|
I'm not surprised at the ruling, even though I argued the other way. Handwavium or "it was just magic..." is pretty much the only way to explain how an immobile victim somehow moved across thin air and landed safely upon a downward sloped surface devoid of anything to snag and hang upon.
I'm actually intrigued by the decision to remove evasion. And I see the next rules dispute in what that RAW means.
"However, you lose evasion in these circumstances."
Which are "these" circumstances? When you make a save and magically move, or any/all circumstances where you make a save with 0 dex?
Let the arguments begin anew.
That is simply a restatement of the evasion rules, which state a helpless character does not benefit from evasion.
I'm not surprised at the ruling, even though I argued the other way. Handwavium or "it was just magic..." is pretty much the only way to explain how an immobile victim somehow moved across thin air and landed safely upon a downward sloped surface implicitly devoid of anything to snag and hang upon.
I'm actually intrigued by the decision to remove evasion. And I see the next rules dispute in what that RAW means.
"However, you lose evasion in these circumstances."
Which are "these" circumstances? When you make a save and magically move, or any/all circumstances where you make a save with 0 dex?
Let the arguments begin anew.
It is no more handwavium then the spell itself. Something is warping space, it just happened to warp someone over there.
"However, you lose evasion in these circumstances."Which are "these" circumstances?
A helpless character cannot gain the benefits of evasion (it's in the description of evasion itself). Paralysis makes you helpless. Ergo, paralysis prevents you from benefiting from evasion. Very straightforward, no FAQ necessary.
|
I wonder if people are missing the angle I'm illustrating. If so, no big deal. I actually agree with the interpretation given in the posts since my last one... and I don't want to see rules lawyers arguing the angle I'm referring to, so I'm not going to elucidate further.
Let's all agree to agree then ;)
I'm not surprised at the ruling, even though I argued the other way. Handwavium or "it was just magic..." is pretty much the only way to explain how an immobile victim somehow moved across thin air and landed safely upon a downward sloped surface implicitly devoid of anything to snag and hang upon.
I'm actually intrigued by the decision to remove evasion. And I see the next rules dispute in what that RAW means.
"However, you lose evasion in these circumstances."
Which are "these" circumstances? When you make a save and magically move, or any/all circumstances where you make a save with 0 dex?
Let the arguments begin anew.
These circumstances are the ones listed in the question area of the FAQ.
The GM can provide the flavor.
Obviously, however:
This is probably the best explanation I've heard. There's no logical conceit I can think of, just the brush off of Magic! or A Wizard Did It.
It's a balancing mechanic, but it shatters verisimilitude in ways a mere lightning bolt never can.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I wonder if people are missing the angle I'm illustrating. If so, no big deal. I actually agree with the interpretation given in the posts since my last one... and I don't want to see rules lawyers arguing the angle I'm referring to, so I'm not going to elucidate further.
Let's all agree to agree then ;)
|
|
This is probably the best explanation I've heard. There's no logical conceit I can think of, just the brush of of Magic! or A Wizard Did It.
It's a balancing mechanic, but it shatters verisimilitude in ways a mere lightning bolt never can.
I prefer the "dimensional warping as the pit is created" explanation myself. (Which can be boiled down to "MAGIC!" it is true.)
I prefer the "dimensional warping as the pit is created" explanation myself. (Which can be boiled down to "MAGIC!" it is true.)This is probably the best explanation I've heard. There's no logical conceit I can think of, just the brush of of Magic! or A Wizard Did It.
It's a balancing mechanic, but it shatters verisimilitude in ways a mere lightning bolt never can.
Which works for Create Pit, but not an actual pit trap, which I assume would follow the same rule.
Edit: That's a good one for Create Pit, though. I forgot about it.
How is a paralyzed person setting off a pit trap?
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
How is a paralyzed person setting off a pit trap?
Worst. Companions. Ever.
How is a paralyzed person setting off a pit trap?
Roll him down the hallway. Or it is a lever-activated pit, and unfortunately he just happens to be laying on where the pit opens.
How is a paralyzed person setting off a pit trap?Roll him down the hallway. Or it is a lever-activated pit, and unfortunately he just happens to be laying on where the pit opens.
Or it's a two-stage trap that casts Hold Person first, or it's a delayed trap and he was paralyzed in the interim, or another party member triggers the trap, or he's being carried by the party somehow and the trap is sprung.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
How is a paralyzed person setting off a pit trap?Worst. Companions. Ever.
Good answer.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm not surprised at the ruling, even though I argued the other way. Handwavium or "it was just magic..." is pretty much the only way to explain how an immobile victim somehow moved across thin air and landed safely upon a downward sloped surface implicitly devoid of anything to snag and hang upon.
I'm actually intrigued by the decision to remove evasion. And I see the next rules dispute in what that RAW means.
"However, you lose evasion in these circumstances."
Which are "these" circumstances? When you make a save and magically move, or any/all circumstances where you make a save with 0 dex?
Let the arguments begin anew.
Let's not. They were answered.
There's no "realistic" answer for what happens when you rip open spacetime to reveal a hole in the ground. You moved space, they got lucky and moved with it. You rode the wave on the warp drive.
No really a suprising FAQ, since the PDT seems to go with "go with RAW even if you have to brutally butcher common sense" lately. Even though it does actually break the rules text of Create Pit.
I think we still need an FAQ for Create Pit, explaining how the "jump to safety in the nearest open space" works.
Incorrect. Paralysis prevents you from taking move actions, your movement speed is unchanged.
Maximum Movement: None.Can't jump!
*Flips table* Your move.
A paralyzed character cannot move, speak, or take any physical action. He is rooted to the spot, frozen and helpless.
Its almost like they care about how a game plays rather than replicating real world physics.No really a suprising FAQ, since the PDT seems to go with "go with RAW even if you have to brutally butcher common sense" lately. Even though it does actually break the rules text of Create Pit.
I think we still need an FAQ for Create Pit, explaining how the "jump to safety in the nearest open space" works.
Obvious fallacy is fallacious.
That and fluff is fluff, not mechanics.
Buddy, in a conversation where a paralyzed character can leap out of a pit trap despite being rooted to the ground, we're firmly rooted in Stupid Land. So prove it! :P
Its almost like they care about how a game plays rather than replicating real world physics.
You mean they repeatedly tell us that we should throw common sense out of the window, after spending years of telling us to use common sense, because they "care about how a game plays"?
That and fluff is fluff, not mechanics.
So the text that explains what happens on a successful save is fluff and not mechanics?
There is nothing mechanical about the phrase "jump to safety in the nearest open space".
No less than half that sentence is verifiably mechanical. If a successful save did not do something "to safety in the nearest open space," this thread would have ended pages ago.
That and fluff is fluff, not mechanics.Buddy, in a conversation where a paralyzed character can leap out of a pit trap despite being rooted to the ground, we're firmly rooted in Stupid Land. So prove it! :P
Which text is more clearly "rules text": the language about jumping out of the way, or the "Saving Throw: Reflex: negates" line?
What if a person pinned by a grapple makes their save to jump to the nearest open spot, but the grappler does not? What becomes of the grapple?
Ah, the wonders of pits.
Perhaps I should have included a clarification to indicate I was being tongue-in-cheek about the whole situation.
Doing so now, though! I was just being silly by pointing out some of the strangeness, since that's what people seemed to be discussing especially after the ruling.
Mechanically if you make your save vs the pit spells you end up in a safe square. Flavorwise that movement is now a jump. Personally, I think they forgot about situations such as paralyzation when the spell was written.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Obvious fallacy is fallacious.
Yeah, but you could say that about the post he was replying to too.
You mean they repeatedly tell us that we should throw common sense out of the window, after spending years of telling us to use common sense, because they "care about how a game plays"?
The thing is one person's common sense is another person's stupid decision.
You say "Common sense says that a paralyzed opponent can't avoid the pit". Other people say "Common sense says that you shouldn't deny someone a saving throw unless the rules say they don't get one".
Really the whole "But common sense" thing just seems to be some weirdly twisted appeal to authority fallacy. With the authority being just your own opinion of what 'makes sense'.
Which text is more clearly "rules text": the language about jumping out of the way, or the "Saving Throw: Reflex: negates" line?That and fluff is fluff, not mechanics.Buddy, in a conversation where a paralyzed character can leap out of a pit trap despite being rooted to the ground, we're firmly rooted in Stupid Land. So prove it! :P
Hmm...common sense would dictate the latter, but I'm pretty sure common sense went out the window about three pages ago. :)
Really the whole "But common sense" thing just seems to be some weirdly twisted appeal to authority fallacy. With the authority being just your own opinion of what 'makes sense'.
See? Common sense holds no sway! So I stand by what I said: There is no actual rule dividing "fluff" and "rules text". As such, if it's stated in the book as fact, it is a rule.
You can't prove otherwise. That's kinda the thing with RAW is Law. Once it's written down, it's written down. ;D
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's not that common sense has no sway, it's that what does or does not seem like common sense varies wildly from group to group based on their expectations, so using it as some sort of definitive argument that you're right is silly.
So I stand by what I said: There is no actual rule dividing "fluff" and "rules text". As such, if it's stated in the book as fact, it is a rule.
I know your'e being flippant, but I actually do think you kind of have a point there though, the concept of fluff text isn't really one described in the game and I don't think the rules were ever intended to fully divorce the text like that.
For instance, I remember a thread a few months ago where people argued rather heatedly that Iron Golems were unaffected by rust monsters or spells like rusting grasp, because iron was only mentioned in the fluff section and never in the creature's actual stats.
Yeah, I'm trying to make a serious point through flippancy. I hate—hate—the tendency these boards have to use tortuous RAW readings to complicate fairly obvious intents. It creates huge bloated threads of nothing. Some people do it for fun. Others seem to do it just to be pests. And others seem to just want to take the weird position.
I am more inclined to sympathize with arguments like "Sleep doesn't knock you prone", since there's a much stronger argument there for both an unfairly potent effect and an easy flavor explanation. This thread just seems tiresome, and the attempts at the above two arguments have rung as weak and desperate. It doesn't make sense, it wasn't intended, and the so-called "flavor text" makes the obvious interpretation even more obvious.
You guys realize that this is why people make fun of the Rules Questions subforum. :P
Heh, I'm happy to have this cleared up by the FAQ at least.
*Shoots spitballs at QuidEst*
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
*Shoots spitballs at QuidEst*
*checks weapons listing*
*pushes glasses up*Pretty sure you can't do that by RAW.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
warpriest spitballs deal 4d8 damage...
It's not that common sense has no sway, it's that what does or does not seem like common sense varies wildly from group to group based on their expectations, so using it as some sort of definitive argument that you're right is silly.
So I stand by what I said: There is no actual rule dividing "fluff" and "rules text". As such, if it's stated in the book as fact, it is a rule.I know your'e being flippant, but I actually do think you kind of have a point there though, the concept of fluff text isn't really one described in the game and I don't think the rules were ever intended to fully divorce the text like that.
For instance, I remember a thread a few months ago where people argued rather heatedly that Iron Golems were unaffected by rust monsters or spells like rusting grasp, because iron was only mentioned in the fluff section and never in the creature's actual stats.
How far removed text is from the rules will vary by the example. In many cases the text is 100% mutable. In other cases it is hard to go to far from the original flavor/fluff and still justify the mechanic. I haven't seen too much flavor text that can't be replaced with completely different text, and break the mechanical intent though.
There is nothing mechanical about the phrase "jump to safety in the nearest open space".No less than half that sentence is verifiably mechanical. If a successful save did not do something "to safety in the nearest open space," this thread would have ended pages ago.It's the very fact that people thought this was NOT fluff which drove the pages of discussion and the eventual FAQ confirming that yes, it is actually fluff.
The whole point is that 'SOMETHING' you refer to is exactly why you should call it fluff. You don't need to actually jump, crawl, shimmy, vault, trot, shuffle, trip, or perform any specific type of movement to be 'moved' to the safe spot. The rules says reflex: negates, and that you end up in the nearest safe spot.
How you actually got there is the fluff that the GM/player can feel free to invent as they will. If it were not 'fluff', then it's either jumping or nothing.
So one word out of eight is 'fluff' but the other seven are not. How do you tell the difference?
Experience with the game system and familiarity with the design teams stated design goals/intents. In this case, you can tell since jump is an actual game element. The text says to jump, but it in no way mechanically utilizes the existing Pathfinder jumping rules. This indicates that "jump to safety" is descriptive fluff. In order for "jump to safety" to be mechanics, it would have to be worded something like "the player may use Acrobatics to jump to safety." See the portion of the create pit spell where it spells out how to climb out.So one word out of eight is 'fluff' but the other seven are not. How do you tell the difference?There is nothing mechanical about the phrase "jump to safety in the nearest open space".No less than half that sentence is verifiably mechanical. If a successful save did not do something "to safety in the nearest open space," this thread would have ended pages ago.It's the very fact that people thought this was NOT fluff which drove the pages of discussion and the eventual FAQ confirming that yes, it is actually fluff.
The whole point is that 'SOMETHING' you refer to is exactly why you should call it fluff. You don't need to actually jump, crawl, shimmy, vault, trot, shuffle, trip, or perform any specific type of movement to be 'moved' to the safe spot. The rules says reflex: negates, and that you end up in the nearest safe spot.
How you actually got there is the fluff that the GM/player can feel free to invent as they will. If it were not 'fluff', then it's either jumping or nothing.
I see. You're clearly better than this than I am. What would be the flavor text in Force Cage that just says "reflex negates" does Force Cage flavor you to a safe space?
Also, actual Pit Traps.
For Forcecage I would say the magic pushed you outside the boundaries of where the cage formed.
For the pit you are falling into the pit. There is no magic to keep you from falling into the pit<====how it would go in my games.
Pits: You were on the edge of the pit when it opened, and therefore did not fall in. If it is the type that opens and then closes, then it malfunctioned and you got lucky and it closed again before you could fall in.
For a pit that is open, but covered the rules state that " If she was running or moving recklessly at the time, however, she gets no saving throw and falls automatically."
Someone who is running has more control over themselves than a paralyzed person so I don't think they should get save, but I dont know if it is worth another FAQ.
I hate—hate—the tendency these boards have to use tortuous RAW readings to complicate fairly obvious intents.
Yeah, I thought I did see "obvious intent" when the writer put Improved Damage Reduction in list of suggested rage powers for Invulnerable Rager. Guess what happened then.
There is nothing mechanical about the phrase "jump to safety in the nearest open space".
The why did they add it to the spell discription in an errata? The whole phrase was added for the second printing (the first printing said "(...)to avoid falling into it." instead).
The FAQ says "follow the rules of the spell for a successful Reflex save". That is exactly what I'm doing. The spell says jump to savety, so I say we follow the rules of the spell and make the affected characters jump*. Rules of the spell, not general rules for saving throws, mind you.
*) When they altered the description, they used a word that has some actually rules behind it. When they add the word "jump", and there are rules how you jump, then yes, I presume that the intend is to use those rules. The spell does not say the target is "shoved to the nearest open space", or something similar, in which case it would be movement by outside force. A jump is clearly a movement that comes from the target's body and one that is prohibited by the rules for paralyzation.
I would absolutely love an FAQ that says "The 'jump' is actually the forming pit shoving the affected creature aside, we just didn't have enough space to write that. The creature get's shoved to the nearest accessible open space not affected by the spell. If no such space is assessible, the target falls in even on a successful saving throw." Maybe even some general rules how movement necessitating reflex saves work.
Sometimes they have to make strange rulings that seem nonsensical, often just for the sake of PFS balance.
GMs will always have the right to exercise Rule Zero, and if they decide that a person paralyzed on the spot you cast Create Pit does in fact fall in without a save, I don't think it's going to cause an uproar.
It's just for rules consistency. If you're at 0 Dex and make a reflex save, you deserve the benefits of your luck.
Sometimes they have to make strange rulings that seem nonsensical, often just for the sake of PFS balance.
GMs will always have the right to exercise Rule Zero, and if they decide that a person paralyzed on the spot you cast Create Pit does in fact fall in without a save, I don't think it's going to cause an uproar.
You're assuming that this was a problem that was rooted only in PFS. It wasn't.
Crane Wing was a problem that was rooted only in PFS because they can't alter or design encounters with enemies that have more than one attack (or to be even more bold about it, more than one enemy oer PC) because "reasons".
Master of Many Styles was a problem that was rooted only in PFS for similar reasons (though it was the only way people were getting Crane Wing by 1st/2nd level, which was causing the above "abuse" in the first place).
Several magic items that were nerfed into uselessness/easily replacable by the Big 6 was a problem that was rooted only in PFS because of the lack of similar good options for the affected slots.
This problem would persist well beyond PFS tables, because you would have a lot of home game GMs saying that you don't get a Reflex Save because Rule 0. Again, not saying it's unreasonable, but last I checked, something has to specifically say that no saving throw is allowed (such as in a Spell Description), or that something automatically works in specific circumstances, to be denied a Saving Throw. This otherwise conjures the general rule that you always get a Saving Throw; I mean, even if you're unlikely to make the save, there's always the chance to roll that 20, and automatically succeed, regardless of how poor or unlikely you really are. I mean, that's the very definition of probability, chance, and most importantly, luck.