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

nogoodscallywag's page

FullStarFullStar Pathfinder Society GM. 454 posts (611 including aliases). No reviews. No lists. No wishlists. 10 Pathfinder Society characters. 3 aliases.


RSS

1 to 50 of 454 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
Grand Lodge

Thank you, Murdock, for your enlightening answer.

First, this particular scenario has not been covered.

Second, I'm the GM. And forgive me if I want to get it right.

Third, yes, I actually want rules lawyers to chime in, otherwise, as a GM I would have just said, "I'm the GM, deal with it." I wanted to know what others thought on the particular situation of dueling commands.

Fourth, lawyers don't always get paid, it's called "pro bono."

#useless

Grand Lodge

Ahhh Charm Person, that wonderful first level spell that players love to abuse, and the spell that leaves GMs floundering in its ambiguity. I bring it up again because I think it's important to hash out certain characteristics of the spell itself, and because there was a certain scenario in my game over the weekend in which none of the previous threads have touched upon with Charm Person.

I think it is important to note that the Charm Spell does not remove the influence of the charmed creature's allies; neither does it force the charmed to act right away with whatever he was convinced to do, especially if it means danger to him or his actual allies.

I think the overarching issue with the spell is the word "convince" in the description. If this were given more clarification, especially as to how long the convincing takes and what someone can be convinced of- with some sort of numbers provided, or at least a deferment to another rule set, like diplo- the charm spell would be much better understood.

I'd appreciate a civil discussion about this, much like lawyers do with laws. Please don't say it's up to the GM, that's not what we're looking at this for. Obviously, a GM has the final rule, but we'd like to hammer out some details to make the Charm Spell fair for everyone- or at least seem fair.

Here are the facts concerning the above scenario and questions. Relevant RAW included.

Charm Person:

Charm Person
School enchantment (charm) [mind-affecting]
CASTING
Casting Time 1 standard action
EFFECT
Duration 1 hour/level
Saving Throw Will negates; Spell Resistance yes
DESCRIPTION
This charm makes a humanoid creature regard you as its trusted friend and ally (treat the target's attitude as friendly). If the creature is currently being threatened or attacked by you or your allies, however, it receives a +5 bonus on its saving throw.

The spell does not enable you to control the charmed person as if it were an automaton, but it perceives your words and actions in the most favorable way. You can try to give the subject orders, but you must win an opposed Charisma check to convince it to do anything it wouldn't ordinarily do. (Retries are not allowed.) An affected creature never obeys suicidal or obviously harmful orders, but it might be convinced that something very dangerous is worth doing. Any act by you or your apparent allies that threatens the charmed person breaks the spell. You must speak the person's language to communicate your commands, or else be good at pantomiming.

Charm/Compulsion Rules:

Charm and Compulsion

Many abilities and spells can cloud the minds of characters and monsters, leaving them unable to tell friend from foe—or worse yet, deceiving them into thinking that their former friends are now their worst enemies. Two general types of enchantments affect characters and creatures: charms and compulsions.

Charming another creature gives the charming character the ability to befriend and suggest courses of action to his minion, but the servitude is not absolute or mindless. Charms of this type include the various charm spells and some monster abilities. Essentially, a charmed character retains free will but makes choices according to a skewed view of the world.

A charmed creature doesn't gain any magical ability to understand his new friend's language. A charmed character retains his original alignment and allegiances, generally with the exception that he now regards the charming creature as a dear friend and will give great weight to his suggestions and directions.

A charmed character fights his former allies only if they threaten his new friend, and even then he uses the least lethal means at his disposal as long as these tactics show any possibility of success (just as he would in a fight with an actual friend).

A charmed character is entitled to an opposed Charisma check against his master in order to resist instructions or commands that would make him do something he wouldn't normally do even for a close friend. If he succeeds, he decides not to go along with that order but remains charmed.

A charmed character never obeys a command that is obviously suicidal or grievously harmful to him.

If the charming creature commands his minion to do something that the influenced character would be violently opposed to, the subject may attempt a new saving throw to break free of the influence altogether.

A charmed character who is openly attacked by the creature who charmed him or by that creature's apparent allies is automatically freed of the spell or effect.

Compulsion is a different matter altogether. A compulsion overrides the subject's free will in some way or simply changes the way the subject's mind works. A charm makes the subject a friend of the caster; a compulsion makes the subject obey the caster.

Regardless of whether a character is charmed or compelled, he does not volunteer information or tactics that his master doesn't ask for.

Serious people:

Jiggy RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32: "...charm person is all but useless in combat, unless you have a very well-coordinated team and have pre-planned tactics for making it work." (http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2o5cv?Dealing-with-Charm-Person-Spam#1)

BigNorseWolf: "They're probably morally opposed to killing their mother: in that case it CAN"T be done with this spell, charisma check or not." (http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2ql5d&page=2?Charm-Person-Official-Ruling)

Ross Byers RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32: "That charisma check is there for things like 'abandon your post' to a guard. Not for 'murder your best friend'." .... "Being a 'trusted friend and ally' doesn't make the target automatically ignorant of the consequences of their actions. I'm not going to commit murder for anyone, no matter how good of a friend they are. If for nothing else, because I don't want to get hung." (http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2s49f?Charm-person#1)

FAQ:

Charm person makes a humanoid "friendly" to you, as per the rules found in the Diplomacy skill, but it also allows you to issue orders to the target, making an opposed Charisma check to convince the target to do something that it would not normally do. How does that work?

The charm person spell (and charm monster by extension) makes the target your friend. It will treat you kindly (although maybe not your allies) and will generally help you as long as your interests align. This is mostly in the purview of the GM. If you ask the creature to do something that it would not normally do (in relation to your friendship), that is when the opposed Charisma check comes into play. For example, if you use charm person to befriend an orc, the orc might share his grog with you and talk with you about the upcoming raid on a nearby settlement. If you asked him to help you fight some skeletons, he might very well lend a hand. If you asked him to help you till a field, however, you might need to make that check to convince him to do it.

That about wraps it up for this week. Keep those questions coming.

Jason Bulmahn

Special Spell Effects:

Many special spell effects are handled according to the school of the spells in question. Certain other special spell features are found across spell schools.

Attacks

Some spell descriptions refer to attacking. All offensive combat actions, even those that don't damage opponents, are considered attacks. Attempts to channel energy count as attacks if it would harm any creatures in the area. All spells that opponents resist with saving throws, that deal damage, or that otherwise harm or hamper subjects are attacks. Spells that summon monsters or other allies are not attacks because the spells themselves don't harm anyone.

1. The trolls have a commander, a bard, who has not charmed them. However, he treats them very well, and they would die for this commander (they would not necessarily die for the king). The bard as "authority" over the trolls as their commander, and they have no reason to disobey orders given.

2. During the battle(one in which trolls have been killed already), a PC charms one of the trolls. During the charm, he states to the troll "prevent the bard from casting spells." QUESTIONs:
a. Is the action of this order a free action?
b. Is preventing their commander from casting spells an act which would "it wouldn't normally do?"
c. Would the order to prevent his commander from casting spells be a "suicidal or obviously harmful act?"
d. The PC believes (and conflicting RAW and FAQ info may support) that all the PC needs to do to "convince" the troll to prevent his commander from casting spells is an opposed charisma check. In essence, the PC believes an opposed charisma check is sufficient to force the troll to do anything the PC wants, because of the magic of the charm spell and the way it is written. The FAQ on this i also ridiculously vague, but Buhlman's sentence about making a check to kill one's family holds some weight.
e. If indeed "convincing" is needed, how long does it take to "convince?" A free action? Other methods of convincing or interacting to influence like Diplo and Intimidate require conversation and attention, which take more than one round. Is the ability check in the instance of this spell (an opposed Charisma check) simply a free action to speak and thus "convince," or does the act of "convincing" take more than a free action? Or is the act of "convincing" a longer action with the result of an opposed charisma check at the end?
f. Do the Diplomacy rules on making a request come into play with this spell?

Make a Request:
If a creature’s attitude toward you is at least indifferent, you can make requests of the creature. This is an additional Diplomacy check, using the creature’s current attitude to determine the base DC, with one of the following modifiers. Once a creature’s attitude has shifted to helpful, the creature gives in to most requests without a check, unless the request is against its nature or puts it in serious peril. Some requests automatically fail if the request goes against the creature’s values or its nature, subject to GM discretion.

3. The troll cannot act on anything requested by the PC until it is that troll's turn.

4. On the troll's turn, the bard commander orders the troll to abandon his post on the wall and return to a different area of the fort.
a. The commander, during any other time, doesn't have to make any roll whatsoever to have the troll obey an order. The commander is the troll's superior.
b. The troll sees the PC as a "trusted friend and ally." The troll also sees the commander as a "trusted friend and ally," but also sees the commander as his leader and an authority figure. Remember, the troll is not charmed by the bard commander and would die for him.

5. The troll now has two conflicting orders. One request/order from the PC to take an action against his own commander, the other given by that commander to vacate the area and go to a different area of the battlefield.
a. Let's say the FAQ and RAW do indeed allow the PC, with a successful opposed charisma check, to force the troll to go ahead and prevent the troll's bard commander from casting spells.
b. As above in a., the PC has issued an order which the troll must heed. However, the commander has also issued an order, and the commander never has to roll to issue an order as that troll's commander.
c. The trolls has two opposing orders, one given by a trusted friend and ally who's convinced him with opposed charisma checks (between the PC and troll) to take action against his own commander. The other order is from that commander, who needs no check, to withdraw to another area. Both characters would be successful in asserting their will. However, which will (request/order) will the troll heed? I would think that the commander's orders hold more weight than the PC's, because the bard commander never has to roll to issue an order like this.
d. If anything, the troll commander’s order may seem better than other alternatives, because if he assaults his own commander there will no doubt be repercussions, but if he doesn't listen to his PC friend, he could upset him. So removing himself from the area may be the best way out.

I believe the scenario would play out like this:

The troll sees the PC has a friend. It likewise keeps seeing the bard commander as its authority figure and friend. When given the order by the PC to prevent its friend and commander from casting spells, it thinks, "damn, stop my commander? I'll surely be punished for insubordination. The friends of my new PC friend have also killed some of my fellow troll friends, so I'm not sure what is going on. Uh oh, my commander is yelling an order again. Perhaps I should just prevent him from casting spells and reason with him to not hurt my new PC friend." Or turning to the new friend for clarification, needs some "convincing." (Which would take more than a free action)

But- the bard commander isn't casting spells, and it's the troll's turn, so the commander issues an order to relocate. The troll thinks, "well, my commander isn't casting spells at the moment, and he gave me an order. That order doesn't harm my new PC friend in any way, so I'll obey the order from my commander and do my duty."

Thus, the troll would relocate to the new position so ordered by the commander- it obeys his order while at the same time still holding the new PC friend in safety for not attacking the new PC friend or doing something that may cause harm.

Remember Charm Person isa level 1 spell shouldn't force the troll to disobey its commander, because the charm spell has no influence whatsoever on the bard commander's authoritative influence on the troll.

Here’s how it should work out:

PC casts Charm Person as a standard action on the troll who fails saving throw. Uses free action to say, "Stop those casters behind you from casting their spells."

When the troll's turn arrives, the commander bard says, as a free action, "Return to your post immediately! You are to execute order 4." (Order 4 is simply return to the inner fort doorway and protect the entrance at all costs). However, the PC then uses his free action, repeating his request/order to stop the casters from casting spells.

At the moment, the two casters (including the bard commander) are not casting any spells. The troll now has his action, but conflicting requests. He wouldn't normally take action against his bard commander. At this point, per the rules "All offensive combat actions, even those that don't damage opponents, are considered attacks," the opposed charisma check made by the PC would automatically fail, because the act of stopping his commander from casting spells is offensive. End of issue.

However, let's say the request by the PC is "you need to retreat to a safer location, like back to your barracks" vs. the commander's order to move to the doorway. The troll has two requests. With a successful opposed charisma check, the PC can convince the troll that moving to the barracks is a good idea.

This "convincing" isn't a magical compulsion. The act of an opposed check is not imparting a magical will onto the troll. However, the act of convincing, if successful, would lead the troll to believe returning to the barracks is likely a good idea. The player playing the PC should then interact with the troll. However, this cannot be done as a free action, because the troll may have questions about why returning to the barracks is better than obeying a command from his captain. It would take at least a round or two for the opposed charisma check roll AFTER the PC interacts with the troll, just like a diplomacy check (in fact, the spell details in the FAQ: Charm person makes a humanoid "friendly" to you, as per the rules found in the Diplomacy skill). But what happens in the meantime? Combat is happening, the troll gets more orders. Just like with diplomacy, the two people must be engaged in conversation in order for the troll to be convinced. Since the spell does not state what an opposed charisma check entails, the convincing takes longer than a free action, but the check can still be made at the end of that interaction. But if the troll is given an order by his commander, it would simply follow that order and tell the PC friend he'll get back to him in a bit...

Final musings:

Would the troll get another chance to save v. the charm spell when given a command, before or after an order is given, with regard to keeping his commander from casting spells?

Charm person should be rewritten to be a special Diplomacy check.

Or in the least, in order to "convince..." per the charm spell, the above scenario could play out like this: Troll gets both orders, and being from a friend and another from a commander, may question the friend- "Dear friend, why would I stop my commander from casting spells? That would cause me some problem after the battle!" The charmed person isn't struck dumb, and doesn't have to act immediately on the friend's (PC) demand, right? I don't think he does. In Bulmahn's example in FAQ, surely the attempt to "convince" per the charm spell someone to kill their family would take at least a few minutes of persuasion, right? I would bet my long GM/DM "career" on the fact that since Charm Person is a first level spell, succeeding an opposed Charisma check does not in any way force the charmed person to act immediately after a simple free action opposed check.

Along the same lines, when someone wants to do a Diplomacy check, I've always made the PC actually talk to me (or the NPC) as though they were trying to convince. Based on what they said, I'd apply bonuses or penalties to the roll. A Diplo roll isn't just a flick of the wrist- the person playing the PC must speak, at least. Perhaps the opposed Charisma check should be done in the same way. Nothing says the GM must allow the player to roll a diplo check and be done with it; in fact, GMs I've played with always make someone at least talk. I think it's the same way with opposed charisma checks in the charm spell. The spell says in order to convince, an opposed roll is needed. OK, fine, well, the player also has to speak and say how they are trying to convince. The GM can then apply modifiers just like a diplo or other such check.

Grand Lodge

Sindenky, you are right, the bard commander is just authoritative.

However, the charm spell does not in any way remove the bard commander's ability to issue an order.

Grand Lodge

Sindenky wrote:
The troll would not normally go against its commanders orders. The orders of his friend go against the orders of his commander, so i would have the player and Troll make opposed checks. The bards skill has nothing to do with it at all.

This is obvious, but what happens when the PC wins the opposed check with the troll? The spell doesn't remove the bard commander's influence.

Grand Lodge

Thanks for the answers. I pulled out some relevant information from RAW on:

Charm and Compulsion

Charming another creature gives the charming character the ability to befriend and suggest courses of action to his minion, but the servitude is not absolute or mindless.

A charmed character retains his original alignment and allegiances,

A charmed character fights his former allies only if they threaten his new friend

Compulsion is a different matter altogether. A compulsion overrides the subject's free will in some way or simply changes the way the subject's mind works. A charm makes the subject a friend of the caster; a compulsion makes the subject obey the caster.

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Really wish Charm Person could be hammered out better for combat situations for clarification purposes rather then simply saying "let GM decide."

Here's the scenario:

A PC is confronting a troll and its commander, a Bard.

The PC puts Charm Monster on the troll and tells it to prevent the Bard from casting spells.

On the Troll's turn, the Bard, being the commander, orders the troll to a different area.

Who does the troll obey?

I'm of the opinion that the troll will obey the orders of its commander, because, well, he's its commander and the allied PC is just his friend. An opposed Charisma check to make the troll stop the Bard from spellcasting isn't necessarily needed, either, because stopping the Bard from spellcasting could be a simple hand on the mouth or something- the troll thinking he wants to stop his friends from fighting each other. However, one friend is more than that, it's his commander, and disobeying a direct order will have consequences.

If there is a check to be made between the bard commander and the pc caster, then what would that check be? As per the spell, the caster has to make charisma check vs. troll, but for the commander to give orders, he never has to make any checks.

So where in the rules does it hint at an opposed check between caster and bard? If there is a hint somewhere, then what check is made? Does a diplo or intimidate check become options?

I did see Buhlman's FAQ where he stated, " but killing loved ones is probably always going to require a check." Seems to me this may have been a mistake, but it wasn't corrected or clarified very well, so for now I'll use what he says.

Charm Person can make people kill their allies with a simple opposed Charisma check.

How long does it take to "convince" a charmed creature to do something it wouldn't normally do? Can you simply issue an order to "kill your commander" in one sentence, or does this require a several-round interaction process?

Grand Lodge

A group of PCs want to take control of a dead enemy Cavalier's mount.

I cannot for the life of me find rules on this. Surely the mount would not have all of the same abilities which it possessed while a companion of the Cavalier.

I just can't find anything which explains how to handle this situation.

Grand Lodge **

2 people marked this as a favorite.

The Good

First, as usual, great job by Paizo on organizing the event. Getting everything set up and integrating thousands of players with hundreds of events is one mighty task.

Mustering….wow. We never had to wait in line, not once, ever. Tables had plenty of room, events started with good timing, everything was clear and concise.

BigNorseWolf made me laugh so hard I nearly wet myself in Abducted in Aether.

It’s always good to see faces and put them to names we hear. Nice to see Paizo staff folks interacting. Shouldn’t just be for Paizo Con!

The products Paizo keeps putting out are great. I hope Starfinder doesn’t take away from Pathfinder.

I also did not have to strain to hear my GM or the HQ announcers, and I usually do, AND I’m legit 50% deaf!

Please take the rest of these opinions as just that; trivial things I thought I’d share, my opinions that only matter as much as the next one.

The Meh

The Specials: I was just not excited with the specials this year. I’m a fan of pregens and using them at GenCon, but not more than once. Pregens take time to look over and get a feel for. Often, one or two players at the table are unhappy or not satisfied with the pregen they end up with (if they come out on the losing end of some sort of tiebreaker). Players don’t get a good grasp on their pregens because, frankly, the game needs to be started, and it’s a lot to take on at once, especially if you’re a newish player. Unless I can choose which pregen I’m playing, I’ll likely not be playing pregens again.

The Saturday night special was disappointing. Our GM was not prepared at all. I don’t know whether he didn’t get his information in time or if he simply didn’t prep, but I think the first part of the adventure, which I will not spoil, could have been a blast if done correctly.

The Friday night special was not as exciting as usual, either. Didn’t seem like much excitement among the crowd, but I could certainly be misinterpreting. I think the format of gameplay is getting old.

The poor GMs have so much to prep and cover for that I feel sorry for them. Luckily, our group knew what they were doing and we all survived. Perhaps one of my favorite times playing a game in and of itself. It’s funny how the best games become the ones with the highest pucker factor and near certainty of death. Too, the pre-recording of the speech is a plus, and the words on the screen a plus, too. It would have been cool to have some more graphics, though.

Mustering was great, but I had a couple of new people ask me how to get in the game. They didn’t realize the banners above their head were the iconics they were supposed to stand under- they couldn’t see them without stepping further into the room.

Yes, the room is very cold, always has been always will be. I hate it. But I bring clothing. And I remember in 2015 when the AC wasn’t working, and I’ll take being cold.

The Bad

3 of the games I played in were ‘un-fun’ because of poor GMs- I actually wished for the time to go by. Some people are just not meant to GM, while others appeared not to have prepped at all. Too bad there isn’t some sort of simple rating system for GMs that took out player death bias and basic complainers. I realize we can just email the PFS Guild folks but I hesitate to complain by name dropping because the GM may have legitimately one bad game, and I’d hate to have to complain this way based on one game. Any other ideas? One, and I know it may be difficult, but that shouldn’t stop Paizo, is to get the GMs their adventures earlier than they have been. I would also bet the GMs running the specials would get worse ratings.

Time change: I was ok with the time changes when I first saw the schedule. But then I was experiencing the time changes. I don’t like them. There is virtually no chance I’ll play a morning game now. With evening games pushed to 8pm and ending around 1230a/1a, this neutralizes any chance of staying rested and healthy for the entirety of the Con.

The first seeker arc was only offered in the morning. Boooo.

The Hope

I hope Paizo can supplant Wizards for top RPG soon. I’d also like to see Paizo take over GenCon and the role Wizards once held, putting up statues and such.

Format change for specials. Expensive slot, boon not that great, not as exciting, repetitive encounters, and late completion = seriously considering not repeating.

Being a min/maxer, I had a surprisingly fun and pleasant time playing more roleplaying/non-combat encounters than I did combat ones! Whodathunkit? Good GMs make all the difference. In fact, a player at our table died, but he had so much fun he said it was worth it.

Odds and ends

@Gary Bush comments are certainly valid to this thread because they involve the Con… I’ll say this: Following rules is one thing, but taking up people’s time, when they’ve paid, is nonsense. If the rules are being skirted a bit which result in player’s being happy and having fun, this is what matters, not strict adherence to the “law.” Now of course, if there is obvious cheating which hurts others’ experience, that’s another matter entirely.

@JamesRisner: I’d like to know the player’s tally of the time changes. They count, too.

To finish, the new time slots- at least for me and my group of 4- will have us ceasing all the morning games. Of course, if the specials aren’t up to par with the price and reward if successful, we skip those and do the morning and afternoon games! However, since the dealer hall closes at 6pm (ridiculously) that means our dealer hall time has to be in the morning before our afternoon game, and since we commute (live nearby) the late completion of night game makes this routine very difficult.

How to fix this? I dunno. GMs are asked a lot of, and I personally don’t want to sit at a table with a hangry GM! Maybe more could be done for them like ordering in food, or staggering games, whatever.

Bob, the only “right” solution is one that maximizes both player and GM happiness in the experience, otherwise we have nothing and everything ends. If players aren’t buying tickets because of times, that’s a problem. If GMs are able to get at least one decent meal (carbs, protein, veges), that’s a problem.

@bignorsewolf: regarding food and snacks, I hear girl scout cookies make good snacks.

Grand Lodge **

Is it possible to let us know what race/type the pre-generated characters will be for Pathfinder Society Special #7-99: Through Maelstrom Rift?

I would like to at least have correct minis for the table!

Grand Lodge

I think I know the answer, but I wanted to get clarification.

Can the Returning Weapon spell be placed on a melee weapon, giving the returning ability to that melee weapon? The spell does not say it cannot be placed on a melee weapon, but it does say the spell acts as returning weapon quality.

Obviously, the returning weapon quality says it can only be placed on a thrown weapon.

I just wanted to make certain the spell was not granting this to a melee weapon despite the returning quality decription.

Grand Lodge **

Will the new season player's guide for PFS be out soon?

Grand Lodge

I've failed my CON check and am now unconscious.

Grand Lodge

James Risner wrote:

FAQ:

When exactly can I activate Arcane Shield?

Arcane Shield wrote:
Benefit: As a immediate action, you can sacrifice a prepared spell or unused spell slot of 1st level or higher and gain a deflection bonus to AC equal to the level of the spell or spell slot you sacrificed for 1 round. 0-level spells may not be sacrificed in this manner.

Can it be after hit but before damage?

** spoiler omitted **

Another good question, but since combat isn't done in phases, and the RAW say a hit and damage occur at same time, then the shield cannot be activated after the hit has occurred.

James Risner wrote:
Ragoz wrote:
Spells which do not have a separate event like rays do not have an additional opportunity afterward to cast EFS and still be protected because the effect and targeting have occurred.

This isn't satisfactorily settled in the rules for some, so please click the FAQ on this post.

This is like saying climate change is false because 1% of scientists say it is despite 99% saying it's true.

But I'd also argue that if 25% of this community are unsure about the ruling, the devs should FAQ it.

Undone wrote:

I feel like his argument is similar to the aqueous sphere+Hideous laughter interaction. "It doesn't explicitly say you drown!" but you do because you are laughing under water. People don't always know the implications of rules they create but that doesn't mean they function differently.

You don't stop breathing while laughing, just like singers don't stop breathing while singing.

Grand Lodge

Gulthor wrote:

At any time means at any time.

At any time from *this* time forward, that is. Says nothing about going into the past, even if that past is one second.

Grand Lodge

BigNorseWolf wrote:

1) How fast is an immediate action? Can it interrupt things?

2) What is the air speed velocity of an unladen swallow Fireall bead, cone of cold, ray? Is it slow enough for the EFS to block?

3) Is there any time between a targeting spell picking a target and the spell being in effect? Do they have a harry potter esque bolt or stunner? Is the visual effect created by the FAQ on spellcasting around the target as well as the caster?

Good questions, but combat isn't based on phases or time in this manner. I remember these sorts of truth tables during my 2ed. days.

Undone wrote:

Immediate actions exist to "Counter" actions after they have been performed. To negate an action. Falling, full attacks, doesn't matter.

No. Immediate action says nothing at all about countering anything. it says nothing at all about past actions or time travel. With your logic, you can counter an action last week. Sorry no.

Grand Lodge

BigNorseWolf wrote:
What time is between monday and tuesday?

This question is not helpful...the immediate action doesn't disrupt another's action inherently; it only allows the person using the action to take an action (however the action taken could act in an interupting way).

It's like going back in time...it's just impossible. Once something is done, it's done, and nothing can change it. So if an enemy resolves their spell before the player chooses to take his immediate action, then the spell has already been resolved.

Grand Lodge

Undone wrote:

Feather fall is an immediate action. It interrupts falling.

No, Feather Fall does not interrupt "falling." You are still falling while Feather Fall is activated. The falling is just at a much slower and safer pace.

Xellrael wrote:


Example A: Larry the Lich starts casting enervation. Walter the wizard identifies it using spellcraft. As the spell resolves, the Lich points at Walter and "a black ray of negative energy" streaks toward him. Walter casts emergency force sphere to block the ray. The ray shield combat feat could save a PC from enervation, so I believe Walter should get a chance to cast EFS.

Example B: Larry the Lich starts casting greater dispel magic. Walter the wizard identifies it using spellcraft. Walter waits to find out who Larry is going to target. Greater dispel magic resolves, and Walter gets his 3 highest level buffs dispelled. Walter doesn't find out that he's the target till it's too late, so I believe he should not get a chance to cast EFS.

Both of your examples are correct.

I think it's pretty simple- immediate action rule says these actions can be "taken at any time."

Grand Lodge **

Mark Stratton wrote:
nogoodscallywag wrote:

Please, why are the Seeker arcs only available during the 800am slots?

Makes it very difficult for people to play the special the night before (which will end around 1) and get up and play the 800am game. Yes, it's a bit whiny, but it would seem that such a symbolic set of scenarios would be more accessible.

The blog post already answered your question:

"After much deliberation and because they have the potential to run long, we scheduled the new Seeker Arc, "All for Immortality" across the morning slots."

Emphasis mine.

Emphasis does not explain why a 2pm start time is not possible.

Grand Lodge **

Please, why are the Seeker arcs only available during the 800am slots?

Makes it very difficult for people to play the special the night before (which will end around 1) and get up and play the 800am game. Yes, it's a bit whiny, but it would seem that such a symbolic set of scenarios would be more accessible.

Grand Lodge **

Bob Jonquet wrote:

Based on A LOT of feedback on slot lengths, having enough time to run properly, etc. the decision was made to extend the slot times slightly.

    AM slot is 8am-1pm
    MID slot is 2pm-7pm
    PM slot is 8pm-1am

This should allow a bit more time to experience the scenario, complete paperwork, clean up/clear the table for the next slot, and set up at a new table, as well as providing time to grab food, use the restroom, etc. Yes, it might mean a tad less sleep for some, but we hope it will improve the gaming experience overall. Depending on how the specials are written and presented, we may not need to be in the room until 1am, but we wanted to be prepared nonetheless.

I'm simply not able to play until 1:00a and be back by 730a to play again later in the morning :( I've got a drive of about 45 minutes each way. That's OK though, we'll see how the 800pm start time works out, should give us a bit more time to eat and see other things. I'm ok with it. Especially when the Specials (more on this below) always seemed crammed and hurried to start (didn't really start until 730 or so anyway) and finished hurriedly, too.

The lack of previous season scenarios this year is again disappointing for those of us who are not able to play elsewhere. Also, a special each night using pregens really cuts down character leveling. I know we still get credit for it, but that's one adventure without our own character. Add all 3 nights and Sunday, and that's an entire level +1 XP. A lot when the cap for play is pretty much 12-13. On the other hand, it does let us experience a new class we may not have played otherwise, and perhaps even take some risks we wouldn't have otherwise taken.

Grand Lodge **

wow, that really means no 800am games now!

Grand Lodge **

I see the Specials for every night will begin at 800p now instead of 700p. Does that mean they will still end by midnight?

Grand Lodge

Thanks wraithstrike, this is exactly what I thought and was confirmed by another person who is "in the know."

The situation was this: A moon-beast was fighting PCs. PC was 200 feet away from Beast, in broad daylight. PC argued beast could not "see" the PC because the beast had blindsight.

The beast can indeed "see."

Grand Lodge

CampinCarl9127 wrote:

You're overthinking this.

nogoodscallywag wrote:
That's what I'm saying; creatures have a general ability to "see" ---IN THIS CASE it is PERCEIVE--- beyond their listed special ability.

Really? I would love to know where that actually is stated, because as I once heard.

nogoodscallywag wrote:
Fluff text is not RAW.

Campin, uh...check out any stat block. None of them list the ability to perceive in regular daylight, it's common sense. "Sense." Remember- perception is the combination of multiple senses.

Sah wrote:
Yeah, that was my point. There is, like Carl said, nothing but fluff for most creatures to be able to see. The skeleton is not called out as being blind outside of darkvision, so it's not.

Yes, Moon Beast says nothing about not being called out as being blind! It's an aberration, and must have some other form of perception.

Plus, it has telepathy at 300 feet, which I have no idea how that works. Does that mean it can pinpoint the location of any thinking creature within range? Or just know there is a thinking creature within range?

Grand Lodge

That's what I'm saying; creatures have a general ability to "see" ---IN THIS CASE it is PERCEIVE--- beyond their listed special ability.

Grand Lodge

The real issue lies in the "Perception" and senses of beings in the rules. Perception is the conglomeration of all the senses a being possesses, from vision with eyesight which see light waves, sound produced by sound waves (ears), vibrations on skin, presence of spirit, energy, whatever the case may be for the being.

That's why invisibility doesn't effect just vision- it gives a bonus to Stealth generally- it doesn't say it gives a bonus to "being seen with organs that detect light." Perception is all senses; some creatures have more senses than normal humans.

Grand Lodge

Please point out where where the Beast is "blind." It does not exist.

The real issue lies in the "Perception" and senses of beings in the rules. Perception is the conglomeration of all the senses a being possesses, from vision with eyesight which see light waves, sound produced by sound waves (ears), vibrations on skin, presence of spirit, energy, whatever the case may be for the being.

That's why invisibility doesn't effect just vision- it gives a bonus to Stealth generally- it doesn't say it gives a bonus to "being seen with organs that detect light." Perception is all senses; some creatures have more senses than normal humans.

If you argue the skeleton can "see" but the Beast cannot, your argument is illogical. Neither possesses the organs which can detect light. This is a game where magic rules and it's fantasy, so who knows how a skeleton "sees?" All creatures can "perceive" a general distance in whatever forms they can actually perceive. Some have extra "sensory" perception like blindsense, blindsight , darkvision, etc.

Grand Lodge

A skeleton has only bones. It has no eyes or other sensory organs. It has Darkvision 60ft.

Does that mean if the skeleton is in broad daylight on a flat plain, the skeleton cannot see at all, even in inch in front of it?

How about a Moon Beast with Blindsight 90ft. If it is on the same flat plain, can it only see everything within 90ft? Meaning everything beyond 90ft is blurred or dimmed or simply non-percievable?

If so, it would seem that the same holds for the skeleton above, then. Trying to figure out if we've been doing undead wrong who have to physical eyes to see and who do not have any other "visions."

In Vision and Light, it says, "In an area of bright light, all characters can see clearly." But the word "see" can't possibly be applied to all creatures, unless "see" equals "perceive." Like perception encompasses all senses, not just vision.

The Moon Beast (below) does, however, have Telepathy 300ft. Does this give him the ability to know *where* a being is within 300ft, or merely that a being is within 300ft?

Spoiler:
MOON-BEAST CR 11
XP 12,800
CE Large aberration
Init +7; Senses blindsight 90 ft.; Perception +21
DEFENSE

AC 25, touch 13, flat-footed 21 (+3 Dex, +1 dodge, +12 natural, –1 size)
hp 133 (14d8+70)
Fort +9, Ref +9, Will +15
Defensive Abilities amorphous; DR 10/piercing or slashing; Immune cold, gaze attacks, illusions, poison; Resist electricity 30; SR 22
OFFENSE

Speed 50 ft., climb 20 ft.; air walk
Melee 2 claws +15 (1d6+6), 4 tentacles +11 (1d6+3)
Space 10 ft.; Reach 10 ft.
Special Attacks rend (2 tentacles, 1d6+9 plus Wisdom drain)
Spell-Like Abilities (CL 11th; concentration +18)
Constant—air walk
At will—detect thoughts (DC 19)
3/day—charm monster (DC 21), dispel magic, dominate person (DC 22), shadow conjuration (DC 21), shadow evocation (DC 22), veil (DC 23)
1/day—confusion (DC 21), major image (DC 20), mirage arcana (DC 22), plane shift (self only)
STATISTICS

Str 22, Dex 17, Con 20, Int 19, Wis 18, Cha 25
Base Atk +10; CMB +17; CMD 31
Feats Combat Casting, Dodge, Improved Initiative, Iron Will, Lightning Reflexes, Mobility, Weapon Focus (tentacle)
Skills Climb +14, Diplomacy +14, Intimidate +24, Knowledge (arcana) +11, Knowledge (planes) +18, Perception +21, Sense Motive +18, Spellcraft +21, Stealth +24, Use Magic Device +21; Racial Modifiers +8 Stealth
Languages Aklo (cannot speak); telepathy 300 ft.
SQ compression, no breath
ECOLOGY

Environment any land
Organization solitary, pair, or cabal (3–5)
Treasure double
SPECIAL ABILITIES

Wisdom Drain (Su) A creature that takes rend damage from a moon-beast must succeed at a DC 22 Will save or take 1d4 points of Wisdom drain. A moon-beast heals 5 points of damage for each point of Wisdom it drains in this manner. If it drains a victim to 0 Wisdom, the moon-beast gains the effects of a heal spell. The save DC is Constitution-based.
Moon-beasts have no voice or eyes, yet they "see" more than most and can project their thoughts into the very minds of those they wish to communicate with. These monstrosities hail not from any physical moon, but rather from the shared satellite of all slumbering minds in the Dimension of Dream beyond the wall of sleep. Here, the moon-beasts raise stone cities on the oily shores of night-black seas found upon the dark side of the dreaming moon, from which they launch long, dark galleys crewed by not-quite-human slaves that sail through the void of space down to the seas of the Dimension of Dream to seek new slaves and stranger, more sinister wares.

Moon-beasts are slavers, first and foremost. They use their spell-like abilities to curb rebellion or to quickly gain minions, but much prefer using physical and mental regimens of torment and reconditioning to break the spirit of their captives. They often work with the denizens of Leng, a metaphysically nearby dimension of nightmare and madness, although as often as not these planar neighbors serve the moon-beasts merely as slaves.

Worshipers of ageless entities from beyond the stars, moon-beasts are often compelled to travel to the Material Plane for strange and frightening causes, not the least of which is gathering suitable sacrifices for their mysterious and demanding lords.

A moon-beast is 9 feet long and weighs 800 pounds.

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

A skeleton has only bones. It has no eyes or other sensory organs. It has Darkvision 60ft.

Does that mean if the skeleton is in broad daylight on a flat plain, the skeleton cannot see at all, even in inch in front of it?

How about a Moon Beast with Blindsight 90ft. If it is on the same flat plain, can it only see everything within 90ft? Meaning everything beyond 90ft is blurred or dimmed or simply non-percievable?

If so, it would seem that the same holds for the skeleton above, then. Trying to figure out if we've been doing undead wrong who have to physical eyes to see and who do not have any other "visions."

In Vision and Light, it says, "In an area of bright light, all characters can see clearly." But the word "see" can't possibly be applied to all creatures, unless "see" equals "perceive." Like perception encompasses all senses, not just vision.

Grand Lodge

Sennje wrote:

Unless otherwise stated I would assume they have normal sight.

The moon beast is blind as you can read in its fluff text and can therefor not perceive beyond 90 ft possibly with an exception of creatures with a mind due to its telepathy 300 ft, but that is a whole other discussion, but I would assume the skeleton can see just like a dwarf or something similar, if you say that doesn't make sense I say it is like how it moves without muscles "a wizard did it".

Fluff text is not RAW.

Grand Lodge

A skeleton has only bones. It has no eyes or other sensory organs. It has Darkvision 60ft.

Does that mean if the skeleton is in broad daylight on a flat plain, the skeleton cannot see at all, even in inch in front of it?

How about a Moon Beast with Blindsight 90ft. If it is on the same flat plain, can it only see everything within 90ft? Meaning everything beyond 90ft is blurred or dimmed or simply non-percievable?

If so, it would seem that the same holds for the skeleton above, then. Trying to figure out if we've been doing undead wrong who have to physical eyes to see and who do not have any other "visions."

In Vision and Light, it says, "In an area of bright light, all characters can see clearly." But the word "see" can't possibly be applied to all creatures, unless "see" equals "perceive." Like perception encompasses all senses, not just vision.

Grand Lodge **

Ragoz wrote:
The Masked Ferret wrote:
nogoodscallywag wrote:
*feints*
Or do you mean *faints*?
I think it worked guys.

YES! Thought it would take a shorter time to get that one.

Grand Lodge **

*feints*

Grand Lodge

bigrig107 wrote:

I don't see how people can think that death would get rid of Permanent spells.

Spells have a very specific order of operations, which we can look at to know how they work.
Caster chooses spell he wants to cast -> caster chooses elligible targets -> spell goes off, effect of spell happens -> at end of duration (and not before, unless it's dispelled/dismissed), spell stops working.
Nothing in that order says that permanent spells ever have to check the target at any point after the first time you check the targets' eligibility to have the spell cast on them.

For example, Changestaff. Instantaneous duration, but as soon as you cast the spell, the target is no longer a "specially prepared quarterstaff", and thus is not able to be targeted by Changestaff.
But, common sense tells us that we don't have to check the ability of the target after the spell has been cast. A spell cast on a legal target, no matter the specific spell in question, will always be in effect as long as the duration has not ended.

So why would death change anything?
Permanent Enlarge Person, cast on you while you were living, enlarges yourself to one size category larger. When you die, there is no rule that says you must immediately check all spells active against your new non-living condition.
There is, however, specific rules that say when spells end: at the end of their duration.

And Permanent spells are, well, permanent. No reason to think otherwise.

So, by extension and logic, a body that has naturally disintegrated still has a spell effect on it?

Grand Lodge

The Archive wrote:

There's nothing in the rules that says spells end early because of death. As well, these are permanent effects we're talking about. This is stuff that has to be dispelled to cease. They should be sticking around. Dying doesn't cast dispel magic on everything affecting you.

And on top of that, we do know that magical effects don't by default go away on death. Otherwise, we probably would not see it specified that a lycanthrope reverts to its original form on death, or that the subject of the polymorph spell also reverts on death in 3.5.

There's also that whole issue of Breath of Life not working with the "dead body = object" thing.

And really, if it were to be true, don't you think that it would be explicitly mentioned somewhere to be true? It's a pretty glaring omission.

So what happens if the target of the perm spell is removed from reality? For example, the target dies, and over the hundreds of years the body is simply and naturally disintegrated? Surely the perm spell is no longer on the target. If so, then you'd be saying the perm spell rests on the target's soul, or something similar.

Grand Lodge

Wondering if this is doable...

A hallway ten feet wide. Can a large creature squeeze through the hall on only 5 feet? For instance, an Orb of the Void is on one side of the hallway occupying once square. Can the person, who is large, bypass it by squeezing onto the opposite side of the hall?

Grand Lodge

An Ogre, large, polymorphs into a human, medium.

Does the Ogres gear, which includes large armor and clothing, change size, too?

Grand Lodge

The scene is a tight tunnel, 5 ft. wide, 5 ft. tall ceilings.

PC 1, in front, is invisible. PC 2, behind PC 1, is visible.

Enemy throws a javelin at PC 2, because he can see PC 2 but not PC 1.

What happens to the javelin?

Does it hit PC 1, or have a chance to hit and damage?

Grand Lodge

I'm hoping Reiko's chain is silenced!

Grand Lodge

Gray Goo goes inside the opponent's body; Seifter mentioned if the Goo is inside, and the PC teleports, the Goo goes with the PC.

Would the same apply to the PC who has Goo inside him and then turns incorporeal? Would the Goo- inside the PC- become incorporeal, too?

Show Goo:

Gray Goo CR 14
XP 38,400
N Fine construct (swarm)
Init +10; Senses darkvision 60 ft., low-light vision; Perception +13

DEFENSE

AC 29, touch 29, flat-footed 18 (+10 Dex, +1 dodge, +8 size)
hp 123 (19d10+19)
Fort +8, Ref +18, Will +8
Defensive Abilities dispersion, swarm traits; Immune construct traits, weapon damage

OFFENSE

Speed fly 50 ft. (perfect)
Melee swarm (6d6 plus dismantle and distraction)
Space 10 ft.; Reach 0 ft.
Special Attacks dismantle, distraction (DC 21), infest

STATISTICS

Str 1, Dex 30, Con —, Int 5, Wis 10, Cha 1
Base Atk +19; CMB —; CMD —
Feats Ability Focus (distraction), Dodge, Great Fortitude, Improved Lightning Reflexes, Iron Will, Lightning Reflexes, Lightning Stance, Mobility, Toughness, Wind Stance
Skills Fly +26, Perception +13, Stealth +32 (+42 when dispersed); Racial Modifiers +10 Stealth when dispersed
Languages Common (can't speak)

SPECIAL ABILITIES

Dismantle (Ex)

Creatures damaged by a gray goo must succeed at a DC 19 Reflex save or a random piece of their equipment takes the same amount of damage, determined as though the target rolled a natural 1 on a saving throw, using the rules for items surviving after a saving throw. In addition, unattended objects in the area of a gray goo take damage if the swarm chooses to harm them. The save DC is Constitution-based.

Dispersion (Ex)

As an immediate action, a gray goo can disperse, spreading itself across a cube-shaped area 30 feet on a side. While dispersed, the goo deals no damage and can't use its other special abilities until it reforms. A dispersed gray goo can hide in plain sight (as a ranger in her favored terrain) with a +10 bonus on its Stealth checks and doesn't take additional damage from area effects for being a swarm. It takes 2 rounds for a dispersed gray goo to reform.

Infest (Ex)

As a standard action, a gray goo can infest a Medium or larger creature (Fortitude DC 21 negates), including constructs and undead. The gray goo moves inside the creature's body, dealing double its normal damage to its host each round. It can't use its dismantle ability while infesting a creature. A host reduced to 0 hit points while infested by a gray goo is reduced to dust and destroyed (similar to disintegrate). A gray goo infesting a host can be expelled by any effect that cures disease, with a disease save equal to this ability's DC. The save DC is Constitutionbased and includes a +2 racial bonus.

Grand Lodge

Gray Goo

SPECIAL ABILITIES

Infest (Ex)

As a standard action, a gray goo can infest a Medium or larger creature (Fortitude DC 21 negates), including constructs and undead. The gray goo moves inside the creature's body, dealing double its normal damage to its host each round. It can't use its dismantle ability while infesting a creature. A host reduced to 0 hit points while infested by a gray goo is reduced to dust and destroyed (similar to disintegrate). A gray goo infesting a host can be expelled by any effect that cures disease, with a disease save equal to this ability's DC. The save DC is Constitution based and includes a +2 racial bonus.

Grand Lodge

Hey Mark!

Question concerning incorporeality.

A PC has Gray Goo inside him; the PC activates his Spectral Shroud to become incorporeal.

Is the Gray Goo- inside the PC- also incorporeal?

And, how about the gear? If the sword the PC has is ghost-touched, he may use it against corporeal enemies, correct? Otherwise, no ghost touch means no attacking with that weapon?

Grand Lodge

Ok, the PC has a Spectral Shroud, which turns PC incorporeal.

Would that mean upon activation the PC could move away from the Goo? PC argues the Goo would not be incorporeal.

Grand Lodge

PC has Gray Goo inside him. Can he use teleport to get away, meaning he teleports while the grey goo remains in the space he was in, or does the goo go with him since it's inside him?

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Hi Mark:

Does Freedom of Movement negate any other conditions besides those listed in the spell description?

Freedom of Movement-

"...move and attack normally...even under the influence of magic that usually impedes movement, such as paralysis, solid fog, slow, and web... grappl[ing] the target automatically fail...automatically succeeds on any combat maneuver checks and Escape Artist checks made to escape a grapple or a pin...move and attack normally while underwater,"

For instance, players argue that even mental impediments like being stunned should be negated by FOM. They base this on the phrase in the description "[can] move and attack normally...even under the influence of magic that usually impedes movement"

Grand Lodge

Avoron, I'm thinking you're correct. It seems to me to be a direct impediment due to magic effecting the PC.

With FOM the listed conditions would obviously be covered, but for further reference if the movement impediment is indirect then FOM would not work?

Grand Lodge

But is the magic effecting the weapon, or the PC?

The dazed condition can be said to impede movement, too, but I'd argue FOM doesn't work with that.

At first I thought it may be the weapon is locked in place (it is) and the reason the strength check saving throw is to break away from the weapon.

For instance, the PC's cloak is pinned through with the weapon which goes into the ground. So the save here is made to tear away; but that wouldn't make too much sense, either, because ripped a cloak seems a lot easier than a DC 30.

For those thinking FOM doesn't work on anchoring, I'd like to point out that Anchoring is not only effecting the weapon, but the target, too, because it says the weapon prevents it from moving. The weapon itself cannot possibly do this, so magic is indeed involved. If it were only the weapon, the DC, it would seem to me, would be variable.

Now, also, another point is can't the target simply grasp the pinned weapon and turn off the function? I'd say no, as the magic has already been activated by the user and can only be turned off by the original user; otherwise the ability would be completely pointless. Plus, the ability uses the Immovable Rod functionality, which states only the "owner" may de-/activate.

But if it was magic that was effecting the PC, why wouldn't a magic saving throw be required, rather than a Strength save?

Of course, we could get into the mess of what "magically impedes movement" and FOM.

Grand Lodge

How does Freedom of Movement interact with anchoring weapons?

For instance, an enemy with an anchoring weapon uses it on a PC who has Freedom of Movement.

Grand Lodge

How does Freedom of Movement interact with anchoring weapons?

For instance, an enemy with an anchoring weapon uses it on a PC who has Freedom of Movement.

1 to 50 of 454 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

©2002–2016 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.