Paizo Top Nav Branding
  • Hello, Guest! |
  • Sign In |
  • My Account |
  • Shopping Cart |
  • Help/FAQ
About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ
Ilthuliak

jlighter's page

Goblin Squad Member. Pathfinder Deluxe Comics Subscriber; Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion, Tales Subscriber. Pathfinder Society Member. 810 posts (2,840 including aliases). 1 review. 1 list. 3 wishlists. 3 Pathfinder Society characters. 43 aliases.


RSS

1 to 50 of 810 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
Shadow Lodge

Pathfinder Deluxe Comics Subscriber; Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion, Tales Subscriber

The rules on using monsters as PCs are blatantly contradictory, with the Core Rulebook using one standard and the Bestiary using a different standard.

Bestiary wrote:

Monsters as PCs: For monsters with racial Hit Dice, the best way to allow monster PCs is to pick a CR and allow all of the players to make characters using monsters of that CR. Treat the monster’s CR as its total class levels and allow the characters to multiclass into the core classes. Do not advance such monsters by adding Hit Dice. Monster PCs should only advance through classes.

If you are including a single monster character in a group of standard characters, make sure the group is of a level that is at least as high as the monster’s CR. Treat the monster’s CR as class levels when determining the monster PC’s overall levels. For example, in a group of 6th-level characters, a minotaur (CR 4) would possess 2 levels of a core class, such as barbarian.
Core wrote:
Monstrous Characters: As a general guideline, you should advise your players to choose races of roughly equal power, using a creature’s racial HD (not its CR) as a general guideline. Characters who wish instead to play standard races should be allowed to start at higher level, so that their total HD match the highest HD held by a non-standard race in the party.

The two quotes (emphasis mine) say very different things.

-Using the Bestiary rules, a Minotaur character (6 racial HD) should have two class levels (Ex: Barbarian 2) in a level 6 party, giving him a total of 8 HD.
-According to the Core rulebook, the standard-race characters should have total HD equal to the non-standard race, so a Minotaur Barbarian 2 (6 racial HD + 2 class HD) would be matched with a party of 8th-level characters.

As far as Racial HD counting toward character level, it's never stated that "racial HD count as part of character level," while it is stated "Character level is the sum of all of the levels possessed by a character in all of his classes." "Treat the monster's CR as its total class levels" is, I suspect, more relevant for a GM attempting to determine difficulties and level-equivalence in mixed parties than it is a statement that Racial HD = Class levels.

Shadow Lodge

Undead masquerading as Human

Everybody decided on course of action and necessary supplies?

Shadow Lodge

Undead masquerading as Human

Okay. So just a summation of the things that are being kept, sold, or traded:

Trade Items:
  • +1 darkwood buckler for +1 agile breastplate (Judas)
  • +1 buckler for +1 chain shirt (Gauron)
  • +1 scimitar for +1 longspear (Judas)
  • +1 sawtooth sabre for +1 greatsword, currently in negotiation (Gauron)
  • Items To Be Sold:
  • pouch of gems
  • bejeweled mwk cold iron starknife
  • mithral scroll tube
  • mithral stump hook
  • fine brass sextant
  • deck of illusions card (1)
  • unknown magic candle
  • magic block of incense
  • gold locket
  • magic dagger
  • additional jewelery
  • bracers of armor +1
  • wand(s) (2)
  • brandy
  • darkwood model of the Jenivere
  • mwk dagger
  • mwk short sword
  • unknown magic scrolls (11)
  • ring of mind shielding
  • waterproof scroll tube (extra large)
  • heavy wooden shield
  • large red pearl amulet
  • magical amulet (1)
  • Items Being Kept:
  • efficient quiver (Gauron)
  • contents of efficient quiver (Gauron)
  • mwk composite longbow (+3 Str) (Gauron)
  • rope of climbing (Unassigned, Amukta?)
  • ring of swimming (Judas)
  • potions (9)
  • Crafted Items:
  • Cloak of Resistance +1 (Judas)
  • Cloak of Resistance +1 (Gauron)
  • Cloak of Resistance +1 (Amukta)
  • tanglefoot bags (2) (Amukta)
  • Purchase in Progress:
  • mithral shirt (Amukta)
  • There is also the question of wealth distribution within the party. Currently looks like Gauron and Judas are benefiting the most from items found.

    Shadow Lodge

    Pathfinder Deluxe Comics Subscriber; Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion, Tales Subscriber
    Kobold Cleaver wrote:
    That applies to its real meaning. Not its meaning in MMOs (unless it's literally just referencing how MMOs are technically animated).

    My mistake. Thought you were just looking for the origin of the word. You hadn't indicated MMO tie-in.

    Shadow Lodge

    1 person marked this as a favorite.
    Pathfinder Deluxe Comics Subscriber; Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion, Tales Subscriber
    Kobold Cleaver wrote:
    On the subject at hand, I wouldn't say "toon" because "toon" doesn't seem to have any meaning. What does "toon" even come from, etymology-wise?

    Shortened from cartoon, dating back to the 30's. Used to indicate a cartoon film or a character therein.

    Shadow Lodge

    Pathfinder Deluxe Comics Subscriber; Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion, Tales Subscriber

    Too low-level to have those spells, actually. That was my impression of the power-level of Mending. I did end up telling them that even if they disassembled the ship, repaired individual pieces, and rebuilt the ship, the sheer monotony would require them to make sanity checks after a time. They've finally figured out how to get off the island, so it's all good. Thanks to everybody who responded.

    Shadow Lodge

    Undead masquerading as Human

    Definitely time for a tactics discussion. There is also the question of "bridge or woods," although it sounds like folks are leaning towards bridge?

    Shadow Lodge

    Pathfinder Deluxe Comics Subscriber; Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion, Tales Subscriber
    Shimesen wrote:
    the argument is how do you make an attack or attack roll without a weapon?

    Seriously, though, I don't know that that's the argument. It's more a question of what the underlying reason is for why AoMF doesn't apply to grapples when weapon enhancers apply to things like Trip. It's never stated that a weapon is needed to make an attack roll, that's an assumption on your part.

    And with regards to my ignoring the next part of the Combat Maneuver section, I didn't. I've read it several times. But my point was that although it uses an attack roll, it's never stated that a combat maneuver is an attack. I did freely admit that it was an interpretation, and I've stated the logic behind that interpretation.

    Shadow Lodge

    Pathfinder Deluxe Comics Subscriber; Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion, Tales Subscriber
    Shimesen wrote:
    the argument is how do you make an attack or attack roll without a weapon?

    The same way you always did. With a d20. :P

    Shadow Lodge

    Pathfinder Deluxe Comics Subscriber; Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion, Tales Subscriber
    Remy Balster wrote:
    jlighter wrote:
    Remy Balster wrote:
    jlighter wrote:
    A miss chance is a type of bonus on defense. Note that it isn't saying that bonuses of similar type from different sources stack, just that if they're the same type, they don't stack. Coming from multiple spells is irrelevant, because they are performing the same function. They provide a miss chance, and miss chances do not stack by RAW. Your math would be accurate if applicable, but it isn't applicable by RAW.

    Bolded parts are false.

    Worse yet, if you even want to argue that it is a bonus to defense... then it is an untyped bonus. Untyped bonuses explicitly do stack.

    Miss chance is a type. Same-type doesn't stack. Alternately, call it an effect. Continuation of the above quote:

    Combining Magical Effects wrote:
    Different Bonus Types: The bonuses or penalties from two different spells stack if the modifiers are of different types. A bonus that doesn’t have a type stacks with any bonus.

    Dude you're making hella crap up right now.

    First off, miss chance isn't a bonus. What is miss chance a bonus to??? Answer: It isn't a bonus to anything. It is its own thing.

    Secondly, even if it were a bonus it would be untyped. The types of bonuses are listed... and I promise you "miss chance" is not a listed type. See above, untyped stack.

    You are in left field...deep, deep left field.

    So ignore the part where I said call it an effect instead of a bonus. It comes out to the same thing. Similar effects in differing strengths only grant the stronger effect. Effects can render each other irrelevant. Did you read the entirety of the rules-section I quoted?

    Out of curiosity, where are the types of bonuses listed? I've never seen a comprehensive list, and I can almost guarantee you never have either because there isn't one.

    And out of curiosity, are you implying that miss chances do stack?

    Shadow Lodge

    Pathfinder Deluxe Comics Subscriber; Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion, Tales Subscriber
    DarkKnight27 wrote:

    What about circumstance bonuses (penalties)? They stack with each other unless they come from "essentially the same source". Also, Dodge bonuses stack with each other as well.

    These are two examples of the same "type" of bonus stacking with itself.

    When it comes to the miss chance from Displacement and Blur stacking I would say that they stack because they come from different sources (one from not being where you seem to be and the other from concealment).

    Dodge bonuses and untyped bonuses are explicitly called out in the rules as breaking the normal rule of same-type doesn't stack. Everything that isn't explicitly called out as breaking the general rule is subject to the general rule. Specific rule trumps general rule, but general rule applies in all instances not governed by a specific rule. Where there is a specific rule, it only trumps the general rule as far as the specific rule spells out, and doesn't extend beyond its specific modification.

    Some quotes of interest by JJ in one thread on our topic: here and here. He appears to think it's all already written down, if perhaps not the clearest rule.

    Edit: Another example might be to look at armor bonuses. You can get a +4 armor bonus to AC from a chain shirt, mage armor, and bracers of armor +4, all from different sources, but they aren't stacking with each other. You only get the +4 bonus to AC from armor. Miss chance is like armor bonus in that sense. You get the best one, but the rest are redundant unless something has the ability to penetrate one but not the other. A creature with a Displacement spell can be struck by Sneak Attack, but not if he has a Blur spell on underneath it. He only gets to roll the miss chance once, but one is effective where the other had a hole in it.

    Shadow Lodge

    Pathfinder Deluxe Comics Subscriber; Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion, Tales Subscriber
    Remy Balster wrote:
    jlighter wrote:
    A miss chance is a type of bonus on defense. Note that it isn't saying that bonuses of similar type from different sources stack, just that if they're the same type, they don't stack. Coming from multiple spells is irrelevant, because they are performing the same function. They provide a miss chance, and miss chances do not stack by RAW. Your math would be accurate if applicable, but it isn't applicable by RAW.

    Bolded parts are false.

    Worse yet, if you even want to argue that it is a bonus to defense... then it is an untyped bonus. Untyped bonuses explicitly do stack.

    Miss chance is a type. Same-type doesn't stack. Alternately, call it an effect. Continuation of the above quote:

    Combining Magical Effects wrote:

    Spells or magical effects usually work as described, no matter how many other spells or magical effects happen to be operating in the same area or on the same recipient. Except in special cases, a spell does not affect the way another spell operates. Whenever a spell has a specific effect on other spells, the spell description explains that effect. Several other general rules apply when spells or magical effects operate in the same place:

    Stacking Effects: Spells that provide bonuses or penalties on attack rolls, damage rolls, saving throws, and other attributes usually do not stack with themselves. More generally, two bonuses of the same type don’t stack even if they come from different spells (or from effects other than spells; see Bonus Types, above).
    Different Bonus Types: The bonuses or penalties from two different spells stack if the modifiers are of different types. A bonus that doesn’t have a type stacks with any bonus.
    Same Effect More than Once in Different Strengths: In cases when two or more identical spells are operating in the same area or on the same target, but at different strengths, only the one with the highest strength applies.
    Same Effect with Differing Results: The same spell can sometimes produce varying effects if applied to the same recipient more than once. Usually the last spell in the series trumps the others. None of the previous spells are actually removed or dispelled, but their effects become irrelevant while the final spell in the series lasts.
    One Effect Makes Another Irrelevant: Sometimes, one spell can render a later spell irrelevant. Both spells are still active, but one has rendered the other useless in some fashion.
    Multiple Mental Control Effects: Sometimes magical effects that establish mental control render each other irrelevant, such as spells that remove the subject’s ability to act. Mental controls that don’t remove the recipient’s ability to act usually do not interfere with each other. If a creature is under the mental control of two or more creatures, it tends to obey each to the best of its ability, and to the extent of the control each effect allows. If the controlled creature receives conflicting orders simultaneously, the competing controllers must make opposed Charisma checks to determine which one the creature obeys.

    It is, in effect, a bonus. It isn't untyped, it's a miss chance. A miss chance is a miss chance. You want to get to the nitty gritty, I should have quoted the "Same Effect More than Once in Differing Strengths" section above instead, but it comes to the same thing. Spell A provides a Miss Chance (effect). Spell B provides a Miss Chance (effect). Only the stronger one works, RAW.

    Shadow Lodge

    Undead masquerading as Human

    Ah. I see what happened. I copied/pasted Amukta's block and edited it for Gauron. It tends to be easier to copy the formatting and just edit over it. I forgot to do the Skills in the edit. Oops. :)

    Shadow Lodge

    Pathfinder Deluxe Comics Subscriber; Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion, Tales Subscriber
    Cevah wrote:

    JJ does not want to process multiple miss chances separately even though they are not all from concealment. Understandable, but not RAW.

    There are three sources of miss chance with those spells:
    Blur: I cannot see you very well
    Blink: You might not be there when I attack
    Entropic Shield: Something is preventing my attack from getting through.

    Each is a separate kind of miss chance, and ALL apply. That is [1 - (1 - 20%)*(1 - 50%)*(1 - 20%)] = 68%

    I can see a debate about wind wall and entropic shield not stacking as both interfere with attacks getting through.

    I don't know that I agree it is not RAW to process only one miss chance. For example:

    Stacking wrote:
    Stacking refers to the act of adding together bonuses or penalties that apply to one particular check or statistic. Generally speaking, most bonuses of the same type do not stack. Instead, only the highest bonus applies. Most penalties do stack, meaning that their values are added together. Penalties and bonuses generally stack with one another, meaning that the penalties might negate or exceed part or all of the bonuses, and vice versa.
    Bonus Types wrote:
    Usually, a bonus has a type that indicates how the spell grants the bonus. The important aspect of bonus types is that two bonuses of the same type don’t generally stack. With the exception of dodge bonuses, most circumstance bonuses, and racial bonuses, only the better bonus of a given type works (see Combining Magical Effects). The same principle applies to penalties—a character taking two or more penalties of the same type applies only the worst one, although most penalties have no type and thus always stack. Bonuses without a type always stack, unless they are from the same source.
    Combining Magic Effects wrote:
    Stacking Effects: Spells that provide bonuses or penalties on attack rolls, damage rolls, saving throws, and other attributes usually do not stack with themselves. More generally, two bonuses of the same type don’t stack even if they come from different spells (or from effects other than spells; see Bonus Types, above).

    A miss chance is a type of bonus on defense. Note that it isn't saying that bonuses of similar type from different sources stack, just that if they're the same type, they don't stack. Coming from multiple spells is irrelevant, because they are performing the same function. They provide a miss chance, and miss chances do not stack by RAW. Your math would be accurate if applicable, but it isn't applicable by RAW.

    Miss chances don't stack even from different sources the same way enhancement bonuses from Masterwork, Magical Enhancement, and Magic Weapon spells don't stack. All enhancement bonuses, but coming from three different sources (one mundane, one magical craftsmanship, and one from a spell). Miss chances from a natural source (smoke), a spell that obscures the target (Blur), and a spell that creates an environmental obstruction (Wind Wall) aren't going to stack because they're all performing the same function (miss chance).

    Shadow Lodge

    Pathfinder Deluxe Comics Subscriber; Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion, Tales Subscriber
    DarkKnight27 wrote:

    Also, what if a caster had both Entropic Shield and Blur cast on them and an archer with True Seeing shot at the caster? Would that archer have a 20% miss chance?

    Yes, because like I said, while all concealment provides a miss chance, not all miss chances are from concealment. That's the case with Displacement, it provides a miss chance but not from concealment.

    Just taking this example out for a spin:

    Yes, the Archer in question would be facing a 20% miss chance because Entropic Shield and Blur up, and only one of those is defeated by True Seeing. But, if that same Archer did not have the True Seeing spell, he'd still only face a 20% miss chance, not a 40% miss chance. The two don't stack.

    The thing is, the Displacement spell specifically calls out that it's functioning as Total Concealment, with only the listed exception to that condition. Entropic Shield has similar, although slightly different wording: "20 % miss chance (similar to the effects of concealment)."

    Shadow Lodge

    Pathfinder Deluxe Comics Subscriber; Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion, Tales Subscriber
    Cevah wrote:
    jlighter wrote:
    I'll find others, if you want. There are also two different instances of James Jacobs indicating that multiple miss chances do not stack: Here, and here.

    The 2nd one is a great find, but not for you.

    Sneak Attack wrote:
    The rogue must be able to see the target well enough to pick out a vital spot and must be able to reach such a spot. A rogue cannot sneak attack while striking a creature with concealment.
    James Jacobs wrote:

    At this point, barring rewrites to spells and class abilities:

    Sneak Attack works on displaced targets because the text of the spell SPECIFICALLY SAYS that you can target a creature normally. It's just that sometimes, the target's not where you think it is...but that doesn't impact your ability to target the foe. The spell says the miss chance works LIKE concealment, but then goes on to say that this doesn't impact your ability to actually target the foe normally.

    Flavorwise... with blur, which actually grants concealment, you can't see the target clearly enough to aim at hearts or aortas or kidneys or other sneak attack targets. Therefore, sneak attack doesn't work. With displacement, you CAN see the target clearly. The problem is that when you stab, the target simply might not be there. If he's not there, then you miss and do NO damage. If he IS there, you hit where you were aiming at anyway and thus do sneak attack damage.

    Since Sneak Attack works on Displacement, Displacement is NOT concealment. Since Blur IS concealment, the two conditions are not the same, therefore they stack.

    Since Displacement is not concealment, the first link of JJ's is moot. Lastly, both are from 2010. Things might have changed since then.

    /cevah

    You have a partial point, but I can actually negate my own argument, and thus invalidate yours, without much effort. *insert standard JJ disclaimer* "He's not a rules guy."

    Note that he doesn't say that Displacement isn't granting a miss chance. It does, and if he said it didn't, he'd be wrong. But he does clarify, as I did earlier, that the only difference between Displacement and any other effect that granted Total Concealment is the fact that the creature can be targeted normally, unlike with the Blur spell. This doesn't say that it's not a concealment effect. Even if it were, Miss Chances do not stack. You only get the best one at the time. Displacement + Blur does not give you a 70% miss chance, or a 50% and a 20%, it only gives you a single 50% miss chance.

    This is in keeping with the standard practice of saying "X is like Y, except for Z" meaning that for all intents and purposes except those explicitly stated (Z), Y = X. They do this all over the place.

    Shadow Lodge

    Pathfinder Deluxe Comics Subscriber; Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion, Tales Subscriber

    Mydrrin, answering your points in order:

    IUS doesn't mean that you aren't still unarmed. You are still unarmed, but you are considered armed for purposes of provoking AoOs and dealing lethal vs. nonlethal damage. It doesn't say that you aren't still unarmed, and you are still required to be by the feat. It's Improved Unarmed Strike, not Improved Armed Strike. You'd still take the Disarm penalty.

    Not every attack is going to require an attack roll, and not everything that requires an attack roll is defined as an attack. Contrast Combat Maneuvers, which are never defined as an attack, with Touch Spells and Ranged Touch Spells which are explicitly stated to be attacks.

    Touch Attack wrote:
    Touching an opponent with a touch spell is considered to be an armed attack and therefore does not provoke attacks of opportunity.
    Combat Maneuvers wrote:

    During combat, you can attempt to perform a number of maneuvers that can hinder or even cripple your foe, including bull rush, disarm, grapple, overrun, sunder, and trip. Although these maneuvers have vastly different results, they all use a similar mechanic to determine success.

    Performing a Combat Maneuver: When performing a combat maneuver, you must use an action appropriate to the maneuver you are attempting to perform. While many combat maneuvers can be performed as part of an attack action, full-attack action, or attack of opportunity (in place of a melee attack), others require a specific action.

    Note the difference in wording. Touch attacks are spells that are specifically called out as attacks. Combat Maneuvers have no such wording, and say that they specifically replace an attack, not that they are one. Later on, it says that weapons or attacks can be used to perform the maneuver, but that's still not the same as saying the maneuver is an attack.

    @Mojorat: I'm the one who said it isn't, and the above is why. :)

    You believe that Grapple is an attack, and that it should benefit from AoMF as such. That's your interpretation. I personally don't see it that way, and that is my interpretation. I freely admit that it's my interpretation, not necessarily RAW. I have cited my reasons for believing so, however. I believe that not all attack rolls are automatically attacks, the same way not all attacks require attack rolls.

    The Devs did have a reason for making the ruling the way they did, and it ties back to their blog post from some time back which has governed their related rulings ever since, this most recent one being one of them. My interpretation, to me, seems to be in keeping with their blog post and ruling, but perhaps not for the reasons that they use.

    Shadow Lodge

    1 person marked this as a favorite.
    Pathfinder Deluxe Comics Subscriber; Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion, Tales Subscriber
    Anzyr wrote:
    Mine is RAW. Yours may very well be RAI. When arguing rule I take everything as written and intend nothing.

    My point is that some of what you are saying is not RAW, it is strictly RAI by you.

    RAW, there is a difference between remote and direct, yet you act as if it doesn't exist.

    You treat a trap as an unattended object, when (RAW) the mere act of directly activating it makes it an attended object.

    You say that using an object that has its own attack bonuses means that any attack made is "indirect," regardless of the fact that it is an attended object and is being aimed to make the attack, which isn't RAW.

    Anyway, I'm done with this thread. My apologies for the partial hijack, and if you're interested in the Invisibility issue, I'm sure other threads can be created or will crop up where RAW vs. RAI can be argued in a more reasonable way.

    Shadow Lodge

    Pathfinder Deluxe Comics Subscriber; Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion, Tales Subscriber

    RAW: "Actions directed at unattended objects do not break the spell. Causing harm indirectly is not an attack. Thus, an invisible being can open doors, talk, eat, climb stairs, summon monsters and have them attack, cut the ropes holding a rope bridge while enemies are on the bridge, remotely trigger traps, open a portcullis to release attack dogs, and so forth. If the subject attacks directly, however, it immediately becomes visible along with all its gear."

    Anzyr RAI: "Remotely trigger a trap" reads "trigger a trap"

    Jlighter RAI: "Remotely trigger a trap" means you cannot directly trigger a trap and stay invisible

    Anzyr RAI: "Actions directed at unattended objects" includes directly triggering a trap (an attended object by definition) to attack

    Jlighter RAI: An object attended by the invisible character that makes an attack aimed by the invisible character constitutes an attack for purposes of breaking Invisibility

    Anzyr RAI: "Causing harm indirectly is not an attack" means that anything that has its own attack bonuses is an intermediary, regardless of the fact that the character is using it to attack a target, and thus constitutes "causing harm indirectly"

    Jlighter RAI: "Causing harm indirectly" means that the character cannot directly, by his/her own power or through an object he/she is attending, cause harm to a target; "Causing harm indirectly" means that the character's action cannot be directly harmful, and that actions can be performed which indirectly cause other actions to be performed by objects/creatures

    So far, that's what I'm seeing as the differences between Anzyr's RAI and my own.

    Shadow Lodge

    Pathfinder Deluxe Comics Subscriber; Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion, Tales Subscriber
    Anzyr wrote:
    Coriat wrote:
    Anzyr wrote:
    Using a Crossbow requires to use the attack action. That's an actual thing, in the rules and everything. Activating a trap does not fall under that action.
    And if in one of my games your PC were carrying around an arrow trap mechanism and pointing it at stuff and triggering it instead of leaving it in a wall somewhere with the trigger tied to a pressure plate, my adjudication would be to run it as a weapon, make you roll an attack roll using your own ranged attack bonus, etc, as a matter of course, basically it is a crossbow at that point and no longer a trap.
    You might rule it that way, but RAW the trap would use it's own attack bonus and thus it is the trap attacking not you. It would be similar to using a crossbow, but similar and the same are well... not the same.

    And you still have not addressed the purpose of the word "remotely" with regards to triggering a trap. If you're using a trap like a crossbow, it's going to be functionally the same for the purposes of the spell.

    As a note, does the fact that the trap in question is now an "attended" object matter to your arguments?

    Quote:
    An item attended by a character (being grasped, touched, or worn) makes saving throws ...

    Shadow Lodge

    Pathfinder Deluxe Comics Subscriber; Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion, Tales Subscriber

    Show me where Invisibility requires the user to make an attack action (You can't, because it doesn't).

    Show me where an Attack Action is the only action that constitutes an attack (You can't, because it's not).

    If casting "any spell targeting a foe or whose area or effect includes a foe" breaks Invisibility, why does using a mundane piece of offensive equipment in the exact same way not suffer the same rule? Casting a spell isn't an attack action, so why is it breaking Invisibility?

    Stating that another's argument is finished only indicates that you don't have answers to the questions being raised. Try again, please. Your statements don't answer my questions.

    Shadow Lodge

    Pathfinder Deluxe Comics Subscriber; Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion, Tales Subscriber
    Anzyr wrote:
    The trap is directly causing harm. You are not. You do not make any attack roll and cause no harm directly. You only cause harm through the activation of the trap which is not a direct action. Again, unless you can show where that is an attack action, your argument is effectively dead.

    The trap is directly causing harm the way the crossbow is directly causing harm. "I didn't shoot him, the crossbow did. I only let it do so." Doesn't work that way.

    At no point in the spell Invisibility is it stated that an attack action is required to break the spell, or that the invisible creature must make an attack roll. Any action that can be considered an offensive or hostile action is an attack for purposes of Invisibility. Relevant text:

    Invisibility wrote:
    The spell ends if the subject attacks any creature. For purposes of this spell, an attack includes any spell targeting a foe or whose area or effect includes a foe. Exactly who is a foe depends on the invisible character’s perceptions.

    No action-type is ever described. Thus, any action that attacks a creature breaks the spell. If you're holding a trap in your hand and you attack with it, it doesn't matter if you roll the attack roll or not, you attacked. Spell broken.

    The use of the words "indirectly" and "remotely" have very clear ramifications on the Invisibility spell. The invisible creature cannot directly harm any other creature. He can cause harm to come to other creatures through intermediaries. A trap isn't an intermediary if it is used as a weapon like you describe. If used as a weapon, a trap is a weapon. When used as a weapon, a trap breaks Invisibility.

    Shadow Lodge

    Pathfinder Deluxe Comics Subscriber; Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion, Tales Subscriber

    Activating a trap directly to cause harm is not, as you put it, indirectly causing harm. You pull (or otherwise activate) the trigger. The trap fires. By activating the trigger, you directly fired (attacked with) the trap (a weapon). The same way using a torch to fire a cannon is still firing a weapon (attacking). The same way pulling the trigger on a crossbow is firing a weapon (attacking). If you're directly using a trap as a weapon, it's a weapon, and you're making an attack.

    If triggering a trap falls under "actions directed at unattended objects," why is "remotely trigger a trap" specifically called out as opposed to "trigger a trap?

    If the word remotely has meaning, what does it mean in relation to triggering a trap?

    How does "remotely" triggering a trap differ from "directly" triggering a trap?

    Where is it stated that an "attack action" is necessary to break Invisibility?

    Prove your own point and answer points made in opposition. You still have not addressed any iteration of the word "remotely" being used with a logical argument.

    TL;DR: Directly activating a trap doesn't have to be an attack action. It's directly causing harm, not indirectly.

    Shadow Lodge

    Pathfinder Deluxe Comics Subscriber; Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion, Tales Subscriber
    Weirdo wrote:
    I'd be OK with not applying the AoMF damage bonus in a grapple if and only if stabbing someone with my magic shortsword in a grapple does a flat d6 points of damage. UAS, natural, and manufactured weapons are presented side-by-side as damage options in the grapple rules and should be treated equivalently.

    +1 for pointing out the counterargument to the lack of convincing arguments. :)

    Shadow Lodge

    Pathfinder Deluxe Comics Subscriber; Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion, Tales Subscriber

    For what it's worth, I'm personally flexible on if the AoMF would apply to damage dealt during a grapple. At the moment, I'm on the side of it would, but I'd switch my views if I saw an argument that convinced me. I do, however, believe that the call about it not applying to the Combat Maneuver roll in the first place is the correct one.

    Shadow Lodge

    Pathfinder Deluxe Comics Subscriber; Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion, Tales Subscriber
    Anzyr wrote:
    Just because remotely triggering traps will *also* not break invisibility, does not make your statement any more valid. Please do go on though.

    If you believe that the idea of remotely triggering a trap is in addition to directly triggering a trap, then why doesn't it just say "triggering a trap?" It says, "Thus, an invisible being can ... remotely trigger traps, ..." I'm not seeing any indication that directly triggering a trap is permitted as a non-break condition.

    Please, show me where you're seeing otherwise. If you can find it, I'll concede. If you can't, then perhaps you should reconsider your views.

    What, in this case, makes a crossbow trap different from a crossbow? If you pull the trigger on one, it shoots. If you pull the trigger on the other, it shoots. Functionally, no difference, n'est-ce pas?

    But, is there a difference between pulling the trigger and sending some intermediary item to pull the trigger for you?

    If you pull a string, you're still pulling the trigger. If you step on a pressure plate, you're still pulling the trigger. But if you throw a rock at the pressure plate, that's different. If you drop the crossbow and it triggers by hitting the ground, you didn't fire it. You just dropped it.

    Show me how pulling a trigger is "remotely triggering," or where Invisibility says that the two are functionally the same, and I'll believe you. Quote me a rule, because the burden of proof is on you, this time. Emphasis mine, I've shown you this card:

    Invisibility wrote:
    Actions directed at unattended objects do not break the spell. Causing harm indirectly is not an attack. Thus, an invisible being can open doors, talk, eat, climb stairs, summon monsters and have them attack, cut the ropes holding a rope bridge while enemies are on the bridge, REMOTELY trigger traps, open a portcullis to release attack dogs, and so forth. If the subject attacks directly, however, it immediately becomes visible along with all its gear.

    Shadow Lodge

    Pathfinder Deluxe Comics Subscriber; Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion, Tales Subscriber

    I believe you and I are on the same page then, at least as far as the Blur/Displacement stackage issue?

    Shadow Lodge

    Pathfinder Deluxe Comics Subscriber; Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion, Tales Subscriber
    Anzyr wrote:
    Whether you activate the trap directly or indirectly. Regardless, the attack that the trap makes against the target is an indirect action and thus will not break invisibility. Only your direct actions break invisibility.

    According to the spell, the bolded statement is actually wrong. One is not the other. Care to try again?

    Re: in-use = attended: I did say it was only one definition. Not even one I like or am particularly attached to.

    Shadow Lodge

    Pathfinder Deluxe Comics Subscriber; Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion, Tales Subscriber

    A grapple check is not made with the intent to deal damage. You're making a grapple check to keep the opponent grappled (or pinned), or to grapple/pin the opponent in the first place. Doing damage in the process is incidental and has nothing to do with the grapple.

    If grapple was an action that strictly damage, I might agree with you that it's an attack. Attacks that hit result in damage, that's part of the definition in the book. But grapple doesn't necessarily result in damage just because it connects. Grapple is a maneuver (as quoted in the rules), not an attack, that inflicts a condition on the opponent, much as Dirty Trick can inflict the blinded condition or the Trip maneuver can inflict the Prone condition. The fact that it later allows you to potentially deal damage in addition to the condition is irrelevant because any weapon in your hand doesn't help the attempt and can actually hinder it.

    For example, if you're using your arms/hands to pin somebody's arms and effectively immobilize them, what does that have to do with the knee you just slammed into his kidney? The former makes the latter possible, but the latter is otherwise irrelevant and has nothing to do with your ability to accomplish the former.

    Mydrrin, care to reply to my other arguments to your point?

    Shadow Lodge

    Pathfinder Deluxe Comics Subscriber; Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion, Tales Subscriber
    Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
    DarkKnight27 wrote:
    jlighter wrote:
    Except based on precedent within the book, anytime it says "A functions as if B," it means treat A as if it were B with only the exception that follows listed differently. In this case, the exception is that the creature can still be targeted normally. That's the only difference from normal Total Concealment. Blur wouldn't stack because Blur offers a lesser miss chance.
    Can you please list these "precedents" that you're referring to so we can make sure we're not comparing apples to oranges.

    Not sure what's tripping you up; there are several subjects in the book that says "This functions like X, except Y," such as Mass or Greater spells, items like Bane Baldric, etc.

    Blur and Displacement would fall under this category, since both Blur and Displacement grant a miss chance.

    If you think they are different, which is fine, I would also refer you to this line in Blur:

    Blur wrote:
    Opponents that cannot see the subject ignore the spell's effect (though fighting an unseen opponent carries penalties of its own).

    If we want to get into the "can't really see" argument, compare that to this RAW from the Concealment section:

    Concealment wrote:
    If you have line of effect to a target but not line of sight, he is considered to have total concealment from you. You can't attack an opponent that has total concealment, though you can attack into a square that you think he occupies.

    In other words, if you can't see him, he has total concealment. Blur, you can still see as Blur doesn't provide total concealment, only a 20% miss chance, which isn't what total concealment is defined as.

    However, if you take Blur to be actual concealment, and try to stack it with Displacement (which you don't claim is actual concealment), which gives additional miss chance, Blur would cancel out due to the clause cited above; in other words, if you're already given an effect that grants total concealment (or enhances...

    I believe his argument is that Blur and Displacement would stack, since Displacement gives a 50% miss chance that is functionally total concealment except that the creature can be targeted normally, thus negating that clause. My point is that that clause-negation is the only functional difference Displacement has from total concealment, and so the two spells would not stack since Displacement is effectively a concealment effect.

    As for a list of precedent rulings and rules:

    -Flurry of Blows - functionally equals the Two-Weapon Fighting feat chain without requiring the feats; uses "as if" wording
    -Stealth Skill - creatures unaware of the Stealthing creature treat it as if it had total concealment
    -Shield Master Feat - you treat a shield's defensive enhancement bonus as if it were a weapon bonus too, but it doesn't stack with any existing weapon bonus on the shield (a shield with +2 defense and +1 offense normally attacks with +1, but Shield Master makes it attack with +2)

    I'll find others, if you want. There are also two different instances of James Jacobs indicating that multiple miss chances do not stack: Here, and here.

    Shadow Lodge

    Pathfinder Deluxe Comics Subscriber; Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion, Tales Subscriber
    DarkKnight27 wrote:
    jlighter wrote:
    DarkKnight27 wrote:
    Quote:
    The subject of this spell appears to be about 2 feet away from its true location. The creature benefits from a 50% miss chance as if it had total concealment. Unlike actual total concealment, displacement does not prevent enemies from targeting the creature normally. True seeing reveals its true location and negates the miss chance.
    You get a 50% miss chance because you appear to be about 2 feet away from where you actually are. The spell even says it's not actually total concealment. Blur specifically calls out that it grants the target...
    Incorrect. It says you get a 50% miss chance "as if it had total concealment." Meaning it functions as total concealment with the exception that it does not prevent enemies from targeting the creature normally. If actual total concealment were in effect as well, that would override the displacement effect because it's the more advantageous effect.
    That's right, it's not actually Total Concealment because you can still target subject of Displacement. Total Concealment is a specific condition, Displacement is similar but different so it stacks with Blur which actually provides Concealment.

    Except based on precedent within the book, anytime it says "A functions as if B," it means treat A as if it were B with only the exception that follows listed differently. In this case, the exception is that the creature can still be targeted normally. That's the only difference from normal Total Concealment. Blur wouldn't stack because Blur offers a lesser miss chance.

    Shadow Lodge

    Pathfinder Deluxe Comics Subscriber; Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion, Tales Subscriber
    Weirdo wrote:

    The way I read the ruling, it only states that the AoMF bonus doesn't apply on combat maneuver checks made to grapple.

    Dealing damage during a grapple still follows the rule "You can inflict damage to your target equal to your unarmed strike, a natural attack, or an attack made with armor spikes or a light or one-handed weapon."

    This rule clearly specifies that you are using a weapon to damage and benefit from that weapon's enhanced damage (though it appears not the accuracy bonus on the actual grapple check), whether it's a magic dagger or magically enhanced UAS.

    Does anyone disagree with this?

    Makes perfect sense here.

    Shadow Lodge

    Pathfinder Deluxe Comics Subscriber; Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion, Tales Subscriber
    Anzyr wrote:
    jlighter wrote:

    Anzyr, I get what you're saying, except for the part where you keep on ignoring the word "indirectly." It's in there, it has a definition. Directly activating a trap and indirectly activating it are two different things. Why do you think the word "remotely" is in there, if it doesn't, apparently from your position, have any meaning?

    I do agree that opening a box, by itself, isn't going to trigger invisibility to break, even if said box contains lava. The same logic here applies as cutting the ropes on the bridge. Gravity causes the harm. That said, if you're trying to hit an attended structure/object, then invisibility will break. Attacking structures/objects is only permitted if said things are unattended.

    Indirectly does have a definition. Here lets look at it:

    1. not in a direct course or path; deviating from a straight line; roundabout: an indirect course in sailing.

    2. coming or resulting otherwise than directly or immediately, as effects or consequences: an indirect advantage.

    3. not direct in action or procedure: His methods are indirect but not dishonest.

    4. not straightforward; devious; deceitful: He is known as a shady, indirect fellow.

    5. not direct in bearing, application, force, etc.: indirect
    evidence.

    So.. triggering the trap and having the trap deliver the harm qualifies... for literally of those. Its a roundabout, indirect, is not a direct or immediate attack, is not direct in action or procedure (activate trap to attack instead of just attack), its definetly not straightforward, and the bearing, application, and force are not directly from the caster, but from the trap. The same is true of opening a box that contains lava, even if you point it in the right direction.

    That's just good clean English.

    As to houses counting as attended objects I will gladly concede this point if you can show me some rule that says so, similar to a captain attending a ship, which...

    So in your good clean English, you again managed to miss my point. I'm not saying that causing a trap to cause damage isn't indirectly causing damage. I agree. But that's not where indirectly is placed in the phrase. Indirectly triggering a trap is not the same as directly triggering a trap. One is permitted by the spell, the other is not. Using your own 3 definition: Not Direct in Action or Procedure.

    Invisibility says that it doesn't break if you INDIRECTLY trigger the trap. Indirectly means, in essence, not directly. Applying direct force to trigger a trap is not indirectly triggering it by definition.

    An example: Directly triggering a trap would be pulling a tripwire to get the trap to shoot arrows. Indirectly would be rolling a ball down a hallway to hit the tripwire. See the difference?

    You also ignored the definition that I had already given, thank you. I'll repeat it for your consideration:

    Indirectly
    1) not directly caused by or resulting from something; not done directly; conducted through intermediaries
    2) (of a route) not straight; not following the shortest way
    3) avoiding direct mention or exposition of a subject

    Regarding unattended, here's one possible definition from the Teleport spell: Only objects held or in use (attended) by another person receive saving throws and spell resistance.

    A structure is in use if people are inside it, the same as a ship is in use if crew are aboard it.

    Shadow Lodge

    Pathfinder Deluxe Comics Subscriber; Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion, Tales Subscriber

    Here's the other main issue, and I think it's one of inaccurate word choice in the rules. Although it uses an attack roll, a combat maneuver is generally not an attack. Attack is defined as an attempt to strike your opponent, and is clarified to deal damage if it hits.

    If the mentions of attack rolls were replaced with Combat Maneuver Checks, then this issue of understanding wouldn't come up. I respectfully posit that such might be an advantageous errata to the wording of the Combat Maneuvers section of the rules.

    Shadow Lodge

    Pathfinder Deluxe Comics Subscriber; Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion, Tales Subscriber
    Mydrrin wrote:

    Back to what the blog meant. I still haven't found in the rules where it says only the three are allowed. It's not under any of the combat maneuvers for any of them.

    It clearly states:

    During combat, you can attempt to perform a number of maneuvers that can hinder or even cripple your foe, including bull rush, disarm, grapple, overrun, sunder, and trip. Although these maneuvers have vastly different results, they all use a similar mechanic to determine success.

    When you attempt to perform a combat maneuver, make an attack roll and add your CMB in place of your normal attack bonus. Add any bonuses you currently have on attack rolls due to spells, feats, and other effects. These bonuses must be applicable to the weapon or attack used to perform the maneuver.

    Problem is you didn't read far enough.

    Performing a Combat Maneuver wrote:
    When performing a combat maneuver, you must use an action appropriate to the maneuver you are attempting to perform. While many combat maneuvers can be performed as part of an attack action, full-attack action, or attack of opportunity (in place of a melee attack), others require a specific action.
    Disarm wrote:
    You can attempt to disarm your opponent in place of a melee attack. If you do not have the Improved Disarm feat, or a similar ability, attempting to disarm a foe provokes an attack of opportunity from the target of your maneuver. Attempting to disarm a foe while unarmed imposes a –4 penalty on the attack.

    So Disarm attempts are expected to be made using a weapon.

    Sunder wrote:

    You can attempt to sunder an item held or worn by your opponent in place of a melee attack. If you do not have the Improved Sunder feat, or a similar ability, attempting to sunder an item provokes an attack of opportunity from the target of your maneuver.

    If your attack is successful, you deal damage to the item normally. Damage that exceeds the object's Hardness is subtracted from its hit points. If an object has equal to or less than half its total hit points remaining, it gains the broken condition. If the damage you deal would reduce the object to less than 0 hit points, you can choose to destroy it. If you do not choose to destroy it, the object is left with only 1 hit point and the broken condition.

    So you're trying to deal damage to an object in place of a normal attack. How do you do that? Attacks deal damage using weapons, so it's safe to assume that sunder attempts are made with some sort of weapon.

    Trip is the odd man out in that it doesn't have text that points to the use of weapons, but the Trip special property on many weapons indicates that weapons are commonly used to Trip.

    The other combat maneuvers do not contain text that indicates that they are performed with weapons, or indicate that weapons are detrimental.

    Bull Rush: Can replace a charge, but having a weapon in hand is generally not going to improve your chances.
    Dirty Trick: Variable, and weapon bonus application is up to the GM.
    Drag: If it can trip, it can drag, and it has been ruled as such.
    Grapple: You grapple with hands, and when you're trying to grab somebody, you're generally not doing damage to them by grabbing them. You can maneuver into a position where you'll be able to damage them, but that comes later. This one even calls out that having a weapon in hand is detrimental to the grapple attempt. Having a body part in a striking posture would generally be likewise detrimental (fist, for example, can't grab).
    Overrun: Same idea as a bull rush. Momentum is your weapon, not any weapon in your hand.
    Reposition: Can be done with trip weapons.
    Steal: Calls out that you need a free hand, so weapons would necessarily impede the attempt.

    As far as grappling and unarmed attacks not being incidental, when you're attempting to grapple somebody, you can't really attack them. Once you have grappled them, you can cause them damage, yes. But when you're trying to grab hold of somebody, your body (hands especially) had better be able to grip them.

    Shadow Lodge

    Pathfinder Deluxe Comics Subscriber; Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion, Tales Subscriber

    Using the d% system for Concealment and many other things is actually a simplification, because it's really easy to say that it's a 50% chance and roll a d%. It also means that a lot of tables can be standardized and are easily adaptable when other factors not previously considered have to be added in.

    Example: Confusion table could use a d4, but the GM might rule that one effect over another is more likely depending on environmental circumstances; it's easy to change the percentage roll, not easy to change the die type entirely.

    Other things that use d% rolls in smaller increments: disease chances in some zones, wandering monster tables, random encounter percentages, Contact Other Plane, Plane Shift (distance 5-500 miles from target), Reincarnate, Spell Turning, Weather tables, random charges for magic items like wands, Rod of Wonder and all manner of other magic items. I ignored things previously mentioned.

    Shadow Lodge

    Pathfinder Deluxe Comics Subscriber; Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion, Tales Subscriber
    Mydrrin wrote:
    Jiggy wrote:
    Mydrrin wrote:
    Right now I'm trying to get Jiggy to define his position about unarmed strikes and when it becomes a weapon. If he agrees with it is a momentary thing than I can attack that position with always considered armed, if he agrees that it is permanent then I can say that AotMF is always active.

    Neither.

    Your unarmed strike is what the Pathfinder ruleset defines as a weapon, but that does not mean it fits the common english meaning of "weapon". It doesn't even have to itself be a physical object. It is a game unit you can wield to perform certain actions with.

    It's not a thing that blinks in and out of existence when you make use of it. You always have it. And you use your body to wield it. But it is not your body, and enhancing it does not mean enhancing your body.

    The AoMF is always active, but it only affects what it says it affects.

    Speaking of which, let's even assume for a moment that "unarmed strike" is just a subtype of "unarmed attacks", as is everything else listed in that now-infamous heading. Let's just say it really does mean that. So then since the AoMF gives a bonus to "unarmed attacks", it would affect everything under that "unarmed attacks" heading, right?

    So let's see, what does that include:
    • Unarmed strikes
    • Touch spells
    • Natural weapons

    Do you see what's not on that list? Grapples. Ergo, AoMF still doesn't affect grappling.

    You know what else is not on that list? Any special attack or combat maneuver. Same with for any weapon. Special Attacks and Combat Maneuvers have their own special sections, with their rules and conditions. Following those rules it clearly states that:

    When you attempt to perform a combat maneuver, make an attack roll and add your CMB in place of your normal attack bonus. Add any bonuses you currently have on attack rolls due to spells, feats, and other effects. These bonuses must be applicable to the weapon or attack used to perform the maneuver.

    It's specific no?

    Correct, special attacks and maneuvers are not on that list, because they have their own rules about how they interact with attacks. Currently, the rules state that there are three maneuvers that can stand-in-for or be part of an attack without the use of special abilities such as Grab. Those are disarm, sunder, trip.

    So, when you attempt to perform a combat maneuver, you make the attack roll and add any bonuses that are applied to the weapon that you're using to make the maneuver check. The same three maneuvers that can replace an attack have been ruled to make use of weapons, while all other combat maneuvers do not. Hence, all other combat maneuvers do not use the attack bonuses granted to any weapon because no weapon is used.

    Shadow Lodge

    Pathfinder Deluxe Comics Subscriber; Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion, Tales Subscriber
    Remy Balster wrote:
    jlighter wrote:
    DarkKnight27 wrote:
    Quote:
    The subject of this spell appears to be about 2 feet away from its true location. The creature benefits from a 50% miss chance as if it had total concealment. Unlike actual total concealment, displacement does not prevent enemies from targeting the creature normally. True seeing reveals its true location and negates the miss chance.
    You get a 50% miss chance because you appear to be about 2 feet away from where you actually are. The spell even says it's not actually total concealment. Blur specifically calls out that it grants the target...

    Incorrect. It says you get a 50% miss chance "as if it had total concealment." Meaning it functions as total concealment with the exception that it does not prevent enemies from targeting the creature normally. If actual total concealment were in effect as well, that would override the displacement effect because it's the more advantageous effect.

    @Remy: Your math is good, but in the combo section, it only accounts for attacks that hit initially. The thing that Darksol was talking about, though, that makes it disadvantageous to stack concealment effects with Mirror Image, is that when the initial attack misses, it has a chance to auto-destroy an image without triggering the concealment chance. Looking at your stacked math:

    5 images + Displacement: 25% chance of missing entirely, 25% chance of hitting an image, 50% chance of hitting the target based on roll alone. If it hits the target, 50% chance that it doesn't hit the target because of concealment. If it hits the target, 86.7% chance to destroy an image. 4.2% chance of taking damage, 66.7% chance of losing an image.

    My math accounted for everything that was happening.

    If you miss from concealment it doesn't destroy an image.

    With 5 images and displacement.

    50% chance on attack roll he will hit your ac or higher.
    25% chance on attack roll to miss by 5 or less.
    25% on attack...

    Except you just did it again. Your final percentage only includes the image destruction resulting from an attack that could have hit the unbuffed target. You have to add in the 25% from missing the target in the first place, in which case Concealment doesn't, by RAW, come into play. I'm not disagreeing that your math is correct for the times when the initial attack roll hits, but there is that 50% of the time when the initial attack missed outright that it auto-destroys an image before the Concealment check.

    According to mirror image, an attack that misses by 5 or less destroys an image from the near miss. Concealment is not checked unless the attack hits, so you don't check for Concealment on a near miss. Thus, that 25% of the time when the attack is a near-miss, as opposed to a miss, the image is destroyed, adding 25% to your image destruction numbers.

    Even applying the idea I proposed earlier (and the Dr Grecko also proposed) that you could roll Concealment separately for attacks that hit the figment AC, there is still a flat percentage of attacks that hit the figments that was left out of your final percentage. There is only a 25% chance in your scenario of it being a True Miss, or a 37.5% chance if you're rolling concealment for the figments. It's never a 50% chance of true miss until the images run out.

    Shadow Lodge

    Pathfinder Deluxe Comics Subscriber; Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion, Tales Subscriber

    Anzyr, I get what you're saying, except for the part where you keep on ignoring the word "indirectly." It's in there, it has a definition. Directly activating a trap and indirectly activating it are two different things. Why do you think the word "remotely" is in there, if it doesn't, apparently from your position, have any meaning?

    I do agree that opening a box, by itself, isn't going to trigger invisibility to break, even if said box contains lava. The same logic here applies as cutting the ropes on the bridge. Gravity causes the harm. That said, if you're trying to hit an attended structure/object, then invisibility will break. Attacking structures/objects is only permitted if said things are unattended.

    Shadow Lodge

    Pathfinder Deluxe Comics Subscriber; Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion, Tales Subscriber
    DarkKnight27 wrote:
    Quote:
    The subject of this spell appears to be about 2 feet away from its true location. The creature benefits from a 50% miss chance as if it had total concealment. Unlike actual total concealment, displacement does not prevent enemies from targeting the creature normally. True seeing reveals its true location and negates the miss chance.
    You get a 50% miss chance because you appear to be about 2 feet away from where you actually are. The spell even says it's not actually total concealment. Blur specifically calls out that it grants the target...

    Incorrect. It says you get a 50% miss chance "as if it had total concealment." Meaning it functions as total concealment with the exception that it does not prevent enemies from targeting the creature normally. If actual total concealment were in effect as well, that would override the displacement effect because it's the more advantageous effect.

    @Remy: Your math is good, but in the combo section, it only accounts for attacks that hit initially. The thing that Darksol was talking about, though, that makes it disadvantageous to stack concealment effects with Mirror Image, is that when the initial attack misses, it has a chance to auto-destroy an image without triggering the concealment chance. Looking at your stacked math:

    5 images + Displacement: 25% chance of missing entirely, 25% chance of hitting an image, 50% chance of hitting the target based on roll alone. If it hits the target, 50% chance that it doesn't hit the target because of concealment. If it hits the target, 86.7% chance to destroy an image. 4.2% chance of taking damage, 66.7% chance of losing an image.

    3 images + Displacement: 25% chance of missing entirely, 25% chance of hitting an image, 50% chance of hitting the target based on roll alone. If it hits the target, 50% chance that it doesn't hit the target because of concealment. If it hits the target, 75% chance to destroy an image. 6.25% chance of taking damage, 43.75% chance of losing an image.

    1 image + Displacement: 25% chance of missing entirely, 25% chance of hitting an image, 50% chance of hitting the target based on roll alone. If it hits the target, 50% chance that it doesn't hit the target because of concealment. If it hits the target, 50% chance of destroying an image. 12.5% chance of taking damage, 37.5% chance of destroying an image.

    He was trying to make the point that the odds are significantly in favor of images being destroyed with a concealment effect in play. The percentages go up if concealment counts as "missing by 5 or less" for purposes of the Mirror Image spell.

    Shadow Lodge

    Pathfinder Deluxe Comics Subscriber; Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion, Tales Subscriber

    In your 2nd Round example, it could actually be interpreted that you would roll concealment for the image itself. It missed the original target, but it "hit" the image, resulting in the image's destruction. The Blur spell would be affecting all of the images as well, and so you could roll concealment for the image as well. One possible interpretation.

    Honestly, though, I don't think that Blur triggers the secondary miss condition for Mirror Image. The attacker didn't miss by that margin, he hit. He missed for unrelated reasons.

    Intentionally whiffing is not possible, unless you're doing things to make sure your attack has penalties.

    Shadow Lodge

    Pathfinder Deluxe Comics Subscriber; Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion, Tales Subscriber

    It is entirely possible to make 2+2=5 and 2+2=3 and not be incorrect. You just have to know how to make math work in silly, but accurate, ways. :)

    Also, I find it interesting that you can remotely trigger a trap in your hands. I always got the impression that remotely meant at a distance. It does in the dictionary.

    Quote:
    Remotely: 1) from a distance; without physical contact; 2) in the slightest degree

    The other argument that might actually punch a hole in Anzyr's argument is defining what constitutes indirect harm. Looking at examples from the spell invisibility:

    Actions directed at unattended objects: So manipulating objects, and can be interpreted to include things like sunder and other damaging actions affecting only unattended objects.
    Causing harm indirectly: So any action that directly causes harm doesn't qualify here.
    Open doors: Self-explanatory, manipulating an object.
    Talk: Self-explanatory, may result in location by others.
    Eat: Food eaten becomes invisible once entirely contained within the mouth.
    Climb Stairs: Manipulation of self.
    Summon Monsters: Does not cause harm, merely causes something to exist
    --Command them to attack: Does not directly cause harm, because the action here is equivalent to talking. The summoned creatures perform the actions that cause damage.
    Cut the ropes holding up a bridge: Does not directly cause harm because the action is only affecting the bridge (an object). Gravity then comes into play and performs an action upon the bridge (namely making it fall) which causes damage.
    Remotely trigger traps: Does not directly cause harm depending on how you interpret it. If you interpret it as you remotely (without physical contact, from a distance) cause the trigger of the trap to activate, then this is indirect harm. The only action was on the trigger, and the trigger then caused the trap to do whatever it did. If you directly trigger the trap (not from a distance, or involving physical contact), then you are directly causing harm and the spell breaks. If you interpret that the trigger and the trap are not separate things, then triggering a trap will almost always cause harm and break the spell.
    Open a portcullis to release attack dogs: Indirect, because all one is doing is permitting other creatures to act according to their nature. The action is affecting only an object.

    Shadow Lodge

    Undead masquerading as Human

    Amukta, you can't deny his post or mine. The fact that his post is under the wrong alias is irrelevant. Treat it as if it were posted under the Gauron alias. The scenario that I listed in the first post is the starting situation for the party in the PBP. I mentioned from the beginning that some rewinding was being done for RP reasons. Respectfully, your post is being redacted by me. Pick it up where I put it, not where you want it to be.

    Shadow Lodge

    Undead masquerading as Human

    As far as the quote you're talking about, Amukta, it will go away in time. It's just letting you know that if you haven't finalized your name, you have that long to change it. For example, if I create a character "Gauron," and I post, and then I decide later that his name is actually "Gauron The Undying," I can change it up until I have made 10 posts, at which point the name is locked.

    As far as posting images, you cannot. You can post a link to an image using the URL commands, but that's the closest you can get. Everything else is text and basic text formatting.

    Speaking of formatting, here's a sample post in my preferred style. I find it makes it easier to go through a post and read it as intended:

    Gauron walks down the street, looking for an armor vendor to repair his busted chain shirt. I wonder where to find this guy. She told me to turn left at the stables, or was it right?

    Finally spotting the armor vendor in question, Gauron heads inside. "Hey, you. You do armor repairs, right?"

    Diplomacy: 1d20 + 1 ⇒ (12) + 1 = 13 If there are multiple people inside, he'll walk up to the nearest one. If there's nobody in the front room, he'll walk straight to the back room.
    Sleight of Hand: 1d20 + 2 ⇒ (19) + 2 = 21

    GM & Name:
    Use spoilers for text meant only for certain individuals. You can make them read what you want by replacing the normal spoiler command text with "spoiler=##", where ## is what you want it to read. The same property applies to dice.

    Perception DC 21:
    Gauron pockets a shiny dagger he spots on the way into the shop.

    Please read both of the spoilers for notes. I will be reading any and all spoilers. It's on the honor system that you do not read any spoiler that is either not intended for you or that you do not make the DC for such as the one above.

    Shadow Lodge

    Pathfinder Deluxe Comics Subscriber; Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion, Tales Subscriber
    Jiggy wrote:
    jlighter wrote:
    So I have an observation and a question. Observation: I'm not seeing anywhere in the CRB where it is stated unequivocally that a combat maneuver is an attack, merely that it uses an attack roll.
    Core Rulebook, Combat chapter, Combat Maneuvers, Performing a Combat Maneuver, second paragraph, last sentence wrote:
    Combat maneuvers are attack rolls, so you must roll for concealment and take any other penalties that would normally apply to an attack roll.

    Which, if you'll forgive me, does not actually say they are attacks, just that they use attack rolls. That is the reason for the second question I asked. They are explicitly stated to be maneuvers and actions that can replace or add to an attack in some cases.

    As far as unarmed strikes being a subset of unarmed attacks, they are. Unarmed attacks also include natural weapons and certain spells. They are, however, treated as "armed" unarmed attacks.

    Shadow Lodge

    Pathfinder Deluxe Comics Subscriber; Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion, Tales Subscriber

    So I have an observation and a question. Observation: I'm not seeing anywhere in the CRB where it is stated unequivocally that a combat maneuver is an attack, merely that it uses an attack roll. My question, then, is this: If the phrase "attack roll" under combat maneuvers was replaced with the phrase "combat maneuver check," (along with necessary concomitant wording changes) would any issues with understanding the FAQ go away?

    And yes, I did see the part where it said, " While many combat maneuvers can be performed as part of an attack action, full-attack action, or attack of opportunity (in place of a melee attack), others require a specific action." It doesn't say that the maneuvers are attacks, merely that some can be performed as part of or in place of, keeping maneuvers distinct from attacks in my mind. Emphasis mine.

    Shadow Lodge

    Undead masquerading as Human

    I think he was actually suggesting that you change the alias that used the post to "Gauron." As far as changing the name on any given post or changing the post content, there is only a window of 60 minutes from the time of posting to submit any edits or changes. We can roll with what's there for now. One trick might be to change the "Elumbra" alias to "Gauron" and then change the "Gauron" alias to "Elumbra," then change which one is your default posting alias for the boards.

    As far as what Chris posted about posting, yes. It is strongly preferable to post in the Gameplay thread In-Character, and to keep OOC commentary in the Gameplay thread to a minimum except for necessary commentary (like conditional statements, modifiers that are unsure, information about save DCs for spells and such, etc.). OOC stuff is what this thread is for, so any conversation that isn't being had by characters should be happening here instead.

    Shadow Lodge

    Pathfinder Deluxe Comics Subscriber; Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion, Tales Subscriber

    I had a quick question about this:

    Blood of the Moon wrote:

    A skinwalker of a specific heritage has the following racial traits (represented at the top of each skinwalker heritage section), which replace or alter the appropriate default racial traits of the skinwalker:

    • A skinwalker gains bonuses and penalties to particular ability scores, but cannot select a different ability score to bolster each time she changes shape.
    • A skinwalker gains access to a different spell-like ability based on her heritage.
    • A skinwalker replaces bonuses on Handle Animal and wild empathy checks with bonuses on other checks.
    A skinwalker gains access to a different, larger set of features when in bestial form.

    I was wondering if the bolded sentence meant that alternate heritage skinwalkers can choose from those available to their own heritage and the base skinwalker Change Shape ability, or does it just mean that they get four options instead of the base three? It seems awkward that some of the options (Werecrocodile-kin, Wereshark-kin, for example) wouldn't get access to the natural armor bonus.

    Shadow Lodge

    Undead masquerading as Human

    How's everybody doing on conversion/leveling? Are we ready to pick it up where we left off?

    Oh, and as far as HP goes. Just treat whatever your HP was as what it is for the first three levels, and we'll factor any changes in Con modifiers into future levels.

    Shadow Lodge

    Undead masquerading as Human

    I didn't adjust your stats at all. The modifiers are -4 Dex, -2 Cha, and there is a partial physical transformation that accompanies those and explains them.

    1 to 50 of 810 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

    ©2002–2014 Paizo Inc.®. Need help? Email customer.service@paizo.com or call 425-250-0800 during our business hours: Monday–Friday, 10 AM–5 PM Pacific Time. View our privacy policy. Paizo Inc., Paizo, the Paizo golem logo, Pathfinder, the Pathfinder logo, Pathfinder Society, GameMastery, and Planet Stories are registered trademarks of Paizo Inc., and Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pathfinder Adventure Card Game, Pathfinder Player Companion, Pathfinder Modules, Pathfinder Tales, Pathfinder Battles, Pathfinder Online, PaizoCon, RPG Superstar, The Golem's Got It, Titanic Games, the Titanic logo, and the Planet Stories planet logo are trademarks of Paizo Inc. Dungeons & Dragons, Dragon, Dungeon, and Polyhedron are registered trademarks of Wizards of the Coast, Inc., a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc., and have been used by Paizo Inc. under license. Most product names are trademarks owned or used under license by the companies that publish those products; use of such names without mention of trademark status should not be construed as a challenge to such status.