2016, what are the big unanswered rules questions?

[Tels]

Scott Wilhelm wrote:

Tels wrote:

The NPC Codex is not a source of rulings nor can it be used at such.

The NPC Codex is an official rules source. It is listed in the Pathfinder Society as an Additional Resource. The Scarred Wanderer is not included in what can be used for PFS play, but it is a level 20 character.

Tels wrote:

The NPC Codex also has a number of incorrect rules in it,

Well, then it should be corrected!

So you're saying then, that a stat block from a book of stat blocks that is infamous for being rife with incorrect rules in the stat blocks, as they were created by people who didn't know the rules very well... can be trusted?

That's like going to a market that is known for everything they sell being knock-off products and assuming that Rolex you just bought is actually a legit Rolex and it only cost you $175.

[Scott Wilhelm]

Tels wrote:

Scott Wilhelm wrote:

*No FAQ exists that calls out Shield Spikes as a real virtual size increase. At least Big Norse Wolf can't find one. If he could have, he would have linked to it instead of resorting to ad homs.

Size Increase FAQ.

FAQ wrote:

Size increases and effective size increases: How does damage work if I have various effects that change my actual size, my effective size, and my damage dice?

As per the rules on size changes, size changes do not stack, so if you have multiple size changing effects (for instance an effect that increases your size by one step and another that increases your size by two steps), only the largest applies. The same is true of effective size increases (which includes “deal damage as if they were one size category larger than they actually are,” “your damage die type increases by one step,” and similar language). They don’t stack with each other, just take the biggest one. However, you can have one of each and they do work together (for example, enlarge person increasing your actual size to Large and a bashing shield increasing your shield’s effective size by two steps, for a total of 2d6 damage).

Shield Spikes wrote:

Benefit: These spikes turn a shield into a martial piercing weapon and increase the damage dealt by a shield bash as if the shield were designed for a creature one size category larger than you (see “spiked shields” on Table: Weapons). You can't put spikes on a buckler or a tower shield. Otherwise, attacking with a spiked shield is like making a shield bash attack.

An enhancement bonus on a spiked shield does not improve the effectiveness of a shield bash made with it, but a spiked shield can be made into a magic weapon in its own right.

Bashing Property wrote:

A shield with this special ability is designed to perform a shield bash. A bashing shield deals damage as if it were a bashing weapon of two size

...

Tels, you are giving me a logical and coherent justification for why a +1 Spiked, Bashing Shield should do 1d8 and not 2d6, but I think you are missing my point.

You interpretation--which I am not arguing against--emerges logically from 3 different rules sources over a span of several years representing re-interpretations of old rules, one of which explicitly and specifically contradicts you.

I'm not saying that your logical implications are wrong, I am saying they are implications, and I think we deserve explanations. The FAQ you quoted created a whole new conceit to the rules: Virtual Size Increases. I really believe that a more thorough official exploration of it is in order.

[Chemlak]

You think that we actually need a "more thorough official exploration" than "only the best not-an-actual-change-in-size applies, and only the best actual-change-in-size applies" in unambiguous terms from the design team?

I would dispute that the FAQ creates a new rule with so-called "virtual size increases": they're any increase to a weapon damage which follows the size chart but isn't caused by an actual increase in size, and they've existed in the game from day one, and now we know how they stack with actual increases in size, and each other. What "more thorough official exploration" than "here's how the design team intend these to work" do you want?

[Scott Wilhelm]

Tels wrote:

I wrote:

The NPC Codex is an official rules source. It is listed in the Pathfinder Society as an Additional Resource. The Scarred Wanderer is not included in what can be used for PFS play, but it is a level 20 character.

So you're saying then, that a stat block from a book of stat blocks that is infamous for being rife with incorrect rules in the stat blocks, as they were created by people who didn't know the rules very well... can be trusted?

No, I'm not saying that it can be trusted. I'm saying it has to be accepted, and it should be corrected. Remember,

I wrote:

Well, then it should be corrected!

I don't think, as

Tels wrote:

That's like going to a market that is known for everything they sell being knock-off products and assuming that Rolex you just bought is actually a legit Rolex and it only cost you $175.

I think it is more like that guy who was caught gold plating Liberty Head Nickels to make the look like 5 dollar gold pieces. But when he went to court, they couldn't prove he counterfeited money, only that he defaced U.S. currency, which was not a crime. And they couldn't convict him of fraud because technically, he never asked for change from any cashier. And it just so happened he could prove he never "asked" for change because the man was a deaf mute.

What, you don't like that?

I wrote:

Well, then it should be corrected!

[Scott Wilhelm]

Chemlak wrote:

You think that we actually need a "more thorough official exploration" than "only the best not-an-actual-change-in-size applies, and only the best actual-change-in-size applies" in unambiguous terms from the design team?

Yes, I do.

Chemlak wrote:

I would dispute that the FAQ creates a new rule with so-called "virtual size increases"

I think you should feel free to dispute anything you want. I think the FAQ emerged from Spells like Strong Jaw, Feats like Improved Natural Attack, and Enchantments like Bashing getting out there. I think players were seeing these combined with each other and actual size increases as a way to pump up the DPRs of their characters very high. I think it was this FAQ that officially coined the term "Virtual Size Increase," defined to fit the descriptions of those effects that are already out there, and made the official ruling that these virtual Size increases stack with actual Size increases, but not with each other.

Chemlak wrote:

What "more thorough official exploration" than "here's how the design team intend these to work" do you want?

I thought I made it clear what I want. I wrote it out on a line all by itself, and I even put it in bold letters. Here it is again.

I wrote:

Do Shield Spikes actually constitute a Virtual Size Increase such as will not stack with other virtual size increases?

I've given my reasons already earlier on this thread: that it was clearly not the intent of the writer, that it is contradicted by another source, that it represents a new rules conceit that should be given due diligence.

I stand behind this call.

[Snowlilly]

BigNorseWolf wrote:

Lorewalker wrote:

I'd like to see an official clarification/errata that states animal familiars are either A: actually turned into magical beasts or B: sentient despite being animals.

Look, I can see an argument that an int 3 animal isn't really sentient. But 12, 14... 16? That Bird graduated ahead of you in highschool, its sentient.

How many paladins rely on their mount for important life decisions?

[BigNorseWolf]

Scott Wilhelm wrote:

I disagree with you completely. Rules clarifications are precisely for correcting unintentioned consequences of how the rules were written.

Thats what a DM is for. Maybe a DM and a rolled up newspaper on a bad day....

Quote:

I get to play the game my own way

Yes you do...but why do you need the design team to do so?

This really is between you and the DM. If you want the shield to be the biggest weapon in the game, go for it.

You talk about putting up a fence. The fence is already there. your complaint is that you can stop hop the fence with a 10 foot pole, please put spikes and barbed wire on the top. And a magma moat with fire breathing sharks.

Meanwhile there are other sections of the rules where kids are looking around in the grass for third base. All they need is a bit of spraypaint that says "over there"

Given the difference in the work it would take and, frankly, the futility of trying to close every deliberate loophole search why prioritize a rock wall when a spraypainted arrow saying "This way" will probably help more people?

Quote:

That's what clearly written rules are for. And that is what clarifying unclear rules is for.

The sort of 100% indisputable wording you're looking for doesn't exist in complicated systems. That's why lawyers make so much money. Writers have to keep readability and word count in mind to boot. You found two work arounds to the shield bash thing in order to get the hungry hungry hippo shield. Are you saying that there aren't going to be any more loopholes once those are closed?

[N N 959]

BigNorseWolf wrote:

Benefit: These spikes turn a shield into a martial piercing weapon and increase the damage dealt by a shield bash as if the shield were designed for a creature one size category larger than you

A bashing shield deals damage as if it were a bashing weapon of two size categories larger (a Medium light shield thus deals 1d6 points of damage and a Medium heavy shield deals 1d8 points of damage).

You are intentionally omitting the most important part of the Shield Spikes definition. I'll quote the actual updated description for shield spikes:

Ultimate Equipment wrote:

Deadly spikes and bladed projections extend from some shields, transforming such pieces of armor into weapon in their own right. Shield spikes turn a shield into a martial piercing weapon and increase the damage dealt by a shield bash as if the shield were designed for a creature one size category larger (see "spiked light shield" and "spiked heavy shield" in the Martial Weapons table). You can't put spikes on a buckler or a tower shield. Otherwise, attacking with a spiked shield is like making a shield bash attack.

An enhancement bonus on a spiked shield does not improve the effectiveness of a shield bash made with it, but a spiked shield can be made into a magic weapon in its own right.

Emphasis added.

Since a shield is already a martial weapon when used to bash, the bolded part is redundant unless its purpose is to tell us that the spiked shield is it's own weapon an does not need to reference shield spikes when used. To wit, the spiked shield entry does not use any "as if" language and thus is not affected by the FAQ. Why? Because it is a "weapon in its own right" and not a shield affected by spikes.

[N N 959]

Scott Wilhelm wrote:

And I really believe that the community deserves an explicit answer to the question,

"Do Shield Spikes actually constitute a virtual size increase?"

You're asking the wrong question. Shield spikes are are virtual size increase per RAW. But you do not attack with shield spikes, just ask Darksol Painbringer. You attack with a spiked shield. In fact, the shield spikes description consistently uses the term "spiked shield" when talking about the attack. So, the question we want answered is:

Do the words in the shield spikes description mean what they say?

If so, the spiked shield is its own weapon. This is consistent with every previous FAQ, the weapons description, the weapon table, and removes the inconsistency of things that are treated as spiked shields operating differently than a spiked shield itself. The PDT has routinely held that words often mean what they say and in this case, it's not even ambiguous.

[James Risner]

Guys! Please! Stop!

If we try to debate a rule (like the Spiked Bashing Shield doing 1d8 or 2d6) in this thread, others will join on other subjects and this thread will be 10,000 posts long if it doesn't get locked before post 1,000.

A better use of our energies is to order a list of our top picks for resolution. I've compiled a list of everything post in here so far.

My list in order of most desired to least desired:

• Thunder and Fang allow all uses of Earthbreaker in one hand?
  
• Ranged Sneak attack from flanking?
  
• Racial Hertiage makes you the race for PFS race restrictions or only in game?
  
• I get "Foo" at level 1 in Class A and 6 in B, I'm 1st level in both. I have both?
  
• Spiked shields are or are not a virtual size increase?
  
• Brilliant Energy ammo bypasses total cover right?
  
• Feats and abilities that apply to "Ranged Weapons" also apply to spells?
  
• How does offhand work with Armor Spikes, Sea-Knife, and Barbazu Beard?
  
• Hex require line of sight? Line of effect? Or both? With Scar?
  
• A throwing dagger is simulataneously a ranged and melee weapon where best for me?
  
• Racial Heritage gives you unique racial features of target race like tails?
  
• Favored class bonuses seem to be nerfed with the Spells Known FAQ?
  
• Greater Feint works for just you or allies attacking target?
  
• Overrun works how exactly with Charge, Charge Through, Elephant Stomp, and others?
  
• Tiny creatures can 5 ft step into enemy space without AoO?
  
• Klar is an armor spiked item or shield spiked? Plus you attack or shield bash?
  
• Can you cast Magic Vestments on Armor of Bones? Mage Armor?
  
• Wild Shape considers what abilities activated or non-activated?
  
• Drag, Bull Rush, etc enemies provoke AoO from you forcing them to move?
  
• Mithril Armor for Unusual Creatures costs how much?
  
• Charge Lanes requires going toward the center of the enemy or left or right ok?
  
• Definition of "Free Hand" and Wield needed.
  
• NPC Codex has errors, can we expect them to ever be fixed?
  
• Mounted Combat: Mount or Rider needs feats? Fell Rider seems to say rider.
  
• Mounted Combat: Lance Charge and Mount Overrun target?
  
• Stealth, Total Concealment, 5' Step = Movement?
  
• Attacks from Total Concealment = opponent denied their dex bonus?
  
• Using Spellcraft on "manifestations" works how?
  
• Bodyguard and the AoO requires what position of ally, me, and enemy?
  
• Thassilonian Specialist can or can not choose a Focused Arcane School?
  
• Arcanists related to magic items are spontaneous or prepared casters?
  
• How does burrow work exactly?
  
• Greater Trip AoO before or after prone condition applied?
  
• Slam attacks require a hand?
  
• Protective Aura is also a globe of invulnerability and how does that work exactly?
  
• Skill ability changes, how does that alter armor check penalties?
  
• Bardic Masterpieces work with other performances how?
  
• Actual requirements to take Improved Familiars?
  
• Kingdom rules from Ultimate Campaign need more details.
  
• Can you acrobatics jump when doing a charge to avoid pit or walls or enemy?
  
• Weapon Finesse Kinetic Blade/Whip and is it different for Telekineticist?
  
• Battlemind Link works how exactly?
  
• Fighting defensively while doing Spell Combat?
  
• Blog on Grapple be nice.
  
• Animal turned Magical Beast is no longer animal and/or now sentient?
  
• Spells added by effects like Domains are part of your class spell list?
  
• Material component scrolls with variable cost = lost excess? limit on cost?
  

This is my ordered list. Don't copy mine. Make your own! Bold any ones new you add.

[Matthew Downie]

Here's a list I was working on:

If I have a two-handed reach weapon like a longspear and another weapon like armor spikes, do I threaten at 5’ & 10’ for AoOs?

What does it mean that sleep ‘affects’ no more than 4HD of creatures? No more than 4HD of creatures can be forced to make saving throws against a Sleep spell? No more than 4HD of creatures can fail saving throws against a Sleep spell?

Can I use two-weapon fighting while grappled? Does it matter if my weapons don't use my hands (like the Boulder Helmet)? What about claw attacks and other natural weapons?

If not specified otherwise in the ability description, are spell-like abilities a standard action or are they the casting time of the spell?
The casting time of the spell, as stated in the Core Rulebook?
A standard action, as stated in the Bestiary?

What sort of thing can you make a person do with Charm Person? It can’t make someone to do something ‘obviously harmful’, but what does that mean? Anything that would be harmful to the interests of the target of the spell? Physical self-harm? Anything harmful to anyone?

Does Freedom of Movement allow you to move at full speed over difficult terrain?

What sort of action is it to kneel or stand from kneeling? Does it provoke attacks of opportunity?

Can I use a standard action to ready an action to take a swift action after taking another swift action?

What is the effect of an alchemist fire on a swarm of diminutive creatures? The rules suggest it does 1 point of splash damage, since the primary damage is an effect that targets a single creature, but surely that can't be as intended?

Does a tiny creature using a 5 foot step to enter an opponent’s space provoke an attack of opportunity when it does so?

Does drinking an extract provoke an attack of opportunity?

How much does a (unusually shaped & sized mithral weapon) cost?

Can you 5’ step out of difficult terrain?

[N N 959]

Matthew Downie wrote:

Here's a list I was working on:

What does it mean that sleep ‘affects’ no more than 4HD of creatures? No more than 4HD of creatures can be forced to make saving throws against a Sleep spell? No more than 4HD of creatures can fail saving throws against a Sleep spell?

The PRD says this:

Sleep wrote:

A sleep spell causes a magical slumber to come upon 4 HD of creatures. Creatures with the fewest HD are affected first.

That means you you start with the lowest HD creature and you continue you rolling saving throws until 4 HD are asleep. If you've slept 3 HD of creatures and the next creature has 2 HD, then the spell stops. I'm pretty sure I read this in an official book, but not sure which book.

[ZanThrax]

Speaking of shields, I'd suggest adding "Can I enchant my shield as a weapon?" to the list. (With the followups of "Can I enchant it both as a weapon and as a shield?", and "If so, how do I price that?")

[Scott Wilhelm]

BigNorseWolf wrote:

Yes you do[have the right to play the game your own way]...but why do you need the design team to do so?

I don't really NEED it, but Casual Viking asked what we think are good candidates for rules clarification. I volunteered my suggestions. I think they're just swell, and I don't mind explaining why.

But the reason why I need it is to maximize the consistency of the Pathfinder Society product.

Exploring character building options with people on the forum as much as possible and getting clear, thorough, official explanations from the designers makes rules arguments at the tables less likely to happen, and shorten those arguments when they do happen.

BigNorseWolf wrote:

The sort of 100% indisputable wording you're looking for doesn't exist in complicated systems. That's why lawyers make so much money.

I'm not looking for perfect, just better and better until I am dead. It's not just a complicated system that can never be perfect, it's a living, dynamic, and evolving system that can keep getting better and better: like you.

BigNorseWolf wrote:

Are you saying that there aren't going to be any more loopholes once those are closed?

If there are, I'll keep finding them.

BigNorseWolf wrote:

You found two work arounds to the shield bash thing in order to get the hungry hungry hippo shield.

Hungry, Hungry Hippo Shield: good one. I'm not sure that it fits, but I like it. Not promising that I will, but would you mind if I used it?

[Matthew Downie]

ZanThrax wrote:

Speaking of shields, I'd suggest adding "Can I enchant my shield as a weapon?" to the list.

Isn't that an unambiguous 'yes'?

Core, page 462 wrote:

A shield could be built that also acted as a magic weapon, but the cost of the enhancement bonus on attack rolls would need to be added into the cost of the shield and its enhancement bonus to AC.

[Matthew Downie]

N N 959 wrote:

Sleep wrote:

A sleep spell causes a magical slumber to come upon 4 HD of creatures. Creatures with the fewest HD are affected first.

That means you you start with the lowest HD creature and you continue you rolling saving throws until 4 HD are asleep. If you've slept 3 HD of creatures and the next creature has 2 HD, then the spell stops. I'm pretty sure I read this in an official book, but not sure which book.

I'm pretty sure 'affected' means 'forced to make a saving throw' and not 'failed the saving throw', but there were strong arguments on both sides in the linked thread.

[N N 959]

Matthew Downie wrote:

N N 959 wrote:

Sleep wrote:

A sleep spell causes a magical slumber to come upon 4 HD of creatures. Creatures with the fewest HD are affected first.

That means you you start with the lowest HD creature and you continue you rolling saving throws until 4 HD are asleep. If you've slept 3 HD of creatures and the next creature has 2 HD, then the spell stops. I'm pretty sure I read this in an official book, but not sure which book.

I'm pretty sure 'affected' means 'forced to make a saving throw' and not 'failed the saving throw', but there were strong arguments on both sides in the linked thread.

The text says "A sleep spell causes magical slumber to come upon 4 HD of creature". That means what it says. 4 HD of creature to have magical slumber come upon them. If you have 10 creatures with 1 HD and the first six save, then you still haven't had magical slumber come upon 4 HD of creature. That's how I read it. It doesn't say "4 HD of creatures must save."

EDIT:
As I said, I recall reading an example of how the sleep spell was applied. It's possible I could have misremembered it. I will concede it is possible the PDT will tell us it's 4 HD of saving throws.

[BigNorseWolf]

Matthew Downie wrote:

ZanThrax wrote:

Speaking of shields, I'd suggest adding "Can I enchant my shield as a weapon?" to the list.

Isn't that an unambiguous 'yes'?

Core, page 462 wrote:

A shield could be built that also acted as a magic weapon, but the cost of the enhancement bonus on attack rolls would need to be added into the cost of the shield and its enhancement bonus to AC.

The argument against it (that I don't buy for a second):

is that you can't make it masterwork so you can't enchant it without putting a shield spike on it.

Even though some types of armor and shields can be used as weapons, you can't create a masterwork version of such an item that confers an enhancement bonus on attack rolls. Instead, masterwork armor and shields have lessened armor check penalties.

[Matthew Downie]

N N 959 wrote:

The text says "A sleep spell causes magical slumber to come upon 4 HD of creature". That means what it says. 4 HD of creature to have magical slumber come upon them.

Since that sentence also implies the spell doesn't give any saving throws at all, I treat it as flavor text.

Anyway, it seems a good candidate for FAQ, because it's a common spell, with a simple yes or no answer, neither of which would break the game for anyone.

[Scythia]

Cyrad wrote:

Caedwyr wrote:

How do stealth, lighting, and concealment rules work?

How do ride and charge rules and all the various feats/subsystems work together?

I honestly hoped Pathfinder Unchained would reword or rework Stealth. Sadly no.

They looked at stealth in a big way a couple years ago. Thought up some interesting ideas. Then locked them in the attic and never looked back. Don't hold your breath.

[VampByDay]

My question from Occult adventures still hasn't been answered:

Was it really intended that the Extra Mental Focus Feat only be take-able once? (considering all other 'points to a pool' feats, like extra grit and extra ki, can be taken multiple times and the pregen occultist has even taken it multiple times?)

[Zaister]

Extra Channel comes to mind as another Extra feat that can only be taken once.

[Cavall]

Scythia wrote:

Cyrad wrote:

Caedwyr wrote:

How do stealth, lighting, and concealment rules work?

How do ride and charge rules and all the various feats/subsystems work together?

I honestly hoped Pathfinder Unchained would reword or rework Stealth. Sadly no.

They looked at stealth in a big way a couple years ago. Thought up some interesting ideas. Then locked them in the attic and never looked back. Don't hold your breath.

Perhaps Intrigue well help that out.

[VampByDay]

Zaister wrote:

Extra Channel comes to mind as another Extra feat that can only be taken once.

Last time I brought this up, someone mentioned that. That's why I specifically mentioned the 'points to a pool' mechanic and made sure to bring up grit and ki as examples. The list full list being: Extra rage, extra song, extra grit, extra panache, extra reservoir, extra arcana, and extra ki. Some of them are named other things, but all of them grant 'extra points to a pool' and all of them can be taken more than once.

The only one that can't is Extra Phenric points, which is in the same book, and even on the same page, as extra mental focus.

[Alakallanar]

From

http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2t7fc&page=1?What-happens-to-my-action-if-i t-becomes

5 foot step wrote:

You can take a 5-foot step before, during, or after your other actions in the round.

1)

This allows 5-foot steps before, during or after a readied action and therefore outside of ones own turn. Is this intenional?

2)
If I have an action interrupted by another characters readied action (or AoO), and my action is no longer valid as a result, can I choose to take a different action in place of the one that triggered the readied action?

Example:
A readies an action to attack his attacker when he gets attacked. He doesn't move during his turn so he still can make a 5-foot step. B moves up to A and tries to attack him. The readied action of A is triggered, he attacks and 5-foot steps away from B. What happens to Bs attack?

3)
What exactly is meant by "during" an other action?

a) Can you 5-foots step between the attacks of a full attack?
b) Can you 5-foot step during a full attack but before the first attack of the full attack or after the last attack of the full attack? (This can have different results from using the 5-foot step before or after the action in the context of readied actions and AOOs.)
c) Can Can you even 5-foot step during one of the attacks? And what are the consequences regarding threatened squares, AOOs, etc.?

Example:
A readies an action to attack his attacker when he gets attacked. He doesn't move during his turn so he still can make a 5-foot step. B is adjacent to A and starts a full attack. The readied action of A is triggered, he attacks and 5-foot steps away from B. Can B 5-foot step to A before his first attack and make all attacks against A? Or does he lose his first attack, but can 5-foot step to a and make all his remaining attacks?

4)
B readies an action to move adjacent to A as soon as A casts a spell. A starts to cast a spell on his turn. The readied action of B triggers, B moves to A. Does he get an AOO against A for his spellcasting? Can a 5-foot step away from B between the readied action and the AOO?

In the aforementioned thread no clear consensus on any of these questions was reached, except for 3)a)-Yes (which is only included for completeness.) Although there was a significant majority for 1)-Yes, 2)-Action lost.

[My Self]

Alakallanar wrote:

From

http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2t7fc&page=1?What-happens-to-my-action-if-i t-becomes

5 foot step wrote:

You can take a 5-foot step before, during, or after your other actions in the round.

1)

This allows 5-foot steps before, during or after a readied action and therefore outside of ones own turn. Is this intenional?

2)
If I have an action interrupted by another characters readied action (or AoO), and my action is no longer valid as a result, can I choose to take a different action in place of the one that triggered the readied action?

Example:
A readies an action to attack his attacker when he gets attacked. He doesn't move during his turn so he still can make a 5-foot step. B moves up to A and tries to attack him. The readied action of A is triggered, he attacks and 5-foot steps away from B. What happens to Bs attack?

3)
What exactly is meant by "during" an other action?

a) Can you 5-foots step between the attacks of a full attack?
b) Can you 5-foot step during a full attack but before the first attack of the full attack or after the last attack of the full attack? (This can have different results from using the 5-foot step before or after the action in the context of readied actions and AOOs.)
c) Can Can you even 5-foot step during one of the attacks? And what are the consequences regarding threatened squares, AOOs, etc.?

Example:
A readies an action to attack his attacker when he gets attacked. He doesn't move during his turn so he still can make a 5-foot step. B is adjacent to A and starts a full attack. The readied action of A is triggered, he attacks and 5-foot steps away from B. Can B 5-foot step to A before his first attack and make all attacks against A? Or does he lose his first attack, but can 5-foot step to a and make all his remaining attacks?

4)
B readies an action to move adjacent to A as soon as A casts a spell. A starts to cast a spell on his turn. The readied action of B triggers, B moves to A. Does he get an AOO against A for his spellcasting? Can...

Wait, people actually split hairs that fine? "During a full attack but before the first attack or after the last attack"? Yikes!

As for your question, doesn't a full attack only really start when the attacker declares an action that necessitates the attack is a full attack? So if I swing a sword at you, it's either a standard action or a full attack. If I continue to swing, then it has become a full attack, if I take a move action or stop swinging, then it's a standard attack. If I decide to take a -2 so that I can TWF or I use a style strike on my first swing, then it is necessarily a full attack.

I've always thought of it as a full attack starting as soon as you take an action that makes it necessarily a full attack, and the full attack ending at the same moment you resolve your last swing. Why would there be a moment where you are not attacking during an attack?

[Elbedor]

Just because one person deems something to be answered or resolved doesn't mean that everyone else does.

In asking for what issues still need resolving, you will invite responses that include those topics where I might think something was resolved by a FAQ while others feel that the FAQ doesn't address the specific issue in question.

That said, I agree that this thread isn't where disagreements need to be argued. There are other places for that. This is more of a way to sum up where the problem areas are; something that other posters have done very nicely already. :)

[Lorewalker]

Swarm of Fangs: Does it work as written or does it need a statblock?
Swarm of fangs discussion

Animate Dead: A review of variant undead legality for PFS such as bloody skeletons.

[Chris Lambertz]

Removed a post and the responses to it. Folks, let's keep this centered on the original topic. If you want to talk about a specific rules question, it really belongs in another thread.

[Mark Seifter]

VampByDay wrote:

Zaister wrote:

Extra Channel comes to mind as another Extra feat that can only be taken once.

Last time I brought this up, someone mentioned that. That's why I specifically mentioned the 'points to a pool' mechanic and made sure to bring up grit and ki as examples. The list full list being: Extra rage, extra song, extra grit, extra panache, extra reservoir, extra arcana, and extra ki. Some of them are named other things, but all of them grant 'extra points to a pool' and all of them can be taken more than once.

The only one that can't is Extra Phenric points, which is in the same book, and even on the same page, as extra mental focus.

I actually have directly discussed this with Logan, who wrote Extra Phrenic Pool, and can tell you for sure that it wasn't an omission; it was intentional. That's the only question on this thread that is just asking to make sure "did it mean to say that" so is the only one I can just answer for you off the cuff though.

[Bruno Breakbone]

Devilkiller wrote:

I'm somewhat eagerly awaiting the long awaited blog on Grapple.

Bruno, a handsome and beautiful Tetori, concur.

[Quandary]

Nature of Grappled/Pinned's movement limitation (note difference vs. wording of Entangled)
when one or both Grappler are moved by some "external" force (bullrush, gravity, teleport, etc),
consequences (i.e. breaking grapple?) if Grapplers are no longer adjacent/ within Reach?

Breath Weapons while Pinned? -> Is Pinned Helpless?

Rend wording is borked (scroll down for Seifter opinion/houserule), and needs Band-Aid-by-FAQ or Errata.

Intersection of Ride and Handle Animal paradigms along with Initiative rules

Spoiler:

the rules remain incredibly vague on exactly how mounted combat works, re: interaction of turns/actions.
SOMEWHAT it is imlied that "Riding" a mount works different than normal Handle Animal control, i.e. expectation of square-by-square control of mount's path... Even though it doesn't exactly state that anywhere. Also implied is a tying of initiatives as well as actions, which also isn't exactly spelled out...

Nor the difference vs. a creature simply "sitting on" another character (possibly a Familiar sitting on a Wizard or in their pouch) who maybe isn't using "Mounted Combat" rules and thus has independent Init/Actions... Unclear how that cleavage works, and if e.g. a mounted Fighter could just tell it's Mount to move/attack via Handle Animal, the mount does that on it's turn (no Ride checks required, nothing causes "worn" objects/passengers to fall off when you move), the Fighter can act freely on their next turn (after the Mount moved and carried them to new spot) without having to worry about impediments to Full Attack. or for Casters to evade the penalty to/triggering of Concentration checks by using Handle Animal instead of Ride (that just requires the "rider" to stagger the mounts' actions to their own/ forsee the mounts actions in order to command them ahead of time).

All creatures have Inits by default, so usually the Rider and Mount will have different Init... There's no rule covering how Ride's prompting of actions (up to and including Charge? what if the Mount has special abilities e.g. Smite?) deals with the fact that the Mount may still be Flat-Footed... Or if the Mount's Init came first, and it had valid commands to act upon (or is intelligent) so that it took it's round of actions... What happens when the Rider's turn comes up and tries to Ride: Charge/whatever?

What if the Mount only has 1 Attack trick, i.e. can't attack "un-natural" enemies, and the Rider tries to Charge an "un-natural enemy"? IF the mount can't/won't attack the target, should it really take the AC penalty for "Charging"? When Mounted Charging, and provoking an AoO by movement, can a single enemy with 2 AoOs available (Combat Reflex etc) make AoOs vs BOTH Mount and Rider, or only one? Seems like the AoO provocation should be exactly simultaneous, i.e. you shouldn't be able to do both (unless you have 2WF Fighter AoOs or something, certainly not with the same weapon).

re: Hunter Companion using Skirmisher Tricks:

Spoiler:

Several tricks aren't obvious how they would work when used by the Companion instead of Ranger themself.
I would GUESS most tricks' references to Ranger can be interpreted as Ranger = Companion when Companion is using the Trick (it doesn't say that though, and should). E.g. Catfall, Aiding Attack, others not mentioned here.

Other tricks are funky in that the Ranger normally is using the trick, but it has some effect on the Companion/ grants free action to Companion, etc. What happens when the Companion is using the trick instead of the Ranger? Is the effect on Companion now transposed onto the Hunter themself? Again, it should say that if so. E.g. Bolster Companion, Heel, Sic 'Em,

Some tricks are just unclear how an Animal Companion really is to use them, because of nature of Animal. E.g. Cunning Pantomime (effect when "caster" is not intelligent creature themself?) Quick Heal (capacity to make Heal check/administer Potion relevant?) Hateful Attack (Favored Enemy reference?), Trick Shot (seemingly assumes ranged attack, but states "can make ranged attack" = granting ranged attack???)

The Hunter is supposed to be able to "Command" the Companion to use these Skirmisher Tricks as if they are Handle Animal Tricks, which is a Free Action for a known trick with your Companion. But unless specifically noted, Free Actions happen on your turn, while several of the Skirmisher Tricks are "reactive"/ would be triggered by situations during the COMPANION'S turn (or other creatures' turn), not the Hunter's, thus how does the Hunter "command" them (free action) during Companion's (or other creatures') turn? e.g. Aiding Attack reactive to Companion's own attacks, Bolster Companion reactive to when Companion is attacked by some other creature (although unclear who qualifies as Companion in this case, since the Companion is one ultimately using the trick, not the Hunter themself), Catfall reactive vs. falling, etc...

Also, if Skirmisher Tricks may now be taught as if they are Handle Animal Tricks, does that mean that ANY/ALL of them may be used "untrained" with a "Push" Handle Animal Check (Move Action when commanding your Companion)? That would still consume the daily usage allotment, of course. (and Move Action Pushing may preclude use of "reactive" tricks unless you want them to use it during Hunter's own Turn and the Trick is compatable with that)

[Quandary]

(honestly, not quite as "BIG" unanswered questions):

Shaman Class

Spoiler:

Question of Familiar Archetypes replacing Deliver Touch Spells & Shaman gettiing "independent" "Deliver Spells & Hex" ability allowing them to retain "Deliver Spells" ability alongside whatever the Familiar Archetype grants. (?)

Can Shamans change Familiar's Archetype when replacing dead ones with the "same type"?
Or is the Archetype choice fixed at the same time the Base Familiar type is fixed?
Shamans qualify for Improved Familiar by standard reading, so what can they do with it?
Does it allow swapping out at-will from the new list, i.e normal function?
A one-time new selection of one new "Improved" Familiar type?
Or would it only work for multi-class builds who already qualify for Improved Familiar and can then use that as their Spirit Animal as well?

Heaven's Sunburn ability:
"ongoing"/DoT(1rnd) and provokes Concentration check, or instantaneous (and only glow effect is 1rnd)?
Grammar isn't clear:
"The creature takes 1d6 points of fire damage for every 2 levels the shaman possesses and emits bright light for 1 round."
Grammatically/Plausibly could go either way, so I'm not sure.

Heaven spirit animal:
"Star map": is the same as Oracle "start CHART"? Or Half-Elf gear star CHART? or something completely different?
What is the effect of the nimbus rulewise? Cannot stealth, or penality to stealth, illumination to area ?

Wind's True Spirit Ability references turning into Lightning Elemental as Elemental Body IV...
While Lightning Elementals are a thing, that is not within scope of EBIV, so what unique abilities are gained?

Unsworn Shaman:

Spoiler:

Not entirely clear if Unsworn Shaman can select "Spirit" Hexes outside bounds of Wandering Spirit.
(partly hinges on definition of "Shaman Hex" -> Does that mean "Generic List Shaman Hex"? Note: same wording used in Gnome Racial RCB, for example.)

Alot of rules text is left with references to no longer existing abilities (e.g. Spirit).
Besides the central portions of the class, the 20th level capstone Manifestation (not modified by Archetype) references Spirit: WHAT THE???

Extra Hex Feat & Unsworn Shaman:

Spoiler:

Unsworn was Errata'd to only "alter" Hex instead of "replace" it,
but since that seems to be a wholesale/complete "alteration" (no specific alterations are given), the only reason for the change seems to be the outcome of now allowing Unsowrn to qualify for taking Extra Hex Feat (by still having the Hex ability technically).
Great, they needed it (the Feat).

Except Extra Hex Feat is worded to only work with "Spirit" Hexes, which Unsworn do not have.
" If you are a shaman, it must be a hex granted by your spirit rather than one from a wandering spirit."
(albeit said wording is effectively nonsensical in Unsworn's case, since it phrases it as assuming you have a spirit, instead of just a blanket ban on wandering spirit... never mind issue of Minor Spirits which it doesn't address... So hard to take as functional rule against them)

Should it work for Unsworn's Wandering/Minor Spirits?
Should it work for GENERIC Shaman Hexes for Unsworn and/or ALL Shamans?
If it's not meant to work for Unsworn, why else did their Errata specifically change the wording re: Replace/Alter so that they could qualify for it... With no other apparent direct functionality change?

Flexible Hex Feat:

Spoiler:

Flexible Hex Feat strangely "favors" the Wandering Hex, i.e. only allows switching to a Hex of your Wandering Spirit (from your Main Spirit), but not vice versa. Intended?
Also doesn't allow selecting generic Shaman Hexes...? Intended? There isn't any "Spirit" flavor/fluff text to prevent these AFAIK.

[Komoda]

Viewer vs. "Base" in relation to vision and stealth.

For instance, HiPS (Shadowdancer) works within 10' of Dim Light. A single square may be dim light to one viewer and not another. Does that mean the the stealth can only work against the enemy that perceives the dim light, or does it also work against the enemy that does not perceive the area as dim?

This also affects Fetchlings. When in dim light they benefit from a 50% miss chance rather than 20%. I can only assume that is based on the way the viewer perceives it, and if so, shouldn't the same logic apply to HiPS?

[FiddlersGreen]

Psychic bloodline Sorcerer casts psychic spells instead of arcane spells. Is it still considered an arcane spellcasting class for items, effects and abilities that specifically refer to arcane spellcasting classes?

[SquirrelyOgre]

Quandary wrote:

Nature of Grappled/Pinned's movement limitation (note difference vs. wording of Entangled)

when one or both Grappler are moved by some "external" force (bullrush, gravity, teleport, etc),
consequences (i.e. breaking grapple?) if Grapplers are no longer adjacent/ within Reach?

Breath Weapons while Pinned? -> Is Pinned Helpless?

Rend wording is borked (scroll down for Seifter opinion/houserule), and needs Band-Aid-by-FAQ or Errata.

Intersection of Ride and Handle Animal paradigms along with Initiative rules
** spoiler omitted **...

Yes please on the grapple. I would very much appreciate seeing a blog or even a supplement that clarified/expanded the grapple rule options--say, +5 DC for x, +10 DC for x instead of the number of grapple feats that keep occurring. Some of them are great; others appear orphaned, appear to create a new mechanic, appear to restrict something that was allowed before. Others, as though the authors were quite busy, and perhaps didn't communicate as at the time of writing, probably because of everything that goes into a book.

Some of them, worse, appear in books that I am not sure Paizo is within reach of being able to issue errata for.

Please, please address grapple in a comprehensive manner.

Please, please break down the pinned condition.

Even if they are only suggested guidelines.

Breath Weapons could use some love, as well. Do they require inhaling, or exhaling? What happens when they intersect with the spell Suffocation?

[Quandary]

OK, this is getting embarassing...
I'm hoping that *RAKE* is Errata'd, not Rend. (I keep on making same word confusion) :-)

Most recent thread (of many over the years) that goes into the Grapple/Movement issue:
http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2t4s9?Does-punishing-kick-auto-break-grapples#7

[Wolfsnap]

I am going to go against the grain and say that there are no "Big" unanswered rules questions. This game is already overloaded with mechanics and anything which is unclear can easily be adjudicated by a good GM and good players into something workable and fun.

Pathfinder is not an MMO. I think people look at the entirety of the published material and expect it to hang together as a unified system defining in detail all possible outcomes across all games at once. That's how it is sometimes presented but that's not how it actually works in practice.

Pathfinder as a set of mechanics only ever needs to cover single instances of a handful of players sitting around a given table. No single given game, no given group of players, no particular given GM can make use of all the rules, options, and material concurrently. We Are forced to pick and choose, so that as time goes on any one game only makes use of a smaller and smaller subset of the mechanics.

There are things that almost every game uses (such as rules for rolling to hit, armor class, skill checks) and rules that very few games use (encumbrance, firearms) but nobody can use all of the resources (all the classes, all the feats, all the spells, etc etc) at once, so trying to define all of the interactions between all these systems is a largely academic pursuit.

[Quandary]

Disagree. 4/5 of my posted issues are ones which rely on solely Core Rules issues, the 5th being central to the functioning of a defining class ability. If anything, people are using circumstantial evidence from obscure source books to argue intent of vague core rules... which should be a FAQ for CRB so everybody has access to understanding how a core rule functions.

[Maneuvermoose]

Wolfsnap wrote:

Pathfinder is not an MMO.

Pathfinder is an MMO, and, more specifically, a MMORPG. The game rules are hosted online, and you can even play online. It is an RPG. It is multiplayer. There is no inherent limit on how many players can play at once, making it "massively" multiplayer. Pathfinder is literally a Massively Multiplayer Online Roleplaying Game.

[rknop]

...going to show that a literal reading of the name of something doesn't necessarily tell you what that something actually is.

[Sarcasm Dragon]

Whatchu talkin' about?!? Obviously Pathfinder is an algorithm for finding paths, probably a variation of Dijkstra's algorithm. It's right in the name!

[Serghar Cromwell]

I thought it was a line of SUVs.

[Lorewalker]

For improved familiar, does the effective wizard levels granted by familiar abilities count as arcane spellcaster levels? Such as the Eldritch Guardian, who is not an arcane spellcaster otherwise.

[Lorewalker]

Maneuvermoose wrote:

Wolfsnap wrote:

Pathfinder is not an MMO.

Pathfinder is an MMO, and, more specifically, a MMORPG. The game rules are hosted online, and you can even play online. It is an RPG. It is multiplayer. There is no inherent limit on how many players can play at once, making it "massively" multiplayer. Pathfinder is literally a Massively Multiplayer Online Roleplaying Game.

PFS doubly so.

[Wolfsnap]

Lorewalker wrote:

Maneuvermoose wrote:

Wolfsnap wrote:

Pathfinder is not an MMO.

Pathfinder is an MMO, and, more specifically, a MMORPG. The game rules are hosted online, and you can even play online. It is an RPG. It is multiplayer. There is no inherent limit on how many players can play at once, making it "massively" multiplayer. Pathfinder is literally a Massively Multiplayer Online Roleplaying Game.

PFS doubly so.

PFS even less. In any given PFS game, the game will only ever encompass six players plus a game master. (my home game has 8 players) Whatever happens at other tables at other times is largely irrelevant. The rules only ever have to work for the small group of individuals at a given table (even if it's a virtual table) and the GM. You don't have to balance the whole player-base against each other. You just have to make the game enjoyable for those people at the table, and ultimately that comes down to how the players and GM interact with each other and not so much the mechanics.

Don't get me wrong - it's fun to argue and debate mechanics on the internet, and Paizo will always need to publish new kinds of fun material in order to stay in business, which will provide new fodder for more debates. However we need to recognize that we have plenty of mechanics to achieve whatever we want at any given table, and that most of us will only ever use a small percentage of the published material.

[N N 959]

Wolfsnap wrote:

PFS even less. In any given PFS game, the game will only ever encompass six players plus a game master. (my home game has 8 players) Whatever happens at other tables at other times is largely irrelevant. The rules only ever have to work for the small group of individuals at a given table (even if it's a virtual table) and the GM. You don't have to balance the whole player-base against each other. You just have to make the game enjoyable for those people at the table, and ultimately that comes down to how the players and GM interact with each other and not so much the mechanics.

While you are correct that PFS doesn't have to load balance servers or worry about server bandwidth, I think there are some similarities between PFS and an MMO, though not along the lines of what you were responding to.

Where PFS is more like an MMO is when it comes to fairness. PFS policies have to focus on making sure that everyone is playing by the same rules. If one person can do it, then everyone has to have an opportunity. This means PFS uses things like Chronicle sheets which limit the loot a player can extract from any given scenario. It also limits the continuity from scenario to scenario (you can't keep items that you find, at best you have to buy them).

PFS also tries to make sure that all character mechanics are the same (as it is with MMOs), regardless of who GMs. In non-PFS, you never know how any GM is going to rule on a mechanic or rule.. In PFS, you have much less table variation and can rely upon FAQs to settle the issue. While some GMs do ignore RAW and use house rules, its rare.

Similar to MMO's, PFS also has to build the scenarios for a lower common denominator. Since the author can never be sure what classes will play the scenario, this prevents the inclusion of any obstacles that require specialized skills. GMs can't modify the scenario to counter or foil the party.

Grant it, the paradigm for MMO's has shifted and expanded over the last decade, but PFS does share some common issues with them. Though to be fair, I would not call PFS an MMO.