@c.ross just saw your rpg.se for next meta question from January, good point. I know I'll be picking up next when it comes out and trying to get the ins and outs of the system
@Aaron First thought: 3.5 has a perfectly functional 'grafts' system that's actually pretty cool
But I'm afraid I've no time for an in-depth reading. If you want more on grafts, check out Fiend Folio, Libris Mortis, and Lords of Madness. See about adapting that to PF
It allows you to sneak attack during surprise round for max damage with a hidden weapon, but you are only allowed either move or standard action in a surprise round.
Sleight of hand is a standard action.
Which would mean normally you would not be able to do this in surprise round.
I already asked this, but I was referred for that part of it to the paizo forums, where the question did not seem resolved or clarified to me. I am not the only one confused about this.
When you guys are running either pathfinder or 3.5, do you usually use a world map that the players can reference. Either a complete or incomplete one?
@Aaron Do you usually only reveal parts of it at at time, and when you do reveal the map to the players, how detail do you divulge. I am not looking for a right or wrong answer, just how other GMs handle it.
depending on how you view surprised the betrayer feat could also use it
also the underhanded feat might just be written really poorly and actually be meant to let you make an attack with a hidden weapon as a standard action but obviously cant within RAW rules. I can't say if it is though.
@JoshuaAslanSmith betrayer seems to me that it would be more of a "stabbing someone in the back" to initiate combat more than a regular surprise round. But I can see how it would be used.
Honestly I would make a decision as the DM whether you would let betrayer or the items I showed work, and then lay all of it before the player and state your case and allow them to retrain if they think its too restrictive
@phorden I agree its just surprise round is so terribly defined
so you could make the case
3.5 and PF are much more at the whim of DM fiat for rules interpretation
Does anyone know if there is a way to get like an "official judge ruling" from paizo on something like that? I don't know of a way to communicate with paizo other than the message boards.
@JoshuaAslanSmith Yea I read that post, it is the closest thing to an explanation that I remember
However, I feel it is quite possible that it was not intended to need other feats to use effectively, so I might make a GM ruling and allow it to work slightly differently.
I might allow the player to do this but with nothing bigger than a dagger sized item. But they will still be limited to a move or standard action only other than pulling a dagger from hiding.
Is there anything obvious that seem like it could break the system by allowing this?
I cant really answer Im not a PF player really im just good at google foo and parsing rules (4e is extremely rules forward)
I wasnt bashing PF but just frustrated (as you seemed to be) due to the inconsistencies between what the feat seems to want to accomplish vs. what is allowed by other core system rules
Hmm, there are a lot more answers now than when I started writing my answer. I wish we got points for deleting our own answers if there are more than 5 answers.
@JoshuaAslanSmith Yes, however your examples fall a little flat. Because if such a hum-drum event is taking place in a novel or film, it is already a sign of weakness. This isn't true of an RPG. In an rpg it is important to keep pace, and so it is perfectly acceptable for a character or monster to do nothing special in a round. Saving that up for a big, memorable moment later on in the fight.
I like the comparison between screenplays and the terse concision that description in an RPG should be like.
