RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
I think it means most of the time, all skills that are 1 round or less to use take 2 minutes to take 20.
Oh! So you're applying "usually" to situations rather than skills? So like, there are some instances where T20 on Perception would be 2min and some situations where it's 1min? Okay, I can entertain that... so what's an example of the 1min variety?
In the meantime, I'll just make sure to bring 20 dice to your tables for a pseudo-T20 that always takes only 1 minute. ;)
My group tends to look up the status-y things A LOT: sickened, shaken, blind, etc.
The thing that MOST gets to me is AoE sizes... I am not sure HOW they are counting it out, but it is always this very vague "You know, about here" kinda thing. And I myself am VERY in this category also. Gotta get me some transparencies!
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
My group tends to look up the status-y things A LOT: sickened, shaken, blind, etc.
Might I interest you in some Conditions Cards? One of the best purchases I've made.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
My group tends to look up the status-y things A LOT: sickened, shaken, blind, etc.Might I interest you in some Conditions Cards? One of the best purchases I've made.
This is what Cinderella felt on that fateful night... You... You are my Helena Bonham Carter... Thank you!
This may come up more in home games, but racial traits vs race traits.
|
|
That wands and scrolls don't count as "casting a spell" for abilities that let you modify spells (metamagic feats, school traits that increase your caster level, etc.).
We currently have a discussion how solidly "share spells" falls into that category: there's general agreement that you shouldn't be able to use share spells with wands, but scrolls are a little fuzzier.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Spellbooks and Learning New Spells.
Every time someone starts up playing a wizard/magus/alchemist for the first time in PFS, I gotta check how they've been adding extra spells to their spellbooks. More often than not, they've been buying scrolls and scribing the spells from that. Those players get confused/surprised when I gotta pull up the magic chapter and the scribing/spell obtaining costs are a fraction of what they're paying.
I have this issue but in reverse. I've only been playing a few months, but none of the 6 GMs I've played with allowed me to pay an NPC for spellbook access. They say this isn't allowed in PFS and that you have only two ways to get additional spells: 1. buy scrolls 2. copy from the spellbook of another PC who is running in the same adventure as you.
The last GM said that he had a 12th level wizard and had never heard of being allowed to pay an NPC for spellbook access.
Then there was the GM that said I couldn't take 10 when learning a spell from a scroll. Having to buy a new scroll for each failure gets expensive real fast.
Sonuva--
OK direct them to this PFS FAQ ruling.Specifically this part:
With either method, the GM should sign off on the spells gained (after witnessing successful skill checks) on affected players' chronicle sheets. All other methods of gaining new spells (such as by gaining a level or purchasing access to an NPC's spellbook) function as described in the Core Rulebook and relevant class descriptions.
In the rare instance of a wizard charging a fee for the privilege of copying spells from their spellbooks, this fee is equal to half the cost to write the spell into a spellbook (see Writing a New Spell into a Spellbook). Rare and unique spells do not change the fee in PFS.
For the taking 10 on spellcraft (DC 15+Spell Level) to scribe spell, point them to these threads.
Those GMs are prime examples of people having to be informed of the rules that this thread is referring to. Especially about parts of Taking 10.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
My group tends to look up the status-y things A LOT: sickened, shaken, blind, etc.Might I interest you in some Conditions Cards? One of the best purchases I've made.
I have found these useful as a player, but as a GM? I find them INVALUABLE! Makes some of my GMing much faster to have those in front of me (when they apply to my monsters or NPCs.)
So inexpensive for what you get out of them.
|
|
The FAQ ruling is pretty vague though. Most people reading the forums know how it's MEANT, but the whole "In the rare instance of a wizard charging a fee" comes across more as a "You might meet someone in a scenario" or, even worse, "If a player wants to charge you..."
That's why most people, and the FAQ recommend it'd be done between games to not interrupt anything.
Player figures out the costs from CRB, writes the price of cost of spell in notes/ITS, shows GM his skill check/total from take 10 (cuz they blooody well can do that for Spellcraft).
Page 22 of the Guide to Organized Play eems to even imply players shouldn't even be charging for the book/services.
In Pathfinder Society Organized Play, you may never buy items from, sell items to, or trade items with another player. You may, however, allow another player to borrow an item for the duration of a scenario. You are also permitted to spend your character’s gold to help a party member purchase spellcasting services such as raise dead or remove disease.
|
That wands and scrolls don't count as "casting a spell" for abilities that let you modify spells (metamagic feats, school traits that increase your caster level, etc.).
We currently have a discussion how solidly "share spells" falls into that category: there's general agreement that you shouldn't be able to use share spells with wands, but scrolls are a little fuzzier.
Ah share spells - "Share Spells (Ex): The summoner may cast a spell with a target of “you” on his eidolon (as a spell with a range of touch) instead of on himself..."
I am pretty sure animal companion masters have the same target "you" message. Although I am not sure they are limited to spells on their spell list.
What is a target "you" spell is something people completely try to ignore "but I can cast it me."
Shield is "you" spell - Read Magic is a "you" spell - Long Arm is a "you" spell
Enlarge Person is NOT a "you" spell
|
|
Enlarge Person is not a you spell, but the second line of Share Spells lets it work just fine.
So you only need to pay attention to one sentence in a paragraph not all the sentences in a paragraph? Do you also choose to ignore the spell like ability section or the spell list section?
by this logic I can chose to ignore later sentences that all modify the same topic in the same paragraph.
for example
- My barbarian gets fast movement in heavy armor -because I can ignore any sentence referring otherwise to the same topic?
- My eidolon can wear armor because there was no limitation against armor in the sentences I want to pay attention to?
- my eidolon and I can each wear two rings and have them work, because I choose to ignore the other parts of the link paragraph?
Everything in the Share Spells section applies to Share Spells - so if there is a "you" spell on the summoner spell list that normally won't work in an outsider, you can put it on your eidolon anyway.
|
|
Dhjika,
They've clarified that enlarge person on your familiar works
Sometimes sentences are context for each other. Sometimes they're just talking about the same thing. I really wish they'd just move to bullet points sometimes.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Invisbility, sneak attacks, and multiple attacks.
That a 20 on a skill check is not a guaranteed success.
Perception and distance, along with the effects of barriers.
Potions, and the restriction on making potions of spells with a target of "You".
Wands, scrolls and potions vis-a-vis casting time. (Or why a potion of Enlarge Person is one of the best options, especially in Core).
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That forum threads discussing rules are not valid except where they provide page/FAQ references.
If you're talking about Share Spells, there is an FAQ that addresses it.
Summoner: Can a synthesist (page 80) use spells on himself that don't affect outsiders, even though he is treated as his own type or the outsider type, "whichever is worse"?
Yes, because the normal eidolon's share spells ability says "A summoner may cast spells on his eidolon even if the spells normally do not affect creatures of the eidolon's type (outsider)," and the synthesist archetype doesn't change that.Note: This is a revision of an earlier question that used enlarge person as an example. FAQ pending about size-changing magic and a synthesist (because of the limitation of "the eidolon must be at least the same size as the synthesist" rule).
posted August 2011
The message board post linked earlier in the thread mentions a Share Spells FAQ which no longer seems to exist, but they might have meant this one, as it matches up with the discussion. Enlarge Person is specifically referenced in the above FAQ, which itself should be enough to end the debate.
Also, in a situation where there are two interpretations of a rule, and one of the designers of the game says one interpretation is right in pretty direct language, while also referencing the lead designer of the game agreeing with him, barring something more recent and official to the contrary, I think it's safe to agree with the designer.
|
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
That forum threads discussing rules are not valid except where they provide page/FAQ references.
Some background is required regarding this statement.
Long, long ago. In a Rules forum not that far away. There once was a rules dispute.
But, luckily, this dispute happened during a magical time when wondrous posters called "Developers" would casually discuss rules interpretations, and answer questions.
Sometimes these answers were immortalized in FAQs, and sometimes not.
Many people listened to these Developers, and would slowly collect their quotes, so that this ancient wisdom could be preserved for future generations.
And then a man, let's call him Steph Vader, brought an era of darkness to the forums. In one fell swoop, every discussion, every piece of wisdom, vanished. A bleak future was in store.
Years of debates that had once been settled began to resurface. Slowly at first, but inevitably as a deluge. When a few brave heroes would recite the words of ancient wisdom to combat this threat, the disciples of Steph Vader were quick to block their efforts.
The answers existed, and yet were ignored.
Worse yet, this hollow, emptiness, bred a new species of forumite: the dreaded RAW Hut.
RAW Huts insisted there could only be one answer to any question: their answer. Combined with the disciples of Steph Vader the forums became a bleak wasteland of trolls, flames, and the wailing echoes of past forumites who remembered the times before.
The era of the "FAQ is all that matters" was firmly in place.
And the world is a much more hostile place because of it.
|
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Back on topic, UMD (like any skill) doesn't auto fail on a 1, and a wand only ceases to function if you roll a 1 on UMD and fail the roll. Once you have a +19 UMD, you can't fail to activate a wand.
Undead and Constructs are not immune to precision damage (like a sneak attack).
|
|
And he said on the next page that charge needs a FAQ or an errata. Which never came. So charge still works as everybody thinks it does, sadly.
(For those who don't want to read it: Someone pointed out that the wording was the same in 3.5 and 3.5 had some graphics making it very clear his ruling was wrong. Since you cannot keep the wording the same but change its interpretation [cause that would be dumb] an errata/FAQ is needed. Which never came.)
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
(For those who don't want to read it: Someone pointed out that the wording was the same in 3.5 and 3.5 had some graphics making it very clear his ruling was wrong. Since you cannot keep the wording the same but change its interpretation [cause that would be dumb] an errata/FAQ is needed. Which never came.)
Chuckles, remember the during the planetouched and martial weapons arguments.
|
Venture-Lieutenant, Netherlands—Leiden
|
- Cover, as it relates to shooting into melee, reach weapons and not-provoking AoOs. Comes up a lot.
- Diagonal movement, especially across difficult terrain.
- How to determine Flanking, especially with odd-sized creatures and reach.
- Take 20 on searching takes only 1-2 minutes.
- Grappling: do you threaten AoOs? Do you have Dex to AC? do you Flank?
|
- Moving through threatened squares of multiple enemies. (one roll, or many. Where to the penalties apply?)
There's a FAQ answer to this:
Acrobatics allows you to make checks to move through the threatened area of foes without provoking attacks of opportunity. You must make a check the moment you attempt to leave a square threatened by an enemy, but only once per foe. The DC (which is based of the Combat Maneuver Defense of each foe), increases by +2 for each foe after the first in one round. The DC also increases by +5 if you attempt to move through a foe. In the case of moving out of the threatened square of two foes at the same time, the moving character decides which check to make first.For example, a rogue is flanked by a meek goblin and a terrifying antipaladin. The rogue move away from both of them, provoking an attack of opportunity from both, but uses Acrobatics to attempt to negate them. She must move at half speed while threatened by these foes and can choose which to check against first. If she fails a check, she provokes an attack of opportunity from that foe. If she makes it, she does not provoke from moving through that foe's threatened space this turn.
|
|
And he said on the next page that charge needs a FAQ or an errata. Which never came. So charge still works as everybody thinks it does, sadly.
(For those who don't want to read it: Someone pointed out that the wording was the same in 3.5 and 3.5 had some graphics making it very clear his ruling was wrong. Since you cannot keep the wording the same but change its interpretation [cause that would be dumb] an errata/FAQ is needed. Which never came.)
But we have feats that change how charge works, like Wheeling Charge and Spirited Charge for example.
And I personally say that you can charge to any of those three squares because via Pathfinder math they are still equidistant. Via real-life math they might be slightly further away, but as has been shown time and time again you absolutely can't use real-world math in Pathfinder rules.
I would argue someone ruling against me at a table, and I would accept their final ruling if it were against me, but as a GM I rule that as long as you are charging to the closest square and making your attack as soon as you can attack, it doesn't matter if 2 or more squares are considered equally as close (using Pathfinder Math) - you can charge to all of them.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Fox, SKR's charging post wasn't "interesting", it was rules changing. (Chose not to say breaking.)
I don't think it was breaking so much as pointing out the brokenness.
People need to ease up on raw a little bit. Its a guy on a horse. If you can read the rules so thata guy on a horse can do guy on a horse stuff or that the only way to charge while mounted is to run along the back of a wooly mammoth... go with the first one.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Getting back on topic here, has anyone listed touch spells yet? Specifically, that you can cast/move/touch in a single turn (usually to avoid provoking), and that just because a spell gives you the ability to make touch attacks (such as produce flame) doesn't mean it's a touch spell.
Also, I anticipate these two becoming common soon:
"No, that's not from the Core Rulebook."
"Yes, that's in the Core Rulebook."
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I am still amazed at how often I have to remind people they can't full attack in the same round they took a move action.
In all fairness, it's rather counter-intuitive if you play other RPGs besides PF/3.X.
People need to ease up on raw a little bit.
BNW, I'm going to take your quote a little out of context and segue it into my own recurring pet peeve with special relation to PFS:
Just because a player insists a certain reading of the rules is RAW*, it doesn't mean the GM has to agree with that reading if his differs or if he believes that RAI indicates something else.
*=obviously I'm talking about situations where no FAQ or clarification is had from Paizo people.
|
|
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
If you can read a rule so that it does nothing or it does something, read it so it does something.
If you can read a rule so that it provides a balanced benefit or that it enables you to decapitate the tarrasque across the state of texas, read it for the balanced benefit.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Go on then Jiggy, I thought that move/cast/touch was ok, but that cast/move/touch wasn't. Could you point me to the correct page please?
Touch Spells in Combat: Many spells have a range of touch. To use these spells, you cast the spell and then touch the subject. In the same round that you cast the spell, you may also touch (or attempt to touch) as a free action. You may take your move before casting the spell, after touching the target, or between casting the spell and touching the target. You can automatically touch one friend or use the spell on yourself, but to touch an opponent, you must succeed on an attack roll.