Some Assorted Rules Question

[Balkoth]

1. Do you threaten for purposes of providing a flank when flat-footed?

2. Do you keep Dwarven Hardiness when in Wild Shape (I believe the answer is no since it depends on you being a dwarf)?

3. If you have a base movement speed of 20 (as a small creature) and then wear Heavy Armor plus Boots of Springing and Striding, do you get a result of: 20 -> 15 (armor) -> 25 (boots) or 20 -> 30 (boots) -> 20 (armor)?

4. How do Missile Shield (and Deflect Arrows) interact with Alchemist Bombs? It says "ranged attacks generated by natural attacks or spell effects can’t be deflected." While an Alchemist Bomb isn't technically a spell effect, it IS a ranged touch attack which seems to fall under the purview of Ray Shield. If Missile Shield applies to Alchemist Bombs, then deflecting the bombs would make them vanish into a void or something (they never detonate) so that also seems a bit off.

5. Do you threaten an invisible foe (such as for flanking)? If the invisible foe is completely surrounded by enemies and wants to leave, presumably they have to make an Acrobatics check vs the CMD + 5 of one of the enemies (though that enemy loses their Dex bonus to CMD). Do the rest of the enemies add +2 to the check like they normally would?

6. When does invisibility break if casting a Fireball, Lightning Bolt, or similar attack? As soon as you start casting? When the spell goes off (aka past the "interrupt it" phase)? Something else?

7. How exactly does Time Hop work for a Time Mystery Oracle? Can you move from being prone to standing up when using it? Can you move allies from being prone to standing up when using it? Can you reposition allies when using Time Hop (so they start to your east, then you Time Hop, then they appear to your west)? If you had an ally North and another ally Northeast (so directly above and then above and to the right), do they need to still be adjacent to each other after Time Hopping?

[James Risner]

1)

CRB wrote:

A flat-footed character can’t make attacks of opportunity, unless he has the Combat Reflexes feat.

You can't make AoO, that presumably means you don't threaten. Ultimately ask your GM, as I think this is a question the PDT didn't expect to be asked, so they didn't answer.

2)

Ask your GM wrote:

While most of these should be obvious, the GM is the final arbiter of what abilities depend on form and are lost when a new form is assumed

3) 20+10 => 20 - The boots improve your base speed, the armor reduces off base.

4)

Missile Shield wrote:

not including spell effects

The CRB rules on spell and magical effects then goes on to only use "spell". The rules in general consider spells and magical effects the same unless they don't. In this case a supernatural bomb is likely included in "spell effects". Ask your GM.

5) Yes you threaten. No you shouldn't need to worry about AoO if you are invisible and they can't see you. Ask your GM on whether or not the +2 applies, I'd say no.

6) If you cast a spell the target considers an attack, you break invis (covered in an FAQ). The effects come into play when the spell is completed casting, so you have not attacked until you have. Ask your GM if they differ with my interpretation.

7)

Time Hop (Su) wrote:

As a move action, you can teleport up to 10 feet per oracle level that you possess per day. This teleportation must be used in 5-foot increments. This movement does not provoke attacks of opportunity. You must have line of sight to your destination to use this ability. You can bring other willing creatures with you, but you must expend an equal amount of distance for each creature brought. You must be at least 7th level to select this revelation.

Prone to standing, ask your GM.

Ally prone to standing, ask your GM.

reposition allies, ask your GM.

still adjacent, ask your GM.

Why ask your GM? None of these are covered in the rules so all of it is GM interpretations of the rules.

[Corrinus]

1. I would say, normally no. As the GM I would rule that if the character has Combat Reflexes or Uncanny Dodge, then they can be considered flanking, but only if they are considered to be threatening with a melee weapon out or feat/ability that allows them to be considered threatening through other means.

Flat-Footed: A character who has not yet acted during a combat is flat-footed, unable to react normally to the situation. A flat-footed character loses his Dexterity bonus to AC and Combat Maneuver Defense (CMD) (if any) and cannot make attacks of opportunity, unless he has the Combat Reflexes feat or Uncanny Dodge class ability. Characters with Uncanny Dodge retain their Dexterity bonus to their AC and can make attacks of opportunity before they have acted in the first round of combat.

Flanking: Only a creature or character that threatens the defender can help an attacker get a flanking bonus.

2. You don't suddenly lose your racial abilities/qualities/trainings on account of "no longer being a fill-in-the-blank." Otherwise, you would lose basically everything you got at character creation upon wild shaping or using any other transmutation effect which changes types/subtypes, including your racial ability modifiers, regardless of race. Because pretty much every single entry says "race gains ability" or "race has quality." The only exceptions being the things which are specifically pointed out in the wild shape class ability, i.e. "lose the ability to speak or cast spells without necessary feats." You would not, however, be a valid target for spells/effects which target humanoids as you are currently an animal while in wild shape.

4. For Ray Shield, the shield would take that damage instead of you, though I would rule that you would take the splash damage, as it only implies that it takes the direct damage. For the Greater version, I would say that you and your shield would still take splash damage. For Missile Shield, the alchemist bomb feature spells out that the alchemist 'infuses them with magical reserves' ultimately making the bombs' damage a spell effect. Same applies for Deflect Arrows or any other feat/ability that excepts spell effects from their abilities to block/absorb/deflect damage/attacks.

5. So long as the character(s) have a way of seeing/detecting and threatening the invisible creature(s), then it would be possible to flank them. Otherwise, they can't really threaten what they can't see and can't anticipate which direction the invisible creature(s) will go. The +2 per character, I think, would still apply, but only if they can also see, or otherwise detect, the invisible creature(s).

6. If it is normal invisibility, it takes a direct attack to break invisibility, not just anything that an enemy would consider an attack. Essentially, if you have to roll an attack roll, bypass spell resistance, or they have to roll a saving throw because of an ability/spell directly affecting them which causes damage, drain, or a status condition, whether it specifically targets them or includes them in the area, it is an attack that breaks invisibility. There are possible exceptions. Things which do not count as an attack is remotely triggering traps, summoning creatures and directing them to attack, opening portcullises to allow attack animals to attack their foes, or cutting a rope bridge while enemies are still on it.

7. Per RAW, you and your allies would still be prone, as it does not call it out as a "gives allies a free move action with base movement equivalent to the amount you provide to them" or anything along those lines, it simply says that you "move them" a specific amount of distance away from where they were, being no less than 5 feet, and "with you." As for moving willing creatures with you, I would say the intent was to "reposition" them closer to you or move them with you in the same direction, not as a tactical repositioning.

Time Hop (Su): As a move action, you can teleport up to 10 feet per oracle level that you possess per day. This teleportation must be used in 5-foot increments. This movement does not provoke attacks of opportunity. You must have line of sight to your destination to use this ability. You can bring other willing creatures with you, but you must expend an equal amount of distance for each creature brought.

[Gauss]

Being able to make an AoO does not determine if you threaten or not. Threatening has an entirely different requirement, being able to make an attack into that square.

CRB p180 wrote:

Threatened Squares: You threaten all squares into which you can make a melee attack, even when it is not your turn. Generally, that means everything in all squares adjacent to your space (including diagonally). An enemy that takes certain actions while in a threatened square provokes an attack of opportunity from you. If you’re unarmed, you don’t normally threaten any squares and thus can’t make attacks of opportunity.

[Balkoth]

James Risner wrote:

Why ask your GM? None of these are covered in the rules so all of it is GM interpretations of the rules.

I am the GM. Joy.

Corrinus wrote:

2. You don't suddenly lose your racial abilities/qualities/trainings on account of "no longer being a fill-in-the-blank."....The only exceptions being the things which are specifically pointed out in the wild shape class ability, i.e. "lose the ability to speak or cast spells without necessary feats."

You do.

"While under the effects of a polymorph spell, you lose all extraordinary and supernatural abilities that depend on your original form (such as keen senses, scent, and darkvision)"

Corrinus wrote:

6. If it is normal invisibility, it takes a direct attack to break invisibility, not just anything that an enemy would consider an attack.

The question isn't IF the invisibility breaks, but WHEN the invisibility breaks. In other words, does the act of starting to cast Fireball break invisibility (and thus provoke AoOs) or does invisibility only break when the Fireball is released?

Gauss wrote:

Threatening has an entirely different requirement, being able to make an attack into that square.

Indeed. Though some might argue that while you're flat-footed you're unable to make any melee attacks, hence you don't threaten.

[Sah]

Corrinus wrote:

... The only exceptions being the things which are specifically pointed out in the wild shape class ability, i.e. "lose the ability to speak or cast spells without necessary feats." You would not, however, be a valid target for spells/effects which target humanoids as you are currently an animal while in wild shape.

I'm pretty sure this is incorrect, at least for pathfinder. Polymorphing doesn't change your type in pathfinder. If you are a human druid, when you wild shape you are still Humanoid (human).

[Corrinus]

Balkoth, I would say invisibility breaks at the time that you have to roll for the attack/maneuver/spell resistance or they have to roll a saving throw.

Well damn, then you would lose Hardy, as it should be considered an Extraordinary Ability. Same with Stability and Stonecunning.

Sah, Wild Shape (Su): At 4th level, a druid gains the ability to turn herself into any small or Medium animal and back again once per day.

This particular case says you become an animal, not that it is a polymorph effect wherein you gain traits as that animal. Unless the polymorph spell descriptor of the Beast Shape/Elemental Shape/Plant Shape spells it calls out as it "acting like" overrides the RAW reading of that initial sentence of wild shape.

[Sah]

I don't have a link on me, but it's been gone over many times, polymorph in pathfinder doesn't change your type.

[James Risner]

Type never changes type.

[Chess Pwn]

You threaten even if you can't make an AoO.
Total defense threatens for flanking, and that prevents all AoO's, thus the ability to make an AoO isn't needed for threatening.
So yes, flat footed flanks if they have a weapon out.

you keep hardiness, it's not based on form.

Speed increases are always done to your base speed before being modified by armor. So 20ft.

[James Risner]

Chess Pwn wrote:

You threaten even if you can't make an AoO.

you keep hardiness, it's not based on form.

While you do threaten if able to make an attack, the question should be "are you able to make an attack when you are flat foot?" I don't think we have a rule that says so, unless you can show me one? So it is back to "undefined area" of the rules. Thus "Ask the GM" and the OP is the GM. So their call.

The same for the hardy property, I'd also say you keep it. But whether or not it's dependent on form is entirely the GM opinion. The OP is the GM. So it's also their call.

[Chess Pwn]

James Risner wrote:

Chess Pwn wrote:

You threaten even if you can't make an AoO.

you keep hardiness, it's not based on form.

While you do threaten if able to make an attack, the question should be "are you able to make an attack when you are flat foot?" I don't think we have a rule that says so, unless you can show me one? So it is back to "undefined area" of the rules. Thus "Ask the GM" and the OP is the GM. So their call.

The same for the hardy property, I'd also say you keep it. But whether or not it's dependent on form is entirely the GM opinion. The OP is the GM. So it's also their call.

If it was your turn now could you attack into that square? If Yes, you're threatening. You threaten those squares even when it's not your turn. That's the rules for threatening.

So flat-footed or anything else that stops attacking off turn don't factor in for threatening for flanking.

[James Risner]

Chess Pwn wrote:

So flat-footed or anything else that stops attacking off turn don't factor in for threatening for flanking.

We are going to have to chalk this up to a difference. We both read the same rules and come to different interpretations.

[Gauss]

The problem with the 'you are flat-footed and thus cannot attack' is that there is no rules support for it.

Flat-Footed is a condition that affects AoOs and dexterity, it does not affect your ability to attack.

In fact, there are ways to make someone flat-footed during combat (such as Distracting Attack) but that does not stop the FF person from attacking.

James, according to your interpretation, if I make target X flatfooted for 1 round then they are unable to attack when it becomes their turn.

That is simply not in the rules. There is no correlation between being flat-footed and being able to make an attack on your turn.

[James Risner]

Very little of this is detailed in the rules. Flanking requires the ability to make an attack. You are denied the ability to make an attack if you don't have Combat Reflexes and have not acted this combat yet. Er go, to me, you can't contribute to flanking.

Ignore my stance on this issue if:
You have Combat Reflexes.
or
You have acted in this combat but are currently flat foot from another effect.

I'd be curious which effects make someone flat foot as opposed to denied dexterity, as making someone flat foot is likely an error and the author intended "denied dex" instead.

[GinoA]

The problematic text on threatening when flat-footed (or grappled or ...) is "You threaten all squares into which you can make a melee attack, even when it is not your turn.".

The two interpretations depend on how you read the bolded text. One reading is that it modifies the phrase "into which you can attack". By this reading(1), you don't threaten if you can't AoO. The other reading is that the bolded text modifies "you threaten"(2). This reading means threatening has no dependency on AoO.

The problem with the first reading is that Attack of Opportunity, is defined (two paragraphs later) in terms of threatened squares. This leads to the rules being defined circularly and, therefore, impossible to read consistently.

The second reading leads to a complete, understandable rules interaction.

I will continue to advocate the second reading until I see a: a better logical argument than the above or b: a ruling by the PTB that contradicts it.

[Balkoth]

James Risner wrote:

The same for the hardy property, I'd also say you keep it. But whether or not it's dependent on form is entirely the GM opinion. The OP is the GM. So it's also their call.

My thought is racial traits are essentially "innate" or "learned."

For example, polymorphing someone into an Elf would give them Keen Senses and Low Light Vision...but would not give them Weapon Familiarity.

Polymorphing someone into a Half-Orc would give them Darkvision and Orc Ferocity...but would not give them Weapon Familiarity.

Polymorphing someone into a Dwarf would give them Hardy and Stability...but not Hatred or Weapon Familiarity.

On the flip side, polymorphing an Elf into a Human would not remove Weapon Familiarity but it WOULD remove Keen Senses and Low Light Vision.

Likewise, a Druid using Wild Shape would not lose Hatred or Weapon Familiarity...but would lose Hardy and Stability. Their rugged Dwarven hardiness to endure poison does them no good if they're a tiger.

[Talonhawke]

James Risner wrote:

Very little of this is detailed in the rules. Flanking requires the ability to make an attack. You are denied the ability to make an attack if you don't have Combat Reflexes and have not acted this combat yet. Er go, to me, you can't contribute to flanking.

Ignore my stance on this issue if:
You have Combat Reflexes.
or
You have acted in this combat but are currently flat foot from another effect.

I'd be curious which effects make someone flat foot as opposed to denied dexterity, as making someone flat foot is likely an error and the author intended "denied dex" instead.

James but what if have used up my AoOs for the round? I can no longer make an attack so do I stop providing a bonus?

[Oddman80]

Balkoth wrote:

Corrinus wrote:

2. You don't suddenly lose your racial abilities/qualities/trainings on account of "no longer being a fill-in-the-blank."....The only exceptions being the things which are specifically pointed out in the wild shape class ability, i.e. "lose the ability to speak or cast spells without necessary feats."

You do.

"While under the effects of a polymorph spell, you lose all extraordinary and supernatural abilities that depend on your original form (such as keen senses, scent, and darkvision)"

Why do you think "Hardy" is an (Ex) or (Su) ability?

It does not have an (Ex) or (Su) tag under the Dwarven racial trait of that name. In the Race Builder section of the Advanced Race Guide, "Hardy" does not get noted as either an Extraordinary (Ex) ability or a Supernatural (Su) ability.

by contrast, the three examples they reference in the Polymorph Subschool Rules all are noted (Ex) abilities.
Darkvision and Scent are both defined in the Glossary of the CRB. There, both entries define themselves as "extraordinarty abilities". Keen Sent is listed within the Universal Monster Rules, and is given a (Ex) tag.

Extraordinary Ability is a defined game term. Regardless of whether or not one thinks that a Dwarf's hardiness is 'extraordinary', it does not meet the game's definition of (Ex)traordinary.

[James Risner]

GinoA wrote:

"You threaten all squares into which you can make a melee attack, even when it is not your turn.".

the bolded text modifies "you threaten"(2). This reading means threatening has no dependency on AoO.

Call me convinced. I still think this will lead to table variance, but I'm well convinced myself of this being a better interpretation than my initial take. This would lead to being able to threaten prior to your turn in round 0.

Balkoth wrote:

My thought is racial traits are essentially "innate" or "learned."

polymorphing someone into an Elf would give them Keen Senses and Low Light Vision...but would not give them Weapon Familiarity.

Polymorphing someone into a Half-Orc would give them Darkvision and Orc Ferocity...but would not give them Weapon Familiarity.

Polymorphing someone into a Dwarf would give them Hardy and Stability...but not Hatred or Weapon Familiarity.

You don't gain the bolded items unless the spell lists them in the list of abilities you gain.

[James Risner]

Talonhawke wrote:

James but what if have used up my AoOs for the round? I can no longer make an attack so do I stop providing a bonus?

I've moved away from that interpretation, but to be clear this example is irrelevant, as it's covered by a rule. The only place where this is no rule is on round 0 before your first action.

Oddman80 wrote:

Why do you think "Hardy" is an (Ex) or (Su) ability?

Because everything is an Ex unless otherwise specified:

ARG wrote:

Unless stated otherwise, all racial traits are extraordinary abilities, and each racial trait can only be taken once.

[Oddman80]

So, prior tho 2013, druids would have kept far more of their racial abilities... due to that one line in the ARG, they now lose a lot more. huh....

this exact thread existed on the rules forum back in 2012, and had a much different conclusion, due to it predating the ARG.

[Gauss]

James Risner wrote:

Very little of this is detailed in the rules. Flanking requires the ability to make an attack. You are denied the ability to make an attack if you don't have Combat Reflexes and have not acted this combat yet. Er go, to me, you can't contribute to flanking.

Ignore my stance on this issue if:
You have Combat Reflexes.
or
You have acted in this combat but are currently flat foot from another effect.

I'd be curious which effects make someone flat foot as opposed to denied dexterity, as making someone flat foot is likely an error and the author intended "denied dex" instead.

James, I know you have changed your stance so I am no longer addressing that. But, regarding effects that can cause you to be flat-footed there are about 5 rogue talents, a number of spells (such as Recoil Fire and Grease), and using the skill Acrobatics that can make a person flat-footed.

One possible reason they are using flat-footed instead of denied dexterity is that it would make people who are immune to being flat-footed immune to those effects.
Another might be to prevent people from benefiting from Dexterity AND to prevent the ability to make AoOs but, who knows?

[James Risner]

Oddman80 wrote:

So, prior tho 2013, druids would have kept far more of their racial abilities... due to that one line in the ARG, they now lose a lot more. huh....

Depends on how long you’ve played 3.5.

In 3.5 before pathfinder, all abilities were also Ex unless otherwise stated.

So if I was in a thread in 2009 I’d have said Ex prior to ARG, and I’m sure I’d get a lot of folks saying “not RAW” back at me.

Also, don’t forget, your GM might think you still keep a lot of those they deem not based on form. So ask your GM.

[Oddman80]

You seem to be forgetting about "Natural Abilities", which existed in both 3.5 and are also included in the CRB, in the "Magic: Special Abilities" section.

Natural Abilities wrote:

Natural Abilities

This category includes abilities a creature has because of its physical nature. Natural abilities are those not otherwise designated as extraordinary, supernatural, or spell-like.

Now - I would say, prior to the ARG, most of the racial traits that were not specifically called out as Ex, Sp, or Su, would be considered natural abilities. While movement speeds and natural attacks fell into the category of natural abilities (pre ARG), they were both called out in the Polymorph rules as being lost while polymorphed, and replaced by those belonging to the new form (as limited by the spell's description). Other Natural abilities were not called out as being lost, even if they had been based on the creature's physical nature.

After the ARG, almost every one of these natural abilities was re-categorized as (Ex) abilities... and honestly - that is a bit odd. Natural armor, Natural movement modes and speeds, and even a creatures ability to use its natural weapons are to be considered "Extraordinary Abilities", because they were never explicitly called out as Natural Abilities... In fact, nothing is left to fall into the Natural Abilities category at all.

[James Risner]

Oddman80 wrote:

In fact, nothing is left to fall into the Natural Abilities category at all.

I didn't forget, I just guess I have a more narrow scope of what a natural ability is.

Natural Weapons, movement speeds, natural armor are about it for me. In short, if it isn't a movement or an ability with "natural" in it, it isn't natural to me.

[Balkoth]

So...these things seem to have a consensus:

1, you threaten while flat-footed

2, Hardy is lost (Ex ability)

3, 20 final feet (20 -> 30 -> 20)

6, Invis breaks when the Fireball roars out and explodes

But...

4, Alchemist Bombs

5, moving through foes while invisible (and surrounded)

7, Time Hop specifics

Are unclear. I'm particularly interested in thoughts on #7.

[Gauss]

4) There is no guidance to state whether or not Deflect Arrows should apply to ranged touch attacks or supernatural abilities but based on the intent I would say they it cannot be used to deflect ranged touch attacks or supernatural abilities.

Thus, anything that functions as Deflect Arrows would not work.

Ray Shield should work and would simply change the target from you to the shield. As a result you suffer splash damage while the shield takes the effect of a direct hit.

5) Acrobatics to avoid AoOs only applies if you are trying to avoid AoOs. Since you are invisible you do not need to avoid those AoOs. So, you only have a +5 for moving through the enemy's square.

7) Time Hop works like all other teleportation abilities. It takes you from point A to point B. It says nothing about changing your position or condition. So, if you are prone you stay prone.

[James Risner]

Gauss's 4/5/7:

4) +1
5) +1 if by +5 you mean Acrobatics Flat Foot CMD+5 to move through their space.
7) +1

[Gauss]

James Risner wrote:

Gauss's 4/5/7:

4) +1
5) +1 if by +5 you mean Acrobatics Flat Foot CMD+5 to move through their space.
7) +1

Yes, I was only addressing the penalty (+5) not the fact that being invisible makes them flat-footed. :)

[Balkoth]

Gauss wrote:

7) Time Hop works like all other teleportation abilities. It takes you from point A to point B. It says nothing about changing your position or condition. So, if you are prone you stay prone.

Are you also saying that if you teleport while facing north, you end up facing north after the teleport and can't "turn" mid-teleport? So if you're bringing someone with you and they're to your west, then they're still to the west after the teleport?

[Gauss]

Balkoth wrote:

Gauss wrote:

7) Time Hop works like all other teleportation abilities. It takes you from point A to point B. It says nothing about changing your position or condition. So, if you are prone you stay prone.

Are you also saying that if you teleport while facing north, you end up facing north after the teleport and can't "turn" mid-teleport? So if you're bringing someone with you and they're to your west, then they're still to the west after the teleport?

There is no facing in Pathfinder.

There are no rules stating that relative position changes. Additionally, for teleportation abilities which measure distance if your relative position changed then the distance traveled changes.

Example:
You start in X and teleport to Y traveling Z feet.
If you bring someone they have to also travel Z feet.
However, if you move them to the opposite side of you then they will have traveled Z+10 feet.

[Balkoth]

Gauss wrote:

However, if you move them to the opposite side of you then they will have traveled Z+10 feet.

I'm asking if you CAN move them to the opposite side by "paying" extra with Time Hop. "It says nothing about changing your position or condition" made it sound like you could not, is that correct?

[Gauss]

Ok, Ill try this again:

1) Teleportation rules do not have a provision for changing relative positions.
Because of this, you cannot change relative positions without the GM houseruling it.

2) Even if you got GM permission with normal teleportation magic that still would not carry over to Time Hop because Time Hop has a specific clause that prevents it (in bold below).

Ultimate Magic p57 wrote:

Time Hop (Su): As a move action, you can teleport up to 10 feet per oracle level that you possess per day. This teleportation must be used in 5-foot increments. This movement does not provoke attacks of opportunity. You must have line of sight to your destination to use this ability. You can bring other willing creatures with you, but you must expend an equal amount of distance for each creature brought. You must be at least 7th level to select this revelation.

Both you and your buddy have to move the same exact distance.

You cannot move 20 feet and have your buddy move 30 feet because the distance is not equal.

Of course, your GM can houserule that you can spend unequal amounts of distance (20 and 30 feet).

Summary: No, you cannot change relative positions using teleportation magic and you especially cannot do so using Time Hop.

[Samish Lakefinder]

Do not assume a generally titled thread will get all the correct answers.

In regards to deflect arrows and alchemist bombs, not only does the bomb not do damage, it becomes a dud and does nothing. FAQ on deflecting attacks.

[Oddman80]

@Gauss - why can't they just trade places? your analysis seems to have Person A moving straight north 20', while person B moves north 20' and west 10' in order for person B to end up on the other side of person A....

why can't person move 20' north and 5' east, while person B moves 20' north and 5' west? they will both move the same amount of distance, but switch sides.

[Gauss]

Oddman80 wrote:

@Gauss - why can't they just trade places? your analysis seems to have Person A moving straight north 20', while person B moves north 20' and west 10' in order for person B to end up on the other side of person A....

why can't person move 20' north and 5' east, while person B moves 20' north and 5' west? they will both move the same amount of distance, but switch sides.

You are correct, there are two possible examples here.

1) Travel North (or South) and East-West swapped = same distance traveled. (This is your example)

2) Travel East (or West) and East-West swapped = unequal distance traveled. (This is my example)

My example was to show the problem with the distance being unequal.

Assuming that the GM allowed position swapping (by houseruling it since it is not part of the teleportation rules) then he would have to adjudicate each situation based on the distance of both people. This creates a lot of make-work.

In any case, the rules do not allow for this sort of thing.
There is no rules support for using teleportation magic to change your position (from prone to standing) or to change your position in relation to other people coming through with you.

[Talonhawke]

Samish Lakefinder wrote:

Do not assume a generally titled thread will get all the correct answers.

In regards to deflect arrows and alchemist bombs, not only does the bomb not do damage, it becomes a dud and does nothing. FAQ on deflecting attacks.

That still doesn't clarify if you can even deflect the bomb to start with.

[James Risner]

Samish Lakefinder wrote:

In regards to deflect arrows and alchemist bombs, not only does the bomb not do damage, it becomes a dud and does nothing. FAQ on deflecting attacks.

That FAQ doesn’t answer any question asked here and doesn’t cover deflecting bombs.

[James Risner]

Oddman80 wrote:

@Gauss - why can't they just trade places? your analysis seems to have Person A moving straight north 20', while person B moves north 20' and west 10' in order for person B to end up on the other side of person A....

why can't person move 20' north and 5' east, while person B moves 20' north and 5' west? they will both move the same amount of distance, but switch sides.

There is no rule saying they can’t. There is also no rule saying they can.

So it’s an Ask your GM. You are more likely to get a yes if they both move the same distance.

[Balkoth]

Samish Lakefinder wrote:

In regards to deflect arrows and alchemist bombs, not only does the bomb not do damage, it becomes a dud and does nothing. FAQ on deflecting attacks.

I'm aware of that FAQ, and even referenced that idea in my original post. But, as Talonhawke and James Risner have pointed out, the question isn't what happens if the bomb is deflected, but rather if the bomb CAN be deflected.

James Risner wrote:

So it’s an Ask your GM. You are more likely to get a yes if they both move the same distance.

I'd lean more towards "no," it's already an extremely good ability as is even if it only affected the caster.

[Komoda]

Wasn't there a ruling about not even losing your momentum when you teleport? As in if you fell 100' and, still in mid air, teleported to land that you would take the falling damage?

[Talonhawke]

I'll check but I'm not sure if teleportation conserves or disregards momentum.

[Samish Lakefinder]

My main point is that there are several threads specifically on missile shield vs alchemist bombs and on deflect arrows vs alchemist bombs. Going off the consensus of a generally titled thread dealing with several topics that had less than 40 posts will likely not lead to the conclusion the posts the existing threads about the topic have come to.

I would so a search for missile shield vs alchemist bombs, deflect arrows vs alchemist bombs, and monk vs alchemist. There are several threads there relating to deflecting bombs. That will give you a much wider range of interpretation and rules scrutiny than here.

[Plausible Pseudonym]

Komoda wrote:

Wasn't there a ruling about not even losing your momentum when you teleport? As in if you fell 100' and, still in mid air, teleported to land that you would take the falling damage?

That would be pretty dumb, since teleporting north or south doesn't inflict damage from the different rotation energy of the earth being applied to your body at the start and stop points.