|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
And for me that is assuming I had no reason to believe it was not an honest mistake.
There is no flat formula, and I would not change CR. What I do think you should do is be careful about the problems you give the players to solve, and be careful about which monsters you use. It is better if you keep the game at a low level unless you have other ways to compensate for lack of magic. Being permanently turned to stone by a medusa as an example might not go over well. IIRC you would need stone to flesh or break enchantment.
To take this a step further decide what the options for the PCs are for a "condition" before it happens, ideally before the game even starts. In turn this leads back to what Tacticslion is saying about needing to know more about the details. Is magic something only the NPCs control? Is magic exceedingly rare even for the NPCs (or truly unknown - and presumably waiting to be rediscovered ... or why use PF rules in the first place when plenty of sci-fi rules are out there)?
I don't think there is an easy answer to the OP question and certainly not a flat increase of 'x' amount for 'y' defense.
Ability scores won't effect each other but sheesh that is going to be a much harder to slay Graveknight if his armor (containing his soul) has both its own mind and the ability to say Teleport or run away as well. Of course it also means his 'phylactery' may also get uncooperative if not happy with his Knight which might prove interesting to deal with if you are the Graveknight in question.
*Party enters dungeon and sees an ancient suit of Armor, which appears to be having one half of a loud argument, apparently with itself* :p (and oh gads why did my brain just start channeling R2D2's voice for the Armor)
The ability scores the item have no direct effect on the wearer unless it specifically says so in the item description.
So no the Wisdom will not effect the wearer/bearer/possessor of the item. It will effect the item's Will save and any checks based on Wisdom. Same for Intelligence and Charisma. Just treat the item as if it is an NPC construct. As intelligent magic items they may have various skills and those skills will use the appropriate skill mods for those skills. The item can and certainly is likely to employ Diplomacy, Sense Motive, Bluff and or any other skills (powers and abilities) it may possess to try and meet its goals just like any intelligent NPC would do.
CRB, Intelligent Magic Items wrote:
Intelligent items can actually be considered creatures because they have Intelligence, Wisdom, and Charisma scores. Treat them as constructs. Intelligent items often have the ability to illuminate their surroundings at will (as magic weapons do); many cannot see otherwise.
And keep in mind these rules (*cough* guidelines) are one area of the rules set that needs very heavy GM oversight to work without being extremely disruptive to a campaign. They can also be very fun when handled well. And rather obviously that is my opinion.
I'm thinking that no you wouldn't be able to but not sure if it works out RAW that way.
I'd say that RAI anyway (and probably what I'd do) is select a spell-like ability duplicating a spell with a level less than or equal to 1/2 its caster level (round down) – 6 (the combined effect of -2 and -4, as that is where the +2 and +4 level mods pop up for the metamagic effects).
Or you would need to be level 16 ... [1/2*(16)]-6=2
Which not unsurprisingly is about the caster level needed to actually cast a Quickened, Empowered 2nd level spell. A wizard of 12th level is actually only capable of using Quickened Empowered 0-level spells.
For what its worth, the 3.5 FAQ states that when a magic item duplicates a spell, it only lasts for the duration of the spell at a caster level equal to the ... <snip> ... The 1st edition DMG says rings spell-like abilities function as 12th level of magic use unless the power requires a higher level of magic use. And the Ring of Invisibility says it functions exactly as the spell (with the exception that some rings have an added effect). That would imply the duration as well.
Keep in mind that the Ring of Invisibility would have then be based off the duration of a 12th level Magic User of AD&D as well if so ruling ... duration at that time was a whole heck of a lot longer than the 12 minutes it currently would be for a 12 level Wizard. In between (then and now) I believe there is even a period where the stated duration was a flat 24 hours for Invisibility.
How about explaining this then:
Why bother with "(as the ethereal jaunt spell)" if you are going to go on and specify exactly how long and how continuous or not the activation is? Couldn't you just leave that chunk out of sentence?
with text missing:
Cloak of Etherealness
Aura strong transmutation; CL 15th
Slot shoulders; Price 55,000 gp; Weight 1 lb.
This silvery gray cloak seems to absorb light rather than be illuminated by it. On command, the cloak makes its wearer ethereal. The effect is dismissible. The cloak works for a total of up to 10 minutes per day. This duration need not be continuous, but it must be used in 1 minute increments.
Requirements Craft Wondrous Item, ethereal jaunt; Cost 27,500 gp
Personally I've always viewed it as you turn invisible as long as you wear the Ring. Ditto for Hat of Disguise. No idea if I hold that belief from something specific in the decades old text or not. I probably first read the text of a Ring of Invisibility almost 4 decades ago.
I'm with Ashiel, I'd be loath to reduce the CR much if at all. That the players have previously fought it is largely irrelevant to me. As you said each is essentially a new encounter making it effectively no different than if they had fought 3 (or 5) different dragons in differing encounters except that each side has learned more about the other with each encounter.
That said the Curse is a major consideration and makes the dragon significantly weaker for encounters while cursed. What I'd most likely do is have the dragon attempting to find a way to rid itself of the curse (going to see those goblins perhaps) and effectively put the party on a secret timer after which it automatically finds the cure (maybe they even learn of the 'timer' after capture of some goblins). If the party catches the dragon prior to removing the curse (and/or the rest of the damage) then the same CR because that's their 'bonus' reward for doing well and getting the dragon prior to its recovery. If they find and defeat the dragon but not until after it is cured than maybe drop the reward to CR9 or maybe just leave it be as they will get a tougher fight out of 'yet another' dragon encounter (particularly if it has goblin allies about).
Bottom line I wouldn't worry too much about the exact CR and exactly how that translates into xp. Give what feels right and forget about exactly how you arrive at the 'right' amount. Any bonus from numerous repeated encounters with the same dragon is 'story' xp. It certainly sounds as if the party has a significant tale to tell upon returning home where ever that may be.
I'm in the group of 'doesn't think it will accomplish what you are trying to do" with the caveat of maybe I don't entirely follow what you are trying to do.
Either way I suspect you need the Suggestions/House Rules/Homebrew forums more than Advice (or more specifically you need advice on a Homebrew/House Rule answer for your issue).
Would stretching out the spell level progression between acquiring the next higher level of spell help? If it wasn't strictly linear you could still have 9th level spells without worrying about post 20th play.
Part of the issue is it involves "Stealth and Perception" which is a bit of a muddle as well.
Why should Still and Silent effect Spellcraft at all? Why aren't the effects and modifiers, if any, based off of Perception i.e. "but you must be able to clearly see the spell as it is being cast, and this incurs the same penalties as a Perception skill check due to distance, poor conditions, and other factors."? Wouldn't (shouldn't) altered components fall into the 'other factors' category?
Why doesn't casting time explicitly alter the Spellcraft DC?
Well the person who really needs to answer your question(s) is your GM. Only he knows how he intends to handle post 20th level play.
There's the 3.0/3.5 Epic rules. There is at least one conversion of those rules into PF -> PF conversion of Epic Rules. There's the other 3PP mentioned above. There is the very minimal mention and recommendations made in the CRB about advancing past 20th. Which one or combination of rules your GM is choosing will make a huge difference potentially. When he lets you know more then the advice can be better tailored to fit you and your character.
Yes you will be incredibly powerful especially after you've gone a bit past 20th and/or picked up some Mythic ranks and abilities. But it is good to remember it is always relative, as in powerful compared to what?
That said the change is not likely going to be hugely dramatic any more than advancing from 19th to 20th was for you, so unless that was overwhelming I wouldn't get overly anxious just yet (and just how much change also goes back to just what rules he is using or not using).
While our group was stopped at a local tavern our DM thought a bit of DM scry and fry might be in order. Shortly afterwards he was reading the description of Detect Scrying. I made the opposed caster level check, viewed the scryer and then teleported to the scryer's camp location just outside of town. The group overpowered the caster and a couple of other foes, cleaned up the camp and waited for the rest of their group to return from searching for us in town and then pummeled them into submission.
*Picks up quill, yes please do tell.*
My wizard would be doing the same thing ... And being third, of course, doesn't mean unimportant or the Evasion/Improved Evasion among other things wouldn't also be on his list.
And overall I agree I probably wouldn't have the character in question actually get that far. More than likely they'd blow some coin in research and find out that what they ask is essentially impossible unless they get to very epic levels. Along the way the research would point towards some alternate ideas (some of the other Rings suggested in this thread), maybe point in the direction of the Mythic version of True Strike while hopefully getting the point across to even the most dim witted of players.
Here's a list of things I'd be looking for put into terms of what I want to gain or protect myself from rather than Items themselves. Some you can't get via Items unless custom stuff is on the table.
Abilities and Protections sought for high level and epic level play:
Of course, as GM, you could always let them work on it, do research etc., without giving them the precise DC needed and if they aren't taking any hints you're providing on the appropriateness of said Item (or probable crafting level etc.) --> then some time later they are most likely the proud possessor of a suitably cursed Ring of Constant Whiffing (and if you feeling especially cruel anytime they do some how hit despite a -20 to all their rolls well then there's that miss chance it gives the possessor as well :p).
To answer what seems to be the question. Difficult terrain?
It's not unlike a medium size creature that has to force its way thru thick brush ... assuming it's dense enough to be worth worrying about.
Keep in mind, a Grizzly Bear is large and an Elephant is huge per their Bestiary entries. Neither has any particular difficulty moving thru a typical forest or does much damage to the tree sized vegetation while moving on earth so you are talking about an unusually thick stand of trees to really do much. Certainly I have gotten fairly cinematic with scenes involving the surrounding forest but usually it has been restricted to the approach of some creature (building tension etc) rather than in combat but you could certainly have an Giant rip a small tree out if they found themselves short of weaponry in an encounter. Generally I'd think they'd be breaking off branches and such long before knocking whole trees down if that's what you are envisioning.
And I'd have to respectfully disagree.It's game changing the same way easy access to Wand(s) of Cure Light Wounds is game changing. It is game changing in that the character in question is probably never going to need to rest for more than a few minutes between encounters and can do so without using a single resource where it concerns his hit points. What again is one of the things the game is designed to do with an encounter? (/rhetorical question) In my games two things generally cause a rest/break for the characters, running out of spells or running out of hit points. You've just eliminated one of those for at least one player as they are not ever going to run out of hit points (shy of outright death of course). This heavily encourages the "15-minute" adventuring day. I don't know if you've ever had a player with a permanent Fast Healing ability. I have, though it was in the form of Fast Healing 3 (Epic Feat) in a post 20th campaign.
A character with Fast Healing 1 is going to regain 10 hit points a minute. Doesn't sound like much but that's 600/hour without any exhaustion of resources. If that is not game changing you are playing a very different game than I typically do. Which is great, it shows the flexibility of the system but I'd still call it game changing.
Put another way give the entire party Fast Healing 1 see what happens.
! Wow there's a way to get permanent Fast Healing in PF! (Shy of Mythic level rules)?
Okay don't really care 'how' but a bazillion red flags just went up a bazillion flag poles. Not saying I wouldn't allow whatever combo above is being discussed that gets said result but I am going to examine it with a fine tooth comb first and my 'knee jerk' reaction places me solidly in Claxon's 'it ain't happening camp' no matter how much it may be RAW/RAI until I know a whole let more about the pros and cons. There's a reason it (Fast Healing) isn't in the Glossary but found in the Bestiary Universal Monster Rules, one of them is it is rather game changing ability when a PC has it (permanently).
My personal view (RAI) would be "No"
Even though the typical Metamagic Rod is not also useable as a weapon it is still a magical object and even if not necessarily made of metal (most are but it leaves the door open per RAW) I think the inherent magic (your 'magical quality') renders it an invalid target for Shillelagh even if your GM said it was made of wood.
I also think while nothing per se prevents a Wizard from holding and wielding a "light mace" that happens to be a Metamagic Rod conceptually it's problematic (for me at least) unless said Wizard (or arcane casters in general) is proficient with a Light Mace even if his use is entirely as a Metamagic Rod. Equally obviously most divine casters tend to have less issues wielding a Lt Mace/Metamagic Rod since they possess the proficiency.
Count me in the "they acted stupidly and deserved to get in trouble" group.
That said I tend not to kill folks/TPK groups most of the time unless they are seriously messing up unless it is a particularly grim and gritty campaign, I'd much rather embarrass stupid acts/players than kill a high level and presumable liked PC. I might have very rapidly altered the 'game plan' and knocked out player number 1 or perhaps number 2, stripped him, and tied him upside down some distance from camp with a note attached. Said note might be anything from an offer to be bought off, a warning, to one scribbled with Explosive Runes or a Symbol of Death depending on the group and the nature of the campaign.
Unlike with Magic Items the 3.0/3.5 Epic rules never gave any guide lines as to what made a creature an "Epic" creature. Nothing along the lines of "if it is greater than 200,000gp, total enhancements equal to +11 or greater or +6 enhancement to attack/damage" for instance. Over all I think the boundary if you will between an Epic and a pre-Epic creature is fairly subjective and more of a zone rather than a line. I would lean towards developing something along similar lines if for some reason it is important for you or your campaign. There would not be in my opinion, typically, by a single stat that elevated a creature to epic status. CR probably comes closer than any other single stat and assigning CR is an art as much as hard science.
Damage Reduction (of DR/Epic) by itself is merely one marker of a potentially 'epic' creature. Both the Solar and the Tarrasque have DR/Epic, are both Epic creatures?
A Solar has indeed existed for a while (since about 1985). It existed prior to 3.0 rules much less the 3.0 epic rules. It was included in the module The Isle of the Ape with rules for what amounted to "epic" AD&D rules. It was for characters for levels 18+ <-- remember this is for 2nd Ed AD&D.
I've always allowed it and had it allowed in games I've been involved in.
That said maybe it doesn't actually work by RAW.
You cast Contingency + Teleport --- okay, now it gets tricky you die triggering your Companion spell. Are you still a legal target? Seems like yes based on spells like Raise Dead and Resurrection the targets of those spells being a 'dead creature touched' but brings up the point of when does a dead creature become an "object" and are those spells specifying a particular type of object namely a dead creature? *shrug* At least Teleport does effect objects as well as creatures even if the basic target is "you (plus stuff)".
Malachi Silverclaw wrote:
Keep in mind that an Item created based on spell 'X' (in this case True Strike) doesn't necessarily, and often doesn't, copy the exact effects of the spell ... it's merely the creative basis for the Item. This is why I said I would turn around and ask what the player was expecting the spell to do got the rather outrageous Item as a response. An Item crafted using True Strike as a basis doesn't have a single 'correct' way of working.
Ring of Mythic Moments
What would that cost (as I'm not terribly familiar with Mythic rules and crafting (compared to Epic rules and crafting)?
No he doesn't. You can bypass the requirements to make an item in Pathfinder by upping the crafting DC. That was even specifically mentioned in the FAQ.
Okay taking my ball and going home. You are correct, the rules don't say you need 3 levels for every +1 if not talking about a weapon or armor. At some point I even typed the bit about +5 to the DC but it got edited out as I was typing ... because adding only 5 to the DC for not having some few dozen of the required levels (even if that assumption was incorrect) sounds a bit absurd to my ears. Yes technically if the required caster level was 60+ you could be 18th and add +5 to the spellcraft check for not having the additional 42+ levels by RAW. And I'd ask if that makes any sense at all to you?
RAW as much as it covers such an item see the above, as posted by Jeraa.
RAI ... *shrug* ... I'm thinking the Rules don't even intend to try and cover this beyond "Oh Heck NO!"
I'd repeat my general thought that this Item and any character capable of crafting this Item is so far out of the norm that saying things like adding +5 to the DC for missing the level requirement is not going to fly. But that is just how I'd run it. The Item as desired by the player is well beyond anything a sub Epic Level/Mythic crafter should be capable of crafting and the DC should, if one were to entertain the ability of someone to craft it, should reflect that fact.
Artemis Moonstar wrote:
You just HAD to bring the Big Bad Wolf into the picture didn't ya?
Proving yet again there's always something bigger and badder out there.
Diego Rossi wrote:
My intent wasn't so much to hand wave it away as to point out how terribly far beyond the normal gaming experience (perhaps even most 'epic' gaming) so as to be pretty much an entirely different game altogether. The wizard in question needs in excess of 60 levels to be able to craft the Item. We have very little basis with which to even compare such a wizard to or even talk about the abilities of such a caster. Even the Epic rules barely cover such characters beyond "continue this table out as needed ... "
The Human Diversion wrote:
I haven't been able to find anything on UMD and portals - none of the Forgotten Realms books I've looked in mention it. Does anyone know of any rules on this, 3rd part or otherwise? Does anyone have any opinions on this?
Personally whether UMD works or not and any associated DC is entirely in your hands (the GM's). A portal isn't generally speaking a 'device', you can't really pick it up and move it around (typically). That said I don't see any particular reason you couldn't use it for such especially if your campaign/setting doesn't have spells dealing with portals (such as Analyze Portal). The drawback is you are probably going to end up pretty much creating the mechanics and associated DCs. A portal most closely resembles a Gate spell or Teleportation Circle but with a specific manner of causing it to function i.e. the 'Key'. And in a setting such as the Realms or Planescape it isn't necessarily relegated to 'high level' only since anyone with the right key, even a level 1 Commoner, could potentially cause the portal to open and then use the portal to travel. Such travel can be but isn't necessarily interplanar.
A hex is 12 miles from corner to corner (and about 95 square miles)
Nothing I've come across offers much help in deciding costs in anywhere near the manner the OP seems interested in. Then again I've yet to find the 24,000gp reference (link maybe?) Closest I've seen lists a bridge with no definition as to material(s) or length of the structure as "6BP, 1 Lot".
Each doubling adds +1 to the multiplier -> or 2+1+1=4 so x4
Factors in base cost
Note that we all also missed (maybe) that at least via 3.0/3.5 Epic crafting rules the above item is also getting priced out rather cheaply at 2,000,000 ... should be more like x20,000 or x25,000 not 2,000 or 2,500 so the Ring is more in the very vague and general neighborhood of 20,000,000 not 2,000,000. No idea if or how such an item might be priced or exist in PF Mythic Rules vs 3.0/3.5 Epic rules.
Note also many of the Walls use the terminology of "vertical" such as the text of both Prismatic Wall and Wall of Force. Of course in turn this implies a local directional pull of gravity. Be prepared to answer questions about positioning of such Walls on, for example, the Astral Plane.
Depends on the portal key. Some keys might be very specific along the lines of having just the right tuning fork for Plane Shift. Others it doesn't matter it can be a very mundane common object, it just needs to be used 'correctly'. That is the key might be an ordinary red rose ... but when you climb over this particular balcony and go thru this window on the night of a full moon during the spring time months humming a certain lullaby while it activates the portal.
Don't take the word "key" too literally as a crafted material object. It may require a high degree craftsmanship or it may be something like a flower or musical note and not at all craftable. A key in this case is just what ever opens or activates the portal.
Planescape materials along with Faerun/Forgotten Realms material are very good sources for expanding on portals. They don't call Sigil, The City of Doors because of all the mundane doorways after all.
What do you mean by "existing rules"?
A major chunk of the rule mechanics boil down to
Roll d20 + add stuff, subtract stuff, get result and interpret the result.
Everything outside the CRB is not essential, it is adding to the core, even most of the stuff in the core is adding to the actual core. This includes every book published by Paizo, it includes all the 3rd party material it includes all the rules tweaked in the Suggestions/House Rules/Homebrew thread.
So to say "No you can't create concept "x"" means that as a GM you have largely accepted you can't create your own material: your own monsters, your own prestige class, your own traits, your own feats, your own spells etc.. and made it your own game. Obviously wrong, GM's everywhere do it constantly. Concepts by and large are not linked to anything as mundane as mechanics ... there's a reason there's a whole Section called Conversions. Are some things (such as concepts) harder to convert than others, obviously yes but impossible, I have strong doubts. I think it more often boils down to certain concepts don't mesh or work well with other concepts not that they cannot be created within the framework of the existing rules.
We have "Advice" wherein all sorts of threads exist concerning various OP builds and items and creatures ...
Then we have an entire section devoted to just House rules ...
Matthew Downie wrote:
Heh so only 6 years give or take.
Never mind that for a caster level in this stratosphere said wizard probably has a demiplane or some other manner to 'I'll step in back for a sec, brb' and all but create the Item in an apparent few minutes aka make the crafting time as close to meaningless (Immortal/Ageless on a Timeless plane etc.) as it can get. He might very well be on a first name basis with the 'Greater God of Magic' who could literally just think the Item into existence. Hi welcome to Artifact Creation 101.
<snip> It's very clear to me. In short, he wants a ring that gives him the bonus of True Strike on every attack he makes. That's the reason for the use of the word "constant". If he did not mean that, I would suggest that his first step would be a grammar and vocabulary review. <snip>
Oh I pretty much 100% agree that is what he appears to be asking. I just don't want to assume he isn't having some grammary and vocabulary issues before giving a flat "Oh hell no" ... or at least be prepared to follow up with "Is that really what you are asking?"
Bob Bob Bob" wrote:
Depends on whether you want a ring of at will true strike or at will quickened true strike.
Part of my issue with pricing the cost of The Item is it isn't even clear if this (the above pair of choices) is what is desired. What does the player in question mean by "continuous" in this case? Neither the above quite fits the normal english meaning of 'continuous' and neither really fits the game term either. If I have to do anything even 'at will' to activate the power is it really 'continuous'? Since the player is inquiring about a Ring and not a Wand my initial assumption is they are not looking for what would amount to a wand with infinite charges that casts True Strike. But maybe that is what they are after *shrug*, I simply don't know.
Edit: Actually as initially phrased the term used wasn't continuous but "constant".
It's off any non-Epic charts if you are following Gilarius' line of thought. Which by default, as phrased, I'd tend to do, hence the questioning response.
20 x 20 = 400 (bonus squared)
Then I'd look at you again and repeat the questions above. As for a Ring doing #1 above I'm probably going to at least double the 882,000 figure (as the Ring is presumably going to work no matter what weapon you take to hand (or hands) as well as the fact it is not an enhancement bonus but a rare 'insight' bonus as well so maybe x2500 rather than 2000). Hopefully by now if this is not a seriously epic campaign the player asking is taking the not so subtle hint that this is not an appropriate item if it functions anywhere near like in #1 above.
EDIT: As for just how Epic a weapon well the 3.5 Epic guidelines if I'm not mistakenly recalling would place this in the realm of needing a 63rd level or so caster (to get to the needed +21 bonus equivalent).
EDIT2: If it's not crystal clear by now how one envisions the item is going to very dramatically effect my idea of how much such an item would cost. There is a huge difference between #1 or #2 and the various other options eluded to in this thread.
So how do go about magically treating the walls to double the effect.
Lots of lead impregnated brick and lead sheeting certainly makes a house a whole lot heavier for when it drops itself out of a tornado to swat a witch (not to mention blocking all her divinations to foresee the Hostile Hostel).
This topic or variants of it seem to occur with regularity (as noted by Aetherwisp) so I've compiled the following list of spells (CRB only so far):
- Telepathic Bond, can be made permanent between two (or more) individuals. Fairly expensive to use as a permanent solution.
Edit: Notes Mirror Sight and Minor Dream. Note Sending is a 4th level Cleric spell but 5th level Wizard.
I'd look right back at you and ask, 'Exactly what do you expect a "Magic Ring with True Strike constant effect" to do?'
1) Apply a True Strike effect to each and every attack? or
And mine for a while had an irrational fear of ... row boats. Typical dark underground lake deep in the underdark with a dock and a rowboat tied off to it. Party gets in rowboat and starts off across paranoid about the dark waters, then about halfway across finds themselves glued to the seats of 'not a rowboat but mimic' who then demands a 'small' fee or he'll dump them in the water.
Personally I like the AC options available to the Barn archetype. I know my Barn has always proven a nightmare to be hit my annoying melee types specially when it turns its broadside towards them.
Hmmm, how many Undead actually have Lifesense? It is not a universal undead trait or even a common ability for Undead to have. (As in the only one I'm aware of is the Wraith/Dread Wraith off the top of my head). Of course if your GM has homeruled that Undead in general have Lifesense (as it makes a certain sort of sense) then you do have a problem.
You use the word sniper ... do you mean attack from distance -> especially greater distances? Lifesense by default only has a 60ft range. If you attack from 100ft (i.e. >60ft) they have no unusual advantage in spotting/perceiving you.
Maybe create the equivalent of a Ghille suit that masks your aura?? Along these lines what resources are you allowed? I don't have access to my copy of Libris Mortis but I'm going to guess there are items in there that would be useful.
Ethereal creatures can not be detected by Lifesense. And while you can not attack them while Ethereal you could wait and watch though it might be a bit distorted. Then "phase-in" ala a Phase Spider to attack (The problem is doing so is a relatively high level tactic)
Maybe just hide in your own Rope Trick. You can see out (though not attack out generally) and elect to move out when it is to your advantage (or at least not disadvantage) to do so.
Antimagic or similar will block Lifesense (but I suspect also nuke your own abilities and therefore not desirable).
Or as implied by Hawktitan become/polymorph into something 'not living'. Very similar to the camo/ghillie suit idea.
Scott Wilhelm wrote:
All of which points right back at Claxon's first line of his first post in the thread ...
I think this squarely up to the GM.
1) No we don't really have rules for modifying AC based on Speed, unless you consider penalties to hit i.e. Mounted Combat rules, as modifying AC. And the tendency for speedy things to have higher listed ACs (and/or Dex scores).
2) The casters ability to direct the bead (via ranged touch mechanics) does scale. A 20th level caster will hit an arrow slit or other narrow opening and do so more reliably than a 5th level caster. Maybe AC = 10 + size(8) + casting stat mod (or caster level). Slightly simpler than an opposed roll *shrug* But see below. How much control of the flight path does this imply if any? Is it like an arrow or can the caster influence the bead in flight?
3) Smacking incoming arrows requires a Feat. You can't do it at all without the Feat. Arrows/Bolts are in fact traveling at similar speeds (An arrow/bolt potentially travels 1000+ ft in a round i.e. 10 range increments of 110ft each for example) It seems like it ought to be harder to strike a small bead vs an arrow but then again Deflect Arrows will work on a sling stone (500ft max range) as well as an arrow.
4) Allowing a melee attack to be readied to smack the bead does open the door (logically and for consistency) to an archer/ranged attack or even another caster readying to do so without the hazard involved in detonating the bead on your own head.
And hopefully it's not an Empowered, Maximized, Intensified Dazing Fireball you just intercepted ... ouch.