Got a rules question about Pathfinder Second Edition? Post it here! And we might answer them on stream!


Rules Discussion

451 to 500 of 535 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | next > last >>
The Exchange

Garulo wrote:

If a PC is a 5th level Occult spellcaster and picks up only the initial cleric MCD, can they cast the Heal spell from a Healing staff?

The rules say they need to 1) have the spell on their list (check) and 2) be able to cast spells of the appropriate level (check he can cast 3rd level spells). The rules do NOT say he needs to be able to cast spells of the appropriate level from that list (very easy to have put those 3 words into the original ruleset if that was the intent).

Also, would an Impossible Polymath bard who has Divine spell Heal in their book only be able to use the Healing staff when they have added that spell to their repertoire for the day?

This has been discussed elsewhere so I am putting this here to see if it can be put in the "hopefully to be answered" queue and not just weighing opinions about how it should work.

Additionally, if spell slot and level is determined by the list for each spell, how should you track the multiple charges (e.g. if have 5th level Occult slots and 2nd level Primal slots - do you have 5 charges and only 2 of them can be used for primal only spells?)


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Size based reach is fuzzy at best. The table on page 474 of the CRB gives different reaches based on whether a creature is "Tall" or "Long". This same information is repeated in the Bestiary.

The problem is, Tall and Long are not traits listed in any book as far as I can find, and many monsters don't have any physical description of their size.

Minor Age of Ashes Spoilers:

Let's take the Greater Barghest for example.

Quote:


Barghest
Barghests are lupine fiends with goblinoid faces and humanoid hands. They stalk the Material Plane in search of souls to sate their demonic hunger. Eons ago, barghests dwelled in the pits of Hell and served Asmodeus, but after Lamashtu abducted and adopted the four most powerful of their kind to serve as pets (and in time, as a pantheon of hero-gods worshipped by evil goblins), barghests’ loyalties and philosophical nature changed significantly. Today, while barghests retain their connection to goblinoids, they serve none but their own appetites.

Barghest
Typical barghests are ravenous gluttons of life who feed and grow on the fat of mortals, their bodies changing in ways none can predict as they use the flesh and blood of their victims to achieve grisly transformations into greater barghests. Barghests often make use of their shapechanging abilities to rule tribes of goblinoids or to discreetly hunt in rural areas in the guise of unnaturally intelligent wolves. They do not work well together, as each barghest wants all the kills for itself; cannibalism is the typical result of too many barghests in one small area.

Greater Barghest
Once a barghest has eaten enough to grow into a greater barghest, it typically seeks a method to leave the Material Plane and return to the Abyss, there joining other fiends as yet another of that plane’s horrors. As barghests have no innate ability to travel the planes, though, the time it takes for most greater barghests to engineer such a return can usually be measured in years, if
not decades. During that time, greater barghests continue to play the roles of gluttons, hunters of humanity, and tyrants of goblinoid tribes. More than a few grow accustomed to such lives on the Material Plane and wholly abandon the end goal of returning to the Abyss, despite the fact that those who do make such a return home often grow even more powerful over time, gaining eerie new abilities and qualities absorbed from the raw chaos of the Abyss itself.
In addition to greater barghests being more powerful than typical barghests, the process of transforming into a greater barghest results in hideous mutations that often grant deadly abilities. Some barghests grow large bat-like wings upon their transformation. Others develop toxic breath or vestigial limbs. The options detailed in the stats below represent only the tip of the proverbial iceberg for barghest mutations—feel free to use these as inspiration for coming up with new mutations of your own design.

Nothing in there tells me if a Greater Barghest is Tall or Long. Its art in the Bestiary looks long to me, but the art for Ralldar in Hellknight Hill looks tall.

There is literally nothing to tell the GM if this guy should have reach or not.

I've scoured both the CRB and the Bestiary, and I can't find anything clarifying this other than "tall creatures (most bipeds) and long creatures (most quadrupeds)." There are far too many creatures that could fall into either, or neither, category.

You can't even rely on the descriptions of the attacks themselves to tell you, as it's inconsistent as to whether or not they list reach. For example, a Bulette is Huge, but none of it's melee attacks say that they have reach, even though they do, as none of them have a specific rule overriding the general rule. If the attacks are intended to only have 5 foot reach, they need to say that.

Looking at the Gorilla, its Fist has 10ft reach, but its Bite has explicitly stated 5ft. Fine, that makes sense, its arms can reach farther than its mouth. This is exactly how attacks should be detailed. But other similarly sized or shaped beings don't have this. A grizzly bear apparently has the same reach with both its mouth and arms (5ft or 10ft, nobody knows), despite being both longer and taller than a Gorilla, and being fully capable of standing, and fighting, bipedally (as shown in the artwork directly next to its stat block).

Either all large or larger monsters should have either a Tall or Long trait, or all Melee attack descriptions should include their reach.


Aratorin wrote:
Either all large or larger monsters should have either a Tall or Long trait, or all Melee attack descriptions should include their reach.

This is most likely one of those 'DM fiat' situations that's all over the game. For instance the Gorilla is most likely singled out because it's non-standard. For the bear, it can attack in either a Long or Tall 'stance' so IMO it's the best for reach. For myself, if the creature normally only attack standing on 2 legs, it uses tall. If it can attack without standing upright, it's most likely long. Myself, I'd rather have reaches listed for all attacks, but I wouldn't be surprised if it's purposely vague by design.


Paizo Superscriber; Pathfinder Companion, Pathfinder Accessories, PF Special Edition, Starfinder Accessories, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber

I think that a ten foot tall bear standing on its hind legs takes up one five foot square and may have ten feet reach, and a ten foot tall bear standing on all fours takes up two five foot squares and has five foot reach. But that's just my common sense working, so I'm probably wrong.


I think the default reach is 5' for all attacks w/o specific reach.
An attack only has reach if specified with he monster's attack entry being the more specific rule overriding the general rules re: sizes & reach.
This is why a lot of generic monsters (i.e. giants) list their reach even though it's straightforward by the CRB rules.
And yes, I've noticed attacks that had reach in PF1 that don't in PF2.


Castilliano wrote:
I think the default reach is 5' for all attacks w/o specific reach.

5' is the "typical reach" for small/medium tall creature and small/medium/large long ones. After that it goes up 5' per size jump.

Grand Archive

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Maps, Pawns Subscriber

Keep in mind that most tiny creatures have no reach listed, which means they have 5ft reach if we use that reach as the default...even though tiny creatures are supposed to have 0ft reach. This is definitely an unclear issue that should really be addressed; it should vary from table to table on how far a monster can reach people.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Paizo Superscriber; Pathfinder Companion, Pathfinder Accessories, PF Special Edition, Starfinder Accessories, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber
zer0darkfire wrote:
Keep in mind that most tiny creatures have no reach listed, which means they have 5ft reach if we use that reach as the default...even though tiny creatures are supposed to have 0ft reach. This is definitely an unclear issue that should really be addressed; it should vary from table to table on how far a monster can reach people.

Did you leave a 'not' out of that last sentence?


2 people marked this as a favorite.
zer0darkfire wrote:
theservantsllcleanitup wrote:
zer0darkfire wrote:
If you have both the finesse and either trip, grapple, or disarm traits on a weapon, does the Athletics check for these actions suddenly use dexterity and become a dexterity check instead of a strength one?
Short answer: Yes ... Long answer: (links)
I see a lot of no in those links and people have been asking for an FAQ on this since release so you pointing out random people saying yes doesn't mean anything.

While those links include much personal discussion, they do actually contain citation of developer ruling, i.e. SRMF's Facebook post (which is directly linked to in thread linked to by 2nd thread). To be clear, SRMF's ruling leaves a few open questions re: adjacent issues which I would like resolved, as I've expressed in detail elsewhere. But you can trust these issues have already been brought to Paizo's attention here on forum.

Anyhow, I'm not sure what's the point of your reply... The thread is to bring questions to Paizo's attention, which has already been done. Does Paizo also need to know that you think somebody else's reply "doesn't mean anything"? I don't really see it, such discussion just makes thread content harder to sort thru, and really belongs elsewhere. Since somebody linked you to thread discussing the topic, isn't that better place to discuss topic, and dispute SRMF's ruling if you care to?


Lost Omens Character Guide Pg. 45 wrote:


CUNNING CLIMBER
FEAT 9
HALFLING
Whether you are climbing a ship’s rigging, a jungle tree, or a clock tower, you have an uncanny knack for finding footholds and handholds where larger creatures can’t. You gain a climb Speed of 10 feet. You can take the Legendary Climber feat even if you don’t have the Quick Climb feat, provided you meet its other prerequisites.

There is no feat called Legendary Climber. I could not find any feat that has Quick Climb as a Prerequisite.


graystone wrote:
Castilliano wrote:
I think the default reach is 5' for all attacks w/o specific reach.
5' is the "typical reach" for small/medium tall creature and small/medium/large long ones. After that it goes up 5' per size jump.

I don't mean the normal reach when considering nonspecific monsters, Mr. Obvious. I mean in the Bestiary, under the specific attacks for each creature, as in if it's not listed, it's 5'.

Take for example a Frost Giant w/ 10' reach since it's tall & large.
It's fist is listed as having 10' reach. If GMs were supposed to use the normal reach, the Bestiary wouldn't have to include that. It'd be redundant.
Which is to say, I don't think bears have reach despite being large and often standing upright. Are there any examples where a creature should obviously have greater than 5' reach for an attack which doesn't list a reach?

But moreover, I think this needs clarification.
When using the Bestiary are we supposed to reference the CRB's norms or is the Bestiary self-contained, w/ 5' being a default when unlisted?


Castilliano wrote:
I don't mean the normal reach when considering nonspecific monsters, Mr. Obvious. I mean in the Bestiary, under the specific attacks for each creature, as in if it's not listed, it's 5'.

It wasn't clear that that's what it was to me: nothing is harmed by making it clear to others reading it.

Castilliano wrote:

Take for example a Frost Giant w/ 10' reach since it's tall & large.

It's fist is listed as having 10' reach. If GMs were supposed to use the normal reach, the Bestiary wouldn't have to include that. It'd be redundant.

It's wouldn't be unheard of for them to print reminder of things that are redundant. In a perfect world, I'd prefer that wouldn't be the case, but it happens. Instead of that I'd rather see the SUPER easy solution of just adding reach to all attacks.

Castilliano wrote:
Which is to say, I don't think bears have reach despite being large and often standing upright. Are there any examples where a creature should obviously have greater than 5' reach for an attack which doesn't list a reach?

Myself, I'd say 5' too but it's hard for to to argue to strongly if someone wanted to use 10' as it's not clear cut.

Castilliano wrote:
But moreover, I think this needs clarification.

It doesn't seem very burdensome to just add reach to all melee attacks instead of leaving it all up to a default rule for the majority of creatures.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Castilliano wrote:
graystone wrote:
Castilliano wrote:
I think the default reach is 5' for all attacks w/o specific reach.
5' is the "typical reach" for small/medium tall creature and small/medium/large long ones. After that it goes up 5' per size jump.

I don't mean the normal reach when considering nonspecific monsters, Mr. Obvious. I mean in the Bestiary, under the specific attacks for each creature, as in if it's not listed, it's 5'.

Take for example a Frost Giant w/ 10' reach since it's tall & large.
It's fist is listed as having 10' reach. If GMs were supposed to use the normal reach, the Bestiary wouldn't have to include that. It'd be redundant.
Which is to say, I don't think bears have reach despite being large and often standing upright. Are there any examples where a creature should obviously have greater than 5' reach for an attack which doesn't list a reach?

Yes. I listed one in my initial post. The Bulette is Huge. None of its attacks have any listed reach.

The same is true of Giant Animated Statue, Hive Mother, Grikkitog, Greater Nightmare, Great White Shark, and Uthul.

Castilliano wrote:

But moreover, I think this needs clarification.

When using the Bestiary are we supposed to reference the CRB's norms or is the Bestiary self-contained, w/ 5' being a default when unlisted?

The Bestiary says the same thing as the CRB, so even self contained, 5' is not the assumed reach.


I feel like if there's no listed reach, using the default reach for their size is pretty reasonable and almost definitely intended. That's why default reach is a thing.

The problem is that it's sometimes unclear whether a creature is Tall or Long. I'm AFB right now but glancing at AoN most bestiary entries don't list anything. There's rule of thumb suggested which help for most creatures, but for some it's kinda hard to say.

Grand Archive

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Maps, Pawns Subscriber

What happens if someone with the Stand Still feat critically hits someone trying stand up? RAW, reactions based on movement happen before the movement unless the movement action doesn't leave the square, like standing up, in which case the reaction happens after that action is completed. So, can the Stand Still feat disrupt an action that has already been completed, causing someone to stand up to immediately fall over again?

The Exchange

Which animals are "Megafauna?" Since there is no such trait listed, is there a list somewhere? Since LOWG offers an improved Savage AC path called Indomitable for Megafauna, how can we tell which ACs can take it?


Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Companion, Maps, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

Would ruling that any beast with "dire" or "giant" in its name that is at least size Large cover it?

In the past, the term "megafauna" was used for extinct real world animals that were considerably larger than the surviving counterparts.

But we should get this clarified officially.

The Exchange

David knott 242 wrote:


Would ruling that any beast with "dire" or "giant" in its name that is at least size Large cover it?

In the past, the term "megafauna" was used for extinct real world animals that were considerably larger than the surviving counterparts.

But we should get this clarified officially.

Probably need an official (e.g. Smilodon or sabre toothie is normally considered a megafauna). Reason is that Indomitable evolution for AC is better than Savage in basically all respects so there is never a reason to take Savage


Hsui wrote:
David knott 242 wrote:


Would ruling that any beast with "dire" or "giant" in its name that is at least size Large cover it?

In the past, the term "megafauna" was used for extinct real world animals that were considerably larger than the surviving counterparts.

But we should get this clarified officially.

Probably need an official (e.g. Smilodon or sabre toothie is normally considered a megafauna). Reason is that Indomitable evolution for AC is better than Savage in basically all respects so there is never a reason to take Savage

The way it's written, it's just another choice. There's really no problem with that. If you're background\heritage is from the Realm of Mammoth Lords, you can choose for your companion to be Indominatible. Savage companions have higher STR mods, so they are more accurate and deal more damage.

Other than the horse, no AC can be large before becoming savage/nimble/indomitable, and the specific kind of cat, bear, bird etc... has no rules bearing at all in the AC rules.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

IMO, ANY of the companions can be Megafauna. :
"Megafauna Minions
Source Lost Omens World Guide pg. 117
Megafauna animal companions are mostly similar to other animal companions of the same category, though they look different, and they have one difference in their upgrade path." So you use the same category, just use indomitable animal companion instead of nimble ones.

So if you take badger, you get a baby Megalictis ferox [prehistoric giant wolverine], of if you take a horse you get a Equus giganteus.

Grand Lodge

Hello all,
I would need your help. I didn't find a topic about it, anyway sorry if it something just asked. I would need to understand better the section Innate spells in the monsters stats. For example: Axiomite has Divine Innate Spells 5th telekinetic haul; 4th dispel magic, divine wrath (lawful), lightning bolt (×3); 3rd haste (×3), paralyze; 2nd telekinetic maneuver; 1st true strike (at will); Cantrips (4th) telekinetic projectile

It seems that all of their spells should be divine. But a lot of them are not divine: as telekinetic haul (it is an Occult spell) and other are of another level than the indicated level (lighting bolt is a 3rd level arcane spell). So, the spells not only are not all divine but they differ also in level

What I misunderstanding about this?

Thanks


Ardeus il Giusto wrote:

Hello all,

I would need your help. I didn't find a topic about it, anyway sorry if it something just asked. I would need to understand better the section Innate spells in the monsters stats. For example: Axiomite has Divine Innate Spells 5th telekinetic haul; 4th dispel magic, divine wrath (lawful), lightning bolt (×3); 3rd haste (×3), paralyze; 2nd telekinetic maneuver; 1st true strike (at will); Cantrips (4th) telekinetic projectile

It seems that all of their spells should be divine. But a lot of them are not divine: as telekinetic haul (it is an Occult spell) and other are of another level than the indicated level (lighting bolt is a 3rd level arcane spell). So, the spells not only are not all divine but they differ also in level

What I misunderstanding about this?

Thanks

I imagine it's similar to how Sorcerer bloodlines work. They might not be on the divine spell list, but they're still treated as divine when cast by the Axiomite.

As for the spell level thing, while a Lightning Bolt is a 3rd level spell, it can be heightened to higher levels. So the Axiomite can cast a 4th level lightning bolt, which means (as we can see in the description for the spell) means that it gets an extra d12 of damage.


Ardeus il Giusto wrote:

Hello all,

I would need your help. I didn't find a topic about it, anyway sorry if it something just asked. I would need to understand better the section Innate spells in the monsters stats. For example: Axiomatic has Divine Innate Spells 5th telekinetic haul; 4th dispel magic, divine wrath (lawful), lightning bolt (×3); 3rd haste (×3), paralyze; 2nd telekinetic maneuver; 1st true strike (at will); Cantrips (4th) telekinetic projectile

It seems that all of their spells should be divine. But a lot of them are not divine: as telekinetic haul (it is an Occult spell) and other are of another level than the indicated level (lighting bolt is a 3rd level arcane spell). So, the spells not only are not all divine but they differ also in level

What I misunderstanding about this?

Thanks

Monsters aren't required to follow PC rules. For a Axiomite [I assume this is what you meant by "Axiomatic"], all it's innate spells ARE divine, meaning it uses the proficiency bonus for that type of spell or possibly for triggers/prerequisites. What it doesn't mean is that the spells are from that list.

Even PC don't follow the spell lists 100%. Look an a Demonic Sorcerer: they get Enlarge from their bloodline. Even though it's arcane or primal under the spell, that sorcerer treats it as Divine. So the basic spell lists can be added to by other things and just represents the default list.

Grand Lodge

Salamileg wrote:
Ardeus il Giusto wrote:

Hello all,

I would need your help. I didn't find a topic about it, anyway sorry if it something just asked. I would need to understand better the section Innate spells in the monsters stats. For example: Axiomite has Divine Innate Spells 5th telekinetic haul; 4th dispel magic, divine wrath (lawful), lightning bolt (×3); 3rd haste (×3), paralyze; 2nd telekinetic maneuver; 1st true strike (at will); Cantrips (4th) telekinetic projectile

It seems that all of their spells should be divine. But a lot of them are not divine: as telekinetic haul (it is an Occult spell) and other are of another level than the indicated level (lighting bolt is a 3rd level arcane spell). So, the spells not only are not all divine but they differ also in level

What I misunderstanding about this?

Thanks

I imagine it's similar to how Sorcerer bloodlines work. They might not be on the divine spell list, but they're still treated as divine when cast by the Axiomite.

As for the spell level thing, while a Lightning Bolt is a 3rd level spell, it can be heightened to higher levels. So the Axiomite can cast a 4th level lightning bolt, which means (as we can see in the description for the spell) means that it gets an extra d12 of damage.

it makes sense. thanks a lot

The Exchange

How do staffs work for characters that use both spontaneous and prepared spells?
Can you use both features?
Assume you are a prepared caster with 5th level slots and 3rd level slots as a spontaneous caster (say via Basic spell casting)
How many charges does the staff get at prep time? (5,3, or track separately?)
What if a staff has 1 spell on your spontaneous list and 1 spell on your prepared list? (use all the same or track separately)
If you had a 4th level spell in the staff that is on the spontaneous spell list, could you still cast it (like you could a wand which apparently has no minimum required caster level to activate just presence on spell list)
If you did not have Basic spellcasting but just the MCD (which gives you access to the list), can you cast staff spells from the spontaneous tradition (like a wand) but charge it using the 5 slots from prepared.
This is for PFS so we have to use the actual rules and not just varying interpretations


Paizo Superscriber; Pathfinder Companion, Pathfinder Accessories, PF Special Edition, Starfinder Accessories, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber

You might have mentioned the PFS requirement up front. :-)

Grand Archive

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Maps, Pawns Subscriber

Unarmed says:
An unarmed attack uses your body rather than a manufactured weapon. An unarmed attack isn’t a weapon, though it’s categorized with weapons for weapon groups, and it might have weapon traits. Since it’s part of your body, an unarmed attack can’t be Disarmed. It also doesn’t take up a hand, though a fist or other grasping appendage follows the same rules as a free-hand weapon.

and free-hand (which it says fist uses the rules for) says:
This weapon doesn’t take up your hand, usually because it is built into your armor. A free-hand weapon can’t be Disarmed. You can use the hand covered by your free-hand weapon to wield other items, perform manipulate actions, and so on. You can’t attack with a free-hand weapon if you’re wielding anything in that hand or otherwise using that hand. When you’re not wielding anything and not otherwise using the hand, you can use abilities that require you to have a hand free as well as those that require you to be wielding a weapon in that hand. Each of your hands can have only one free-hand weapon on it.

So, between those two rules, can you count being armed with just your two fists as wielding a one-handed weapon for something like dueling parry (fighter feat)?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
zer0darkfire wrote:

Unarmed says:

An unarmed attack uses your body rather than a manufactured weapon. An unarmed attack isn’t a weapon, though it’s categorized with weapons for weapon groups, and it might have weapon traits. Since it’s part of your body, an unarmed attack can’t be Disarmed. It also doesn’t take up a hand, though a fist or other grasping appendage follows the same rules as a free-hand weapon.

and free-hand (which it says fist uses the rules for) says:
This weapon doesn’t take up your hand, usually because it is built into your armor. A free-hand weapon can’t be Disarmed. You can use the hand covered by your free-hand weapon to wield other items, perform manipulate actions, and so on. You can’t attack with a free-hand weapon if you’re wielding anything in that hand or otherwise using that hand. When you’re not wielding anything and not otherwise using the hand, you can use abilities that require you to have a hand free as well as those that require you to be wielding a weapon in that hand. Each of your hands can have only one free-hand weapon on it.

So, between those two rules, can you count being armed with just your two fists as wielding a one-handed weapon for something like dueling parry (fighter feat)?

No. As you quoted "An unarmed attack isn’t a weapon". This specific rule overrides the general rule for free hand weapons.

If your fists counted as weapons, nobody could wear gauntlets, as that would be 2 free hand weapons on one hand.

Grand Archive

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Maps, Pawns Subscriber
Aratorin wrote:
zer0darkfire wrote:

Unarmed says:

An unarmed attack uses your body rather than a manufactured weapon. An unarmed attack isn’t a weapon, though it’s categorized with weapons for weapon groups, and it might have weapon traits. Since it’s part of your body, an unarmed attack can’t be Disarmed. It also doesn’t take up a hand, though a fist or other grasping appendage follows the same rules as a free-hand weapon.

and free-hand (which it says fist uses the rules for) says:
This weapon doesn’t take up your hand, usually because it is built into your armor. A free-hand weapon can’t be Disarmed. You can use the hand covered by your free-hand weapon to wield other items, perform manipulate actions, and so on. You can’t attack with a free-hand weapon if you’re wielding anything in that hand or otherwise using that hand. When you’re not wielding anything and not otherwise using the hand, you can use abilities that require you to have a hand free as well as those that require you to be wielding a weapon in that hand. Each of your hands can have only one free-hand weapon on it.

So, between those two rules, can you count being armed with just your two fists as wielding a one-handed weapon for something like dueling parry (fighter feat)?

No. As you quoted "An unarmed attack isn’t a weapon". This specific rule overrides the general rule for free hand weapons.

If your fists counted as weapons, nobody could wear gauntlets, as that would be 2 free hand weapons on one hand.

Alas, I disagree. I feel "When you’re not wielding anything and not otherwise using the hand, you can use abilities that require you to have a hand free as well as those that require you to be wielding a weapon in that hand." overrides the specific text that unarmed isn't a weapon as this lets you count it as a weapon. Either way, its not super clear since "unarmed" says to use the rules for free-hand; well, this is one of the rules for free-hand, so it should apply. It needs some clarification.

And, no, this working does not make you suddenly unable to wear gauntlets because you don't have to treat yourself as wielding a free-hand weapon at all, because it says you can treat yourself as wielding a weapon for abilities. In addition, it says each of your hands can only have one free weapon on them. A fist, last I checked, is not on your hand.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

The rules for unarmed say they don't count as weapons. That's super duper nonambiguous.


zer0darkfire wrote:
Unarmed says: Alas, I disagree.

I'm not sure how. You pretty much replace every instance of "weapon" with "unarmed attack" when reading the free-hand trait as the unarmed rules make it VERY clear that you do not count them weapons. For instance, Finesse says "You can use your Dexterity modifier instead of your Strength modifier on attack rolls using this melee weapon" but that doesn't mean that an unarmed attack with it suddenly becomes a weapon: If you make that replacement in finesse [when it says weapon, it means unarmed attack when attached to an unarmed attack], it makes sense to so the same with other traits. Either that or you assume every unarmed attack is a weapon [they all have traits that mention weapon] and the rule that unarmed attacks is incorrect and meaningless.

So it reads:
"This weaponunarmed attack doesn’t take up your hand, usually because it is built into your armorpart of your body. A free-hand weapon can’t be Disarmed. You can use the hand covered by your free-hand weapon to wield other items, perform manipulate actions, and so on. You can’t attack with a free-hand weapon if you’re wielding anything in that hand or otherwise using that hand. When you’re not wielding anything and not otherwise using the hand, you can use abilities that require you to have a hand free as well as those that require you to be wielding a weapon in that handbe able to make an unarmed attack. Each of your hands can have only one free-hand weapon on it."

Grand Archive

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Maps, Pawns Subscriber
Squiggit wrote:
The rules for unarmed say they don't count as weapons. That's super duper nonambiguous.

But the rules for free-hand specifically say that they do for the purposes of abilities in regards to hands. That is also super duper nonambiguous (well I sure thought it was until someone said this doesn't work).


zer0darkfire wrote:
But the rules for free-hand specifically say that they do for the purposes of abilities in regards to hands.

Yes, for WEAPONS: we aren't talking about weapons but unarmed attacks...

Again, do you thing finesse requires a weapon because it says "You can use your Dexterity modifier instead of your Strength modifier on attack rolls using this melee weapon"? Are you unable to use a Fist traits [except unarmed] because it has the traits because they calls out a weapon? If you can replace weapon for unarmed in those trait, why not another trait [free hand]?

PS: this has already been debated in another thread: free hand debate I'd suggest heading there, reading it and if you want to continue a debate, dong it there.

PPS: sorry to debate here. I didn't notice we were in the 'ask a question' thread.

Grand Archive

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Maps, Pawns Subscriber
graystone wrote:


PPS: sorry to debate here. I didn't notice we were in the 'ask a question' thread.

Yeah, this form has a lot of that. I just wanted to post the question because some people thought it was clear one way and other people thought it was clear the other way. I figured that it was good enough for a question. If it really is supposed to be one way over another than it shouldn't be too hard to answer.

TL;DR: I didn't come here to debate either, just ask for official clarification.


How does the level 1 focus spell for the Lightning Domain work?

Charged Javelin, the focus spell in question, says it targets 1 or more creatures but then does not explain how it does so. Does it indeed target more than one creature in some circumstances, and if so then how?


Pathfinder Adventure, Lost Omens, Pathfinder Accessories, Rulebook Subscriber

Persistent damage and critical hits.

I read the rules on page 451 indicating that persistent damage is a condition and its damage does not occur with the strike and thus is not doubled.

However several examples of doubling in other sections of the book appear to indicate that it does. Namely Acid Splash example.

Can we get an official ruling?

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Companion, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber
JesterOC wrote:

Persistent damage and critical hits.

I read the rules on page 451 indicating that persistent damage is a condition and its damage does not occur with the strike and thus is not doubled.

However several examples of doubling in other sections of the book appear to indicate that it does. Namely Acid Splash example.

Can we get an official ruling?

?

Acid Splash creates a persistent damage effect on a critical, it doesn't double it.


What is the item level of your ka stone? What is the spell level of the spells you can cast with your ka stone?


PossibleCabbage wrote:
What is the item level of your ka stone? What is the spell level of the spells you can cast with your ka stone?

There is also the question of if it auto-heightens and/or if the spells are of a higher than base level is it possible to use a lower level version. For example, if enlarge auto-heightens or is cast as a 4th level spell is it possible to use the level 2 version?

Dark Archive

JesterOC wrote:

Persistent damage and critical hits.

I read the rules on page 451 indicating that persistent damage is a condition and its damage does not occur with the strike and thus is not doubled.

However several examples of doubling in other sections of the book appear to indicate that it does. Namely Acid Splash example.

Can we get an official ruling?

I've been asking this for forever. Does the wounding rune get doubled? Does an Acid Flasks? Alchemists fire? All of these deal persistent on a hit, so the crit should double it?

Seems like if the spell, weapon, or ability always causes persistent damage, then its doubled on a crit. If it only causes persistent on a crit then its not doubled. Personally, this just seems...like an extra rule to remember every time persistent comes up. I'd much prefer a flat rule that applies to everything.


"CRB Pg. 93 wrote:

QUAKING STOMP [one-action] FEAT 20

BARBARIAN MANIPULATE RAGE
Frequency once per 10 minutes
You stomp the ground with such force that it creates a minor earthquake, with the effects of the earthquake spell.

Do you get the effects of the 8th level Earthquake Spell, or is it auto heightened to 10th like an Innate Spell would be?

Can this be counteracted, or is it a non-spell effect because it's caused by me physically stomping?


Pathfinder Adventure, Lost Omens, Pathfinder Accessories, Rulebook Subscriber
Rysky wrote:


?

Acid Splash creates a persistent damage effect on a critical, it doesn't double it.

Acid flask only does 1 point of acid damage and the listed persistent damage and the listed splash damage.

Then they showed an example but the example looks wrong. Both because it doesn't mention the one point of damage and it mentions doubling the persistent damage which if you read the doubling rules it should not effect.


JesterOC wrote:
Rysky wrote:


?

Acid Splash creates a persistent damage effect on a critical, it doesn't double it.

Acid flask only does 1 point of acid damage and the listed persistent damage and the listed splash damage.

Then they showed an example but the example looks wrong. Both because it doesn't mention the one point of damage and it mentions doubling the persistent damage which if you read the doubling rules it should not effect.

Acid Flask's Persistent damage is not critical only damage. That is the base damage for the attack.

Critical hits double normal damage, and specifically do not double splash damage. This works fine as written.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
GM Zer0darkfire wrote:
JesterOC wrote:

Persistent damage and critical hits.

I read the rules on page 451 indicating that persistent damage is a condition and its damage does not occur with the strike and thus is not doubled.

However several examples of doubling in other sections of the book appear to indicate that it does. Namely Acid Splash example.

Can we get an official ruling?

I've been asking this for forever. Does the wounding rune get doubled? Does an Acid Flasks? Alchemists fire? All of these deal persistent on a hit, so the crit should double it?

Seems like if the spell, weapon, or ability always causes persistent damage, then its doubled on a crit. If it only causes persistent on a crit then its not doubled. Personally, this just seems...like an extra rule to remember every time persistent comes up. I'd much prefer a flat rule that applies to everything.

That is correct. Where in the rules is this complicated? You don't get to double crit only effects, because the effect itself is already the bonus that you are getting for a crit. Nothing says that persistent damage can't be doubled, just that crit effects can't be doubled. This isn't limited to persistent damage. You don't double Deadly dice, or the extra Fatal die either.


Pathfinder Adventure, Lost Omens, Pathfinder Accessories, Rulebook Subscriber
Aratorin wrote:


That is correct. Where in the rules is this complicated?

The rules explicitly state how damage is calculated and doubling a condition's value is not mention.

page 451 -

Persistent Damage
Persistent damage is a condition that causes damage to recur
beyond the original effect. Unlike with normal damage,
when you are subject to persistent damage, you don’t take
it right away.

Doubling and Halving Damage
Sometimes you’ll need to halve or double an amount of
damage, such as when the outcome of your Strike is a
critical hit, or when you succeed at a basic Reflex save
against a spell. When this happens, you roll the damage
normally, adding all the normal modifiers, bonuses,
and penalties. Then you double or halve the amount as
appropriate...

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Companion, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber
JesterOC wrote:
Aratorin wrote:


That is correct. Where in the rules is this complicated?

The rules explicitly state how damage is calculated and doubling a condition's value is not mention.

page 451 -

Persistent Damage
Persistent damage is a condition that causes damage to recur
beyond the original effect. Unlike with normal damage,
when you are subject to persistent damage, you don’t take
it right away.

Doubling and Halving Damage
Sometimes you’ll need to halve or double an amount of
damage, such as when the outcome of your Strike is a
critical hit, or when you succeed at a basic Reflex save
against a spell. When this happens, you roll the damage
normally, adding all the normal modifiers, bonuses,
and penalties. Then you double or halve the amount as
appropriate...

Persistent Damage is a Condition, but also damage, there's not really anything in there that you quoted that say it's not doubled.


Paizo Superscriber; Pathfinder Companion, Pathfinder Accessories, PF Special Edition, Starfinder Accessories, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber

I seem to remember some stream in which someone said Persistent damage is not doubled. I *think* it was Jason Buhlman on "Oblivion Oath", but I could be wrong.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Lost Omens, Pathfinder Accessories, Rulebook Subscriber
Rysky wrote:
Persistent Damage is a Condition, but also damage, there's not really anything in there that you quoted that say it's not doubled.

Here is why I don't agree with that. Persistent damage is the name of a condition, that condition applies its own damage. The damage that it applies only happens at the end of the targets turn.

Damage dealt by strikes happens right there and then. The rules for doubling describe you doubling the damage occur on step 2 of the damage application rules. The damage is applied on step 4. All that happens before the strikers next action.

Persistent damage is applied just like normal damage on the targets turn. It runs through the exact same steps on its own, at that time it no longer connected in any way to the critical hit.

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Companion, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber

The hit that was critical is what caused the damage.

This kinda feels like over-reading the rules, but then I'm not that entrenched one way or the other, so I'm fine being wrong.


The Tyrannosaurus form of Dinosaur Form lists the deadly trait on its jaw attack, what die is it meant to be?

451 to 500 of 535 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder Second Edition / Rules Discussion / Got a rules question about Pathfinder Second Edition? Post it here! And we might answer them on stream! All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.