My player thinks arrows > invisibility


Rules Questions

51 to 100 of 138 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
hasteroth wrote:
Diego Rossi wrote:

Then remember to add the encumbrance of the new arrow, the damage to armor and clothing and so on.

"You must be realistic."
I see your realism and raise you generic complaints about encumbrance thresholds being unrealistic.

Sure, we must use a percentage of maximum load with incremental effects. You think that the modifier should be based on 1% increments or 0.1%?


dragonhunterq wrote:

For the rules forum I am seeing a lot of non-rules suggestions and answers.

None of the rules about tracer ammo that I can find has any mention of embedding for instance, whether piercing or otherwise.

It's a side effect of a rules question that's not directly addressed. After all, there aren't rules for anything embedding in a character, as far as mundane arrows are concerned. I've seen it brought up once or twice as comedy moments -- say, when my barbarian notices a bolt in her back while she's hacking a monster to bits. A bolt that looks like it came from the rogue who even now is trying to roll Sleight of Hand to hide the light crossbow he just rolled a 1 on shooting at the monster with.

THAT bolt.

Otherwise, there's one or two items that are meant to be shot into walls (I think?) but nothing else regarding whether you walk around looking like a reverse porcupine.


Even if the arrows are visible, seeing two arrow shafts bobbing in midair is not going to negate the miss chance from invisibility. Are those arrows on the creature's right or left side? Are they in its hip, or is it a small-sized creature, or is the creature crouching? The fact is, there's no way to determine where the rest of the creature's anatomy might be based on two arrows zigzagging through space from the violent motions of combat.


I guess this undermines the classic technique of casting silence on an arrow or dagger and embedding it into the caster, thus avoiding giving them a Will save.


I actually have a way around this. If I'm a bow-user and am trying to show the invisible enemy to my allies, I will have a spellcaster put a light cantrip on my arrow. Destroyed ammunition is not disintegrated, so a broken arrowhead should still give off light. Expect table variance though. My circle of friends like the concept and usually require a move action to pull out the arrow shaft and throw it away.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
CampinCarl9127 wrote:
I actually have a way around this. If I'm a bow-user and am trying to show the invisible enemy to my allies, I will have a spellcaster put a light cantrip on my arrow. Destroyed ammunition is not disintegrated, so a broken arrowhead should still give off light. Expect table variance though. My circle of friends like the concept and usually require a move action to pull out the arrow shaft and throw it away.

This still lacks RAW support for any rules that say arrows remain sticking in the target after they hit.

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Companion, Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Charter Superscriber
CampinCarl9127 wrote:
I actually have a way around this. If I'm a bow-user and am trying to show the invisible enemy to my allies, I will have a spellcaster put a light cantrip on my arrow. Destroyed ammunition is not disintegrated, so a broken arrowhead should still give off light. Expect table variance though. My circle of friends like the concept and usually require a move action to pull out the arrow shaft and throw it away.

An invisible light source gives off light, but is still invisible.

Liberty's Edge

Diego Rossi wrote:
hasteroth wrote:
Diego Rossi wrote:

Then remember to add the encumbrance of the new arrow, the damage to armor and clothing and so on.

"You must be realistic."
I see your realism and raise you generic complaints about encumbrance thresholds being unrealistic.
Sure, we must use a percentage of maximum load with incremental effects. You think that the modifier should be based on 1% increments or 0.1%?

The more decimal places the better.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
hasteroth wrote:
Diego Rossi wrote:
hasteroth wrote:
Diego Rossi wrote:

Then remember to add the encumbrance of the new arrow, the damage to armor and clothing and so on.

"You must be realistic."
I see your realism and raise you generic complaints about encumbrance thresholds being unrealistic.
Sure, we must use a percentage of maximum load with incremental effects. You think that the modifier should be based on 1% increments or 0.1%?
The more decimal places the better.

Perfect, Now I need to find a map with a 1 mm grid


Diego Rossi wrote:
hasteroth wrote:
Diego Rossi wrote:
hasteroth wrote:
Diego Rossi wrote:

Then remember to add the encumbrance of the new arrow, the damage to armor and clothing and so on.

"You must be realistic."
I see your realism and raise you generic complaints about encumbrance thresholds being unrealistic.
Sure, we must use a percentage of maximum load with incremental effects. You think that the modifier should be based on 1% increments or 0.1%?
The more decimal places the better.
Perfect, Now I need to find a map with a 1 mm grid

You gotta remember, human encumbrance thresholds are weirdly logarithmic. We'll need models for the models.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Goth Guru wrote:

Glitterdust says it outlines invisible creatures. Arrows say no such thing.

You want a cheep way of tracking invisible creatures? Try dumping flour on the floor. Where they stand the flour vanishes. The floor is unaffected.

The tool for the job would be Marker Dye Arrows with Glowing Ink

Scarab Sages

Covent wrote:

In strict RAW the ammunition is destroyed after a hit. Not sticking out simply non-existent therefore granting no advantage and certainly not allowing for pinpointing or tracking an invisible target.

Destroyed is a loose concept and is up to the GM. The Arrows are certainly destroyed in the sense that they are no longer usable as the thing they were created as (arrows in this case). But they don't disintegrate or otherwise disappear after being used.

Though this is a loose concept and totally up to the GM regarding how much they are willing to keep track of. Just like how dead creatures should leave corpses, but most GMs just remove the slain creature entirely without a second thought, since it means one less thing to keep track of.

Regarding shooting invisible creature, understand that the total concealment miss chance represents the odds to hit the creature when you only know the cube of space that it occupies.

If the invisible creature isn't moving at all(like paralyzed), the PC should be able to pinpoint the location of the creature with trial and error like the OP's player is suggesting. If they are moving within the cube, even simple movements (like breathing) should ruin this trial and error method.


If the arrow is embedded in the enemy, wouldn't it become part of him? Like if you drink a non-invisible potion while invisible,can they see the liquid? The arrow is inside you. Sure some of its sticking out, but once it's inside you, the entire thing would be invisible.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

I have never known a GM to let an arrow overcome invis and there is no rule support for it. Players need to think of things in both directions when they suggest rules.


Lakesidefantasy wrote:
I guess this undermines the classic technique of casting silence on an arrow or dagger and embedding it into the caster, thus avoiding giving them a Will save.

That's what tanglefoot bags are for...


2 people marked this as a favorite.
BigDTBone wrote:
Lakesidefantasy wrote:
I guess this undermines the classic technique of casting silence on an arrow or dagger and embedding it into the caster, thus avoiding giving them a Will save.
That's what tanglefoot bags are for...

That is amazing...


Adventure Path Charter Subscriber
bbangerter wrote:


This still lacks RAW support for any rules that say arrows remain sticking in the target after they hit.

It doesn't need RAW support. The GM can make that adjudication on his or her own.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Bill Dunn wrote:
bbangerter wrote:


This still lacks RAW support for any rules that say arrows remain sticking in the target after they hit.
It doesn't need RAW support. The GM can make that adjudication on his or her own.

The purpose of the "Rules Questions" forum is to clarify the rules.


Adventure Path Charter Subscriber
MeanMutton wrote:
Bill Dunn wrote:
bbangerter wrote:


This still lacks RAW support for any rules that say arrows remain sticking in the target after they hit.
It doesn't need RAW support. The GM can make that adjudication on his or her own.
The purpose of the "Rules Questions" forum is to clarify the rules.

And since there is no rule on this either way (whether arrows stick or not, whether they should reveal an invisible character or not), it's perfectly reasonable to point out that the GM is capable of issuing a ruling that makes sense to them. So no need for forum policing.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I'm in the not in the rules camp.

However if we ruled arrows caused the invisible creature to be seen, there isn't any reason we couldn't also see our blood on it's claws and/or weapons. Possibly Splattered across it's body or face.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Bill Dunn wrote:
MeanMutton wrote:
Bill Dunn wrote:
bbangerter wrote:


This still lacks RAW support for any rules that say arrows remain sticking in the target after they hit.
It doesn't need RAW support. The GM can make that adjudication on his or her own.
The purpose of the "Rules Questions" forum is to clarify the rules.
And since there is no rule on this either way (whether arrows stick or not, whether they should reveal an invisible character or not), it's perfectly reasonable to point out that the GM is capable of issuing a ruling that makes sense to them. So no need for forum policing.

Usually when the rules don't mention something, it is because it is not allowed (though I'm not of the opinion that this is an absolute as some things would fail common sense - dead characters taking actions).

However, there are already rules in place for tracking invisible creatures, both with magical and mundane means. Shooting arrows at a creature is not one of those listed ways. Was this an oversight by the design team? While the absence of such is not a clear cut and dried means of saying "No, this doesn't work", it lends a great deal of weight to that side of the argument.

It is important for GM's to understand what the rules do (or don't) say before making house rules. Doing so helps them understand the farther reaching implications of those house rules.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Adventure Path Charter Subscriber
bbangerter wrote:


Usually when the rules don't mention something, it is because it is not allowed (though I'm not of the opinion that this is an absolute as some things would fail common sense - dead characters taking actions).

That is utter and complete BS in role playing games. If something isn't mentioned, it's because RPG rules cannot, literally cannot, cover everything that can possibly happen in a game. This is why we have referees who can adjudicate cases that come up that aren't in the rules but fit the genre or make sense to the situation at hand.


Who is to say the arrow is even in them? What if the arrow flies past and grazes them? What if the arrow hits you but bounces off and leaves a nasty bruise? There is no reason to assume the arrows are sticking out of you like a pin cushion. Which is why people pointed out that the arrows are destroyed anyway.


Use the "GM's best friend" rule and give him a +2 circumstance bonus to Perception for locating the invisible creature's square due to his cleverness. Otherwise, no, it doesn't negate the invisibility.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Akkurscid wrote:

I'm in the not in the rules camp.

However if we ruled arrows caused the invisible creature to be seen, there isn't any reason we couldn't also see our blood on it's claws and/or weapons. Possibly Splattered across it's body or face.

APG wrote:
Powder: Powdered chalk, flour, and similar materials are popular with adventurers for their utility in pinpointing invisible creatures. Throwing a bag of powder into a square is an attack against AC 5, and momentarily reveals if there is an invisible creature there. A much more effective method is to spread powder on a surface (which takes 1 full round) and look for footprints.

Since covering them in powder only momentarily reveals someone invisible, I'd say most minor things don't reveal them.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Companion, Maps, Pawns Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
Bill Dunn wrote:
bbangerter wrote:


Usually when the rules don't mention something, it is because it is not allowed (though I'm not of the opinion that this is an absolute as some things would fail common sense - dead characters taking actions).
That is utter and complete BS in role playing games. If something isn't mentioned, it's because RPG rules cannot, literally cannot, cover everything that can possibly happen in a game. This is why we have referees who can adjudicate cases that come up that aren't in the rules but fit the genre or make sense to the situation at hand.

You'll find this huge difference in how the rules are read in thread after thread now. I never encountered the 'weak GM' / 'formulaic rules interpretation' view when I started playing RPGs in the 70s, but some time in the past decade or two it seems to have become shockingly widespread. My best guess is that the popularity of Magic the Gathering introduced this style of play to the community. The problem is that what is appropriate for a relatively simplistic card game ruleset is in no way adequate to modelling the entire range of human (and inhuman) endeavor represented by a RPG. Nor were the Pathfinder books ever written with the intention that people would interpret them this way. Rather, the base assumption was that real world logic and 'common sense', as adjudicated by a GM, would be used.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Bill Dunn wrote:
bbangerter wrote:


Usually when the rules don't mention something, it is because it is not allowed (though I'm not of the opinion that this is an absolute as some things would fail common sense - dead characters taking actions).
That is utter and complete BS in role playing games. If something isn't mentioned, it's because RPG rules cannot, literally cannot, cover everything that can possibly happen in a game. This is why we have referees who can adjudicate cases that come up that aren't in the rules but fit the genre or make sense to the situation at hand.

What a GM is free to adjudicate and what is allowed by the rules are entirely different discussions.

Technically the rules state that a GM is free to do whatever they want (rule 0), but that is not a useful point to make in a discussion of what is allowed by the rules.

By rule 0 a GM could allow a player to cut off the hand of an iron golem they are fighting, then using a craft skill and super strength crush one of the fingers into the shape of a key, then use the key to unlock the door and let his party escape from the iron golem. A GM is certainly free to adjudicate such a situation, but that is an entirely different thing then saying that the rules allow it, and every player should have this option available to them.

Likewise, a GM is free to allow arrows shot into an invisible opponent to be left sticking out of said opponent and thus allow them to track said invisible opponent. But no player should ever go up to a GM and tell a GM, "the rules allow this".


1 person marked this as a favorite.

CBDunkerson: The rules question section is here FOR that "'formulaic rules interpretation'". If you're talking about "real world logic and 'common sense', as adjudicated by a GM", then that's for the advice or house rules section. This section is for talking about what the rules LITERALLY say while other threads are about how you think it should be run or how you'd DM them.

As far as the base assumption, I expect that the rules where meant to be followed and that words have meaning. They wouldn't print them if they wanted us to ignore them and instead use "real world logic and 'common sense'". Real world logic tells me that giant creatures violate cube law and 200' falls are only survivable with a stroke of luck but these are this is where the 'common sense' of the game world drastically diverges from the real world.


CBDunkerson wrote:
Bill Dunn wrote:
bbangerter wrote:


Usually when the rules don't mention something, it is because it is not allowed (though I'm not of the opinion that this is an absolute as some things would fail common sense - dead characters taking actions).
That is utter and complete BS in role playing games. If something isn't mentioned, it's because RPG rules cannot, literally cannot, cover everything that can possibly happen in a game. This is why we have referees who can adjudicate cases that come up that aren't in the rules but fit the genre or make sense to the situation at hand.
You'll find this huge difference in how the rules are read in thread after thread now. I never encountered the 'weak GM' / 'formulaic rules interpretation' view when I started playing RPGs in the 70s, but some time in the past decade or two it seems to have become shockingly widespread.

I never did in those days either. But understanding what the rules actually say/specifically allow, does not make for a 'weak GM'. My own personal experience is that GM's get better the better they understand the rules - because it allows them to adjudicate things not expressly covered by the rules without distorting game balance (such balance as there is in a highly complex rule set), or disrupting consistency in the rules.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Companion, Maps, Pawns Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
graystone wrote:
CBDunkerson: The rules question section is here FOR that "'formulaic rules interpretation'".

No. That is your opinion. My opinion is that the rules section is here to discuss the intent of the rules.


Not sure how you can discuss the intent of the rules when no rule exists...

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Companion, Maps, Pawns Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
dragonhunterq wrote:
Not sure how you can discuss the intent of the rules when no rule exists...

Not so hard;

No rules exist for actions after you have died.

Formulaic rules interpretation (without those messy 'house rules' based on real world logic and common sense) would therefore allow normal actions just like any other state which doesn't describe limitations on action.

The intent is that dead people take no actions.

No rules exist, yet the intent is absolutely clear and formulaic rules interpretation leads to complete nonsense.


CBDunkerson wrote:
dragonhunterq wrote:
Not sure how you can discuss the intent of the rules when no rule exists...

Not so hard;

No rules exist for actions after you have died.

Formulaic rules interpretation (without those messy 'house rules' based on real world logic and common sense) would therefore allow normal actions just like any other state which doesn't describe limitations on action.

The intent is that dead people take no actions.

No rules exist, yet the intent is absolutely clear and formulaic rules interpretation leads to complete nonsense.

Dead characters can absolutely, unarguably, unequivocally take normal actions... in whatever plane of existence they find themselves in after death.

But yeah, no rules for arrows sticking out, no bleed effects (which aren't explicitly visible anyway), means no rules support for pinpointing invisible targets in this manner.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
CBDunkerson wrote:
graystone wrote:
CBDunkerson: The rules question section is here FOR that "'formulaic rules interpretation'".
No. That is your opinion. My opinion is that the rules section is here to discuss the intent of the rules.

So the rules section is actually not for talking about the rules but what you can read into them? Got it. Or better yet, the intent of NOT having a rule... :P

None of us truly now the intent of the authors of the rules unless they themselves speak up so what we're left with are the actual words on the page and "real world logic and 'common sense' shouldn't override that. Now "real world logic and 'common sense' is an acceptable reason for house-rules but we aren't in that section.

Bringing intent into rules debate should be for trying to figure out when you have multiple readings of a rule and not for altering/changing the existing reading or inventing a rule from scratch.


Thanks for the many replies. The issue is resolved now. Feel free to continue discussing it if you please, but I'm good.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

This is a discussion forum about rules, right? It is not a rules citation site. It is not any one of the many sites that list the rules verbatim.

Of course this forum is about intent, RAW, and just what we as the players and customers thinks makes sense. Even FAQs have been modified or completely changed due to our discussions.

It is very likely that parts of the rules that many people think are absolutely clear are very murky to others. And sometimes, that murkiness points out problems with the rule, not an inability to understand something.

So I would ask, and often have, that people just realize that opposing views and ideas are not such a horrible thing. It is what makes a debate. But trying to be so absolute in the idea that your position can be the only one is just insane.

Relax, discuss, and debate. Stop attacking the other side's viewpoint or play style. Because in the end, you're gonna go play your way anyway.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
graystone wrote:
CBDunkerson wrote:
graystone wrote:
CBDunkerson: The rules question section is here FOR that "'formulaic rules interpretation'".
No. That is your opinion. My opinion is that the rules section is here to discuss the intent of the rules.

So the rules section is actually not for talking about the rules but what you can read into them? Got it. Or better yet, the intent of NOT having a rule... :P

None of us truly now the intent of the authors of the rules unless they themselves speak up so what we're left with are the actual words on the page and "real world logic and 'common sense' shouldn't override that. Now "real world logic and 'common sense' is an acceptable reason for house-rules but we aren't in that section.

Bringing intent into rules debate should be for trying to figure out when you have multiple readings of a rule and not for altering/changing the existing reading or inventing a rule from scratch.

That is false. We can definitely know the intent without having the authors speak up. People come here to find out how the rule is supposed to be used at the table.

People tend to confuse "can't prove" with "can't know". I tend know more often than not how the rules are intended to work, even if I have no proof until an FAQ is made or a dev speaks up.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Companion, Maps, Pawns Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber

Exactly. When the rules do not address a specific situation we are left to our own reason and logic to determine how it should play out.

Insisting that one particular re-interpretation of rules which were never meant to address that situation is the only possible reading is just tedious. Better to explore all sides of the issue to get a full idea of the scope and possibilities.

Sovereign Court

1 person marked this as a favorite.

To people who think it works - do you actually think that your character is hit solidly every time they take HP damage? Do you picture your character with a dozen of gashes and/or arrows sticking out of them until they're healed?


Adventure Path Charter Subscriber

We pretty much know for a fact that some people do because that's been a concept with us since gaming's been around, particularly with monsters being fought since they typically don't have the level structure boosting their hit points. So it's not like it's a completely unheard of or outrageous concept.


wraithstrike wrote:
graystone wrote:
CBDunkerson wrote:
graystone wrote:
CBDunkerson: The rules question section is here FOR that "'formulaic rules interpretation'".
No. That is your opinion. My opinion is that the rules section is here to discuss the intent of the rules.

So the rules section is actually not for talking about the rules but what you can read into them? Got it. Or better yet, the intent of NOT having a rule... :P

None of us truly now the intent of the authors of the rules unless they themselves speak up so what we're left with are the actual words on the page and "real world logic and 'common sense' shouldn't override that. Now "real world logic and 'common sense' is an acceptable reason for house-rules but we aren't in that section.

Bringing intent into rules debate should be for trying to figure out when you have multiple readings of a rule and not for altering/changing the existing reading or inventing a rule from scratch.

That is false. We can definitely know the intent without having the authors speak up. People come here to find out how the rule is supposed to be used at the table.

People tend to confuse "can't prove" with "can't know". I tend know more often than not how the rules are intended to work, even if I have no proof until an FAQ is made or a dev speaks up.

How does any of what you said really differ from what I said? I said "None of us truly now the intent of the authors" and you say "I tend know". You can't say that you haven't been surprised by a ruling in the past so how can you disagree with my statement. No matter how good your educated guesses are, they are still just that: guesses. For instance, did you ever guess that the 'intent' was to have multiple sources for stat bonuses? I know I didn't.

It's not unheard of for an author to come on the boards and say their intent was different from the written rules, so you can have differing intents [author and PDT]. Which is right? Or do we go with the actual rule in front of us, because we can be sure of how it's written?

"People come here to find out how the rule is supposed to be used at the table": Doesn't that sound like advice instead of asking what a rule actually is? What IS the rule vs how do you use this rule?

CBDunkerson wrote:
Exactly. When the rules do not address a specific situation we are left to our own reason and logic to determine how it should play out.

I couldn't agree more. That statement isn't a rule though.

CBDunkerson wrote:
Insisting that one particular re-interpretation of rules which were never meant to address that situation is the only possible reading is just tedious. Better to explore all sides of the issue to get a full idea of the scope and possibilities.

There is often only one correct answer and when that's the case it should be given. In those situations if you "explore all sides", you just confuse the issue. For example, weapon focus adds +1 to hit with that weapon. Simple, easy and clear. Now if someone thinks it's intended to do something else, I should be fine with his "re-interpretation" because you can always read something different if you try hard enough and read between the lines?

No, sorry. I can understand debating intent and all the other things when there is questionable wording, a thing all too common, but often the answer is clear and people just don't like what it is.


So what happens if the invisible enemy simply breaks the arrows off?
Covers the holes with clothing....

Gone.


KenderKin wrote:

So what happens if the invisible enemy simply breaks the arrows off?

Covers the holes with clothing....

Gone.

Breaking the arrow would be an attack, and that would break the Invisibility

:P


All I have to say here is get a limning bow.


Scott Wilhelm wrote:
KenderKin wrote:

So what happens if the invisible enemy simply breaks the arrows off?

Covers the holes with clothing....

Gone.

Breaking the arrow would be an attack, and that would break the Invisibility

:P

You can't break the arrow, it's already broken/destroyed!

Broken = 1/2 or less hp. Destroyed = 0 hp. "ammunition that hits its target is destroyed or rendered useless" Useless pretty much equals destroyed in this case. "When an object's hit points reach 0, it's ruined." This mean an attack does nothing as it's already at 0 hp.


Mundane ammunition isn't always destroyed when it hits its target. There is only a 50% miss chance of that happening.

Since the rules aren't clear on what should happen, you will have to simply make something up. I generally describe things based on how well the arrow hit. Sometimes I have the arrow sticking out, sometimes I don't. There are not rules for everything. That's intentional.

For simplicity, you could have the miss chance drop from 50% to 20% for one round. I tend to do this when someone tries to use mundane ways to find invisible creatures most of the time. There are always exceptions to this.


Bob_Loblaw wrote:
Mundane ammunition isn't always destroyed when it hits its target. There is only a 50% miss chance of that happening.

That's incorrect. Ammo that MISSES has a 50% chance.

Direct quote from PRD, core book: "Generally speaking, ammunition that hits its target is destroyed or rendered useless, while ammunition that misses has a 50% chance of being destroyed or lost."


graystone wrote:
Bob_Loblaw wrote:
Mundane ammunition isn't always destroyed when it hits its target. There is only a 50% miss chance of that happening.

That's incorrect. Ammo that MISSES has a 50% chance.

Direct quote from PRD, core book: "Generally speaking, ammunition that hits its target is destroyed or rendered useless, while ammunition that misses has a 50% chance of being destroyed or lost."

I read it wrong, but even then it isn't necessarily destroyed. It does say "generally speaking." That means that it could still easily be stuck in the target should the GM want it to. The rest of my post is unaffected by that error.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Stuck arrows break Dominate Monster spell effect, because there is nowhere in the rules where you can find they do not...err, wait, I think I'm missing something out here.

"Since the rules aren't clear on what should happen, you will have to simply make something up.". I do not agree with this sentence. Rules pretty much cover everything up, and we should restrain our "making ups" to corner, exceptional cases, and arrive to a consensus on the out of the corner cases.


Numarak wrote:

Stuck arrows break Dominate Monster spell effect, because there is nowhere in the rules where you can find they do not...err, wait, I think I'm missing something out here.

"Since the rules aren't clear on what should happen, you will have to simply make something up.". I do not agree with this sentence. Rules pretty much cover everything up, and we should restrain our "making ups" to corner, exceptional cases, and arrive to a consensus on the out of the corner cases.

You can disagree with it all you want, but the simple fact is that the rules say absolutely nothing about this so you will have to make something up. The rules cannot, should not, and will not ever cover every possible scenario that comes up. I would hate to see that tome. It would be the worst RPG game ever created.

The GM needs to make things up sometimes. That's part of the job. I would hate to run my campaigns based on the messageboard consensus. I would never get anything done.

51 to 100 of 138 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Rules Questions / My player thinks arrows > invisibility All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.