Oh, there are allowances made for non-bipeds, to be able to use other limbs for casting, especially if they have sorcerer levels, or other innate power.
An awakened frog or snake caster, or a familiar delivering the spell for their owner, could effectively use shocking tongue, and few would dispute it. And it would use that method consistently.But that's usually in the GM's jurisdiction, since they run all monsters and NPCs. All PC races are bipeds, with 2 arms, legs and head.
And all the chorus, claiming that the PCs can use whatever appendage they fancy, need to put up a source for that.
Or I'll bring a dwarf with a keg of Bugman's XXXXX on his back, and a beerbelly slam that delivers touch of fatigue.
No there isn't. Every creature must be able to fulfill and provide the components needed to cast the spell.
With Verbal components, they must be able to speak the words of power (if all they can do is grunts and such, the Natural Spell feat is required, as adjudicated from the Polymorph rules).
With Somatic components, they must have one free hand (or hand-like limb, such as a claw, tentacle, etc). and must be able to make precise and measured movements with said limbs.
With Material components, they must be provided at the time of casting the spell. This means unless said creatures are walking around with a spell component pouch, they can't provide them. Even if they are, they would at least need some sort of non-animal intelligence to acquire the right component from the pouch. The same can also be true with a Focus/Divine Focus component.
The only leeway is with Somatic components, where you don't need a "hand," per say, but a limb that functions similar or identical to said hand. Outside that, all creatures still must fulfill the components mentioned, and if they can't, then they cannot cast the spell.
Of course, Spell-like Abilities do handwave these issues, the factor still remains that they can be an innate-powered creature with SLAs, but they cannot be a spellcaster.
2) If you are holding a charge for a touch attack, you may deliver the charge as either a melee touch attempt, or by an unarmed strike or natural attack. The charge isn't "attached" to any body part, so, whether you kick or tap with your foot, punch of grasp with your hand, headbutt or kiss, the charge will deliver all the same.Do you have a page reference for that?
For delivering touch spells as part of a unarmed or natural attack?
Holding the Charge: ...Alternatively, you may make a normal unarmed attack (or an attack with a natural weapon) while holding a charge... If the attack hits, you deal normal damage for your unarmed attack or natural weapon and the spell discharges.
Or for the limb the charge is held in?
This one is a logical inference. The rules don't say you can deliver the held charge through the limb that cast the spell. The rules also don't provide any concept of moving the charge to a different limb. Nor do they mention it being held in hand or a specific limb.
In the absence of those, you have to decide that such things are needed based on GM adjudication, or that such restrictions/requirements do not exist. I am of the camp that such restrictions/requirements do not exist. It is a very glaring omission from the rules if those were intended requirements. So to me the more logical reading is that they are not part of the intended rules.
|
And, the most salient point to be made is that, when the explanation is plain as day, but the counter-point is based on a personal bias (in this case, you not wanting it to work because of how you think TWF restrictions should apply), it very realistically calls into question the competence, reliability, and trustworthiness of a GM.
Apparently reading comprehension isn't your best trait either, as I have not been arguing against the Magus being able to perform this ability AT ALL.
http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2tnzt?Player-argued-that-Magus-gets-an-extra-at tack
I will point you to this simple thread, where upon receiving clarification I immediately conceded (and was subsequently pointed to this thread as TheBigNorse thought it might be the player I was referring to). Once aware of how it works, having overcome my initial misreading, I understood. What I found frustrating was the immediate assumption of incompetence in this thread over a misinterpretation/misreading, the sheer volume of ridicule that is being piled on anyone who makes a mistake regarding rules that, while they might be obvious to you, are not immediately obvious to them.
I have not once in this thread attempted to argue that the Magus should not be able to perform the ability (though I may have pointed out that I found the outcome somewhat odd to me, I never stated I would rule against it in the future (especially not in PFS, in the other thread I mentioned considering a houserule)). The only point I've been arguing is that if something confuses players and GMs with enough frequency then it should be clarified to prevent or reduce the later confusion (or at least provide an official point of reference to point to if someone comes in here actually arguing against it after clarification). And if something like jumping a 10 foot gap not counting as 15 feet for the Acrobatics DC needs clarification in FAQ (despite being pretty darn clear to me and probably everyone here) then I think this Magus thing damn well qualifies.
|
One thing that people reacted to, was the OP speculating that he might have to play a different character because the GM wasn't interpreting the rules as intended. That is clearly not the case, hasteroth. You posted to clarify the rules for yourself and accepted the advice you received. So, metaphorically, you are not the GM the OP complained about and everyone else jumped on.
I agree that the rules are complex and easy to misunderstand. But, as you demonstrated, once the interactions are explained as intentional, we can all agree how things work. A FAQ would be helpful.
Th DM in question chimed in with another (less abusive) thread and changed their mind, so no worries there.
|
|
One thing that people reacted to, was the OP speculating that he might have to play a different character because the GM wasn't interpreting the rules as intended. That is clearly not the case, hasteroth. You posted to clarify the rules for yourself and accepted the advice you received. So, metaphorically, you are not the GM the OP complained about and everyone else jumped on.
I agree that the rules are complex and easy to misunderstand. But, as you demonstrated, once the interactions are explained as intentional, we can all agree how things work. A FAQ would be helpful.
Yes. He may not be the player in question, though his posts are in line with the circumstances of the session. It was a PFS one and the player I'm thinking of had stated multiple times that he was considering rerolling, as he felt overly nerfed. So "might have to reroll" could still refer to a personal decision as opposed to a mandate. However in checking his profile, I doubt its him as it only lists 1 PFS character for him and it isn't one I know of. But the post I was responding to was a post responding directly to me, quoting my post, calling me biased.
|
|
One thing that people reacted to, was the OP speculating that he might have to play a different character because the GM wasn't interpreting the rules as intended. That is clearly not the case, hasteroth. You posted to clarify the rules for yourself and accepted the advice you received. So, metaphorically, you are not the GM the OP complained about and everyone else jumped on.
I agree that the rules are complex and easy to misunderstand. But, as you demonstrated, once the interactions are explained as intentional, we can all agree how things work. A FAQ would be helpful.
I suspect the reason a FAQ hasn't been made is that unlike some other things, while the rules are easy to misunderstand, a little explanation seems to clear up the misunderstanding. There aren't huge arguments about how it works. Some people might not get it at first, but once it's explained they tend to agree.
I was specifically replying to hasteroth, the GM in question. I realize that there are not huge disagreements, and considered saying that no FAQ is necessary. But, the potential for confusion does exist, and would be helped with a FAQ. It is not high priority or visibility, but as I said, it would be helpful to some people less familiar with these particular rules.
It's not fair to denounce a GM who suspected that wasn't the intent. That if the spell was cast by the left hand, it's the left hand that is bathed in energy, and the left hand that should be used to discharge the spell. And the left hand isn't holding a weapon. So...you're out of luck. No Spellstrike for you, you'll have to touch him with your hand, as normal.
It's completely fair, because it presupposes fundamental interpretive errors in how spell casting functions. An almost uniquely understandable one, but incorrect nonetheless. The hand used in casting ISN'T bathed in energy, it was simply used to perform the somatic component. The caster's entire body holds the charge. So you have errors compounding errors.
hasteroth: Rather ironically, I misread your post until you quoted it back at me. So while my intention was not to cherry pick, I was still wrong, and I apologize.
|
|
2) If you are holding a charge for a touch attack, you may deliver the charge as either a melee touch attempt, or by an unarmed strike or natural attack. The charge isn't "attached" to any body part, so, whether you kick or tap with your foot, punch of grasp with your hand, headbutt or kiss, the charge will deliver all the same.Do you have a page reference for that?
Because this would appear to be a large part of the confusion for many.
That second part is not part of the PRD, or at least, not part of the PRD 'Magic' chapter, as it pertains to touch spells.
It's not fair to criticise GMs for not taking into account text that doesn't exist.
If it exists elsewhere in the PRD, that's poor editing, not to restate the relevant text, or provide a page reference.
No-one needs a 1000-page CRB, it would have taken a sentence to direct the reader to the other paragraph, or better still, don't break up the rules across separate sections (see also 'damaging objects' which requires at least three chapterflips). And that's the disorganisation and lack of planning that hasteroth is justified in being frustrated by.Touch Spells and Holding the Charge: In most cases, if you don't discharge a touch spell on the round you cast it, you can hold the charge (postpone the discharge of the spell) indefinitely. You can make touch attacks round after round until the spell is discharged. If you cast another spell, the touch spell dissipates.
Some touch spells allow you to touch multiple targets as part of the spell. You can't hold the charge of such a spell; you must touch all targets of the spell in the same round that you finish casting the spell.
Remember, at the time this was being playtested and released, monks were being accused of breaking the rules, by using the same weapon/limb repeatedly in a flurry of blows.
Even though monks had an ability that explicitly said they...
Snorter, your problem is that you are inventing rules about delivering touch spells.
Touch: You must touch a creature or object to affect it. A touch spell that deals damage can score a critical hit just as a weapon can. A touch spell threatens a critical hit on a natural roll of 20 and deals double damage on a successful critical hit. Some touch spells allow you to touch multiple targets. You can touch up to 6 willing targets as part of the casting, but all targets of the spell must be touched in the same round that you finish casting the spell. If the spell allows you to touch targets over multiple rounds, touching 6 creatures is a full-round action.
You see any indication that you must use a specific limb or any limb at all in that piece of text?
Then in th Combat capter we have a section called:
Many spells have a range of touch. To use these spells, you cast the spell and then touch the subject. In the same round that you cast the spell, you may also touch (or attempt to touch) as a free action. You may take your move before casting the spell, after touching the target, or between casting the spell and touching the target. You can automatically touch one friend or use the spell on yourself, but to touch an opponent, you must succeed on an attack roll.
Touch Attacks: Touching an opponent with a touch spell is considered to be an armed attack and therefore does not provoke attacks of opportunity. The act of casting a spell, however, does provoke an attack of opportunity. Touch attacks come in two types: melee touch attacks and ranged touch attacks. You can score critical hits with either type of attack as long as the spell deals damage. Your opponent's AC against a touch attack does not include any armor bonus, shield bonus, or natural armor bonus. His size modifier, Dexterity modifier, and deflection bonus (if any) all apply normally.
Holding the Charge: If you don't discharge the spell in the round when you cast the spell, you can hold the charge indefinitely. You can continue to make touch attacks round after round. If you touch anything or anyone while holding a charge, even unintentionally, the spell discharges. If you cast another spell, the touch spell dissipates. You can touch one friend as a standard action or up to six friends as a full-round action. Alternatively, you may make a normal unarmed attack (or an attack with a natural weapon) while holding a charge. In this case, you aren't considered armed and you provoke attacks of opportunity as normal for the attack. If your unarmed attack or natural weapon attack normally doesn't provoke attacks of opportunity, neither does this attack. If the attack hits, you deal normal damage for your unarmed attack or natural weapon and the spell discharges. If the attack misses, you are still holding the charge.
Again, no specific limb dedicated to delivering the touch, even more interesting we have this: "If you touch anything or anyone while holding a charge, even unintentionally, the spell discharges." hat seem to imply that touching something or someone in any way will discharge the charge (that include switching your weapon between your hands, or picking a potion, BTW). If the the charge was "stored" in a specific limb it would have to be specified and would affect that rule.
Actually, on the basis of that, you can argue the opposite, that brushing against a tee limb or touching the ground will discharge the spell, but most GM hand wave that away for sanity sake.But any activity more complex that, like opening a door or drawing a weapon, that will discharge your stored spell, even if you open the door with a kick.
The magus, thanks to a FAQ, has a special exemption, but that FAQ is a actual rule change.
On a related topic, the magus touching his held weapon doesn’t count as “touching anything or anyone” when determining if he discharges the spell. A magus could even use the spellstrike ability, miss with his melee attack to deliver the spell, be disarmed by an opponent (or drop the weapon voluntarily, for whatever reason), and still be holding the charge in his hand, just like a normal spellcaster. Furthermore, the weaponless magus could pick up a weapon (even that same weapon) with that hand without automatically discharging the spell, and then attempt to use the weapon to deliver the spell. However, if the magus touches anything other than a weapon with that hand (such as retrieving a potion), that discharges the spell as normal.
This FAQ is as far as Paizo as gone to say that a charge is stored in a specific limb, but it is a change of the actual rules.
The hand used in casting ISN'T bathed in energy, it was simply used to perform the somatic component. The caster's entire body holds the charge. So you have errors compounding errors.
This view is more than a little problematic.
First it would mean that a wizard with a staff as a bonded object couldn't cast anything, because you'd sett off the spell on the staff in your left hand with the spell cast in the right
Secondly many touch spells do describe your hand lighting up
Chill touch:A touch from your hand, which glows with blue energy, disrupts the life force of living creatures
Absorbing touch:You absorb the next object your hand touches into your body.
shocking grasp: [notquoting]you grasp things with your hand, grasp is a synonym for hand "ie it was almost within my grasp" [/not quoting]
Frigid touch:This spell causes your hand to glow with a pale blue radiance.
Inflict light wounds:When laying your hand upon a creature
Touch of slime: You create a coating of slime on your hand.
Cure light wounds: When laying your hand upon a living creature,
Now you can argue that those are individual exceptions called out, but it seems to me to be more of a pattern making rule than a pattern breaking one.
Third, you're touching the ground probably so bzzzt
Fourth, when the speciest bipedal humanoids with bilateral symetry that wrote the rules talk about touching something generally they mean touching it with their hands, because they're evolved like that.
It normally wouldn't matter, but it might allow some weirdness of a tengu setting off a chill touch with their claw claw beak or someone trying to two weapon fight with a spell to get it to go off twice. Its a bit of a gray area in the rules but I think that when you cast a touch spell it exists in a spot on your body. If you want to be cool and shocking kick someone in the head as a flavor element, sure. Trying to two weapon fight with chill touches? not so much.
|
|
It normally wouldn't matter, but it might allow some weirdness of a tengu setting off a chill touch with their claw claw beak or someone trying to two weapon fight with a spell to get it to go off twice. Its a bit of a gray area in the rules but I think that when you cast a touch spell it exists in a spot on your body. If you want to be cool and shocking kick someone in the head as a flavor element, sure. Trying to two weapon fight with chill touches? not so much.
Two weapon fighting and held charges don't interact (normally) as only a magus with spellstrike can deliver a held charge trough a weapon.
A touch spell with multiple charges that hasn't a written limitation of only a single discharge/round (there are a few with that limitation) can be discharged several times in a round. If you are a druid wildshaped in a form with pounce and you have a held spell with multiple charges you can it to all your attacks during the pounce, bite, claws and rakes.Same thing for a monk with flurry of blow and a held charge.
Each successful attack consume a charge, but you can make them as long as you have attacks and charges.
First it would mean that a wizard with a staff as a bonded object couldn't cast anything, because you'd sett off the spell on the staff in your left hand with the spell cast in the right.
Yes, that is the strictest reading of the rules.
All GM that I know partially handwave that away, considering that all the item you where actually touching when the spell was cast don't cause it to discharge, as long as you don't touch them with a different part of the body. So you can walk and run withotu discharging a spell through your feet and you can keep your staff in the same hand as before. On the other hand if you grip your staff to use it as a two handed weapon or you take a potion from your belt you discharge the spell in the item you touched. Same thing if you opened a door, regardless of what part of the body you use to do that.
Trying to two weapon fight with chill touches? not so much.
Can you cite any rules that indicate you cannot TWF with a held charge? I'm aware of nothing in the rules for spells or touch spells that changes the number of attacks you get (other than getting a free one the round you cast).
Chill touch:A touch from your hand, which glows with blue energy, disrupts the life force of living creaturesAbsorbing touch:You absorb the next object your hand touches into your body.
shocking grasp: [notquoting]you grasp things with your hand, grasp is a synonym for hand "ie it was almost within my grasp" [/not quoting]
Frigid touch:This spell causes your hand to glow with a pale blue radiance.
Inflict light wounds:When laying your hand upon a creature
Touch of slime: You create a coating of slime on your hand.
Cure light wounds: When laying your hand upon a living creature,
All fluff text. None of them describes rules mechanics. Unless you want to suggest that a dark naga, which has no hands, can't actually use its ray of enfeeblement spell. A coruscating ray springs from your hand.
First it would mean that a wizard with a staff as a bonded object couldn't cast anything, because you'd sett off the spell on the staff in your left hand with the spell cast in the right
Everyone pretty well intuitively understands that the clothes you are wearing, and the things you are currently holding, are not subject to this. Drop something and pick it back up? Discharge.
Fourth, when the speciest bipedal humanoids with bilateral symetry that wrote the rules talk about touching something generally they mean touching it with their hands, because they're evolved like that.
Precisely, this is the general assumption of how a touch spell will be delivered. But the rules showing that unarmed attacks/natural attacks can be used to deliver touch spells, and that such attacks are often not the 'hands' of the creature clearly show that such is not a requirement. Again, absence of rules telling us a held charge is held in a specific limb suggests that that is not how it works.
Two weapon fighting and held charges don't interact (normally) as only a magus with spellstrike can deliver a held charge trough a weapon.
It's not even that. There are no rules that say you cannot TWF touch attacks (empty hands, held charge). For most spells it wouldn't make much difference as they only hold a single charge. You'd suffer the normal penalties for TWF to do so though, negating the primary reason for touch attack - to target the lower touch AC.
|
|
But here are the facts of the case: 1) The player came to you with a legal use of his class abilities. 2) You (incorrectly) claimed that his use was not allowed. 3) The player came to the forums seeking support and we explained to him exactly why he was correct and how to adequately explain the rules to you. 4) You still rejected his explanation and demanded proof in the form of a FAQ or other official response to prove that the rules work the way they are written (Paizo staff do not issue official responses or FAQs for this purpose). 5) You had to come to the forum yourself and, instead of looking at this thread, seeing our explanations, and accepting that a) you were incorrect, and b) you really need to step up your GM game, you start your own thread as a counter-point to this one. How, exactly, do you think that looks to the rest of us? You rejected our council when presented by proxy, you didn't even bother to look at this thread which the player started, your player "somehow" got the impression from you that you wouldn't accept anything short of an official response from Paizo, and you can't handle the very real and accurate constructive criticism that points out your insufficient system mastery, instead, resting on the laurels of quantity of GM experience rather than quality and corroboration from other players with GM experience who also got it wrong. But no, instead of accepting that is is clear and straight-forward and that the misunderstanding was due to your deficit in understanding, you try to assert the claim that your understanding was adequate and the rules in question were too difficult and convoluted and that those calling you out for your deficit are over-reaching. That is the point that is being made here.
you're making AWFUL lot of assumptions there. First of all we're not even sure the OP is the person I GM'd for, second the discussion in my session was brief and did not involve any forum stuff. I vaguely recall the player I was with showing me a forum post on his tablet after the session (unsure if it was this thread) to which I responded that he may be right, but to check if there was a FAQ answer or something, because I still wasn't sure. Since I wasn't sure I cam onto the forum to double-check, and upon receiving clarification I acknowledged my mistake. Additionally I as a PFS GM (not even a Venture Captain) have no authority to tell him to reroll his character (and I never did).
Regarding this thread, I was not even aware of it (didn't see it) until BigNorseWolf pointed it out to me in my thread. I had posted my thread, and immediately after reading the easy to understand explanations in my thread I changed my tune on the issue of the Magus ability. In no way was my thread a "counter-point" as I wasn't aware of this thread in the first place.
Realistically though Kazaan your standards for a GM to essentially understand every rule in the game 100% with no errors is absurdly unreasonable, mistakes will happen especially regarding things that haven't come up for a particular GM very frequently. We are still people, and we don't all have eidetic memories.
Also your claim that in asserting that something can be confused easily I am also claiming that my understanding was perfect is laughable to say the least. By virtue of saying it is confusing, I am saying that I was confused which clearly indicates my deficit in understanding at the time. And you also claim I didn't acknowledge any deficit in understanding and (the implications of "confusion" aside) I had very clearly used the word "misread" in my FIRST response to clarifications in my other thread, which is an explicit acknowledgement of a mistake on my part. And what I have been railing against here isn't pointing out a deficit in understanding of a particular rule, no that was obviously true in this case. Rather I was appalled by the vehement and vicious insults being tossed around, such as the implication of general incompetence as a GM over one more than infrequently misunderstood rule. As well I suggested that perhaps official clarification would be helpful in prevent future confusion over this rule, but that was met with excessive ridicule and derision.
You have misunderstood, potentially misread, and misinterpreted the circumstances of my issue. Have set unreasonably high standards, and seem to believe that any GM who doesn't meet those standards is basically unfit to GM, regardless of level of experience.
Trying to two weapon fight with chill touches? not so much.Can you cite any rules that indicate you cannot TWF with a held charge?
I'm aware of nothing in the rules for spells or touch spells that changes the number of attacks you get (other than getting a free one the round you cast).
Can you cite any rules that say you can?
Rational arguments are made considering evidence for and against a position, not by predetermining the outcome of the discussion by saying that one side needs absolute proof or the other side wins.
I think I've provided a fair bit of evidence that the spell exists somewhere on your body and is associated with that limb from there on out.
All fluff text.
You cannot ask for a rules citation and then dismiss something as fluff.
Unless you want to suggest that a dark naga, which has no hands, can't actually use its ray of enfeeblement spell. A coruscating ray springs from your hand.
that the spell HAS to go on a hand specifically is a level of raw inannity that i certainly don't ascribe to. But I do believe that the rules imply that the spell goes somewhere.
Precisely, this is the general assumption of how a touch spell will be delivered.
....and seeing as how I have some evidence that those assumptions are born out in the rules and haven't seen any evidence to the contrary I have to conclude that it IS a rule.
But the rules showing that unarmed attacks/natural attacks can be used to deliver touch spells, and that such attacks are often not the 'hands' of...
If you're a snake and want to shocking tongue or shocking bite or shocking rattle that fine, but I believe that the spell goes somewhere. A tengu can claw claw beak with shocking grasp up but I believe only one of them has a chance to bzzzzt someone.
|
|
Regarding what BNW brought up
Touch Attacks: Touching an opponent with a touch spell is considered to be an armed attack and therefore does not provoke attacks of opportunity. The act of casting a spell, however, does provoke an attack of opportunity. Touch attacks come in two types: melee touch attacks and ranged touch attacks. You can score critical hits with either type of attack as long as the spell deals damage. Your opponent's AC against a touch attack does not include any armor bonus, shield bonus, or natural armor bonus. His size modifier, Dexterity modifier, and deflection bonus (if any) all apply normally.
Holding the Charge: If you don't discharge the spell in the round when you cast the spell, you can hold the charge indefinitely. You can continue to make touch attacks round after round. If you touch anything or anyone while holding a charge, even unintentionally, the spell discharges. If you cast another spell, the touch spell dissipates. You can touch one friend as a standard action or up to six friends as a full-round action. Alternatively, you may make a normal unarmed attack (or an attack with a natural weapon) while holding a charge. In this case, you aren't considered armed and you provoke attacks of opportunity as normal for the attack. If your unarmed attack or natural weapon attack normally doesn't provoke attacks of opportunity, neither does this attack. If the attack hits, you deal normal damage for your unarmed attack or natural weapon and the spell discharges. If the attack misses, you are still holding the charge.
Touch: You must touch a creature or object to affect it. A touch spell that deals damage can score a critical hit just as a weapon can. A touch spell threatens a critical hit on a natural roll of 20 and deals double damage on a successful critical hit. Some touch spells allow you to touch multiple targets. You can touch up to 6 willing targets as part of the casting, but all targets of the spell must be touched in the same round that you finish casting the spell. If the spell allows you to touch targets over multiple rounds, touching 6 creatures is a full-round action.
Touch Spells and Holding the Charge: In most cases, if you don't discharge a touch spell on the round you cast it, you can hold the charge (postpone the discharge of the spell) indefinitely. You can make touch attacks round after round until the spell is discharged. If you cast another spell, the touch spell dissipates.
Some touch spells allow you to touch multiple targets as part of the spell. You can't hold the charge of such a spell; you must touch all targets of the spell in the same round that you finish casting the spell.
I see some problems with some of the wording here. It isn't specified whether or not someone else touching you would discharge the spell, and it also isn't specified whether the charge is held anywhere specific. So if it isn't held anywhere specific, then someone striking anyone (since touching a weapon also discharges it, except for a Magus' held weapon according to this FAQ answer HERE) with a held charge would set off said charge since "unintentional" touches still count.
I don't think this was an issue they'd thought of. This is definitely something that should be clarified in a FAQ or errata, I haven't even been able to get a definitive answer digging through years old forum posts on the subject (I might've just not found the right post).
Also there's a FAQ answer HERE that directly contradicts part of the rules there for Magus "Some touch spells allow you to touch multiple targets as part of the spell. You can't hold the charge of such a spell; you must touch all targets of the spell in the same round that you finish casting the spell." And Magus Spellstrike itself (and Spell Combat) doesn't say anything about it.
If you're a snake and want to shocking tongue or shocking bite or shocking rattle that fine, but I believe that the spell goes somewhere. A tengu can claw claw beak with shocking grasp up but I believe only one of them has a chance to bzzzzt someone.
It is your belief that it goes somewhere. That doesn't make it RAW.
Can you cite any rules that say you can?[
A held charge counts as an armed attack.
Normal: If you wield a second weapon in your off hand, you can get one extra attack per round with that weapon.
If your hands are armed, you can make attacks with them. Again, you need to show that the charge is held in a specific location, because the rules don't talk about accidentally touching something with the specific limb. They simply state that if you touch something, even unintentionally, the spell is discharged. I take those rules to mean what they say, and don't add in the extra words "with that limb".
You cannot ask for a rules citation and then dismiss something as fluff.
I dismiss fluff as fluff. Many spells contain both rules mechanics and descriptive flavor. The parts you quoted are descriptive flavor.
But let me show you some examples.
Shield creates an invisible shield of force that hovers in front of you.
Considering pathfinder has no facing rules, the fact that is hovers in front of you seems odd if that is a mechanic of the spell.
Prestidigitations are minor tricks that novice spellcasters use for practice.
What effect does this have mechanically? Does it mean that those who are not novices cannot use this spell?
This spell creates a subtle and complicated force effect that is most effective when used by a still or slow-moving spellcaster or formula user.
Most effective? If you read the rest of the spell it is ONLY effective in those situations.
A 1-inch-thick slab of stone springs up from the ground, interposing itself between you and an opponent of your choice.
What is the effect of this slab? Without reading the rest of the spell, nothing. This is descriptive text of the spell (aka fluff).
You enter a heightened state of awareness that allows you to notice more about your surroundings and recall information effortlessly.
More descriptive text. No mechanics.
Gravity bow significantly increases the weight and density of arrows or bolts fired from your bow or crossbow the instant before they strike their target and then return them to normal a few moments later.
etc.
I only looked at a smattering of 0/1st level spells from the wizard spell list. There are plenty more.
But lets go back to your first post.
Secondly many touch spells do describe your hand lighting up....
Describe. Describing how something looks is not rules mechanics.
The description of the mechanics is "when you touch something", not "when you touch something with that hand"
First it would mean that a wizard with a staff as a bonded object couldn't cast anything, because you'd sett off the spell on the staff in your left hand with the spell cast in the right
Not an issue for a wizard, who does not get to cast and attack in the same round. The arcane bond only requires that the staff be HELD, not wielded.
For Magi there are options including the Staff Magus, archetype.
I see some problems with some of the wording here. It isn't specified whether or not someone else touching you would discharge the spell, and it also isn't specified whether the charge is held anywhere specific. So if it isn't held anywhere specific, then someone striking anyone (since touching a weapon also discharges it, except for a Magus' held weapon according to this FAQ answer HERE) with a held charge would set off said charge since "unintentional" touches still count.I don't think this was an issue they'd thought of. This is definitely something that should be clarified in a FAQ or errata, I haven't even been able to get a definitive answer digging through years old forum posts on the subject (I might've just not found the right post).
Most people take it to mean that when the person holding the charge is the active player. e.g, they are the one moving about and in so doing touch someone/something. And that other characters acting don't trigger the spell.
That is, you must touch something, and not something touches you.
The rules don't specifically call it out either way, but I'd hate to be a user of touch spells in any game where a GM could shoot arrows at me to discharge my spells.
First it would mean that a wizard with a staff as a bonded object couldn't cast anything, because you'd sett off the spell on the staff in your left hand with the spell cast in the rightNot an issue for a wizard, who does not get to cast and attack in the same round. The arcane bond only requires that the staff be HELD, not wielded.
While I very much disagree with BNW on the rules of spells here, worn on your back is not held. Being held very much implies your hand, or whatever passes most closely for a hand for your given creature type.
Boots on my feet are not 'held'. Clothes worn are not 'held'.
It is your belief that it goes somewhere. That doesn't make it RAW.
Except on spells where it says it goes on a hand, it is not raw. I never claimed it was raw.
A held charge counts as an armed attack.
And would whether one hand or your entire body is all glowy and shocky.
Look, your rules inferences are not raw either. My rules inferences are not worthless. Thats not a useful track of discussion.
First it would mean that a wizard with a staff as a bonded object couldn't cast anything, because you'd sett off the spell on the staff in your left hand with the spell cast in the rightNot an issue for a wizard, who does not get to cast and attack in the same round. The arcane bond only requires that the staff be HELD, not wielded.While I very much disagree with BNW on the rules of spells here, worn on your back is not held. Being held very much implies your hand, or whatever passes most closely for a hand for your given creature type.
Boots on my feet are not 'held'. Clothes worn are not 'held'.
Holding a staff with one hand, still allows you the needed free hand for casting, unless your wizard is David Kimble's one-armed man.
Not an issue for a wizard, who does not get to cast and attack in the same round. The arcane bond only requires that the staff be HELD, not wielded.
It is an issue for a wizard, under the idea that your entire body is the delivery system. (which i don't agree with)
You cast the spell with your right hand, your left hand is holding the staff
You are touching something. She spell goes off and fries your own staff.
Obviously thats NOT how its supposed to work, so the raw probably forgot to spell out a bit of common sense somewhere, either the spell is in your empty hand, or it doesn't work on things you're already touching when you cast the spell. (or both)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
But here are the facts of the case: 1) The player came to you with a legal use of his class abilities. 2) You (incorrectly) claimed that his use was not allowed. 3) The player came to the forums seeking support and we explained to him exactly why he was correct and how to adequately explain the rules to you. 4) You still rejected his explanation and demanded proof in the form of a FAQ or other official response to prove that the rules work the way they are written (Paizo staff do not issue official responses or FAQs for this purpose). 5) You had to come to the forum yourself and, instead of looking at this thread, seeing our explanations, and accepting that a) you were incorrect, and b) you really need to step up your GM game, you start your own thread as a counter-point to this one. How, exactly, do you think that looks to the rest of us? You rejected our council when presented by proxy, you didn't even bother to look at this thread which the player started, your player "somehow" got the impression from you that you wouldn't accept anything short of an official response from Paizo, and you can't handle the very real and accurate constructive criticism that points out your insufficient system mastery, instead, resting on the laurels of quantity of GM experience rather than quality and corroboration from other players with GM experience who also got it wrong. But no, instead of accepting that is is clear and straight-forward and that the misunderstanding was due to your deficit in understanding, you try to assert the claim that your understanding was adequate and the rules in question were too difficult and convoluted and that those calling you out for your deficit are over-reaching. That is the point that is being made here.you're making AWFUL lot of assumptions there. First of all we're not even sure the OP is the person I GM'd for, second the discussion in my session was brief and did not involve any forum stuff. I vaguely recall the player I was with...
Not really. Let's play a little "Benefit of the Doubt," shall we?
If you can't remember the player who came to you about the Magus rules, then that means you either have bad memory as you GM very rarely, or you GM for a literal crapton of people and scenarios to remember coming to you about it. I'd prefer to not call you someone with a bad memory, so let's go with the latter option.
Now, if you GM for a literal crapton of people and scenarios, you are either really damn good with multitasking many parties and/or players, and have a strong understanding and knowledge of the rules, or you bit off more than you can chew and are basically drowning in a pool of rules questions. Clearly, biting off more than you can chew is something that I'm certain you're not dumb enough to do, so let's go with the former, as it more positively reflects what you (try to) emulate.
From there, even if we give you the Benefit of the Doubt, of the negative qualities you might possess, that you're a very busy GM who has a strong understanding and knowledge of the rules (as a PFS GM should, especially with the preliminary mechanics of a popular base class), that's still no excuse to tell a player that he's wrong, when you, the GM, should know what that class can or can't do, especially when that player said the same thing that practically every other GM, or even the VC, at the PFS event would have said functions as.
And that's not taking into consideration whatever the player says he can or can't do as the class, because quite frankly, if he's just a player, and someone who's talking out of his face (as we're giving the benefit of the doubt to you, even here), that's not relevant. As a PFS GM, you should already know how the core mechanics of a class should function as, and if he questions it, cite the rule from the book to him, as well as any relevant FAQs. This isn't some backwoods corner case that the rules are vague on, there are clear definitions, and obviously intended interactions, as evidenced by the rules text in the related abilities, of the standard functions of a heavily popular base class, and not even taking into consideration the multiple FAQs in relation, as well as what the man Jason Bulmahn himself says it functions as.
It's stuff like this that makes me dislike (and occasionally badmouth) PFS gameplay, and quite frankly all this story does is put yet another nail in the coffin that I'm building for it. (It's a pretty big coffin, and I don't have the Fabricate spell on-hand, just so you know.) I mean, this isn't some backwoods corner case where the player wants to use X spell in Y manner instead of its normal use in attempts to prevent Z from happening, this is about whether two class features can be used in conjunction, and how they interact with each other, which the abilities specifically spell out how they work together.
People aren't upset about you making the mistake, because they happen. It's when you make the mistake, get proven wrong, and then proceed to be ignorant by trying to play it off as something besides what it actually is; a major blunder on your behalf.
|
|
Also there's a FAQ answer HERE that directly contradicts part of the rules there for Magus "Some touch spells allow you to touch multiple targets as part of the spell. You can't hold the charge of such a spell; you must touch all targets of the spell in the same round that you finish casting the spell." And Magus Spellstrike itself (and Spell Combat) doesn't say anything about it.
You are missing a key part: "Some touch spells allow you to touch multiple targets as part of the spell." is different from " You can use this melee touch attack up to one time per level."
The former allow you to touch up to 6 friends in the round in which you cast the spell, the latter allow you to to get multiple touches in one or more rounds.|
|
First it would mean that a wizard with a staff as a bonded object couldn't cast anything, because you'd sett off the spell on the staff in your left hand with the spell cast in the rightNot an issue for a wizard, who does not get to cast and attack in the same round. The arcane bond only requires that the staff be HELD, not wielded.While I very much disagree with BNW on the rules of spells here, worn on your back is not held. Being held very much implies your hand, or whatever passes most closely for a hand for your given creature type.
Boots on my feet are not 'held'. Clothes worn are not 'held'.
You held a staff with one hand, you wield it with two.
Arcane bond say: " while staves, wands, and weapons must be held in one hand." The text was changed during a update as before ti was wielded, making spells with somatic components impossible to cast.| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I've had multiple people tell me i looked just like bignorsewolf/my avatar picture but that's far from universal.
|
|
Not an issue for a wizard, who does not get to cast and attack in the same round. The arcane bond only requires that the staff be HELD, not wielded.
It is an issue for a wizard, under the idea that your entire body is the delivery system. (which i don't agree with)
You cast the spell with your right hand, your left hand is holding the staff
You are touching something. She spell goes off and fries your own staff.
Obviously thats NOT how its supposed to work, so the raw probably forgot to spell out a bit of common sense somewhere, either the spell is in your empty hand, or it doesn't work on things you're already touching when you cast the spell. (or both)
If you want to rule that way, your hand is touching the air around you (unless you play in a vacuum), so the spell is discharged as soon as it is cast.
As I already said, if you want to use the strictest reading of the rules touching the ground or your clothes will discharge the spell, but most GM require you to touch something that you weren't touching before, or change the way in which you touch something.| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Obviously thats NOT how its supposed to work, so the raw probably forgot to spell out a bit of common sense somewhere, either the spell is in your empty hand, or it doesn't work on things you're already touching when you cast the spell. (or both)
Unless a GM fries the wizards gloves of storing (or any other hand slot magic item) every time he casts a spell, it most certainly includes things you are already touching as not counting against you, and is not empty hand only.
It is your belief that it goes somewhere. That doesn't make it RAW.A held charge counts as an armed attack.And would whether one hand or your entire body is all glowy and shocky.
You asked for a rules citation on TWF with a held charge.
Since we already know the rules for TWF, you need to show me a rule that says you can't do so with a held charge. A held charge makes what would normally be unarmed attacks, armed. Unarmed attacks are not limited to hands, but include kicks, head butts, etc. Again, do you have a rule that shows that held charges are limited to the single casting hand/appendage?
While the rules don't directly come out and say it, remember we piece rules together to make the greater whole. That is what this whole thread is about (though we are off on a tangent). The thread is: How does spell combat, touch spells, and spellstrike work together to create a greater whole than the individual parts? That is the same type of blending rules together I am doing to show TWF with a held charge is valid.
|
Except that Spellstrike specifically says
Quote:
At 2nd level, whenever a magus casts a spell with a range of “touch” from the magus spell list, he can deliver the spell through any weapon he is wielding as part of a melee attack. Instead of the free melee touch attack normally allowed to deliver the spell, a magus can make one free melee attack with his weapon (at his highest base attack bonus) as part of casting this spell.However you rule on normal non-Magus touch spells, the Magus can explicitly discharge the touch spell through any weapon he is wielding.
Aha, well spotted.
Yes, that should have it covered.I think what this shows, is that most people skim what they're reading, and don't subject it to the same rigour they would for their day job.
Or they read it, maybe even understand it in the moment they're reading, but forget it, and revert back to what they remember being the rule, next time it crops up in play.
This is why including examples, or pointing readers to important rules, is important. It's not molly-coddling, or dumbing down, or any of those loaded terms.
When your game runs on exception-based design, you are literally asking the reader to unlearn what they previously knew. That knowledge probably became embedded after repeated reading and experience in-game, to the point it becomes a habit.
Specific rules may trump general rules, but that's the opposite of how people's brains work. When presented with a situation, they revert to the general rule, because that neural path is stronger.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
...But here are the facts of the case: 1) The player came to you with a legal use of his class abilities. 2) You (incorrectly) claimed that his use was not allowed. 3) The player came to the forums seeking support and we explained to him exactly why he was correct and how to adequately explain the rules to you. 4) You still rejected his explanation and demanded proof in the form of a FAQ or other official response to prove that the rules work the way they are written (Paizo staff do not issue official responses or FAQs for this purpose). 5) You had to come to the forum yourself and, instead of looking at this thread, seeing our explanations, and accepting that a) you were incorrect, and b) you really need to step up your GM game, you start your own thread as a counter-point to this one. How, exactly, do you think that looks to the rest of us? You rejected our council when presented by proxy, you didn't even bother to look at this thread which the player started, your player "somehow" got the impression from you that you wouldn't accept anything short of an official response from Paizo, and you can't handle the very real and accurate constructive criticism that points out your insufficient system mastery, instead, resting on the laurels of quantity of GM experience rather than quality and corroboration from other players with GM experience who also got it wrong. But no, instead of accepting that is is clear and straight-forward and that the misunderstanding was due to your deficit in understanding, you try to assert the claim that your understanding was adequate and the rules in question were too difficult and convoluted and that those calling you out for your deficit are over-reaching. That is the point that is being made here.you're making AWFUL lot of assumptions there. First of all we're not even sure the OP is the person I GM'd for, second the discussion in my session was brief and did not involve any forum stuff. I vaguely
Hey, here's an idea, how about we lay off the vitriolic statements and blaming? You have made many assumptions about this player's knowledge and character which are frankly unfounded and inappropriate for a forum such as this one. They've already changed their stance and have been rather gracious doing so. Your repeated verbal harassment is not needed or even wanted here.
First it would mean that a wizard with a staff as a bonded object couldn't cast anything, because you'd sett off the spell on the staff in your left hand with the spell cast in the rightNot an issue for a wizard, who does not get to cast and attack in the same round. The arcane bond only requires that the staff be HELD, not wielded.
...
Technical point: Wizards can sometimes cast and attack in the same round. Touch spells grant the free touch attack that round. Alternatively they could cast a quickened spell and then make a standard attack or even a full attack that same round.
I don't believe wizards get to make that free attack from a touch spell with their staff. That's the Magus's thing. (Disclaimer: There may be some edge case where they can. Damned if I can keep track of all the special cases in this game. :))Technical point: Wizards can sometimes cast and attack in the same round. Touch spells grant the free touch attack that round. Alternatively they could cast a quickened spell and then make a standard attack or even a full attack that same round.First it would mean that a wizard with a staff as a bonded object couldn't cast anything, because you'd sett off the spell on the staff in your left hand with the spell cast in the rightNot an issue for a wizard, who does not get to cast and attack in the same round. The arcane bond only requires that the staff be HELD, not wielded.
...
No they can't make the attack with the staff. (Unless they got Spellstrike through, for example, VMC Magus.) But they do get the free touch attack which they could deliver through a touch. That's still an attack. It's even an armed attack.
They could cast a quickened touch spell. If they then don't make the free touch attack (or miss it) and try to take a standard attack with a two-handed staff, that'll count as touching something and set off the held charge.
I'm not talking about using the staff to attack. They could attack and deliver the charge through a touch attack, an Unarmed Strike, or a Natural Attack using limbs other than the one holding the staff.
And the staff actually could be used to attack – without discharging the spell – if the Wizard wields the staff one-handed through the Quarterstaff Master feat. As you say, there are a crazy number of special case options for this stuff.
|
|
Hey, here's an idea, how about we lay off the vitriolic statements and blaming? You have made many assumptions about this player's knowledge and character which are frankly unfounded and inappropriate for a forum such as this one. They've already changed their stance and have been rather gracious doing so. Your repeated verbal harassment is not needed or even wanted here.
Thank you, I've even been getting PMs from a couple people expressing discontent and concern over the vitriol in this thread.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Hey, here's an idea, how about we lay off the vitriolic statements and blaming? You have made many assumptions about this player's knowledge and character which are frankly unfounded and inappropriate for a forum such as this one. They've already changed their stance and have been rather gracious doing so. Your repeated verbal harassment is not needed or even wanted here.Thank you, I've even been getting PMs from a couple people expressing discontent and concern over the vitriol in this thread.
I have been very surprised and disappointed by the negativity in this thread. I personally found the Magus to be incomprehensible until someone pointed me to Grick's Guide. Even after that, it was a while before I felt comfortable with the class. Now it's one of my favorites.
But even if the Magus rules were obvious to someone from the start, I would imagine that there were some other areas of the rules that they struggled with. I don't understand the lack of empathy for someone who is trying to learn how the game works. I do suspect that there would have been a very different response if it was a player rather than a GM who was unclear on the rules. That worries me. The messageboards should be here to help everyone enjoy the game more. If these boards are turning anti-GM, then they will become worse than useless.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Hey, here's an idea, how about we lay off the vitriolic statements and blaming? You have made many assumptions about this player's knowledge and character which are frankly unfounded and inappropriate for a forum such as this one. They've already changed their stance and have been rather gracious doing so. Your repeated verbal harassment is not needed or even wanted here.Thank you, I've even been getting PMs from a couple people expressing discontent and concern over the vitriol in this thread.I have been very surprised and disappointed by the negativity in this thread. I personally found the Magus to be incomprehensible until someone pointed me to Grick's Guide. Even after that, it was a while before I felt comfortable with the class. Now it's one of my favorites.
But even if the Magus rules were obvious to someone from the start, I would imagine that there were some other areas of the rules that they struggled with. I don't understand the lack of empathy for someone who is trying to learn how the game works. I do suspect that there would have been a very different response if it was a player rather than a GM who was unclear on the rules. That worries me. The messageboards should be here to help everyone enjoy the game more. If these boards are turning anti-GM, then they will become worse than useless.
The way a situation is presented is extremely important when you're trying to determine what side people fall on, whether they're for the player, for the GM, or for a third unrelated party/option.
The way the OP presented the situation placed the GM in question at an "all-knowing" and very hostile or anti-player-fun position, stating that only a FAQ/Errata would change the GMs ruling, even though the rules already answer the argument the player presented. This was reinforced by the factors that the GM is, in fact, a PFS GM, who are required to understand and obey the rules set by PFS, which is to follow what is posted in the books, enforce any FAQ/Erratas published by Paizo, etc., and through the apparent requirement of officiality that does not exist.
Once the situation was presented, it's difficult to change first impressions after all the cards are laid out on the table; the damage is done, and if I wanted to repair it, it's not up to me to accept the fix
Now, if it was presented differently, I can assure you that the results and responses from the posters would have been different. But at this point, crying over spilled milk isn't going to solve anything. Mistakes were made, and as long as we learn from them and move on, I think it still results in an experience worth its points.
The way a situation is presented is extremely important when you're trying to determine what side people fall on, whether they're for the player, for the GM, or for a third unrelated party/option.The way the OP presented the situation placed the GM in question at an "all-knowing" and very hostile or anti-player-fun position, stating that only a FAQ/Errata would change the GMs ruling, even though the rules already answer the argument the player presented. This was reinforced by the factors that the GM is, in fact, a PFS GM, who are required to understand and obey the rules set by PFS, which is to follow what is posted in the books, enforce any FAQ/Erratas published by Paizo, etc., and through the apparent requirement of officiality that does not exist.
Once the situation was presented, it's difficult to change first impressions after all the cards are laid out on the table; the damage is done, and if I wanted to repair it, it's not up to me to accept the fix
Now, if it was presented differently, I can assure you that the results and responses from the posters would have been different. But at this point, crying over spilled milk isn't going to solve anything. Mistakes were made, and as long as we learn from them and move on, I think it still results in an experience worth its points.
Its up to posters on these forums to realize that when something is "presented", regardless of how it is presented, that it is a very one sided view of the situation.
Its one thing to form an opinion of someone based on their own words and actions. Taking a negative view of someone because of the opinion and words of someone else who is not that person... is beyond words.
Its up to posters on these forums to realize that when something is "presented", regardless of how it is presented, that it is a very one sided view of the situation.
On the other hand, one can take open-mindedness too far. As Terry Pratchett memorably put it in Going Postal, "[T]he man climbing out of your window in a stripy jumper, a mask and a great hurry might merely be lost on the way to a fancy-dress party, and the man in the wig and robes at the focus of the courtroom might only be a transvestite who wandered in out of the rain. Snap judgements can be so unfair."
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Kazaan and Darksol both of you insist that you were only critcizing the GM as presented by the original poster, and if you are making the distinction between OP GM and myself then you should not direct any criticism of OP GM at ME as you both have done extensively, you have directly and viciously criticized me solely based on the presentation by the OP and ignored all the clarification of circumstances.
If you are going to criticize me, you criticize me you have to factor in my side of the story instead of just cherry picking certain aspects of it which serve your argument and dismissing the rest as "well you might not be the OPs GM". If you are going to criticize the OP's GM and assume I am not said GM, then do not direct ANY of your criticisms at me and do not base ANY of your criticisms on ANYTHING I have had to say about MY particular circumstances.
If there are two different stories, two different GMs, then you don't direct specific criticisms at one GM that are based on the other. And if it turns out that I was the OP's GM, then you still have to consider my side of the story as well. Either way any criticism specifically directed at me has to factor in MY circumstances, otherwise your criticism should be directed at the hypothetical GM. Everything I have said in this thread in my defense has been exactly that in MY defense, not in defense of the hypothetical other GM which we have scant details about.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If that model applies to your situation, then the response is correct. If the model doesn't apply to your situation, then the response shouldn't concern you. If it does concern you, we can only presume it's because it applies to your situation and, if so, you are speaking out against the correct address that was given. There was never any vitriol in this thread, so if you saw some, it was all in your head.
That's the thing, you directed your criticisms specifically at me.
The statements made by the OP were rather vague and seemed to fit the circumstances of my session, so I'll spell it out for you. Since in my session the player I dealt with was very recalcitrant even after my temporary ruling, where I had asked him to defer discussion until post-session. During the session he said at least twice that he might reroll his character (which seems in line with a player posting "I'll have to reroll my character"). And after the session when we talked for a moment and he read of a forum post (which for all I know was this one, the timing fits, or perhaps another one) but I was still unsure (what he read me wasn't all that clear) and I said he might be right but to check if there's a FAQ as it would help his case with other GMs. I then the following morning posted my own thread (unaware that he may have posted his own, as I had assumed the forum he read was something he found) seeking clarification for myself so I wouldn't make the same mistake in the future.
Now here's everything he said
My DM is convinced it doesn't. Anything showing I'm right?
Well I did disagree with my player.
I get all that, but without a FAQ or such spelling it out I'm just going to have to reroll the character.
Strikes me as a possible hyperbole, "have to reroll" could mean he feels his character is nerfed and thus has to be rerolled to be effective. My player did say at least twice that he might reroll.
That's literally everything he said, and considering the timing it made sense that he possibly might have been my player. Like I said before I didn't even see this thread until BigNorseWolf pointed me to it in my thread. So given that, it didn't seem unreasonable to conclude that there is a significant chance that OP was my player. So I jumped in and began pointing out that it wasn't all that easy for me to understand at first but that once it was spelled out to me on my thread I understood and changed my mind on the issue pretty much entirely. I then became the target of direct criticism, and insults to my intelligence and reading ability, as well as claims that I was basically incompetent as a GM. So I provided greater context regarding my situation. As such if this truly is my player, the context I provided should make it exceedingly clear that OP's statement of "have to reroll" was based on his own personal decision rather than on the GM trying to force him, and that OP likely misunderstood me when I suggested he check for a FAQ. If he isn't my player, the EXACT SAME still applies as that does not change any of the context which I provided.
But apparently Kazaan you have decided it is perfectly acceptable to attack me directly based on the assumption that my situation fits the impression you initially took from the OP's extremely vague posts while completely disregarding the context I had provided for my particular situation.
When you say that your the GM in the OP's post that wouldn't accept anything but a FAQ and wasn't going to budge then expect all the flak. If you come in and say, hey I had a similar issue to this, then you wouldn't get focused down. IF YOU HAD NOT SAID ANYTHING THEN NO ONE WOULD BE POSTING TO YOU. The OP made a post specifying a certain type of GM. If that type doesn't match you then you shouldn't say you're the GM, otherwise that type is placed on you.
What I'm saying is. If you were the actual GM of the person or not doesn't matter. The GM described by the OP sounds different from how hasteroth describes how he GMs. And once you're in a thread it's all about what has been written that will count. Did the OP use hyperbole and over-dramatize? Seems like it. But by saying your that GM associates you with those qualities and causes people to talk to you when they talk about that GM.
When you say that your the GM in the OP's post that wouldn't accept anything but a FAQ and wasn't going to budge then expect all the flak. If you come in and say, hey I had a similar issue to this, then you wouldn't get focused down. IF YOU HAD NOT SAID ANYTHING THEN NO ONE WOULD BE POSTING TO YOU. The OP made a post specifying a certain type of GM. If that type doesn't match you then you shouldn't say you're the GM, otherwise that type is placed on you.
"you've shown me the rules, I've seen your argument, I still don't think it works like that" is a perfectly legitimate response to a rules argument.
So is the player saying "anyone got something official i can show to my dm?" Which it turned out, the answerwas yes. I was able to cite the offical clarification specifically because I'd been in the exact same position as the DM, he saw the official clarification and changed his mind.