| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
Ok, my question is about how the Stone Oracle version of Earth Glide and the combat maneuver Drag interact
Earth Glide (Su): You can pass through stone, dirt, or almost any other sort of earth except worked stone and metal as easily as a fish swims through water. If protected against fire damage, you can even glide through lava. You glide at your base land speed. While gliding, you breathe stone as if it were air (you do not need to hold your breath). Your burrowing leaves behind no tunnel or hole, nor does it create any ripple or sign of your presence. A move earth spell cast on an area where you are flings you back 30 feet, stunning you for 1 round unless you succeed on a DC 15 Fortitude save. Activating this ability is a free action. You can glide for 1 minute per day per oracle level. This duration does not need to be consecutive, but it must be spent in 1-minute increments. You must be at least 7th level to select this revelation. You can bring other creatures with you when you glide, but each passenger costs an additional minute per minute of travel.
1. Does this version of Earth Glide let you drag creatures underground with you at the cost of an additional minute per minute of travel?
2. Assuming 1 is yes, what happens if the glider lets go of the creature being dragged underground? does that creature now have earth glide or are they stuck there (maybe to be shunted out as per dimensional door/teleport rules?)
Currently my thinking is:
1. yes
2. the creature does not get earth glide as the description says "You can bring other creatures with you when you glide" instead of something like "You grant other creatures earth glide"
Thoughts?
But no one actually answered your question, much less mine. The closest one was just angry with you for asking it.
I'm specifically asking about the version of earth glide i quoted here, not any other version. I'd like someone to address the "you can bring creatures with you" statement and how it interacts with dragging
You can bring creatures with you does not mean you can drag them at will if they are unwillingly. If they are willing, then it`s fine. Otherwise you must use the Drag maneuver as normal.
Drag, on the other hand, specifically says you move the target back, which wouldnt bring the target underground (that would be down) unless you have earth behind you.
Even the Reposition maneuver, which sounds like a better option for this, says you cannot move the target into something that is clearly dangerous. Suffocating underground seems pretty dangerous to me.
Now, its a different question if you bring someone willingly with you, then decide to drop them somewhere underground. Most likely gotta result in a lot of fortitude rolls.
Earth Glide (Su): You can bring other creatures with you when you glide, but each passenger costs an additional minute per minute of travel.
I would say they get the ability. To me this sounds like menny other spells and abilities that you bisto part of the ability to others.
You can bring creatures with you does not mean you can drag them at will if they are unwillingly. If they are willing, then it`s fine. Otherwise you must use the Drag maneuver as normal.
Drag, on the other hand, specifically says you move the target back, which wouldnt bring the target underground (that would be down) unless you have earth behind you.
Even the Reposition maneuver, which sounds like a better option for this, says you cannot move the target into something that is clearly dangerous. Suffocating underground seems pretty dangerous to me.Now, its a different question if you bring someone willingly with you, then decide to drop them somewhere underground. Most likely gotta result in a lot of fortitude rolls.
There is nothing in the text that suggest that the passengers must be willing.
There is nothing in the text that suggest that the passengers must be willing.You can bring creatures with you does not mean you can drag them at will if they are unwillingly. If they are willing, then it`s fine. Otherwise you must use the Drag maneuver as normal.
Drag, on the other hand, specifically says you move the target back, which wouldnt bring the target underground (that would be down) unless you have earth behind you.
Even the Reposition maneuver, which sounds like a better option for this, says you cannot move the target into something that is clearly dangerous. Suffocating underground seems pretty dangerous to me.Now, its a different question if you bring someone willingly with you, then decide to drop them somewhere underground. Most likely gotta result in a lot of fortitude rolls.
And this is why i asked the question, there is nothing about unwilling, there is nothing about giving the passengers the ability. The text just says you can bring them with you.
The Drag req that you cannot drag them into a dangerous zone is probably what kills it, my only argument against it is that at the time they are being dragged the square is neither dangerous nor solid for the creature.
I would rule it as a non-option... Though it doesn't state the target must be willing, this introduces the possibility of a combat maneuver check and then CRUSHING SUFFOCATING DEATH.
It seems too good to be true, so probably wouldn't be allowed.
I would rule it as a non-option... Though it doesn't state the target must be willing, this introduces the possibility of a combat maneuver check and then CRUSHING SUFFOCATING DEATH.
It seems too good to be true, so probably wouldn't be allowed.
Well thats kind of why i was asking, because aside from sane interpretations the RAW seems to support it
but its not as bad as crushing death. I'd probably shunt them out like the dimension door and teleport rules (i get the image of a kid pulling a beach ball or an inner tube under water and then it shooting out)
From a rules(by the words) perspective it seems to work, but I don't think that was the intention. I think it is an unintended side affect so I would ask your GM if he will allow it. If it is for PFS I would not build around it because if it gets FAQ'd it could be changed to a non-legal use of the ability.
Yeah pathfinder definitely doesn't have Anything too good to be true in it, lolI would rule it as a non-option... Though it doesn't state the target must be willing, this introduces the possibility of a combat maneuver check and then CRUSHING SUFFOCATING DEATH.
It seems too good to be true, so probably wouldn't be allowed.
There is actually lots of stuff that is too good to be true, but since it was discussed and clarified, is now accepted as RAW.
Stuff that is still being debated should be assumed 'least favorable interpretation' to avoid future disappointment.
Maybe you can pull a Kitty Pride on people, but I wouldn't build a character around this assumption.
As a GM I would certainly add "to a willing creature" that particular abilities line about taking additional creatures.
I feel it is implied, even though not directly stated.
|
You could use the grappling rules instead if the GM aren't in favor of using the drag rules this way.
----------------------------------------
... Once you are grappling an opponent, a successful check allows you to continue grappling the foe, and also allows you to perform one of the following actions (as part of the standard action spent to maintain the grapple).
Move
You can move both yourself and your target up to half your speed. At the end of your movement, you can place your target in any square adjacent to you. If you attempt to place your foe in a hazardous location, such as in a wall of fire or over a pit, the target receives a free attempt to break your grapple with a +4 bonus.
---------------------------------------
I do not find this earthglide combination (drag og graple) OP, because it is single target and allow saves.
A 7th level a wizard gets access to black tentacles, enervation or charm monster at the same level.
It doesn't allow a save. It allows a combat maneuver that would be opposed by someone specializing in the combat maneuver, which would mean you would have virtually no chance of successfully escaping.
Ok, my question is about how the Stone Oracle version of Earth Glide and the combat maneuver Drag interact
Earth Glide (Su): You can pass through stone, dirt, or almost any other sort of earth except worked stone and metal as easily as a fish swims through water. If protected against fire damage, you can even glide through lava. You glide at your base land speed. While gliding, you breathe stone as if it were air (you do not need to hold your breath). Your burrowing leaves behind no tunnel or hole, nor does it create any ripple or sign of your presence. A move earth spell cast on an area where you are flings you back 30 feet, stunning you for 1 round unless you succeed on a DC 15 Fortitude save. Activating this ability is a free action. You can glide for 1 minute per day per oracle level. This duration does not need to be consecutive, but it must be spent in 1-minute increments. You must be at least 7th level to select this revelation. You can bring other creatures with you when you glide, but each passenger costs an additional minute per minute of travel.
1. Does this version of Earth Glide let you drag creatures underground with you at the cost of an additional minute per minute of travel?
2. Assuming 1 is yes, what happens if the glider lets go of the creature being dragged underground? does that creature now have earth glide or are they stuck there (maybe to be shunted out as per dimensional door/teleport rules?)
Currently my thinking is:
1. yes
2. the creature does not get earth glide as the description says "You can bring other creatures with you when you glide" instead of something like "You grant other creatures earth glide"Thoughts?
Well consider the following:
Earthglide gives you the ability to basically Move/Swim through stone or dirt.
Normally, this would be bad because there is no air in highly compacted stone/dirt.
However we get the phrase: " you breathe stone as if it were air (you do not need to hold your breath)."
The spell "Earth Glide" has the following sentence at the end: "This spell does not give the target the ability to breathe underground, so when passing through solid material, the creature must hold its breath."
Exact same mechanic, except for the breathing part.
I would think, since you are expanding an additional 1 minute use of your earthglide ability, whoever you are bringing in would also have the ability to breath air. Otherwise, I would think it would be clearly stated that additional creatures that you bring with would need to hold their breaths. Such line is non existent, and the only line we have to reference is the line that says: "you breathe stone as if it were air (you do not need to hold your breath)"
Lastly, let us not forget the oracle wording in the class description:
"Unless otherwise noted, the DC to save against these revelations is equal to 10 + 1/2 the oracle’s level + the oracle’s Charisma modifier."
All abilities, regardless of whether they are harmless or not, allow for a creature to make a will save. Whether is from a Guidance spell, or Cure light wounds spell, even a stabilize cantrip offers a will save. It might be harmless, but FEW, VERY few spells or abilities completely disregard a creature from deciding if they want to benefit or not from a spell or ability.
Long story short:
-Will save based on revelation's "DC"
-Subject can breath(because not stated they couldn't such as the spell earthglide"
-Subject can presumably glide through earth as well (See Astral Caravan revelation, you don't have to give them piggy back rides)
"You can bring other creatures with you" and referring to creatures brought along as "passengers" implies willingness but it doesn't explicitly state that to be the case. So that leaves us with two possible RAW interpretations.
A) You can bring along willing creature
B) You can drag unwilling creatures along which opens up a ton of other questions that the rules don't deal with and opens up some ridiculously overpowered options for leaving enemies trapped, crushed or shunted away.
A is clearly the more reasonable interpretation. B is clearly unreasonable and only a complete idiot would believe that was the correct interpretation of the text. Therefore, there is no real need for this question. Reasonable people have no question about this ability and idiots will never be convinced.
"You can bring other creatures with you" and referring to creatures brought along as "passengers" implies willingness but it doesn't explicitly state that to be the case. So that leaves us with two possible RAW interpretations.
A) You can bring along willing creature
B) You can drag unwilling creatures along which opens up a ton of other questions that the rules don't deal with and opens up some ridiculously overpowered options for leaving enemies trapped, crushed or shunted away.A is clearly the more reasonable interpretation. B is clearly unreasonable and only a complete idiot would believe that was the correct interpretation of the text. Therefore, there is no real need for this question. Reasonable people have no question about this ability and idiots will never be convinced.
Idiot? A relatively Harsh word.
I think the term "adventurous exploiter" is better suited.
There are often times that Spells and abilities are written that seem pretty obvious in their intent, however when people try to nitpick vague descriptions to their advantage usually it results in these sort of threads.
Every player wants more bang for their buck, but at the end of the day game balancing issues with such vague wording should be "Left to the GM" not, "Let me convince people to side with me to prove my GM wrong". Often times GM's can be wrong, and have been wrong. But GM's should worry about the rules at hand, not being bogged down with vague wordings.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Idiot? A relatively Harsh word.I think the term "adventurous exploiter" is better suited.
There are often times that Spells and abilities are written that seem pretty obvious in their intent, however when people try to nitpick vague descriptions to their advantage usually it results in these sort of threads.Every player wants more bang for their buck, but at the end of the day game balancing issues with such vague wording should be "Left to the GM" not, "Let me convince people to side with me to prove my GM wrong". Often times GM's can be wrong, and have been wrong. But GM's should worry about the rules at hand, not being bogged down with vague wordings.
Really you are correct. Its not that these people are stupid and don't understand its that they don't want to. They deliberately choose twisted and illogical interpretations to try and gain an advantage. That is what is so frustrating.
Reasonable people have no question about this ability and idiots will never be convinced.
While I agree be able to drag opponents underground is very powerful, it is the way the RAW reads. You may not agree with it, and may house rule it, but as written, Earth Glide does allow you to pull opponents underground with the right CMB check.
Grapple is probably the best option.
Reasonable people have no question about this ability and idiots will never be convinced.
While I agree be able to drag opponents underground is very powerful, it is the way the RAW reads. You may not agree with it, and may house rule it, but as written, Earth Glide does allow you to pull opponents underground with the right CMB check.
Grapple is probably the best option.
No, that is apparently your opinion of how the RAW text is to be understood. Simply claiming your interpretation of the RAW to be the correct one thus relegating all other interpretations to house rule status is not how this works snowflake. You have to 1) show my understanding of the RAW is incorrect or at least implausible using accepted rules of logic and 2) show that your understanding of the RAW is the most logically plausible conclusion.
As I said above there are two ways to understand this text and obviously you don't fall into the reasonable category.
Another way to adjudicate this is to do exactly what the ability says.
In regards to abandoning people underground (whether brought there willingly or not) it says nothing. It doesn't state they start suffocating, it doesn't state they get ejected back to the surface.
It doesn't even state that they lose the ability.
What happens to the original character if the duration runs out when they are underground?
Players can assume and argue, but GMs decide on rules.
If this is for a home game, ask your GM. If it's for PFS, I don't suggest trying it... :D
No, that is apparently your opinion of how the RAW text is to be understood. Simply claiming your interpretation of the RAW to be the correct one thus relegating all other interpretations to house rule status is not how this works snowflake.
Reasonable people have no question about this ability and idiots will never be convinced.
While I agree be able to drag opponents underground is very powerful, it is the way the RAW reads. You may not agree with it, and may house rule it, but as written, Earth Glide does allow you to pull opponents underground with the right CMB check.
Grapple is probably the best option.
/shrug
You are the one proclaiming "One True Interpretation" and dismissing those who disagreed with your interpretation as idiots
You have to 1) show my understanding of the RAW is incorrect or at least implausible using accepted rules of logic and 2) show that your understanding of the RAW is the most logically plausible conclusion.
As I said above there are two ways to understand this text and obviously you don't fall into the reasonable category.
Reread your own statement about special snowflakes and apply it to this statement.
No, that is apparently your opinion of how the RAW text is to be understood. Simply claiming your interpretation of the RAW to be the correct one thus relegating all other interpretations to house rule status is not how this works snowflake.
Reasonable people have no question about this ability and idiots will never be convinced.
While I agree be able to drag opponents underground is very powerful, it is the way the RAW reads. You may not agree with it, and may house rule it, but as written, Earth Glide does allow you to pull opponents underground with the right CMB check.
Grapple is probably the best option.
/shrug
You are the one proclaiming "One True Interpretation" and dismissing those who disagreed with your interpretation as idiots
You have to 1) show my understanding of the RAW is incorrect or at least implausible using accepted rules of logic and 2) show that your understanding of the RAW is the most logically plausible conclusion.
As I said above there are two ways to understand this text and obviously you don't fall into the reasonable category.
Reread your own statement about special snowflakes and apply it to this statement.
I did not simply assert my position but offered an argument that neither you nor anyone else has rebutted with anything other than an assertion. I will repeat for you, though since you are not one of the reasonable people you will, as I previously stated, never be convinced:
One interpretation requires no additional explanation, causes no confusion on the results and cannot result in an overpowered effect. The other raises multiple questions, requires additional rules to adequately deal with the results and some of those possible outcomes are unbalanced. Therefore, the first explanation is the more logically plausible one.
I'm going to ask again, more clearly, to try and focus this thread a bit:
What happens if the person who actually HAS this ability is underground when the duration expires?
Are there rules on THAT? If so, I would assume the same would happen to the victim dragged underground.
I'm going to ask again, more clearly, to try and focus this thread a bit:
What happens if the person who actually HAS this ability is underground when the duration expires?
Are there rules on THAT? If so, I would assume the same would happen to the victim dragged underground.
This should cover what you are asking for.
Earth-Dominant
Planes with this trait are mostly solid. Travelers who arrive run the risk of suffocation if they don't reach a cavern or other pocket within the earth. Worse yet, individuals without the ability to burrow are entombed in the earth and must dig their way out (5 feet per turn). Creatures of the air subtype are uncomfortable on earth-dominant planes because these planes are tight and claustrophobic to them, but suffer no inconvenience beyond having difficulty moving.
Baring Earth Glide, this is usually an issue that usually only comes up on the elemental planes. Rules for entombed creatures are very brief.
That is oldskoolrpg's modus operandi, he is generally very insulting if he thinks differently than you.
I think calling it illogical that you can do this is explicitly wrong. Also he is presenting his argument dishonestly.
For example, his argument could be used like this:
"I think feat x does nothing"
"No, feat x has rules text, even if they are confusing"
"Logically, my interpretation leads to less rules issues than yours, therefore it must be right"One does not have less rules questions. It actually has the exact sane amount, as akexd points out.
That is quite a nice strawman you built there.
1) I made an actual argument about the ability in question. That it is possible to read the text as restricting additional creatures to only those who are willing. I gave evidence to prove that such an interpretation was possible. Then I made a second actual argument that the opposite interpretation would result in a number of problems and unanswered questions. That is totally different than making a unsubstantiated claim "Feat x does nothing"
2) The ability in question does NOT have rules for the proposed use. Furthermore, in your example "The feat x has rules text" is an actual argument with evidence to rebut the first premise "Feat x does nothing". No such argument has been made here. Instead people simply come back and restate the assertion that "RAW says you can drag and unwilling victim and if you say otherwise it is a house rule". Again your example is completely different than the discussion which has occurred in this thread.
3)Ever heard of Occam's Razor? The explanation that results in the fewest assumptions and additional questions is most likely the correct one. Now that doesn't mean that it is automatically the correct one but if no one is able to offer evidence against it or evidence for the opposing explanation then it remains the most reasonable position.
I'd refer to similiar abilities here:
While blinking, you can step through (but not see through) solid objects. For each 5 feet of solid material you walk through, there is a 50% chance that you become material. If this occurs, you are shunted off to the nearest open space and take 1d6 points of damage per 5 feet so traveled.
If you arrive in a place that is already occupied by a solid body, you and each creature traveling with you take 1d6 points of damage and are shunted to a random open space on a suitable surface within 100 feet of the intended location.
If you end the spell and become material while inside a material object (such as a solid wall), you are shunted off to the nearest open space and take 1d6 points of damage per 5 feet that you so travel.
And the general rule in the Core Rulebook (p194) is:
Accidentally Ending Movement in an Illegal Space: Sometimes a character ends its movement while moving through a space where it’s not allowed to stop. When that happens, put your miniature in the last legal position you occupied, or the closest legal position, if there’s a legal position that’s closer.
So if the GM allows 'glide dragging' and uses the 'shunt off' ruling, the victim wouldn't be stuck in earth and only suffer moderate damage. It could end up in unexpected locations though, e.g. in a cavern below earth.
|
|
There is nothing in the text that suggest that the passengers must be willing.Nor does it clarify that they can be unwilling.
The RAW doesn't answer this question, so this is covered by asking your GM at the table. Anything else is an exercise in futility.
Earthglide is a kind of movement. Why dont we compare it with other kinds of movement?
If this question was about a spell that granted swimspeed or flying and the player wanted to drag an opponement down under the surface or up in the air (both which could be fatal).Please forget about carrying capacity in this regard as the target could be tiny and you could be huge and have the required strength.
Would the rules allow that or is it impossible to forcefully drown a target or drop a target from the air by the rules?
Well consider the following:
Earthglide gives you the ability to basically Move/Swim through stone or dirt.
Normally, this would be bad because there is no air in highly compacted stone/dirt.However we get the phrase: " you breathe stone as if it were air (you do not need to hold your breath)."
The spell "Earth Glide" has the following sentence at the end: "This spell does not give the target the ability to breathe underground, so when passing through solid material, the creature must hold its breath."
Exact same mechanic, except for the breathing part.
I would think, since you are expanding an additional 1 minute use of your earthglide ability, whoever you are bringing in would also have the ability to breath air. Otherwise, I would think it would be clearly stated that additional creatures that you bring with would need to hold their breaths. Such line is non existent, and the only line we have to reference is the line that says: "you breathe stone as if it were air (you do not need to hold your breath)"
Lastly, let us not forget the oracle wording in the class description:
"Unless otherwise noted, the DC to save against these revelations is equal to 10 + 1/2 the oracle’s level + the oracle’s Charisma modifier."All abilities, regardless of whether they are harmless or not, allow for a creature to make a will save. Whether is from a Guidance spell, or Cure light wounds spell, even a stabilize cantrip offers a will save. It might be harmless, but FEW, VERY few spells or abilities completely disregard a creature from deciding if they want to benefit or not from a spell or ability.
Long story short:
-Will save based on revelation's "DC"
-Subject can breath(because not stated they couldn't such as the spell earthglide"
-Subject can presumably glide through earth as well (See Astral Caravan revelation, you don't have to give them piggy back rides)
Ah! missed that line on the Oracle page, Thank you! Between your point about Astral Caravan and alexd1976/Snowlilly's points on what happens if the Oracle gets stuck underground I think we've got a reasonable interpretation.
Also, OldSkoolRPG could you not insult everyone in the thread? Thats a logical fallacy all by itself ( ad hominem). If your argument can stand on its own let it.
EDIT: So the new tactic for entombing someone with earth glide would be to Drag them (with the associated Will and CMB checks) and then fight them for 10 rounds underground (during which the oracle in question would have a huge advantage because of Crystal Sight) and then NOT include them in the earth glide re-cast when the oracle leaves. Then the non-oracle would be able to dig themselves out (while also holding their breath and maybe Suffocating?). This is far more difficult/epic/fun than instant crushing death
Ah! missed that line on the Oracle page, Thank you! Between your point about Astral Caravan and alexd1976/Snowlilly's points on what happens if the Oracle gets stuck underground I think we've got a reasonable interpretation.
Also, OldSkoolRPG could you not insult everyone in the thread? Thats a logical fallacy all by itself ( ad hominem). If your argument can stand on its own let it.
An ad hominem is the logical fallacy of insulting someone instead of answering their arguments. It is NOT just making an argument that someone finds insulting or offensive in tone. In fact your post is a great example of an ad hominem. Instead of addressing the arguments instead you make a claim about me personally, i.e. that I was insulting, and therefore my argument can just be dismissed.
The point is that neither you nor any of those you congratulate for having come up with a "reasonable interpretation" has answered the arguments. Instead there are just more posts like yours simply asserting that your interpretation is reasonable, with some going so far as to declare that interpretation to be RAW and anything else to be house rules.
That said unless someone actually posts logically valid answers to my arguments I'm done here. As I said in my first post some people just will never be convinced.
Ah! missed that line on the Oracle page, Thank you! Between your point about Astral Caravan and alexd1976/Snowlilly's points on what happens if the Oracle gets stuck underground I think we've got a reasonable interpretation.
Also, OldSkoolRPG could you not insult everyone in the thread? Thats a logical fallacy all by itself ( ad hominem). If your argument can stand on its own let it.
An ad hominem is the logical fallacy of insulting someone instead of answering their arguments. It is NOT just making an argument that someone finds insulting or offensive in tone. In fact your post is a great example of an ad hominem. Instead of addressing the arguments instead you make a claim about me personally, i.e. that I was insulting, and therefore my argument can just be dismissed.
The point is that neither you nor any of those you congratulate for having come up with a "reasonable interpretation" has answered the arguments. Instead there are just more posts like yours simply asserting that your interpretation is reasonable, with some going so far as to declare that interpretation to be RAW and anything else to be house rules.
That said unless someone actually posts logically valid answers to my arguments I'm done here. As I said in my first post some people just will never be convinced.
actually, if you had read my post, you can see that i did not address your argument at all. I was addressing the fact that you were being insulting, not dismissing your argument.
Now i will address your (original) argument with the insults removed as they have no bearing on the discussion:
"You can bring other creatures with you" and referring to creatures brought along as "passengers" implies willingness but it doesn't explicitly state that to be the case. So that leaves us with two possible RAW interpretations.
A) You can bring along willing creature
B) You can drag unwilling creatures along which opens up a ton of other questions that the rules don't deal with and opens up some ridiculously overpowered options for leaving enemies trapped, crushed or shunted away.A is clearly the more reasonable interpretation. B is clearly unreasonable (EDITED). Therefore, there is no real need for this question. EDITED->I have no question about this ability (EDITED).
With your insulting remarks removed we can see that you are actually only restating my OP and the reason i had for posting it. In what way does this constitute an argument, or even a useful response to my question?
So, again, IF you have an argument please let it stand on its own.
With your insulting remarks removed we can see that you are actually only restating my OP and the reason i had for posting it. In what way does this constitute an argument, or even a useful response to my question?
So, again, IF you have an argument please let it stand on its own.
I explained the argument being made more verbosely in another post. I don't think explaining it to you again will make a difference but here is a detailed formulation of the argument in case someone may, by some miracle may want to actually answer it.
Premise 1: Interpretation A (That the text, especially the word "passenger", implies only a willing creature can be brought along) requires no additional explanation, causes no confusion on the results and cannot result in an unbalanced outcome.
Premise 2: Interpretation B (The text does not explicitly forbid unwilling creatures to be dragged so there is no limitation) raises multiple questions, requires numerous assumptions or additional rules to adequately deal with the results, and some of those possible outcomes are unbalanced.
Premise 3: An interpretation that introduces less assumptions, questions and results in less game imbalance is most likely the correct one.
Conclusion: Therefore, the first interpretation should be considered the correct interpretation.
I explained the argument being made more verbosely in another post. I don't think explaining it to you again will make a difference but here is a detailed formulation of the argument in case someone may, by some miracle may want to actually answer it.
Premise 1: Interpretation A (That the text, especially the word "passenger", implies only a willing creature can be brought along) requires no additional explanation, causes no confusion on the results and cannot result in an unbalanced outcome.
Premise 2: Interpretation B (The text does not explicitly forbid unwilling creatures to be dragged so there is no limitation) raises multiple questions, requires numerous assumptions or additional rules to adequately deal with the results, and some of those possible outcomes are unbalanced.
Premise 3: An interpretation that introduces less assumptions, questions and results in less game imbalance is most likely the correct one.
Conclusion: Therefore, the first interpretation should be considered the correct interpretation.
Premise 1 claims that there is no ambiguity in the wording of the Ability as is, and therefore no confusion as to how it works exists. My counter point is the fact that you are posting on a forum thread asking for clarification on that exact clause, and that if there were no confusion then the different interpretations presented in said thread would not exist.
Premise 2 claims that numerous assumptions are required without listing those assumptions or any rules that would validate/invalidate those assumptions (had they been listed).
Premise 2 also states that it would require additional rules to adequately deal with the results (of the numerous assumptions). Again, the assumptions themselves are not listed in this argument and i will not assume I know which assumptions you are referring to.
Premise 2 furthermore states that some of the assumptions, after they have been dealt with by rules, result in outcomes which are unbalanced. While this is a solid argument, positing that a conclusion based on the rules may be unbalanced is irrelevant since the goal of my question was to find a rules based conclusion in the first place. After I have found a rules based conclusion I will live with it since I am trying to play the game defined by those rules, and not in fact trying to rewrite the rules in order to balance them.
Premise 3 states that an interpretation based on fewer assumptions and questions which results in less game imbalance is more likely to be the correct interpretation. This is either an opinion or a factual statement based on copious amounts of recorded statistics (which now that i think about it I would love to see, snarkiness aside). Please show your data and the methods that you used to come to this conclusion if it is based on statistics, if it is an opinion then we disagree on that point.
I explained the argument being made more verbosely in another post. I don't think explaining it to you again will make a difference but here is a detailed formulation of the argument in case someone may, by some miracle may want to actually answer it.
Premise 1: Interpretation A (That the text, especially the word "passenger", implies only a willing creature can be brought along) requires no additional explanation, causes no confusion on the results and cannot result in an unbalanced outcome.
Premise 2: Interpretation B (The text does not explicitly forbid unwilling creatures to be dragged so there is no limitation) raises multiple questions, requires numerous assumptions or additional rules to adequately deal with the results, and some of those possible outcomes are unbalanced.
Premise 3: An interpretation that introduces less assumptions, questions and results in less game imbalance is most likely the correct one.
Conclusion: Therefore, the first interpretation should be considered the correct interpretation.
Premise 1 claims that there is no ambiguity in the wording of the Ability as is, and therefore no confusion as to how it works exists. My counter point is the fact that you are posting on a forum thread asking for clarification on that exact clause, and that if there were no confusion then the different interpretations presented in said thread would not exist.
Premise 2 claims that numerous assumptions are required without listing those assumptions or any rules that would validate/invalidate those assumptions (had they been listed).
Premise 2 also states that it would require additional rules to adequately deal with the results (of the numerous assumptions). Again, the assumptions themselves are not listed in this argument and i will not assume I know which assumptions you are referring to.
Premise 2 furthermore states that some of the assumptions, after they have been dealt with by rules, result in outcomes which are unbalanced. While this...
No Premise 1 does not claim there is no ambiguity. It claims that certain terms within the text can be understood as implying something specific, i.e. that unwilling creatures can't be taken. If one accepts that the implication is there then the text is clear.
Premise 2 does not need to list the various assumptions contained in the numerous posts in this threads as to what would happen. Some are based upon the way other abilities work and such like. The validity of those assumptions or questions does not matter, only that they exist, so enumerating them is unnecessary. I'm not debating whether or not dragging or re positioning an unwilling creature counts as moving them into a hostile environment since it only becomes dangerous once they are dropped. I'm just pointing out that this and other like assumptions and questions are only introduced if one particular interpretation is held.
Premise 3 is a simple paraphrase of Occam's Razor, i.e. the hypothesis with the fewest assumptions is usually the correct one, and applying it to interpretations of the game's rules text. Sorry you disagree with a fairly widely accepted philosophical principle but I can't help you with that. In any case in order to counter the argument you actually must show the premise to be false not just assert your disagreement with it.
Having an ability available at first level and a CMB check to cause instant death is not in line with other game effects. I would say that if you are carrying a passenger and let go of them, they are moved to the nearest open space without damage. It is not rules as written, but it best fits the intent as a movement power and not an attack power.
|
|
Having an ability available at first level and a CMB check to cause instant death is not in line with other game effects. I would say that if you are carrying a passenger and let go of them, they are moved to the nearest open space without damage. It is not rules as written, but it best fits the intent as a movement power and not an attack power.
The Earthglide revelation states that you must be at least 7th level to select this revelation. That was the reason I compaired it to spells of a 7th level wizard.
|
|
I have a question:
What is the difference between this and a water monster dragging you into water?
Well...
A water elemental would properbly use this strategy to gain the upper hand.A fire elemental would surely try to drag an opponement with it into a bonefire.
Would an earth elemental use the same tactic using earthglide to gain an advantage?
I would think so.
I have a question:
What is the difference between this and a water monster dragging you into water?
I'm on my way out to a game so I don't have time too look up all of the relevant creatures and rules but if a water elemental drags you into water you can still make a swim check to move at half speed and try to make it to the surface. If you are pulled by a earth elemental into solid ground you are buried. Here is where I am fuzzy on the rules because I remember the rules being different for cave-ins vs avalanches and I am not sure which would would be more applicable.
Also anyone can drag you into the water. Doesn't have to be a water type creature. The earth elemental is the only one that moves through a medium that requires a special ability to do so.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I have a question:
What is the difference between this and a water monster dragging you into water?
This ability is a magical effect that may or may not work on unwilling targets.
Being granted the use of this doesn't force the target to go underground, it ALLOWS them the option.
Water has no such rule, if you fall off a boat, you better know how to swim.
I have a question:
What is the difference between this and a water monster dragging you into water?
Well...
A water elemental would properbly use this strategy to gain the upper hand.
A fire elemental would surely try to drag an opponement with it into a bonefire.
Would an earth elemental use the same tactic using earthglide to gain an advantage?
I would think so.
I would think so too, unfortunately the Earth Elemental version of Earthglide doesn't let it "take passengers with it". It would fail to drag anyone (without their own earthglide) underground since the squares are solid to the one it wants to drag.
Alternatively I think it would like to attack from under the ground, thus keeping its total cover, but there was another long explosive thread about that so I'll stop there.
Upon revisiting this thread, I would say that you can't drag someone underground and abandon them there.
Granting them the use of an ability isn't the same as forcing them to be unable to keep themselves aboveground.
An unwilling target could likely just 'turn off' this power and be grappled/rendered prone but not dragged underground to die.
Upon revisiting this thread, I would say that you can't drag someone underground and abandon them there.
Granting them the use of an ability isn't the same as forcing them to be unable to keep themselves aboveground.
An unwilling target could likely just 'turn off' this power and be grappled/rendered prone but not dragged underground to die.
How do they turn it off (assuming it was turned on, meaning they failed the will save)? If it's possible it would definitely be the smartest move for the target, is there any rule that supports it?
How do they turn it off (assuming it was turned on, meaning they failed the will save)? If it's possible it would definitely be the smartest move for the target, is there any rule that supports it?Upon revisiting this thread, I would say that you can't drag someone underground and abandon them there.
Granting them the use of an ability isn't the same as forcing them to be unable to keep themselves aboveground.
An unwilling target could likely just 'turn off' this power and be grappled/rendered prone but not dragged underground to die.
Assuming for the sake of argument that you can use pull someone who is unwilling with you (and so far there's been no argument showing you can). Why would they get a Will save? There is nothing in any Earth Glide ability about a will save. It isn't a spell you are casting on them.
That said there is also nothing about granting the ability to someone else. When you bring along a passenger you are not granting them this power independently. You can't give them Earth Glide and then use it to go one direction while they go another. So the passenger has no control over it to "turn it off"
Assuming for the sake of argument that you can use pull someone who is unwilling with you (and so far there's been no argument showing you can). Why would they get a Will save? There is nothing in any Earth Glide ability about a will save. It isn't a spell you are casting on them.
That said there is also nothing about granting the ability to someone else. When you bring along a passenger you are not granting them this power independently. You can't give them Earth Glide and then use it to go one direction while they go another. So the passenger has no control over it to "turn it off"
They get a will save because of the oracle Revelation Class Feature
Revelation
At 1st level, 3rd level, and every four levels thereafter (7th, 11th, and so on), an oracle uncovers a new secret about her mystery that grants her powers and abilities. The oracle must select a revelation from the list of revelations available to her mystery (see FAQ at right). If a revelation is chosen at a later level, the oracle gains all of the abilities and bonuses granted by that revelation based on her current level. Unless otherwise noted, activating the power of a revelation is a standard action.
Unless otherwise noted, the DC to save against these revelations is equal to 10 + 1/2 the oracle’s level + the oracle’s Charisma modifier.
You always get a will save against any spell/special ability, its just that most people choose not to roll for beneficial effects.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
How do they turn it off (assuming it was turned on, meaning they failed the will save)? If it's possible it would definitely be the smartest move for the target, is there any rule that supports it?Upon revisiting this thread, I would say that you can't drag someone underground and abandon them there.
Granting them the use of an ability isn't the same as forcing them to be unable to keep themselves aboveground.
An unwilling target could likely just 'turn off' this power and be grappled/rendered prone but not dragged underground to die.
Assuming for the sake of argument that you can use pull someone who is unwilling with you (and so far there's been no argument showing you can). Why would they get a Will save? There is nothing in any Earth Glide ability about a will save. It isn't a spell you are casting on them.
That said there is also nothing about granting the ability to someone else. When you bring along a passenger you are not granting them this power independently. You can't give them Earth Glide and then use it to go one direction while they go another. So the passenger has no control over it to "turn it off"
A passenger is willing.
Someone being grappled and dragged underground isn't a passenger, they are a victim, or a target, a captive. No longer being a passenger, no longer qualify for earthglide in this situation.
Don't need a save, they just don't go underground.
If you fooled someone into thinking you were their friend, and then abandoned them underground, that would work...
But grappling and dragging down, nope.