Rule you never see used though it is RAW

[deuxhero]

Detect Evil/Law/Chaos/Good/Magic's part about lingering auras. Loads of modules involve stolen artifacts, but I've never seen any mention the possibility of using Arcane Sight (Detect Magic is too slow) to track them down, same with HD11+ outsiders involved in some kind of plot.

[Slim Jim]

Minimum Damage, if it would be zero due to penalties, is 1pt non-lethal.

[Taudis]

deuxhero wrote:

Detect Evil/Law/Chaos/Good/Magic's part about lingering auras. Loads of modules involve stolen artifacts, but I've never seen any mention the possibility of using Arcane Sight (Detect Magic is too slow) to track them down, same with HD11+ outsiders involved in some kind of plot.

Using Detect Magic as a radar system and for stuff like this I remember was a big point of opposition to unlimited cantrips - it diminished encounters like the ones you mentioned because anyone could just do that whenever. Very funny to see it mentioned in a thread about unused rules given the context of the last time I heard people talking about it.

As for the thread itself:

Combat Reflexes lets you make attacks of opportunity when you're flat-footed. To be honest, I don't never see it used but it's definitely used uncommonly (and much more often by PCs than by monsters!).

[Derklord]

Slim Jim wrote:

Minimum Damage, if it would be zero due to penalties, is 1pt non-lethal.

Obviously, you've never fought sixteen young squirrels (a CR 3 encounter)!

[blahpers]

One that almost came up last session when the GM went, "oh, I never knew that!":

Phantasmal Killer wrote:

If the subject of a phantasmal killer attack succeeds in disbelieving and possesses telepathy or is wearing a helm of telepathy, the beast can be turned upon you. You must then disbelieve it or become subject to its deadly fear attack.

I'll have to remember this some day for Strange Aeons. Bonus points if the spell ends up as a game of phantasmal killer Pong between two telepaths.

[Slim Jim]

Mounted archers may be of the opinion that they're always entitled to a full-attack even if their animal moves more than 5'. Actually, they're usually not.

(That, especially in combination with the famously blanked-out soft-cover rule that I referenced earlier in the thread, is why archery builds may seem so overpowering to inexperienced GMs.)

[Magda Luckbender]

It's pretty rare to see a player leave Open Spell Slots for a prepared caster. A lot of GMs don't know this detail.

Three cheers for Slim Jim posting about archer movement and reposting about soft cover rules. Proper application of these rules can be important for game balance.

Due to the nature of this thread, I hereby unilaterally extend it's wait time until Thread Necromancy occurs beyond the normal duration, to a full year.

[Bill Dunn]

Slim Jim wrote:

Mounted archers may be of the opinion that they're always entitled to a full-attack even if their animal moves more than 5'. Actually, they're usually not.

(That, especially in combination with the famously blanked-out soft-cover rule that I referenced earlier in the thread, is why archery builds may seem so overpowering to inexperienced GMs.)

I’ve taken a look at your link and you’re going to have to explain your reasoning for why a mounted archer can’t take a full attack. Claiming the sentence explicitly allowing this refers to a specific context makes no sense in the overall context of the mounted combat rules. The context you should consider is the paragraph earlier that explains melee combat and why the rider can’t take a full attack. Considered together, it sure looks like you can take a full attack with ranged weapons even while the mount is moving.

And with that in mind, I expect Mounted Skirmisher was written with just the melee context in mind, not ranged.

[ZᴇɴN]

Slim Jim wrote:

Mounted archers may be of the opinion that they're always entitled to a full-attack even if their animal moves more than 5'. Actually, they're usually not.

That is not only blatantly incorrect, but is pointed out to you as such by multiple people in the thread you linked. Please stop spreading misinformation.

[Slim Jim]

ZᴇɴN wrote:

That is not only blatantly incorrect, but is pointed out to you as such by multiple people in the thread you linked. Please stop spreading misinformation.

As elections ubiquitously demonstrate, "multiple people" are quite capable of being constantly wrong.

(Let's move the squabbling to the Rules thread made for this topic.)

[KujakuDM]

You are wrong dude. Accept it.

[Slim Jim]

Facts About Ioun Stones wrote:

Ioun stones only float when sent spinning around the head of an intelligent (Int 3+) creature; otherwise they are as inert as common stone. They have no effect on animals, mindless constructs, and other non-sentient creatures; comatose intelligent creatures and those with significant Intelligence damage or drain cannot use ioun stones.

In other words, if you're zonked out for any reason, your orbiting cloud dumps onto the ground bouncing everywhere (and, after regaining consciousness, you'll be blowing several rounds looking for them, scooping them up, and reactivating them). -- And now you know why some wizards nail them into their foreheads.

("Significant intelligence damage" would, I presume, be being dropped to 3 or less, or to "Animal-level intelligence". But the game allows Ioun stone use by animal companions, however, provided a PC assists them in activation, so RAW is a bit cloudy here regarding what happens if you're feebleminded. They should remain active so long you're conscious, but if you go unconscious, then by extrapolation you should need the assistance of your allies in reactivating them if still stupefied.)

-- Number of GMs who have ever enforced any of this, in my anecdotal experience? ZERO.

[Bill Dunn]

Slim Jim wrote:

In other words, if you're zonked out for any reason, your orbiting cloud dumps onto the ground bouncing everywhere (and, after regaining consciousness, you'll be blowing several rounds looking for them, scooping them up, and reactivating them). -- And now you know why some wizards nail them into their foreheads.

("Significant intelligence damage" would, I presume, be being dropped to 3 or less, or to "Animal-level intelligence". But the game allows Ioun stone use by animal companions, however, provided a PC assists them in activation, so RAW is a bit cloudy here regarding what happens if you're feebleminded. They should remain active so long you're conscious, but if you go unconscious, then by extrapolation you should need the assistance of your allies in reactivating them if still stupefied.)

-- Number of GMs who have ever enforced any of this, in my anecdotal experience? ZERO.

Comatose isn't a defined condition, but the use in various spells and descriptions of things like intelligence damage suggest it's not merely unconsciousness but something more.

I think any GM who ruled any form of unconsciousness to be equivalent of comatose can reasonably expect pushback from players.

[Pogiforce]

Scott Wilhelm wrote:

Meraki wrote:

Carrying capacity/encumbrance. No group I've played with has bothered tracking it. As long as no one tries to do something ridiculous like the party wizard carrying around a piano or loot an entire armory of 300 greatswords, we don't feel the need to pay attention to it.

I always keep track of my characters' encumberance. We all used to in the old days.

But I never had a GM roll on the Monthly Disease or Parasitic Infections tables...

For my dwarf barbarian, even with a +6 belt of strength it's a medium load.

[Serum]

Slim Jim wrote:

TriOmegaZero wrote:

The fact that your allies provide soft cover, which prevents AoOs.

Many GMs and players forget the -4 penalty to attacks through soft cover as well, particularly in the case of archers, who are like "Yay! I have Precise Shot now and my penalty for shooting into melee went away" (when they should have been at -8 half the time, not -4).

As a technicality, the target gets a boost to its AC, the archer doesn't get a penalty to its attack.

[Derklord]

Slim Jim wrote:

In other words, if you're zonked out for any reason, your orbiting cloud dumps onto the ground bouncing everywhere

Comatose means you do not wake up in response to stimuli (light, sound, pain), and that depending on the severity, you body's normal reactions are lessened or absent (e.g. opening the eyes, speaking or at least moaning, and motor movement, in response to pain). The only in-game description that I could find fits: "Comatose: The subject falls into a catatonic coma for 10 minutes per caster level. During this time, it cannot be awakened by any means short of dispelling the effect. This is not a sleep effect, and thus elves are not immune to it."

[deuxhero]

A character with 0 intelligence is also comatose.

[MrCharisma]

In the absence of an in-game definition of a term we default to the dictionary definition.

Comatose = unconscious.

[Bill Dunn]

MrCharisma wrote:

In the absence of an in-game definition of a term we default to the dictionary definition.

Comatose = unconscious.

That’s going to depend on your dictionary. The ones I’m seeing refer to comatose as a state of deep unconsciousness. Almost all of them add a qualifier to intensify unconscious, hence my comment on reasonable pushback above.

[Hugo Rune]

Bill Dunn wrote:

MrCharisma wrote:

In the absence of an in-game definition of a term we default to the dictionary definition.

Comatose = unconscious.

That’s going to depend on your dictionary. The ones I’m seeing refer to comatose as a state of deep unconsciousness. Almost all of them add a qualifier to intensify unconscious, hence my comment on reasonable pushback above.

I like that differentiation. In game the difference could be whether the character responds to a stimulant or not. Which (thinking whilst typing) could be the difference between making or failing a fort (for a physical response)or will (for a mental response) save.

[Kayerloth]

Bill Dunn wrote:

MrCharisma wrote:

In the absence of an in-game definition of a term we default to the dictionary definition.

Comatose = unconscious.

That’s going to depend on your dictionary. The ones I’m seeing refer to comatose as a state of deep unconsciousness. Almost all of them add a qualifier to intensify unconscious, hence my comment on reasonable pushback above.

And medically speaking compared to other terminology, such as obtunded or stuporous, for example, demonstrates the least responsiveness or arousability to stimulus when used in referring to a patients level of consciousness (LOC). Bill has pretty much hit it on the head when saying "deep" unconsciousness

[MrCharisma]

Kayerloth wrote:

Bill Dunn wrote:

MrCharisma wrote:

In the absence of an in-game definition of a term we default to the dictionary definition.

Comatose = unconscious.

That’s going to depend on your dictionary. The ones I’m seeing refer to comatose as a state of deep unconsciousness. Almost all of them add a qualifier to intensify unconscious, hence my comment on reasonable pushback above.

And medically speaking compared to other terminology, such as obtunded or stuporous, for example, demonstrates the least responsiveness or arousability to stimulus when used in referring to a patients level of consciousness (LOC). Bill has pretty much hit it on the head when saying "deep" unconsciousness

While I agree in real life there's a difference, I don't know that there would enough difference for a different condition in Pathfinder.

As you both said, it's a specific type of Unconsciousness, but Pathfinder doesn't really differentiate. There IS an in-game definition of "Unconscious", so if it falls within that purview then it has an in-game definition. The level of detail you'd be adding to the game to have different levels of unconsciousness is at odds with the ease-of-play aspect that the game strives for (For example there's no difference in your abilities/conditions if you're woken up during deep sleep or REM sleep, even though you'd likely have a very different reaction in real life).

Essentially - While I agree that there is a more nuanced definition - I don't think it's a meaningful difference for game-play.

(I also don't remember why this came up, so if someone's trying to game the system from either direction my default is "Don't game the system".)

[Derklord]

MrCharisma wrote:

There IS an in-game definition of "Unconscious", so if it falls within that purview then it has an in-game definition.

You're destroying your argument here. Since uncounscious has an in-game definition, why should a different term with no in-game definition be used if it's supposed to be the exact same thing?

The Eyebite spell has an explicit description for what happens for the "comatose" it produces. Yes, it's not a general definition, but it's basically the only one we got, and it matches the medical i.e. real life definition.

MrCharisma wrote:

In the absence of an in-game definition of a term we default to the dictionary definition.

Comatose = unconscious.

You should throw away that dictionary. Seriously, that's just plain wrong!

[Kayerloth]

Despite my post I do agree overall with Mr Charisma, while a neurologist might find it useful to differentiate the degree and variety of responsiveness in a patient who is comatose for a game of D&D unconscious equals comatose works well enough. The important part of either condition is the lack of responsiveness to stimulus. Sleep does not equal unconscious because that lack of response is not present and why Eyebite specifically mentions it is not a sleep effect.

Or to bring it back to orbiting ioun stones they should be whizzing about a sleeping wizard, but not one who is unconscious whether from trauma or simply having drunk themselves into oblivion in the local tavern.

[ZᴇɴN]

You mean everybody doesn't just implant their ioun stones and walk around with bedazzled torsos? Weird.

[Bill Dunn]

MrCharisma wrote:

While I agree in real life there's a difference, I don't know that there would enough difference for a different condition in Pathfinder.

As you both said, it's a specific type of Unconsciousness, but Pathfinder doesn't really differentiate. There IS an in-game definition of "Unconscious", so if it falls within that purview then it has an in-game definition. The level of detail you'd be adding to the game to have different levels of unconsciousness is at odds with the ease-of-play aspect that the game strives for (For example there's no difference in your abilities/conditions if you're woken up during deep sleep or REM sleep, even though you'd likely have a very different reaction in real life).

Essentially - While I agree that there is a more nuanced definition - I don't think it's a meaningful difference for game-play.

(I also don't remember why this came up, so if someone's trying to game the system from either direction my default is "Don't game the system".)

Understandable advice - and that's ultimately why I, as a GM, would not equate unconscious with comatose in order to bedevil a character making use of ioun stones.

Most of the mental stats (Wisdom and Charisma) put a character into a state of unconsciousness when at 0, but a creature with an Intelligence of 0 is contrastingly called out as comatose. That strikes me as deliberate and another reason I think any equation of comatose with unconscious is questionable.

[Matthew Downie]

A rule like "comatose characters don't get the benefit of ioun stones" seems like a complete waste of time, no matter the definition of "comatose".

It's either massively inconvenient ("Your intelligence drops by 2 whenever you fall asleep so it doesn't count as a 'permanent' increase.") or it makes certain stones pointless ("No, the stone that's supposed to increase the negative hit points total at which you die doesn't work, because you fell unconscious when your hit points fell below zero.") or it's irrelevant 99.9% of the time ("So while I'm in this Wisdom zero permanent coma, I no longer know exactly how many feet I'm under or above sea level?")

[MrCharisma]

Oh right.

I just re-read why this originally came up. The idea was: "Don't make things overly complicated" ... but I was agreeing with the complicated side.

I retract my previous statement.

Rule 0 folks: "A fun game is a good game." (That's hopefully not a rule that people will bring up meaningfully in this thread)

[Derek Dalton]

Tinalles wrote:

Lesser Restoration has a casting time of 3 rounds. Which almost nobody knows because it's so weird.

I've got a little database of 2,758 Pathfinder spells, and only seven of them have a casting time of "3 rounds":

Find the Path
Lesser Restore Eidolon
Lesser Restoration
Restoration
Rune Of Jandelay
Snare
Surface Excursion

So it's quite common for people to assume that it's a standard action.

Can add another Make whole has a casting time of 10 minutes. I'm experimenting with a Wyrwood character. They are a true construct so Make whole and greater make whole are the only ways to heal them. Looked up make whole read the spell and was quite pleased with it. Then read the casting time 10 Minutes.

[Lyoto Machida]

I never see anyone enforce the exact time for thoroughly searching a room. Most groups just say it takes five minutes or ten minutes to thoroughly search a room and call it a day.

[Squiggit]

Outside a few games specifically themed around resource management and survival I've had very few games bother to track ammunition.

Searching is something I've seen ignored a lot too, whether it's searching a room like the above poster mentioned or searching for traps, a lot of GMs I've seen tend to just handle everything with passive perception checks, or, at most passive perception checks that prompt more thorough perception checks.

While definitely not 'never' I've had a surprisingly large number of GMs and players forget that you need trapfinding to disarm magical traps with a skill.

Slim Jim wrote:

Mounted archers may be of the opinion that they're always entitled to a full-attack even if their animal moves more than 5'. Actually, they're usually not.

It feels a little disingenuous to slip this in as if it were a 'reminder' of an obvious yet forgotten rule when it's clear from the thread you link yourself that it's at best vague and contentious.

[doomman47]

If a character is unconscious they can still play their character all it takes is here is some hp healing or here is some ability score healing.

If a character is comatose it's time to retire the character until an in game quest can be done to recover them from said coma or a significant amount of time has passes where they wake up naturally.

Ironically in a game full of magic and super technology its easier to cure a dead person from their deadness than it is a comatose person from their coma.

[zza ni]

Eidolons have a glowing symbol on their head. (the summoner has the same rune, but it might not glow)

-how many time did you have an eidolon or synth summoner sneaking around and taking care to hide the glowing glyph?

[doomman47]

zza ni wrote:

Eidolons have a glowing symbol on their head. (the summoner has the same rune, but it might not glow)

-how many time did you have an eidolon or synth summoner sneaking around and taking care to hide the glowing glyph?

Once because our group has only has 2 summoners one of which was a master summoner who didn't use the eidolon.

[Derklord]

zza ni wrote:

Eidolons have a glowing symbol on their head. (the summoner has the same rune, but it might not glow)

-how many time did you have an eidolon or synth summoner sneaking around and taking care to hide the glowing glyph?

Never, but I remember a discussion about that topic.

For the Summoner: Since the thing is on the forehead, it's probably under the Headband of Alluring Charisma, anyway. Or you just cover it with hair. Or concealer (surely they have beauty products in Golarion). It is, after all, explicitly noted that you can conceal if with mundane means. What is not noted is that the thing illuminates you, draws attention to you or is particularly big.
For the Eidolon: Since no placement is mentioned, you can put it anywhere you want, so that alone should be able to hide it.

[zza ni]

is say the summoner has a similar rune appearing on forehead but it doesn't say his glows. so the main problem is the glowing rune on the eidolon.

[Bill Dunn]

zza ni wrote:

is say the summoner has a similar rune appearing on forehead but it doesn't say his glows. so the main problem is the glowing rune on the eidolon.

A good skill check covers all sorts of sins. Considering all eidolons don't suffer a stealth check penalty as part of the rules, I think it's fair to assume that the glowy rune was considered to be inconsequential for such things, if it was considered at all.

[David knott 242]

zza ni wrote:

Eidolons have a glowing symbol on their head. (the summoner has the same rune, but it might not glow)

-how many time did you have an eidolon or synth summoner sneaking around and taking care to hide the glowing glyph?

My eidolon didn't sneak around, but both she and my summoner wore very eclectic outfits with items from a variety of cultures. Conveniently, one of those items was a Bedouin style turban that covered the forehead.

[Barnabas Eckleworth III]

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.

[DM Livgin]

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.

Please, sir, I want some more (links).

[Serum]

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.

Only when passing through their square. If you put your ally's square between you and the enemy with reach, then you will prevent AoOs from that enemy when you move.

[Slim Jim]

Squiggit wrote:

Outside a few games specifically themed around resource management and survival I've had very few games bother to track ammunition.

I see it all the time at low level. But most GMs cease pestering at about the time everybody gets their haversacks and efficient quivers, save for oddities like special-material arrows -- where they know you don't have a hundred of them salted away.

[zza ni]

enough space in containers to hold your gear.
take a look at a fully geared level 1-3 character. how many have sacks and backpacks. out of them how many have more gear that should be in the bags that can't fit in?
i mean before you get a high level bag of holding (end even then some people still carry more then there is space in the bag - which should make it pop).

[blahpers]

On that subject, not putting particularly sharp objects you find into your bag of holding, as it's not any tougher than a regular cloth sack and rupture means you're gonna have a bad day. Nobody wants to be the mean GM who enforces that rule, so people shove scabbardless rapiers and the like in there without a care.

[deuxhero]

I'm not sure if the Secure Paypack's increased hardness was acknowledging that rule or not.

[DM Livgin]

Large creatures get a size bonus to breaking down doors. I will have to remember this one.

[blahpers]

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.

[DM Livgin]

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.

[Ssalarn]

You need to make a Handle Animal check to command a mount to do anything other than move (including charging).

[DM Livgin]

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.

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.

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.

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