What rules most often need to be explained?
Stacking, stealth and vision and light.
|
Related to melee touch spells: If you miss with the touch attack, you do not discharge the spell. The next round, you can still use that charged touch spell - you can make a standard action to make a touch attack, or you can also make a full attack action and make the touch as one of your attacks. You can also discharge a held touch spell as part of an unarmed strike, although you have to hit their full AC and not touch AC. The held spell also counts as being armed, so the touch attack does not trigger an AOO if you don't have IUS.
Funny enough, I'm pretty sure touch spells don't actually ever discharge until you either use them, dismiss them, or cast something else.
|
You guys might find this post by SKR interesting. Be sure to read the few posts following also, at least up to his next post in that thread.Edit:
All of the following (A, B, C, D, and E) are legal choices for charges to end in when charging from P (the enemy is size Huge and occupies the squares marked O):
XOOOX
XOOOX
XOOOX
ABCDE
XXXXX
XXXXX
XXPXXEdit edit: it is actually worthwhile to read all of his posts in that thread.
I'm going to hazard a guess and say that 4 1/2 years ago when SKR made that post the charge text didn't say "directly toward your opponent"
Movement During a Charge: You must move before your attack, not after. You must move at least 10 feet (2 squares) and may move up to double your speed directly toward the designated opponent. If you move a distance equal to your speed or less, you can also draw a weapon during a charge attack if your base attack bonus is at least +1.
You must have a clear path toward the opponent, and nothing can hinder your movement (such as difficult terrain or obstacles). You must move to the closest space from which you can attack the opponent. If this space is occupied or otherwise blocked, you can't charge. If any line from your starting space to the ending space passes through a square that blocks movement, slows movement, or contains a creature (even an ally), you can't charge. Helpless creatures don't stop a charge.
As the text now reads SKR's post is invalid. If it read this way then, then his post was also invalid then.
The fact that a mount with 8 or more int doesn't need a trick to be able to do or perform a specified action. Especially when asked to do it in one of the 5 languages he speaks.
While I would want to agree with you on this, the Paizo blog Monkey See Monkey Do spells out quite clearly that the mount would still need you to use the handle animal skill and tricks to control it in combat.
quote from the blog:
"The Handle Animal skill functions similarly no matter how intelligent an animal becomes. A character must still make Handle Animal checks to train his animal and get him to perform the appropriate tasks."
|
The fact that a mount with 8 or more int doesn't need a trick to be able to do or perform a specified action. Especially when asked to do it in one of the 5 languages he speaks.
This is incorrect.
raising an animal companion’s Intelligence to 3 or higher does not eliminate the need to make Handle Animal checks to direct its actions
It does get a little silly to apply it to a paladins mount when the mount has a good chance of being smarter than the paladin
I think it makes a strange sort of sense in that situation. The only way the low intellect paladin can convince his scholarly horse to do something is through his force of will (charisma->handle animal check).
|
|
The fact that a mount with 8 or more int doesn't need a trick to be able to do or perform a specified action. Especially when asked to do it in one of the 5 languages he speaks.
That would depend on the mount not being of the type: Animal.
If it is a Magical Beast, or some other non-Animal type, you are correct.
If, however, it is still of the type: Animal, you still need to use Handle Animal.
|
|
The problem with Intelligence is that we only have one scale applied to all creatures and the low-end of average Intelligence in sentient beings is uncomfortably close to that of non-sentient beings. Is a dog that is three times as smart as the average dog virtually as smart as a human with an Intelligence of 7? In game terms, yes, but that is probably not the best way to equate the two "types" of intelligence. I tend to think of animal Intelligence as a vastly different thing than [human] Intelligence. But in a world where fireballs, wishes, and dragons exist 21st century common sense, logic, or physics may not be the best way to parse the game mechanics.
The charging thing always amuses me. We have taken an analog world and tried to superimpose a digital (5ft squares) system to it, yet try to use both system of measure to simultaneously describe distances. Its kind of idiotic, but I understand how and why it developed this way. IMO, the best solution is to either completely eliminate the "squares" concept and simply use traditional measures of distance (feet or meters), something akin to most miniatures games like Warhammer 40K. This might make mapping more problematic for battle maps, but with the aid of a inset scale, it would certainly give much more freedom to artists and cartographers and might simplify the game mechanics a bit.
Alternately, we could just create our own system of measure called "squares" and eliminate all references to distance by foot in the game. In this version, no extra movement would need to be accounted for with respect to diagonals because three squares diagonally vs. three squares in a "straight" direction would effectively be the exact same thing. Course if you go with this system, it is probably even [more] better to change from squares to hexes or even octagonally shaped "squares" so mapping direction would be a bit more intuitive.
But, I digress and return you to your regularly scheduled forum thread ;-)
|
|
The problem with Intelligence is that we only have one scale applied to all creatures and the low-end of average Intelligence in sentient beings is uncomfortably close to that of non-sentient beings. Is a dog that is three times as smart as the average dog virtually as smart as a human with an Intelligence of 7? In game terms, yes, but that is probably not the best way to equate the two "types" of intelligence. I tend to think of animal Intelligence as a vastly different thing than [human] Intelligence. But in a world where fireballs, wishes, and dragons exist 21st century common sense, logic, or physics may not be the best way to parse the game mechanics.
The charging thing always amuses me. We have taken an analog world and tried to superimpose a digital (5ft squares) system to it, yet try to use both system of measure to simultaneously describe distances. Its kind of idiotic, but I understand how and why it developed this way. IMO, the best solution is to either completely eliminate the "squares" concept and simply use traditional measures of distance (feet or meters), something akin to most miniatures games like Warhammer 40K. This might make mapping more problematic for battle maps, but with the aid of a inset scale, it would certainly give much more freedom to artists and cartographers and might simplify the game mechanics a bit.
Alternately, we could just create our own system of measure called "squares" and eliminate all references to distance by foot in the game. In this version, no extra movement would need to be accounted for with respect to diagonals because three squares diagonally vs. three squares in a "straight" direction would effectively be the exact same thing. Course if you go with this system, it is probably even [more] better to change from squares to hexes or even octagonally shaped "squares" so mapping direction would be a bit more intuitive.
But, I digress and return you to your regularly scheduled forum thread ;-)
Bob, you've just explained why I strongly advocate for hexes. It also gets rid of the mapping phenomenon where rooms get put on angles and suddenly that bridge is 5' wide and all diagonals and no squeeze spaces. Oh, and difficult terrain because why not?
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The flight rules.
Really - almost no one uses them... ever.
I usually just check to see if they've properly invested in the skill. If they have I usually ignore it. Unless you have one of the negative modifier fly maneuverability modifiers the checks are generally trivial. Of course applying it to the guy chugging his fly potion to go into melee, most of those guys have no clue how it works. But my Druid has a +19 to Fly, which if I remember correctly means that you always meet even the highest DC's for the skill.
Venture-Captain, California—San Francisco Bay Area South & West
|
I usually just check to see if they've properly invested in the skill.The flight rules.
Really - almost no one uses them... ever.
Don't forget the limitation on who can invest in the skill ...
Fly
You cannot take ranks in this skill without a natural means of flight or gliding. Creatures can also take ranks in Fly if they possess a reliable means of flying every day (either through a spell or other special ability).
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
"move action" vs "moving" vs "5-foot step"
|
I usually just check to see if they've properly invested in the skill.The flight rules.
Really - almost no one uses them... ever.
Don't forget the limitation on who can invest in the skill ...
Fly
You cannot take ranks in this skill without a natural means of flight or gliding. Creatures can also take ranks in Fly if they possess a reliable means of flying every day (either through a spell or other special ability).
One of the reasons being a tengu is awesome.
|
|
I usually just check to see if they've properly invested in the skill.The flight rules.
Really - almost no one uses them... ever.
Don't forget the limitation on who can invest in the skill ...
Fly
You cannot take ranks in this skill without a natural means of flight or gliding. Creatures can also take ranks in Fly if they possess a reliable means of flying every day (either through a spell or other special ability).
I was informed of this when working on my own wizard long ago. I now advise my players to perhaps pick up an int headband to get them the skill points they need for maneuverability. It is truly wonderful to have such full control over your movement.
As of last night I've learned that most people don't know all the particulars of what monster subtypes entail, myself included.
|
I actually put them in the 9 pocket plastic sheets - in Alpha order with 2 in each pocket. (there are 4 of each card, so I file half "face up" and half "face down") this uses 3 plastic sheets, but it only takes a few seconds to pull the one I need, and I can do it while running my mouth. I just have to remember to put them back in the correct pocket, and not flip them over (or they get filed in the wrong pocket).
I am so going to steal this idea! Thanks!
|
Flying carpets and Brooms are Mounts - and only have a +4/+5 fly check.... so to turn 90% requires a DC15, and you only have a +4 or +5 with them (and the rider doesn't use his fly skill).
Really?
I wanted my Vudrani archer to ride on a flying carpet, but I put him on hold until I could figure out how the darn thing worked. I even ran a scenario that required the party to ride a bunch of them, and no guidance was included.
Can you show me where you read that?
|
|
The flight rules.
Really - almost no one uses them... ever.
Oh, the face of the PC who summons eagles...
GM: they are doing a full-attack? Please make their fly check to hoverPlayer: What?
GM: They don't have perfect flight. They have Fly +8, and the hover check is DC15.
Player: What? Why? What?
So, the only real hole that I have in my understanding, is what happens when you fail a check to hover by less than 5? Do they then just need to move at least half of its speed? Does it still fall?
EDIT: I notice now I was ninja'd by nosig 2 hours ago.
|
|
The fact that a mount with 8 or more int doesn't need a trick to be able to do or perform a specified action. Especially when asked to do it in one of the 5 languages he speaks.That would depend on the mount not being of the type: Animal.
If it is a Magical Beast, or some other non-Animal type, you are correct.
If, however, it is still of the type: Animal, you still need to use Handle Animal.
So I no longer need to make handle animal checks for my worg mount (via monstrous mount) and he just does whatever I tell him?
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The flight rules.
Really - almost no one uses them... ever.
Oh, the face of the PC who summons eagles...
GM: they are doing a full-attack? Please make their fly check to hover
Player: What?
GM: They don't have perfect flight. They have Fly +8, and the hover check is DC15.
They can just attack from the ground.
|
|
And, standing up from prone does not then make you ineligible to take a 5' step.Neither does dismounting (or dim-dooring!). :-P
Thats a rules debate, not a rules explanation.
Autoflank with no AOo just because you're getting off a horse when you do it would be well past cheesey and into "we'd like to welcome you to the lollypop guild"
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If you keep reading to page 2 of the thread there is another important post from SKR on the topic.
Personally, I think way too much is made of the "directly toward" phrase. Comparing the 3.0 and 3.5 versions, I assume that the "directly toward" phrase was meant to replace 3.0's declaration that the charge must be in a straight line and disallowing running past to strike from another direction. The interpretive focus that leads to the idea that the squares must be "head-on" at the end (clearly contradicting the possibility of ride-by attacks as well as standard jousting tournaments) is far too myopic to be reasonable.
My rule of thumb: If it can be interpreted to make the game break or product foolish results, that's almost certainly not its intention.
|
|
So I no longer need to make handle animal checks for my worg mount (via monstrous mount) and he just does whatever I tell him?If he's not an animal (I.E. magical beast) and can understand your language, yes, you do not need to make handle animal checks.
Can you point me to some text that clarifies that? I know handle animal is for animals, but he's still my animal companion.
|
Can you point me to some text that clarifies that? I know handle animal is for animals, but he's still my animal companion.So I no longer need to make handle animal checks for my worg mount (via monstrous mount) and he just does whatever I tell him?If he's not an animal (I.E. magical beast) and can understand your language, yes, you do not need to make handle animal checks.
I would also love to see something that supported the idea that monstrous mounts would no longer need handle animal, but believe that in PFS this is not the case.
I follow all of the handle animal rules with my griffon mount (Int 5, understands common, with no additional increase to Int or ranks in linguistics). Though with that high of an Int it knows a lot of tricks.
|
|
Can you point me to some text that clarifies that? I know handle animal is for animals, but he's still my animal companion.
There is no specific rule stating that if you have a magical beast as a mount that you do not need handle animal checks, but the handle animal skill -in terms of directing said animal in combat- does not mention anything other than an animal at all.
I can point you to the absence of anything other than "animal" being referenced in the handle animal skill description.
The intelligence skill description says that any creature capable of understanding speech has an int of at least 3.
The animal and magical beast descriptions specifically point out that if a creature has an intelligence higher than 3 it is no longer an animal it is a magical beast.
Finally, the Summon Monster spell description makes note that if you can communicate with a summoned creature you can direct it to attack, not attack, or perform other actions.
Personally, I treat non-animal companions/mounts as cohorts and simply let the player run them as such.
|
|
Also, unless explicitly stated, an animal companion remains an animal despite an intelligence decrease above 2 and you must use handle animal to control them.
Paladin mounts, eidolons, and other things not animal are just that - not animal. see here
Finally, there's this from Ultimate Campaign:
Even if an animal's Intelligence increases to 3 or higher, you must still use the Handle Animal skill to direct the animal, as it is a smart animal rather than a low-intelligence person (using awaken is an exception—an awakened animal takes orders like a person). The GM should take the animal's Intelligence into account when determining its response to commands or its behavior when it doesn't have specific instructions. For example, an intelligent wolf companion can pick the weakest-looking target if directed to do so, and that same wolf trapped in a burning building might push open a door or window without being told.
|
|
But the Griffon in my example is an animal companion/mount, just as is claudekennilol's Worg. Obtained through the Monstrous Mount feat. It is my understanding that for PFS, to treat them more or less the same as an animal companion, requiring tricks, and handle animal, even though the Worg not only understands, but can speak common.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Nonsentient Companions: A nonsentient companion (one with animal-level intelligence) is loyal to you in the way a well-trained dog is—the creature is conditioned to obey your commands, but its behavior is limited by its intelligence and it can't make altruistic moral decisions—such as nobly sacrificing itself to save another. Animal companions, cavalier mounts, and purchased creatures (such as common horses and guard dogs) fall into this category. In general they're GM-controlled companions. You can direct them using the Handle Animal skill, but their specific behavior is up to the GM.Sentient Companions: A sentient companion (a creature that can understand language and has an Intelligence score of at least 3) is considered your ally and obeys your suggestions and orders to the best of its ability. It won't necessarily blindly follow a suicidal order, but it has your interests at heart and does what it can to keep you alive. Paladin bonded mounts, familiars, and cohorts fall into this category, and are usually player-controlled companions.
That should clear it up. I apologize, as I kept thinking all magical beast intelligent mounts are bonded mounts (a la paladin)