW standpoint.
Elementals are made of actual things that have rules associated with them. As far as I can see nothing says those things being animate prevents those rules from still applying.
*I see no reason that you couldn't train a horse to climb. It's not possible to train a horse like that in the real world, but PF chars can have handle animal checks that or orders of magnitude larger than anything anything an actual person could do. Your base horse is unlikely to attempt a climb and is less likely to be successful, especially since they would need to be trained to use a knotted rope.
I was assuming the other poster who mentioned the horse meant vertical cliffs, and not going up 45 degree slopes.
As for elementals the rules tell you what you can do mostly. The book would never end if it had an all inclusive "can't" list.
If a GM wants to rule that a spell compontent pouch gets wet he could, but there is no rules support for it. Another GM could rightfully rule that all of the water stays attached to the water elemental because it is part of the creature's body. Basically it boils down to how the GM see things. However rules are concrete things so when I say the rules don't allow it I am not saying there is no way to say it is game rule. As an example there is no rule saying a greatsword can get dirty. But for a GM to say it gets dirty if you put it on the ground is not "wrong". However it is still not a rule. It makes perfect sense to say things on the ground get dirty. It would be against the rules to apply the broken condition to the sword just because it gently touched the ground.
Do you now see the difference between what is not a rule, and what is against the rules?
The same things applies to elementals leaving water around. It is not in the rulebook so it is not a rule.
Everything is up to the GM. The idea of a "right way" to run things has always been a fallacy.
It's not a calling for a "can't" rule. It's asking for a rule that says other rules stop applying. Without such a rule the water in water elementals follows the same rules as water and the fire in a fire elementals follows the same rules as fire.
No rule really says that wet spell components become useless. It's a GM call.
GMs are expected to fill the holes in the rules.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Personally, I've always been a bit wary of any GM that's prone to saying "Well it's not in the rules, but it makes sense that..." on a frequent basis. Mostly because I've played with a couple GMs whose ideas of what did and didn't 'make sense' were rather ... unique.
The other big problem with it is that it can quickly reduce Pathfinder to a game of "Mother May I?" While sticking close to the RAW can prove just problematic and nonsensical, it is at least consistently nonsensical. When it's all down to what the GM thinks makes sense, it's pretty easy to end up in a place where the players have no idea how the rules work.
Everything is up to the GM. The idea of a "right way" to run things has always been a fallacy.
It's not a calling for a "can't" rule. It's asking for a rule that says other rules stop applying. Without such a rule the water in water elementals follows the same rules as water and the fire in a fire elementals follows the same rules as fire.
No rule really says that wet spell components become useless. It's a GM call.
GMs are expected to fill the holes in the rules
I mean a "right" way with regard to falling in line with the rules. As an example if I say a weapon focus gives +2 to attacks because i think it works that way, then I wrong. If I houserule it to a +2 then I am not wrong. What did you think I was trying to say?
So since you keep insisting that water and fire elementals act like any other fire or water I will repeat a question.
What happens to water elementals as they leave their water around?
Why are people and things not taking damage just from being near to them?
Everything is up to the GM. The idea of a "right way" to run things has always been a fallacy.
It's not a calling for a "can't" rule. It's asking for a rule that says other rules stop applying. Without such a rule the water in water elementals follows the same rules as water and the fire in a fire elementals follows the same rules as fire.
No rule really says that wet spell components become useless. It's a GM call.
GMs are expected to fill the holes in the rules
I mean a "right" way with regard to falling in line with the rules. As an example if I say a weapon focus gives +2 to attacks because i think it works that way, then I wrong. If I houserule it to a +2 then I am not wrong. What did you think I was trying to say?
So since you keep insisting that water and fire elementals act like any other fire or water I will repeat a question.
What happens to water elementals as they leave their water around?
Why are people and things not taking damage just from being near to them?
Nothing.
Idk why they would take damage from being near water, assuming you meant fire, people don't normally take damage from being near fire either (burn effects creatures touching and objects auto-fail reflex saves).
What happens to water elementals as they leave their water around?
Why are people and things not taking damage just from being near to them?
For me personally, I would answer by saying the things being done require deliberate action, the cooperation of the elemental, and time. A torch won't automatically light just by being near a fire elemental, but sticking it in or on the fire elemental will likely result in it being lit; the fact that the character will likely end up dealing with an irate elemental is secondary for the moment, even if it isn't to the overall scene. Similar reasoning with getting air or water from an elemental. I could easily see elementals shedding air/water the same way that humans shed skin cells; get a large enough elemental and someone with enough time and a proper container could potentially gather enough to be useful. Whether it's enough to be worth the effort would be dubious, but it would still be possible.
Everything is up to the GM. The idea of a "right way" to run things has always been a fallacy.
It's not a calling for a "can't" rule. It's asking for a rule that says other rules stop applying. Without such a rule the water in water elementals follows the same rules as water and the fire in a fire elementals follows the same rules as fire.
No rule really says that wet spell components become useless. It's a GM call.
GMs are expected to fill the holes in the rules
I mean a "right" way with regard to falling in line with the rules. As an example if I say a weapon focus gives +2 to attacks because i think it works that way, then I wrong. If I houserule it to a +2 then I am not wrong. What did you think I was trying to say?
So since you keep insisting that water and fire elementals act like any other fire or water I will repeat a question.
What happens to water elementals as they leave their water around?
Why are people and things not taking damage just from being near to them?
Nothing.
Idk why they would take damage from being near water, assuming you meant fire, people don't normally take damage from being near fire either (burn effects creatures touching and objects auto-fail reflex saves).
Of course I meant fire and I meant real life fire. Nothing in the game says you have to touch fire to be harmed by it, and in real life you only have to get too close.
As for the water elemental are you saying the water never runs out? In real life if I keep taking water from a source it does not auto-replenish. <----That is what I was getting at.