wraithstrike's page

Adamantine Dragon wrote:

Witches with slumber hex is playing the game on easy mode.

Unless undead, constructs, oozes, dragons, elves,half-eleves plant monsters etc. Sleep immunity is incredibly common.

Those monsters are rare enough that sleep is not normally an issue, and half-elves are not immune to sleep. They don't get "everything" elves get. They should however get the immunity to the ghoul's paralysis since it calls out elves.

3 people marked this as a favorite.

I thought Ciretose and AdAstraGames were saying the same things. -->The amatuer has no time restriction, and even with one they "might" come up with something really good, but the professional due to limitations is better not only because of their ideas, but because they do it on a deadline.

What's the difference between affecting a living target by hitting them in the breastplate and hitting the breastplate lying unattended on the ground? How does the spell distinguish if it's "intended" to hit the creature or the object? Magic, that's how.

That is nice, but you need to quote rules in the Rules forum. So far the closest anyone has come is Ravingdork, and his findings suggest you need to make it into a melee attack.

3 people marked this as a favorite.

Actually it is not that easy to be a game designer, because you have to be able to appeal to almost everyone no matter their style of play, and with the houserules I see suggested by some of the people here the ability to appeal to wide audience is something they don't have.

I also see a lot of people with blinders on, and they like to make arguments based on contrived situations. Yeah they have fun at their home games, but designing for the masses is not their forte.

Being an expert is also about being able to read the market and give them what they desire. Knowing the RAW and being good at math are not enough.

Many of the better game designers not only need to have an understanding of mechanics so they make classes, feats and so on, but you have to be able to write stories also, at least for Paizo.

Most people can do neither, some can do one OR the other. Few can do both.

Yeah it requires a lot of natural talent, and it is not something you can really learn in a college. With that said I think the word "professional" fits better than expert.

A lot of the times rules are argued from a the point of a player who wants to do something.

Remember the rules work the same for NPC's, and PC's, and ask yourself "is it ok/fair if the GM does this to me"?

With that aside the rules presented by RD seem to indicate you need a way to make disintegrate into a melee attack. The magus can do it with one of it's arcanas.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

You cannot compare sports (which are based off physical performance) to writing up a set of rules (which is based off mental factors), Ciretose. That's not even comparing apples to oranges. It's more like comparing apples to freaking grenades. Also, name some examples of those incompetent people shouting about their poorly planned out ideas instead of just stating something with nothing to back it up. Because really, I have seen people who do a better job than Paizo ever has and who never got paid for it (or have their works ignored because it's 3PP), Kirth being one of them, while you are here claiming these people are a myth.

And once again I say I can make a better fighter than the PF fighter because I don't have a deadline. However if I had to go up against SKR or Jason in a contest while creating a new class with a short deadline I am sure that at least 9 out 10 times my idea will not be chosen.

That is not a knock against Kirth, but it is the likely result when some of us non-professional that know the rules are up against against an established professional.

Real life situation: I was in the military, and some contractor with a master's degree in engineering was trying for 8+ hours to fix one of our electronics systems. Well he left, and less than 20 minutes later I fixed the problem, and no, I was not standing over his shoulder watching what he had already tried.
I am sure that even though I had my one moment of glory you had better odds of going with the engineer when something broke down.

Conclusion: They exist, but they rare enough to almost be a myth.

The Slumber and Cackle hexes are the only real outliers in terms of power, IMO. I don't like using the word "broken", though.

Evil Eye is pretty powerful. Then you cackle after that so it never ends. :)

Feeblemind has specific langauge so your GM is correct. If it said in addition to break enchantment or in addition to normal means then break enchantment would work also.

I guess Paizo will he to do an FAQ on O vs nothing. smdh

You can no more expend 0 LoH than you can cast 0 spells.

wraithstrike wrote:

Ashiel wrote:

There are many people here who wouldn't be caught dead publishing something like Prone Shooter, Vow of Poverty, Elephant Stomp, etc.

There also ideas some of these people would never have thought of that are good. Every developer lays an egg sometimes, even after creating something that the masses loves, and even those of us who would never be consistant at putting out quality work will come up with something really good.

Is that why everyone is freaking out? 'Cause I mentioned that devs can write crappy rules too? Sheesh. Apparently everyone missed the entirety of the point. The point was that people are people. There's nothing about being a developer that makes you infallible. If there was there wouldn't be hundreds of unofficial bugfixes for various PC games all over the place (Bioware/Black Isle released some of the greatest RPGs of all time but there are many fan-released bug-fixes that make their games function as intended).

I haven't stopped buying Paizo products. I never said "lulz paizo sucks and dey can't write rulz". I made a passing comment about what Gnomersy said about them being human and commenting that there are lots of people out there who aren't professionals who have better material available and BAM, suddenly everyone's in a tizzy.

But then again I'm also not going to pretend like they don't write some pretty crappy stuff sometimes. And when I say "they" I mean "Paizo's staff (which includes freelancers)" because to my knowledge they don't stamp the name of the designer on each section that they wrote in a sourcebook, which means literally everything they publish regardless of who wrote it or why will reflect on Paizo. That's life.

It's also one of the reasons that I agree being a publisher would not be cake.

I am not freaking out, but your post did not come across the way you intended. :)

There are many people here who wouldn't be caught dead publishing something like Prone Shooter, Vow of Poverty, Elephant Stomp, etc.

There also ideas some of these people would never have thought of that are good. Every developer lays an egg sometimes, even after creating something that the masses loves, and even those of us who would never be consistant at putting out quality work will come up with something really good.

The key to greatness in any occupation is consistency. The guy who averages 10 points a game, but occasionally scores 30 points will never be as valuable as the guy who gives you 20 points night in and night out.

PS: I am sure I can create a better fighter than the PF fighter, but I don't have a deadline to meet either.

PS2: Ok last PS... :)
I am not saying they give us perfection. I still don't agree with vital strike being a standard action that can not be used with a charge, but all points must be considered, and often they are not.

Oh, and I dont care for VoP either.. :)

I think another broad assumption by the 3e devs that seems to be carried over to Pathfinder is to overrate spontaneous casting.

PF did not overrate it. They were well aware of the wizard's power over the sorcerer, but part of the appeal and marketing plan was backward compatibility with 3.5, so they could only change so much if they wanted to bring the 3.5 crowd over. Some things they could have changed more, but it is hard to tell at times what they could and could not get away with.

When it says an new ability replaces an original ability that is gained at level X you get the new ability at the same level you would have gotten the original ability at.

As an example if I say ____ replaces the 8th level rogue talent then I get the ability at level 8 in place of the rogue talent I would normally get to select.

Yeah they should have specified that you get it at 8th level since most archetypes spell it out, but it is just an oversight. It does need to errata's however so FAQ'ing it is not a bad idea, if for no other reason than to maintain consistency.

I was playing a game as a Witch, basic build, I really cant remember it right now but the part I DO remember is having picked the Sleep hex.

I voluntarily retired the character after we got to the leader of the band of bad guys (the boss fight), I got within 30 feet, Sleep Hexxed him, he rolled a 1 on the Will, the rest of the party walked up and coupe-de-graced him to death

Now I get you play as a spellcaster , you can get the Sleep spell, but that has a hard limit of 4 HD. The Sleep Hex doesnt.

There was another guy who made a Witch who knew every single first level spell (I cant remember how but it was all legal, our DM went over it with a fine toothed comb when he say how thick his spell list was).

This class seems to need some fine tuning to make it in line with the rest. Is that just our limited experiences?

Most of the new classes seem to have this issue. They just dont seem to scale well in comparison with the rest of the base classes

The witch is not broken. It can be annoying for a GM that likes to use single creature encounters though, due to sleep and evil eye. As for knowing every first level spell it is possible, but he has to pay for the spells, just like a wizard would.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Enlarge is liked by many of us. It makes you stronger and the weapon base damage in increase. It also gives you reach.

To expand a bit on that Vol angle, years ago Keith Baker and I were having a conversation about Erandis and we both agreed that she isn't so much the mustache twirling villain that the books that went to print sometimes portrayed her as. She was, in effect, a teenage girl who was forcibly turned into a lich and could never come back to life thanks to the means of magic used to transform her.

Therefore, given that Keith and I both like the idea that when you become undead you get "stuck" in the mindset you were in while alive (discussed at length in Libris Mortis in 3.5) it makes Erandis d'Vol a much more sympathetic character. She is imprisoned in the mindset (and physical appearance) of a young woman. While her knowledge may have expanded over the 7,000ish years she has been undead, she is still at heart a young girl who just wants to live. A young girl who was murdered because of her bloodline.

Taking Carrion Crown and injecting that sorrowful story into it could really be exciting and tragic. And tragedy, after all, is the heart of all good horror stories.

Nice.. I like it. :)

It is not so much that it has a per day limit, but it does have a restriction based on you needing LoH to activate it.
No LOH= no activation..

So if you can find a way to recharge your LOH before the end of the day you could use it again.

you can expend all of your remaining uses of lay on hands to deal extra damage equal to 1d6 per use of lay on hands expended + your Charisma bonus.

What happens when you spend all of your LOH's?

You deal extra damage equal to "1d6 per use of lay on hands expended + your Charisma bonus."

The ability does not separate the two. There is no comma or other grammatical structuring to support the LOH damage and the charisma damage being seperate.

So unless it is stated otherwise it is all or nothing.

Now if the feat said "You deal extra damage equal to your Charisma bonus, and in addition if you expend all of your LOH's you also deal additional damage equal to 1d6 per use of lay on hands expended" then the OP might have a valid case.

However it is not written like that.

edit:fixed

1 person marked this as a favorite.

With that aside you already know they plan to clarify some things about stealth so this is kind of pointless. Just wait until they give their answer, and if they miss anything we can ask them about that. More than likely it will be in a blog, like they did for poisons. When they do these blogs they generally stick around to answer other questions.

Since your 4 questions are at the root of stealth and invis they have to be answered anyway.

The devs dont like multiquestion FAQs..

They have stated that each question should have its own FAQ.

Yeah I know it seems easier to put all the questions in one place, but for them it is not. I don't know why. I just know that is what they said.

2 people marked this as a favorite.

1) How do you all have fun playing a game with so many problems (according to the forums)? Seriously, it's just complaining and arguing with some good stuff thrown in. If people have problems with so much of the design, why do so many people play it?

2)Developers: In looking through all the whining, it seems that Rogue, Fighter, and ESPECIALLY Monk seem to come up ALOT. I get not being able to please everyone all the time, but why have these not been updated or boosted when they seem to be pretty consistently lambasted? Any chance it's in the works?

I guess I'm just afraid to thrust my players into a year-long campaign in a game where someone could be doing next-to-nothing in 4 months compared to the other players or one person runs the group (besides the GM).

1. It is not really that bad, and that is coming from one of the man poeple you see debating here. Don't confuse tableplay with theory crafting on the boards, and difference in playstule, which is mostly what a lot of the debates amount to.

2. They are not getting updated, and they do work fine in games. Them not working is not an issue until you get to much higher levels. People just want them to be able to do more, but that "doing more" is not an issue until you get a high level of system mastery. Before that you won't notice the problems.

PS: Some people never get to that level of system mastery, and that is not exactly a bad thing.

PS2: Many people's system mastery is nowhere near as good as they think it is. So take some of the quotes with a grain of salt, unless it is backed by hard data.

Prestige classes that advance caster levels only advance spells casting abilities, not class features.

The bard can do decent damage. The question is how much damage do you want to be able to do. If you just want to do enough to be a threat you can do it with a bard, but if you want damage dealing to be your main thing, then the bard is not the way to go.

ok..I was hoping it was an item for the normal game..Thanks.

As for 3 I think it depends on how the author meant for it to work. It could be one affect that kills them and immediately bring them back to life meaning it should work as a simultaneous affect.

On the other hand it could be intended as two effects in one ability that kills them, and then brings them back to life.

Note that my second explanation has a comma.

So the question is does it "kills them and...." or does it "kills them, and..".

As written it has not comma so it is all one affect. As an example if I have an effect/spell/etc that kills you and brings you back as a vampire, but you are immune to ever becoming a vampire I can see the argument that the spell/effect/etc fails to work.

Also from the way I am reading it the reincarnation spell is not cast. It is just being referenced so you know how the ability works.

PS:I am not sure about how this is supposed to work so I did FAQ it. The lack of a comma may have been a grammatical error.

I think it varies by group, and as long as everyone is comfortable with it then it works.

When I bring something I try to bring enough for everyone.

So, while wearing this item on my face, there should be no hindrance in using it with either Spellstrike or Spell Combat?

No. All the rod does is supply the feat, so if the item in question just supplies the metamagic feat it won't be an issue.

Not related to the thread-->I still can't find the item and I checked the PRD and PFSRD. What book is it in?

TriOmegaZero wrote:

Bomanz wrote:

LOL but again, we ALL know that real world examples and experiences don't mean a hill of those warm stinky butt tootsie rolls my dog leaves on the carpet.

Monks and Rogues suck.

Except when they don't.

Could you answer the question posed to you here?

Dabbler wrote:

Does only positive real-world experience count, then? We say the monk is a weak class, we have played it and found it a weak class, and we can crunch the numbers to prove it. You say the monk is not a weak class, that you have experience of it not being a weak class in game, so please deliver the numbers that prove it - I'd LOVE to find a way to make monks that didn't suck badly in most boss encounters over 10th level (based on my experience of playing a monk in CotCT among others).

I'll post builds tomorrow or tuesday. I need to contact the players and get their sheets.

bump

Either way, it's a really cool item, both thematically and functionally, but it's like 13k gold, so I want to make sure it works with a Magus before I buy it.

What is the item? I am not asking for the purpose of this thread. I am asking for myself as a player and GM. :)

So let's look at Rod Wielder.

Rod Wielder (Su): The magus adds his Intelligence bonus (minimum 0) on caster level checks made to overcome spell resistance when using a spell contained within a rod or when making a spellstrike attack channeled through a rod.

It refers to spellstrike and attacks channeled through rods.

Spellstrike (Su): At 2nd level, whenever a magus casts a spell with a range of “touch” from the magus spell list, he can deliver the spell through any weapon he is wielding as part of a melee attack. Instead of the free melee touch attack normally allowed to deliver the spell, a magus can make one free melee attack with his weapon (at his highest base attack bonus) as part of casting this spell. If successful, this melee attack deals its normal damage as well as the effects of the spell. If the magus makes this attack in concert with spell combat, this melee attack takes all the penalties accrued by spell combat melee attacks. This attack uses the weapon's critical range (20, 19–20, or 18–20 and modified by the keen weapon property or similar effects), but the spell effect only deals ×2 damage on a successful critical hit, while the weapon damage uses its own critical modifier.

Now we know spellstrike only delivers spells through weapons, and it never calls out metamagic rods which are not weapons anyway, but are there rods that are weapons?

Well yes.

Physical Description: Rods weigh approximately 5 pounds. They range from 2 feet to 3 feet long and are usually made of iron or some other metal. (Many, as noted in their descriptions, can function as light maces or clubs due to their hardy construction.) These sturdy items have AC 9, 10 hit points, hardness 10, and a break DC of 27.

So some rods are weapons and some are not, depending on their description.

-------------------------------------------------------
We know spellstrike only works with weapons as general rule.

We know that some rods are weapons, but they are called out.

Conclusion: So rod wielder works with rods that contain spells or rods(those that are weapons) used with spellstrike to deliver spells.

Now since there is no rule exception that allows for non-weapons to be used with spell strike and no rule exception allowing the metamagic rod to suddenly be used as a weapon the rod weilder ability should not apply to metamagic rod.

What face slot item works like a rod?

The rules never say the metamagic rod stores the spell or delivers the spell.

Metamagic rods hold the essence of a metamagic feat, allowing the user to apply metamagic effects to spells (but not spell-like abilities) as they are cast. This does not change the spell slot of the altered spell. All the rods described here are use-activated (but casting spells in a threatened area still draws an attack of opportunity). A caster may only use one metamagic rod on any given spell, but it is permissible to combine a rod with metamagic feats possessed by the rod's wielder. In this case, only the feats possessed by the wielder adjust the spell slot of the spell being cast.

Possession of a metamagic rod does not confer the associated feat on the owner, only the ability to use the given feat a specified number of times per day. A sorcerer still must take a full-round action when using a metamagic rod, just as if using a metamagic feat he possesses (except for quicken metamagic rods, which can be used as a swift action).

Lesser and Greater Metamagic Rods: Normal metamagic rods can be used with spells of 6th level or lower. Lesser rods can be used with spells of 3rd level or lower, while greater rods can be used with spells of 9th level or lower.

As you can see the metamagic rods don't mention channeling. Only the magus does so the question should not be how metamagic rods work.

The question should be how does the magus ability "Rod wielder" work.

edit:for clarity

There are interactive maps that allow you to not show which rooms are marked as secret.

That is the general consensus.

In game it works like a normal spell, but the rod provides the feat for you. "Channeling through the rod..." is basically flavor text.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

The spell would make it too easy to destroy things and the game has rules on sunder. That makes me believe the RAI is to target the target not his equipment.

Since there are no rules for targeting worn equipment with spells unless the spell in question says you can, it seems to me that you can not.

Hey, judging by wraithstrikes comment, I wonder if he would get into Golarion as a new player, if he would have the choice to do so right now. There's already so many materials to buy and read and understand...

I would, but only because I the way Golarion is done is to make it so that the amount of canonism is not that much, and a lot of it is left to the GM as to where his Golarion is on the timeline.

With that aside having the notice DC be 10 points lower than the perception DC to be pinpointed seems like a better idea.

Example:

Get rid of the DC 20 to notice rule.

If some guy clunking around in armor requires a DC 21 to be pinpointed, then the DC to notice him would only be an 11.

OR

Get rid of the notice rule altogether.

wraithstrike wrote:

How don't the spot checks match up with PF? If I missed something let me know what it is. Every thing I have quoted with reference to spot has matched up.

Again from that same article:

The Table under Spot Check DCs
<Reformatted to hopefully make readable here>
Invisible Thing Notice DC Locate DC

Active Creature 20 40

Living Creature 30 50
Holding Still

Inanimate Object 40 60

Obviously PF only has immobile and active. And doesn't allow notice on non-active, while 3.5 made it harder. Nor does the 30 DC for holding still match the +40 for not moving.
And just above it says explicitly

Quote:

The DC for actually pinpointing an invisible thing's location so that you know where to aim an attack is 20 points higher.

That is not the entire quote.

Considerable confusion often arises regarding how difficult a Spot check to notice or locate an invisible thing is; the latter is much harder than most people realize. That's because the basic Spot DCs noted in the Dungeon Master's Guide are for merely noticing that there's something unseen somewhere within 30 feet. The DC for actually pinpointing an invisible thing's location so that you know where to aim an attack is 20 points higher.

It is not saying the pinpoint DC is always 20 points higher. It was just explaining the difference between the DMG which only gave the notice DC, and the perception DC due t confusion that was caused.

In short it is 20 points higher to pintpoint than the DMG DC's. That is all it is saying.

I would it needs to specifically say it bypasses reincarnation's rule. Otherwise there is no trumping. As an example a spell that forces an undead creature to make a fort save would have to specially say it affects undead, assuming the spell does not work on objects.

having only played in the original Runelords, yes, it was pretty deadly. we suffered painfully (no big need for Coup de Grace then), and stopped playing the AP after issue #4 for something more interesting. And yes, IMHO the new version has been significantly updated in deadliness.

As for CdG..... I am not fond of it, and usually, most of my NPCs will "full attack"" helpless NPCs (being unaware of the rules concept - you know, that seems a bit Meta )......

It has nothing to do with being aware of the rules than knowing the effort a full attack takes. The coup de grace is nothing more than a carefully lined up shot to a vital area. It makes sense that it would take more time than a standard swing, and also increase the chance of death.

If I take 3 swings at you with an dagger or I line up one shot to try to cut an artery, the one shot is more likely to kill you.

Arnwyn wrote:

Tangent101 wrote:

Going around and brutally killing characters "because it's the smart thing for the villain to do" does not make for a fun game for the players.

Be careful of overgeneralizing, and be careful of pretending that what you say applies to anyone outside of your particular group (or experience).

Do you honestly need me to hold your hand and put a damn "in my opinion" on every bloody thing I say?

There are some who sprout there opinion as facts there so if you word it as a fact, then it will be viewed that way.

So now you have 2 options, you can stop wording your opinions as facts or you can accept that every time you do someone will take it as you stating a fact and speak against it.

I'll give one more example. :)

"Wakdown goes into example but I will cut it down to make room to answer his questions

Now, you as the GM have a very personal decision to make.

Do you have all 3 ghouls perform coup-de-gras actions against John?

In 20 minutes, when John's character is dead - is he going to think you're a better GM because you did so?

It depends on John. I have known a few Johns that would be upset or at least less than happy if I allows them to live so I can YES to this question. The John's you play with may thank you for allowing them to live. In short it will vary by player.

John will know this is a personal decision you made. The ghouls absolutely did not have to kill his character. One could've dragged his ass back to the barn while the others shambled ahead to attack the rest of the party.

It is not personal at all, and ghouls are smart, or at least no dumb. Why do people keep forgetting that?

If they try to drag him off his buddies will lose action economy, and they might die. The his "food's" friends will most likely kill him before he enjoys his meal. It is more logical to kill all of the PC's except one, and once they paralyze the last one, they can eat him alive. :)

Trust me, John's nervous as hell. If the John at your table says "dude, kill my character with a couple CdGs, I crave the danger" ... you shouldn't hold back.

My john's do for the most part, and when I am John I except my PC's fate with no hard feelings. Now it is not that I don't care about my PC, but I know that victory and a long life are far from a given, and that any day on the field of battle may be his last. In the end my sacrifice will have most likely saved many others. Hopefully someone else(the new PC) can step into my shoes and continue the fight. Having died with valor, while staring evil in the face is an end that one would rather endure, but it is not something any PC of mine will ever be ashamed of.

But I've seen enough Johns come to forums and ask questions like "would a group of ghouls perform CdGs while there are other characters actively threatening them?"

I'd suggest the folks asking these questions aren't playing with a GM they've known 20 years, because... well, folks who have been gaming together for 20 years don't usually second-guess their GM.

Most people are surprised to know that ghouls are more intelligent than the average person. I first came across this exact question over 5 years ago in the WotC forums. I was surprised myself, but upon checking the ghoul's stats Int 13, Wis 14, Cha 14, I had to say the wisdom alone, which accounts for awareness would support the coup de grace, so it is not a question of questioning a GM. It is a question of "would NPC X realistically do _____".

My point is I'd hesitate on the ghoul pack CdG unless you personally know the player very well and are confident he prefers that over the alternative.

The best games are about trust, this is one of the things that *could* erode trust, so it's a topic that deserves pause.

My advice is really for GMs early in their career more than anything. If you barely know your players, I'd think it's better to err away from the CdG than towards it. Those of you playing 20+ years who have a group that has acknowledged they want "hardcore mode" aren't really in a "need advice" category and should be well acquainted with high mortality rates.

You are assuming we don't know the players well enough. With that aside I don't have to know you well in order to allow your PC to die. Now I generally don't do that on the first session, but I do try to give an impression of how combat can go at times. That way you know the words in my GM campaign guide about allowing you to die are not just words. From there you(the player) can decide if this is a game you want to play in. I know my games are not for everyone, but neither are games where the GM holds back. I have played under a GM that refused to allow anyone to die, and while I think he was a nice guy, it was a boring series of sessions. I specifically game him permission to kill my character, even if he allowed the others to live, but he just couldn't do it.

It is neither better or worse to coup de grace. It is better to game with those of a like-mind however so the coup de grace, and other SoD affects don't cause an issue.

PS:Now if a group really insisted on no SoD affects then I might take them off the table completely.

Artanthos wrote:

Arbane the Terrible wrote:

Peter Stewart wrote:

As has always been, and will always be, the case, the power of a given class depends entirely upon the GM in question and the player in question. Trying to rank them is a fool's errand.

I don't agree. It's a simple statement of fact. At level 1, the wizard's casting Color Spray, and the fighter is hitting things with a sword. At level 20, the wizard is casting Prismatic Sphere, summoning demons, teleporting across the world and controlling minds, and the fighter is... hitting things with a sword really well.

There's definitely a quantifiable disparity here.

That is your fighter.

My high level fighter is teleporting across the world, self-buffing, self-healing, banishing, generally giving casters nightmares and hitting things with sword really well.

Because you have unlimited money?

Aranthos you have just been called out. I think he indirectly just said "post a build or go home".

Monsters in the book also summon. It will affect them. I don't see the point in banning it. Just make the players be ready. If they don't have the monster's stats ready they cant use that monster.

wraithstrike wrote:

thejeff wrote:

You can't just look at the Hide rules, because Stealth is a combination of Hide and Move Silently.

The wording in the invis(PF) matches the spot checks, since PF does not have them seperated we have to go by what we have.

3.5 gave you the option of the spot or listen chick so even meeting the lower DC would work. That lower DC is what you should expect to see in PF.
PS:I did not check the listen section since the numbers dont match up between 3.5 and PF like spot does.

Actually the Spot check section doesn't match your version of the PF rules.

The Notice/Locate goes up for holding still, which you have said doesn't happen.
The Pinpoint tracks directly as +20 to Locate.

You can't ignore the listen section. The skills were merged together. When you use Stealth while Invisible in PF, it's much more like Move Silently than Hiding. You don't need something to hide behind, like you did in 3.5, for example.
The Listen section does match the PF rules, just without any bonus for being invisible, since that doesn't matter to listening. There is a +20DC to Pinpoint someone using Listen. The DC to notice is just the Move Silently check with movement/noise modifiers.

When they rolled them together they made it one check, with a base 20 to notice, like the Spot check and kept the further +20 to pinpoint.

How don't the spot checks match up with PF? If I missed something let me know what it is. Every thing I have quoted with reference to spot has matched up.

Bigdaddyjug wrote:

Dr Grecko wrote:

Bigdaddyjug wrote:

Dr Grecko wrote:

Bigdaddyjug wrote:

Then my argument would be no noticing, no pinpointing. The +20 for pinpointing is obviously added onto the notice DC. So if there is no notice DC, there is no pinpoint DC. You shouldn't be able to pinpoint something you can't notice.

As somebody said upthread, "I have no idea if anything is nearby, but whatever it is is RIGHT THERE!!!"

Just skimmed this thread and it may have been mentioned, but here is my response to the bold above:

I think it's safe to say. If you've pinpointed someone, you notice them.

I think it's safe to say that the rules allow for pinpointing beyond 30 ft, but not just noticing. So no, that is not safe to say.

My point is that noticing is subsumed into pinpoint. If you pinpoint someone, you've obviously noticed them. If you didn't pinpoint them, there's a chance you can notice them (within 30').

However, the rules seem to say that beyond 30 ft, you cannot notice someone but you can pinpoint them.

We are not using the dictionary version of "notice", and I don't think you have to be able to notice them to pinpoint them. BigDaddyjug is looking at it as if one is needed for the other, but the rules don't see it that way.

I did provide him with a rules quote so I think he agrees. He just does not like the idea.

wraithstrike wrote:

thejeff wrote:

You can't just look at the Hide rules, because Stealth is a combination of Hide and Move Silently.

The wording in the invis(PF) matches the spot checks, since PF does not have them seperated we have to go by what we have.

3.5 gave you the option of the spot or listen chick so even meeting the lower DC would work. That lower DC is what you should expect to see in PF.
PS:I did not check the listen section since the numbers dont match up between 3.5 and PF like spot does.

So you used the numbers that supported your argument but ignore the ones that didn't?

It is not about "my" argument. I use the numbers that translated across editions of the game. I don't care what RAW is. If RAW does not make sense I will just houserule it, so I have no real need to be right.

You can't just look at the Hide rules, because Stealth is a combination of Hide and Move Silently.

The wording in the invis(PF) matches the spot checks, since PF does not have them seperated we have to go by what we have.

3.5 gave you the option of the spot or listen chick so even meeting the lower DC would work. That lower DC is what you should expect to see in PF.
PS:I did not check the listen section since the numbers dont match up between 3.5 and PF like spot does.

Yes, but my thought is that the distinction may come in having it be a WILLING transformation, it says "has been turned undead" in my mind that is an unwilling transformation by another, like when a skeleton is raised. It's more f a philisophical question than a rules one.

You can be turned dead by voluntary or involuntary means. Even from a non-rules perspective I don't see why it could not work if you wanted to return to life.

As an example you could allow your vampire friend to turn you. That counts as willing to me, and you would be more perma-destroyed than if you were turned against your will.

Maybe after living as a vampire you really hate it, just as much as if you had been forced to be one.

I love the way you're calling the thread pointless while watching it for a reason.

I knew you were going to say that. I am saying it is pointless to an extent. That does not mean it won't be entertaining.

PS:I also said it might have a use since the new classes were not in the old discussion.. :)