Paladin's Detect Evil

[seebs]

I do not at all buy the notion that the move action maintains the spell effect. It doesn't say it maintains the spell. It uses the word "concentrate", but clearly in the sense of "opposite of diffuse".

If you don't spend a standard action to concentrate *on the detect evil itself*, it ends. And the move action to determine whether something is evil or not is explicitly stated as *not* maintaining the broader awareness.

[thebigragu]

Malachi Silverclaw wrote:

Er...the way he worded his reply, JJ might be saying it's 1) OR 2).

Or 3).

: /

Agreed. The strictest reading suggests #1 in my opinion. The main thing I stick to is "a move action activates." Not explicitly stated anywhere else by a reliable source, it is one of the game text omissions on which detractors have based their arguments.

[Rynjin]

Elbedor wrote:

Just had an image of Unbreakable. Bruce Willis as a Paladin standing there in the train station with Detect Evil running. Either Standard Scanning a cone as he sweeps it around looking for something to ping or 2-target focusing per round by taking a double Move as people mill all about him.

I dunno why you'd ever use the Move action version versus a crowd. The Standard is a lot faster when there's more than 6 people.

[Elbedor]

Moving crowd. Tavern no problem as most people are stationary. But train station could involve a lot of people moving in and out of the cone. And even if you got a ping from the cone, the group wouldn't stay together. You'd have to guess which ones to keep the cone on and which ones to let leave. Is it possible in the same Round to spend the Standard concentrating on the cone AND a Move concentrating to focus on someone who just left the cone? Either interpretation of the ability could allow for this as the "effect" is active at this point anyway.

Not saying this is the best way to do it. Just mentioning the imagery of something similar happening in Unbreakable.

[Bigdaddyjug]

Malachi Silverclaw wrote:

Bigdaddyjug wrote:

I still disagree and am willing to take bets on what the answer will be if this ever gets FAQed.

Thanks, but I'm happy to get my imaginary money from imaginary dead Orcs. : )

I think we all want this to be answered. In the FAQ. As opposed to it just saying 'Answered in the FAQ'.

Inigo Montoya wrote:

You keep using that word. I don't think it means what you think it means!

Any news on the FAQ?

Just to let you know, you are right and I am wrong. I was at CoastCon all weekend with Mike Brock and asked about this specifically. He texted SKR and SKR responded that it is an either/or choice.

[Elbedor]

Interesting. If this is correct, then I guess the wording was, in fact, ambiguous. Hmm.

It's too bad they hadn't written the text clearer to signify Move activation. Oh well. Win some, lose some. But good to know either way. :)

[Malachi Silverclaw]

Bigdaddyjug wrote:

Malachi Silverclaw wrote:

Bigdaddyjug wrote:

I still disagree and am willing to take bets on what the answer will be if this ever gets FAQed.

Thanks, but I'm happy to get my imaginary money from imaginary dead Orcs. : )

I think we all want this to be answered. In the FAQ. As opposed to it just saying 'Answered in the FAQ'.

Inigo Montoya wrote:

You keep using that word. I don't think it means what you think it means!

Any news on the FAQ?

Just to let you know, you are right and I am wrong. I was at CoastCon all weekend with Mike Brock and asked about this specifically. He texted SKR and SKR responded that it is an either/or choice.

Outstanding work in getting a definite answer!

Now that it is what it is, how do you feel about the ability and how it works?

Do you think it's overpowered, or just right?

Can you foresee any problems with this ability in game?

[Bigdaddyjug]

Mike made a good explanation of why it's not overpowered, so I'm fine with it. Also, I asked to make sure, and the move action does still provoke AoOs.

[Malachi Silverclaw]

Bigdaddyjug wrote:

Mike made a good explanation of why it's not overpowered, so I'm fine with it. Also, I asked to make sure, and the move action does still provoke AoOs.

How did he explain it?

This would be useful for all of us, I think. : )

[Zahir ibn Mahmoud ibn Jothan]

Bigdaddyjug wrote:

Mike made a good explanation of why it's not overpowered, so I'm fine with it. Also, I asked to make sure, and the move action does still provoke AoOs.

A guy asking the PFS lead at a Con, who texts SKR, who isn't the rules guy, and is leaving Paizo, and then posting about it, is not hardly a FAQ, even if it does agree with my personal interpretation of the rules.

[Bigdaddyjug]

Zahir, SKR is a rules guy, and I would say if Mike Brock texts him for rules clarifications, we can assume it's good information. Of course, you don't even have to take my word that I was at CoastCon all weekend, but there's plenty of people on these boards who can confirm I was.

Malachi, the explanation was that the paladin would have to be next to the creature already to detect evil, smite, and attack all in the same round. And that would provoke an AoO.

[Zahir ibn Mahmoud ibn Jothan]

Bigdaddyjug wrote:

Zahir, SKR is a rules guy, and I would say if Mike Brock texts him for rules clarifications, we can assume it's good information. Of course, you don't even have to take my word that I was at CoastCon all weekend, but there's plenty of people on these boards who can confirm I was.

Malachi, the explanation was that the paladin would have to be next to the creature already to detect evil, smite, and attack all in the same round. And that would provoke an AoO.

Perhaps I should have bolded a word and said "SKR isn't THE rules guy."

I was not remotely questioning the veracity of your claim, either of being at a Con, or of talking with Mike, and him texting SKR. I was simply stating that this process is NOT the FAQ process, and should not be taken as the official way for gaining rules clarifications. Has Mike gone and posted this as the official PFS clarification? He doesn't usually do that, as he counts on the standard Rules Forum and FAQ process, and keeps a list of "exceptions" and such in the various PFS documents.

[Bigdaddyjug]

True Zahir, but in the absence of an FAQ, which we may never get, at least we have an answer.

[Malachi Silverclaw]

Bigdaddyjug wrote:

True Zahir, but in the absence of an FAQ, which we may never get, at least we have an answer.

In light of the fact that it says 'Answered in the FAQ', when it is not, makes me very glad that Bigdaddy jug was in a position to get such a credible answer, and glad that he has the integrity to post an answer which loses him imaginary money. : )

[Bigdaddyjug]

Yep, Malachi now has all of my bitcoins.

[Malachi Silverclaw]

Bigdaddyjug wrote:

Yep, Malachi now has all of my bitcoins.

Full disclosure: I chose not to bet you as I prefer to get my imaginary money off imaginary dead orcs, so I imagine I'm as poor now as I imagined I was then. : )

[Bigdaddyjug]

Well we can hardly call bitcoins money, even of the imaginary type, lol.

[Zahir ibn Mahmoud ibn Jothan]

Bigdaddyjug wrote:

Well we can hardly call bitcoins money, even of the imaginary type, lol.

I wouldn't know the first thing about where/how to obtain, store, or use Bitcoins, but as I'm lead to believe they can be somewhat valuable.

With that in mind, if someone has some useless ones, I will figure it all out and you can just give me yours.

[Bigdaddyjug]

Bitcoins were recently revealed to be a massive con and I believe the "creator" of them is looking at some serious jail time.

[Zahir ibn Mahmoud ibn Jothan]

Bigdaddyjug wrote:

Bitcoins were recently revealed to be a massive con and I believe the "creator" of them is looking at some serious jail time.

More recently than Friday? Have an article (not from the Onion preferably), to back this up?

[Bigdaddyjug]

I heard a story on the radio on Friday on the way to the con, but in only caught part of it so I may well be mistaken.

[seebs]

Elbedor wrote:

Interesting. If this is correct, then I guess the wording was, in fact, ambiguous. Hmm.

It's too bad they hadn't written the text clearer to signify Move activation. Oh well. Win some, lose some. But good to know either way. :)

I would argue that the mere fact that a number of basically competent people familiar with rules interpretation came to different conclusions proved conclusively that the text was ambiguous. I don't see any room for debate on whether there are at least possible readings of the text, because multiple people, upon reading it, came to different conclusions.

There has been room for dispute about which reading is intended, but I can't see any way to argue that text isn't ambiguous when experienced readers disagree about what it says.

[Elbedor]

Oh I've agreed that it was ambiguous. I wasn't contesting that. A short ways back I mentioned my confusion over ambiguous vs vague and I corrected myself to agree that it was ambiguous. I was merely musing over the conclusive proof of such. No need to analyze my words for any deeper meaning than that.

I try to be plain in hopes to avoid coming off as either vague or ambiguous. Sadly it doesn't always work. ;)

[Gauss]

Just a reminder that here is the current FAQ attempt link. It does not state that it has been answered and is up to 44 requests.

With that said, it is nice to get an unofficial answer.

[James Risner]

Zahir ibn Mahmoud ibn Jothan wrote:

"SKR isn't THE rules guy."

The only task assigned to SKR is rules.

He is on the rules team with Jason (Lead with 3126 posts) and Stephen Radney-MacFarland (643 posts) and has 7220 posts.

He is the guy who typically posts rules clarifications far more than the other two. He was hired to help Jason originally and if you think he makes public posts when he isn't certain the whole team is in agreement on a rules issue, I'd ask you to read his posts saying that never happens.

[seebs]

I thought SKR had left/was-leaving. Although that doesn't change his credibility as a source much.

[Zahir ibn Mahmoud ibn Jothan]

James Risner wrote:

Zahir ibn Mahmoud ibn Jothan wrote:

"SKR isn't THE rules guy."

The only task assigned to SKR is rules.

He is on the rules team with Jason (Lead with 3126 posts) and Stephen Radney-MacFarland (643 posts) and has 7220 posts.

He is the guy who typically posts rules clarifications far more than the other two. He was hired to help Jason originally and if you think he makes public posts when he isn't certain the whole team is in agreement on a rules issue, I'd ask you to read his posts saying that never happens.

Again, SKR is A rules guy, to be sure. I'm not knocking him,

I'm saying he's not the one and only, and he's leaving, and however much I respect his opinion, it would be great to see it typed up as a FAQ response to this question, rather than as an SMS to Mike Brock.

[Malachi Silverclaw]

Gauss wrote:

Just a reminder that here is the current FAQ attempt link. It does not state that it has been answered and is up to 44 requests.

With that said, it is nice to get an unofficial answer.

I agree with all that, but why is the FAQ request in the OP described as 'Answered in the FAQ', when it isn't?

[Malachi Silverclaw]

Also, SKR is leaving? Why? How do we know? Is there a post of it or something that could be linked to? I'd appreciate it. : )

[Gauss]

Malachi, I *think* that the date of the original FAQ attempt puts it before the current FAQ policy. They used to put "answered in the FAQ" to clear the FAQ attempt from the list. Possibly this was due to the attempt not being phrased correctly or for some other reason known only to the Devs.

As for SKR, he posted this on his website, here is the link.

Here is the discussion link where people are talking about his departure.

[Malachi Silverclaw]

Gauss wrote:

Malachi, I *think* that the date of the original FAQ attempt puts it before the current FAQ policy. They used to put "answered in the FAQ" to clear the FAQ attempt from the list. Possibly this was due to the attempt not being phrased correctly or for some other reason known only to the Devs.

As for SKR, he posted this on his website, here is the link.

Here is the discussion link where people are talking about his departure.

Cheers Gauss. You're a star!

[James Risner]

Zahir ibn Mahmoud ibn Jothan wrote:

I'm saying he's not the one and only, and he's leaving, and however much I respect his opinion, it would be great to see it typed up as a FAQ response to this question, rather than as an SMS to Mike Brock.

Again, all of them are rules guys and all of them can make statements.

Honestly, it sounds like you are making excuses to not use his clarification. You want a uniform trio of them to sing in unison and issue it as a FAQ. Both of those things are highly unlikely to happen, so you can feel secure knowing you won't be countered? Or am I misreading the strong rejections as something it isn't?

[Elbedor]

Let's toss in a 4th and make it a quartet. I'm sure they'd harmonize wonderfully. :)

F - A - and - Q.
This is something just for you.
We know that you've been feeling blue.
So here's an F.A.Q.
Hhhmmmmmm

[BillyGoat]

I could understand if he were saying "word of mouth, two steps removed from a dev is not equivalent to that same dev posting, much less an FAQ".

As it stands, the critique is too focused on the nature of the source, and not the informal method of delivery.

[Bigdaddyjug]

I knew I should have taken a picture of his phone screen with my phone, lol.

[Pathfinder Design Team]

Answered in FAQ!

FAQ wrote:

Paladin’s Detect Evil: Does a paladin need to spend a standard action to activate detect evil before spending a move action to concentrate on a single creature or item?

No, the first sentence is discrete from the rest of the ability, and offers an alternative option for using detect evil. A paladin can use the move action on a single creature or item in lieu of the standard action to activate a normal detect evil.

[Gullyble Dwarf - Lvl 7 DM]

Are Answered in the FAQ questions that weren't answered in the FAQ getting love?

[Chess Pwn]

Was there another thread with FAQs on it but they thought this was the best place to answer? It's kinda cool if they are reviewing old "answered but not" FAQs, I just didn't know they were in the queue at all.

[Mark Seifter]

This thread had a post on a later page with lots of FAQs. It's even more impressive considering you have to hunt for it, rather than it being in the first post.

[DinosaursOnIce]

Hey cool, glad this got an official answer.