Rule you never see used though it is RAW


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

451 to 485 of 485 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
Grand Lodge

Barnabas Eckleworth III wrote:
TriOmegaZero wrote:
The fact that your allies provide soft cover, which prevents AoOs.
I've actually seen it posted in a FAQ that your allies do not provide cover from AoOs.

Curious where this is posted. I've heard many people reference such a ruling, but have never seen it produced.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
DM Livgin wrote:
blahpers wrote:
DM Livgin wrote:
Large creatures get a size bonus to breaking down doors. I will have to remember this one.
That's . . . weird. And smaller creatures get a penalty. I'd have figured size was already well represented via Strength score in most cases.
I like the idea. Ability checks are very swingy and I'm a fan of anything that adds some reliability.

Sure, if you're more likely to have a Large character kicking the door than a Small one. My party has a bunch of sho'ties. They're gonna find it really annoying that the 16-and-growing Strength gnome is having a hard time kicking the door down because the door has a sign on it saying "You must be ->this<- tall to burst".

Paizo Employee

2 people marked this as a favorite.
DM Livgin wrote:
Ssalarn wrote:
You need to make a Handle Animal check to command a mount to do anything other than move (including charging).
Ride Skill wrote:


Guide with Knees: You can guide your mount with your knees so you can use both hands in combat. Make your Ride check at the start of your turn. If you fail, you can use only one hand this round because you need to use the other to control your mount. This does not take an action.

All this covers is giving you a hand off the reins.

Quote:


Fight with a Combat-Trained Mount: If you direct your war-trained mount to attack in battle, you can still make your own attack or attacks normally. This usage is a free action.

Emphasis added. That sentence tells you what you can do. It doesn't say "You can make a Ride check to control a mount" it says "If you direct your war-trained mount to attack[...]" which is a usage of the Handle Animal skill.

Quote:


Control Mount in Battle: As a move action, you can attempt to control a light horse, pony, heavy horse, or other mount not trained for combat riding while in battle. If you fail the Ride check, you can do nothing else in that round. You do not need to roll for horses or ponies trained for combat.

Mounted Combat Says: Mounts that do not possess combat training (see the Handle Animal skill) are frightened by combat. If you don’t dismount, you must make a DC 20 Ride check each round as a move action to control such a mount.

Quote:


I did not come to the same conclusion from the ride skill section.

Nothing in what you posted contradicts what I posted.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Ssalarn wrote:
Ride + Handle Animal

ok, I'm starting to following.

How does this effect characters that are not using a class feature mount (with link)?

I notice the lance says 'when on a charging mount' so a fighter can tell a mount to charge with the attack trick as a move action and then attack with the lance as a standard action benefiting from double damage.

Once in a melee the combat trained purpose includes defend so depending how your table runs a mount under a mundane rider will still retaliate.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

In the forest terrain, every square has a chance to contain a terrain element (typical tree or massive treee, and and light or heavy undergrowth). The terrain elements provide modifiers that may very from square to square. The percentiles are given by the rules.

I have never seen it used. Stealth, perception, cover and colncealment in forest is always handwaved.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Jurassic Pratt wrote:
Barnabas Eckleworth III wrote:
TriOmegaZero wrote:
The fact that your allies provide soft cover, which prevents AoOs.
I've actually seen it posted in a FAQ that your allies do not provide cover from AoOs.
Curious where this is posted. I've heard many people reference such a ruling, but have never seen it produced.

The movement rules explicitly state that allies don't provide cover when moving through their square.

As far as I know there's nothing in the rules saying they don't provide cover if if you're standing behind them, so the normal cover rules apply.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

You know what I learned while running my game yesterday?
If you spread the blood of a freshly killed basilisk onto a character that was petrified by a basilisk the character is restored to flesh!


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Warped Savant wrote:

You know what I learned while running my game yesterday?

If you spread the blood of a freshly killed basilisk onto a character that was petrified by a basilisk the character is restored to flesh!

One of my PCs in an AP managed to roll a knowledge check to learn this after half the party got petrified, to everyone's surprise. (Fortunately even if they didn't, loot in the next room included bottles of basilisk blood to tip them off...)

Meanwhile I've learned a lot from skimming this thread. Truly this game is a nightmare of rules.


PFS seems to ignore how long it takes to put on and take off armor. I accuse PFS players who also ignore those rules of metagaming!


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Scott Wilhelm wrote:
PFS seems to ignore how long it takes to put on and take off armor. I accuse PFS players who also ignore those rules of metagaming!

In the scenarios text, or the players are ignoring that rule?

One of my favorite sessions included a team knowing they would be going undercover (and unarmored), so with wizard bought, wrote, and prepared the spell Serren's Swift Girding so that when they broke cover they could gear up fast.

Imagine that Iron Man scene where his armor flies on to him, but instead there are four people's armor flying onto them out of an extra-dimensional space while they are fighting off monsters.


Is the armor created by this spell permanent?


3 people marked this as a favorite.

It doesn't create armor, it places existing armor on the targets. Listing as a material component, and not a focus or target is odd, and I believe an error.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Ah, got it. Thanks!


1 person marked this as a favorite.
DM Livgin wrote:
Scott Wilhelm wrote:
PFS seems to ignore how long it takes to put on and take off armor. I accuse PFS players who also ignore those rules of metagaming!

In the scenarios text, or the players are ignoring that rule?

One of my favorite sessions included a team knowing they would be going undercover (and unarmored), so with wizard bought, wrote, and prepared the spell Serren's Swift Girding so that when they broke cover they could gear up fast.

Imagine that Iron Man scene where his armor flies on to him, but instead there are four people's armor flying onto them out of an extra-dimensional space while they are fighting off monsters.

As far as I can tell, everyone except for me, ignores that rule. There's 1 PFS adventure where a nighttime encounter is written in, but people seem to just dress in their heavy armor, wake up rested, and have their armor on when they need it.

I consider Swift Girding essential for a heavily-armored character. Otherwise, my characters wear their Mithril, Agile Breastplates.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

People seem to ignore the fact when you attack with a Reach Weapon from the 2nd rank, your allies provide cover for your opponents.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Scott Wilhelm wrote:
People seem to ignore the fact when you attack with a Reach Weapon from the 2nd rank, your allies provide cover for your opponents.

Oh yeah, this one happens a lot. Heck, I forget it often enough as a GM.

The Exchange

1 person marked this as a favorite.

This one is not exactly a "never see used" rule as much as a "never seen used CORRECTLY" rule.

Shooting from behind a corner. So many persons seem to have a problem with the cover rules for shooting...


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Java Man wrote:
It doesn't create armor, it places existing armor on the targets. Listing as a material component, and not a focus or target is odd, and I believe an error.

As written it seems like a fun thing to abuse with false focus or blood money though.


ErichAD wrote:
Java Man wrote:
It doesn't create armor, it places existing armor on the targets. Listing as a material component, and not a focus or target is odd, and I believe an error.
As written it seems like a fun thing to abuse with false focus or blood money though.

Yeah, a mere 2 points of strength damage could create a solid gold Chain Coat that's made of 60 pounds of gold (3000 gp) or 3 points of strength damage could get a solid gold Four-Mirror Armor of 67.5 lb of solid gold (3375 gp). Even with False Focus, one could make a regular old Chain Shirt for free and then sell it for 50 gp.

Aside from wealth generation, given 10 Strength to start with and access to Blood Money, any non-magical armor that's made of special materials and costs 4500 gp or less would be fair game. Assuming you have to keep yourself at least one point of Strength.

So there would be a few special materials that wouldn't be options, but most would be on the table, although some would only be viable for Light or Medium armor.

Could even be combined with the Salvaging rules from Ultimate Wilderness to provide raw materials to make something more expensive than the 100 gp cap of False Focus or what could be made with the caster's available Strength score for Blood Money.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
blahpers wrote:
Scott Wilhelm wrote:
People seem to ignore the fact when you attack with a Reach Weapon from the 2nd rank, your allies provide cover for your opponents.
Oh yeah, this one happens a lot. Heck, I forget it often enough as a GM.

It's situational: If you (with the polearm) are Enlarged, and you're striking a troll over the head of a normie, then soft-cover doesn't apply because only the bottom "squares" of troll have others in the way.


Scott Wilhelm wrote:
PFS seems to ignore how long it takes to put on and take off armor. I accuse PFS players who also ignore those rules of metagaming!

Does it? I've had exactly one encounter where they mattered (attacked while sleeping in an inn), and we rolled with rules as written. I had a wand of mage armour.


Lucy_Valentine wrote:
Scott Wilhelm wrote:
PFS seems to ignore how long it takes to put on and take off armor. I accuse PFS players who also ignore those rules of metagaming!
Does it? I've had exactly one encounter where they mattered (attacked while sleeping in an inn), and we rolled with rules as written. I had a wand of mage armour.

I have had exactly one as well.

The Exception--this is a spoiler:
Ruby Phoenix Tournament Qualifier

If that is the case with you as well, the fact that there is 1 and only 1 exception makes that precisely be the exception that proves the rule!


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Adjoint wrote:
I have never seen it used. Stealth, perception, cover and colncealment in forest is always handwaved.

Really? I always draw out the trees, underbrush, fallen logs, streams and such. It always adds so much to the encounter, from the moment they see the visual to the tactical decisions based on the elements present.


Scott Wilhelm wrote:

I have had exactly one as well.

** spoiler omitted **

I'd have to find my chronicle sheets for certainty, but I'm pretty sure that's a different one.


Tie going to Offender. Every group I play with makes the offender have to overcome defense not meet it.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
McDaygo wrote:
Tie going to Offender. Every group I play with makes the offender have to overcome defense not meet it.

As in: I roll a 23 to hit vs your 23 AC? Yeah your groups do it wrong. Although as long as the rule is consistent it really just makes combat a little bit less deadly for everyone involved (which favours the PCs slightly).

(If you mean something else you might have to explain it.)


You don't have to decide whether or not you have an archetype until it matters. That is, if you're a level 1 Fighter, you exist in a Schrodinger-esque state where you might or might not have the Dawnflower Dervish archetype, because the archetype doesn't modify any features until level 3.


MrCharisma wrote:
as long as the rule is consistent it really just makes combat a little bit less deadly for everyone involved (which favours the PCs slightly).

It also favors casters, and classes with good attack roll bonuses like Barbarian (because those are often "over-hitcapped"), as these care less about the effective -1 penalty to their attack rolls, and benefit from the de facto +1 AC.


MrCharisma wrote:
McDaygo wrote:
Tie going to Offender. Every group I play with makes the offender have to overcome defense not meet it.

As in: I roll a 23 to hit vs your 23 AC? Yeah your groups do it wrong. Although as long as the rule is consistent it really just makes combat a little bit less deadly for everyone involved (which favours the PCs slightly).

(If you mean something else you might have to explain it.)

Yep. In the example of a AC 23 you need a 24 to hit. Theory being you overcome a defensive. If you meet the threshold it should prevent it.

Another one is confirming Fumbles. DC15 reflex negates a fumble to a regular miss. We use fumble deck to keep them balanced.


As a follow on think of it from an engineering standpoint. If a tank is rated to hold 32 gallons of liquid; 32 shouldn’t break it but 32.1 (or for simplicity sake round up to 33 that is when the tank bursts.

We just applied the same to AC


McDaygo wrote:
As a follow on think of it from an engineering standpoint. If a tank is rated to hold 32 gallons of liquid; 32 shouldn’t break it but 32.1 (or for simplicity sake round up to 33 that is when the tank bursts.

AC is not a tank, it doesn't get "full". It's a yes/no thing, more like a warning light that shows an overload. An AC23 is 'rated' to withstand an attack roll of 22, with the number given being the point where it breaks.

McDaygo wrote:
Another one is confirming Fumbles. DC15 reflex negates a fumble to a regular miss. We use fumble deck to keep them balanced.

Fumbles, of course. Have to do something to keep the Fighters and Monks in check so that the poor underpowered Wizards and Clerics have a chance to compete!

How do DCs work in your system, do spellcasters get a +1 to DCs because the target has to beat the DC rathern than match it as well?


McDaygo wrote:

As a follow on think of it from an engineering standpoint. If a tank is rated to hold 32 gallons of liquid; 32 shouldn’t break it but 32.1 (or for simplicity sake round up to 33 that is when the tank bursts.

We just applied the same to AC

Engineering Ratings are based on something that could be exceeded during use. Trying to put 60 gallons into a 55 gallon drum will result in the drum overflowing, not bursting. So, a drum is more likely to have a rating like 32 psi.

The thing is, those ratings have a safety factor. Depending on how critical the system is, this could be quite high. Going back to the drum it might be rated at 32 psi, but it might not actually burst until it hits 64 psi because it has a safety factor of 2. If it had no safety factor it would absolutely burst at 32 psi. Which is why you always apply a safety factor to the design rating.

Going back to the game. Up until 3rd edition, D&D had this thing called THAC0. Which isn't a word but an acronym that stands for "To Hit Armor Class 0". This told you the literal number you needed to roll on a d20 to score a hit against an enemy with AC 0. Of course AC counted down from 10 instead of up, so the pathfinder equivalent would be armor class 20. So, AC has always represented the value an attacker needs to land a hit. The only thing 3rd edition did was take 20-THAC0 and call it your BAB, and then made everything count up from 10 making the math a lot easier. AC continued to be the number you needed to score a hit.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I think we're getting a bit off topic here.

The decision whether to make AC something you have to "hit" or "beat" was a totally arbitrary one. There are countless arguments on either side, but Paizo (et al) decided that it was something you had to "hit". Changing it to something you have to "beat" isn't likely to break anything, it barely changes the game at all. As long as your group does it consistently it doesn't really matter.

The actual rule is that you have to "hit" their AC, not "beat" it (same with saves and skill DCs and everything else).


Derklord wrote:
McDaygo wrote:
As a follow on think of it from an engineering standpoint. If a tank is rated to hold 32 gallons of liquid; 32 shouldn’t break it but 32.1 (or for simplicity sake round up to 33 that is when the tank bursts.

AC is not a tank, it doesn't get "full". It's a yes/no thing, more like a warning light that shows an overload. An AC23 is 'rated' to withstand an attack roll of 22, with the number given being the point where it breaks.

McDaygo wrote:
Another one is confirming Fumbles. DC15 reflex negates a fumble to a regular miss. We use fumble deck to keep them balanced.

Fumbles, of course. Have to do something to keep the Fighters and Monks in check so that the poor underpowered Wizards and Clerics have a chance to compete!

How do DCs work in your system, do spellcasters get a +1 to DCs because the target has to beat the DC rathern than match it as well?

Every save in any group I have played with has always been tie goes to defender. So yes Magic has to overcome just like martial has to overcome.

Why would they get a +1?

The reasoning behind confirmation of a fumble is an experienced Warrior is not going to automatically drop his weapon.


McDaygo wrote:
Every save in any group I have played with has always been tie goes to defender. So yes Magic has to overcome just like martial has to overcome.

Unless I misunderstand you, that's at least correct. You need to match or surpass the DC with your roll to succeed at your goal, exactly like with attack rolls. "The result of that check must meet or exceed the Difficulty Class of the action that the creature is attempting to perform in order for the action to be successful."

McDaygo wrote:
Why would they get a +1?

From a PC point of view, your system gives the PC a -1 penalty to all attack rolls and a +1 bonus to AC and CMD, compared to what they have under the actual rules. If the target of a spell needs to surpass the DC, all abilities with a DC would have it de facto 1 higher, because the enemies would need to roll 1 higher than they should.

McDaygo wrote:
The reasoning behind confirmation of a fumble is an experienced Warrior is not going to automatically drop his weapon.

This is one of the reasons not to use fumble rules at all. Even the most seasoned warrior would still fail occasionally. Which makes me wonder, what's the chance of a fireball blowing up in the caster's face? That's the other reason, it makes the weakest classes weaker and the strongest classes stronger. To be clear, fumble rules (beyond "nat 1 is automatic miss/failed save") are not RAW, so you're merely changing a houserule.

MrCharisma wrote:
Changing it to something you have to "beat" isn't likely to break anything, it barely changes the game at all. As long as your group does it consistently it doesn't really matter.

It does matter. You're making the strongest classes stronger and the weakest classes weaker. Not by a huge amount, but the effect is certainly there.

451 to 485 of 485 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / Rule you never see used though it is RAW All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.