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

Pathfinder Beginner Box

Pathfinder Adventure Card Game

Pathfinder Comics

Pathfinder Legends

Petition: I nominate Ashiel to work for Paizo as Rules Consultant


Off-Topic Discussions

401 to 450 of 951 << first < prev | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | next > last >>

I dunno I've seen a lot of those Ashiel threads have a big disclaimer on top that it's just munchkin theory crafting. Anyway I didn't start this thread to upset anyone. Obviously there are loads of good people on here, raving dork, wraith strike, adamantine dragon, evil Lincoln, Abraham Spaulding, many more. I just happened to use a lot of Ashiel's advice from a few threads lately and they really upped my game, so I wanted to give Ashiel a shout out. It wasn't meant to be this controversial thing with hurt feelings.

Andoran

100% kosher. I just personally reserve that level of applause for people like Treantmonk and am being Devil's Advocate here.

Lord knows I shouldn't be telling anyone what to post and what not to post as a thread.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
ciretose wrote:
Grimmy wrote:
ciretose wrote:
Grimmy wrote:
And I wouldn't say anyone was being difficult on purpose suggesting there wouldn't be a check, because it's not obvious to me at all, or wraith strike for that matter, because of that funny little word, "active". I am still having a hard time thinking of the ghaele who is standing there completely still, as "active".
The difficult on purpose was when someone deciding having the creature close to melee with a Barbarian with DR/6 when it has a ranged attack that ignores damage reduction while giving it concealment and allowing it to stay invisible made sense.
I don't know anything about that, I didnt see that part at all. But do you really think it was intended to piss you off? Maybe, I don't know, you two seem to have some weird chemistry, but I don't get how giving an imaginary monster bad tactics could be a personal attack.

I don't think it was intended to piss me off at all. I don't think Ashiel is malicious or anything like that.

I think it was trying to set up a scenario to prove a point he believes to be true rather than setting up a scenario to test if what he believes is true. And given that Ashiel does know the rules very well, I don't think it was an accident that the scenario proposed so clearly ignored exploiting the Barbarians weaknesses while trying to showcase the Monks.

As I said in the thread, what frustrates me about Ashiel is that someone who has so much rules knowledge who could be so helpful in analyzing scenarios and rules instead pours so much attention to finding loopholes and exploits. Discussions with him tend to stop being about testing ideas and more about finding ways to show he is right and how many rules he knows.

He could be a great poster if he used his knowledge to test theories rather than prove his beliefs. But it is kind of like arguing with a creationist at times. The theory comes before the evidence, and then he works to make them fit.

Ashiel agree'd with me when I said something like, "The more I look at the Ghaele, the more I think it's too powerful for it's CR". I don't think Ashiel looked at the monster and pondered about all the possible tactics it could use, he simply calculated the most favorable method to both classes. If the Ghaele decided to turn into a Light Form and shot lazers until you died while Invsibile, there is nothing you can do against it.

You can't find it, you can't get to it, you can't hurt it. Therefore, turning into Light, shooting lazers, and being Invisible is the best bet against nearly all classes, including the Monk. You can't grapple an Incorporeal cloud of light, you can't Trip an Incorporeal cloud of light, you can't Disarm an Incorporeal cloud of light. You can't see the Incorporeal cloud of light because it's got Greater Invisibility on.

You pointed out the Flying/Lazer thing, but it doesn't benefit either class at all. The Monk and party would still lose, and so would the Barbarian and party, but this time, it would take longer and the Ghaele would take less damage. So putting the Ghaele in melee is actually the best chance either party has.

ciretose wrote:
Grimmy wrote:
Just think of it like this.. Every loophole or exploit that is found can be patched, even if it's just staying one step ahead of munchkin players with the house rules. I know it takes forever for faq and errata. But you can tell your GM about an exploit so they can ban it.
But he then argues they aren't exploits or loopholes. This is why I don't have a problem with Ravingdork. When he figures out something is broken he goes "Look how broken this is!" where as Ashiel will go "The Devs totally wanted players to have genie simulacrums and +1 ability items. It would be cruel not to allow it."

This, this right here is my biggest issue Ciretose. You completely ignored Ashiel's post on that subject, simply so you can dislike him more. Ashiel pointed out the Simulacrum issue a long time ago. Ashiel also said it was broken as hell, and posted an alternate spell specifically to get rid of things like infinite wishes. But you don't care about that. You don't care that Ashiel posted a patch for the Devs to implement, which they then ignored. You simply care that Ashiel pointed it out at all.

Ashiel gives tons of great advice on innumerable numbers of threads and subjects. But damned near every time I happen to read a thread, and you're commenting on Ashiel's posts, you are commenting on how Ashiel promotes the uses of Simulacrum + Wishes for power gaming. You try and tear apart Ashiel's posts claiming he's a power gamer, a min-maxer, a munchkiner. Then you try and pass it off as 'I wish he wasn't that way as Ashiel knows a lot of rules and could be a big help if he wasn't always gaming the system'.

You're acting like most mass-media companies and miss-quoting everything Ashiel says out of context. I'm sure you'll bring up Dragons in armor, even though Ashiel pointed out that a Dragon wearing armor was actually the least optimal thing it could do as it has access to spells that give better defenses, but don't stack with the armor, such as Mage Armor.

You seem to have difficulty of reading any post Ashiel makes, without viewing it as some attempt to game the system, or twist everything into the most optimal light for his argument he can. You are so biased against Ashiel, that I seriously think the Mods on this forum should implement some method of completely hiding any and all Ashiel's posts from you being able to see them at all.


Dood, I jUST got done brokering the peace!


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Instead of fighting, someone sum up the invisible teleport passive perception stealth conundrum so we can all FAQ it

Andoran

Grimmy wrote:
Dood, I jUST got done brokering the peace!

Tels is honestly stating his opinion and that is completely kosher IMHO. I don't think it would be wrong to say Tels feels I am very unfair to Ashiel and I feel Tels is...well...excessively fair to Ashiel.

When someone creates a mystery, I don't think they should be surprised when people try to uncover it. As I said, I always assumed Ashiel was female, in part because of sometimes flirtatious tones in some threads and in part because I apparently mis-remembered him saying so in the past (or not, I'm not digging through thousands of posts to try and find it). When I realized it was an open question, I tried to find out. And considering his name is one of his alias and we live in the internet age...

I actually disagree with Tels about the motives of ambiguity, as I think the belief he was a woman helped him quite a bit on the boards thanks to misguided chivalry among the posters (I personally consider myself a feminist, so I give no quarter based on gender), but I do think it is reflective of the larger "I'm not telling you because I want you to figure it out" approach to many of his posts that I find, frankly, irritating.
But Tels and I can disagree without being disagreeable and I have no issue if someone takes issue with me or a position I take, so long as they do so honestly and stay on the up and up about it.

Disagreement is how you challenge ideas in order to find agreement. I just believe it should be honest disagreement.


Fair enough I just thought it was going to get crazy in here again.


Nicos wrote:
Even if the spell make no noise, the creature could make a noise when arriving, like at steping in the ground or something.

You are assuming he is stepping on the ground. I am see it as he is firmly planted on the group not stepping down from a higher altitude. He does not teleport, and then float to the ground.

edit:spelling


Aelryinth wrote:

Logically, on this stealth argument:

How is the teleporter making a Stealth check for an environment it isn't even in?

The Stealth check by rote has to happen AFTER arrival.

Arriving IN the square is definitely an action and an activity...your environment has changed, something is not there that was before, and you are not where you were before. Furthermore, you're going to instantaneously get the Perception check as it arrives, before it can adjust to its new environment and make the Stealth check.

So, the ghaele would teleport in, the characters would instantly get the DC 20 check to notice an invisible creature, and then they'd roll initiative against the Ghaele to see if it gets to make a Stealth Check before they make a dedicated Perception check to see exactly what square it is in.

Letting it make a Stealth check before teleporting is the equivalent of saying "I'm going to roll to hide myself in a shadow I'm not even in yet." The ghaele has no control over the true environment it appears in. It could step on a pebble, dust could fall from overhead, a fly bounce off it, displaced air stir up the dust around it.

Actually, arriving as a teleport, because it's effectively the end of a spell, probably constitutes spellcasting, with a penalty to the stealth roll! After all, you've less control arriving suddenly in a different place/position then if you moved to that location while interacting with your environment.

==Aelryinth

Nope, not correct at all.

Who supported making a stealth check before it teleported?
Why is the word "active" being ignored?
Arriving is not spellcasting.


Grimmy wrote:
Instead of fighting, someone sum up the invisible teleport passive perception stealth conundrum so we can all FAQ it

I agree.


Quote:

Let's start with the beginning:

1) Summoning a Good outsider is a Good spell. Can an evil character even cast one successfully? I couldn't find support either way, although it was a NO in 3.5.

That is false. Clerics could not use spells of the opposing alignment. Arcane casters were never limited by alignment.


ciretose wrote:
Grimmy wrote:
Just think of it like this.. Every loophole or exploit that is found can be patched, even if it's just staying one step ahead of munchkin players with the house rules. I know it takes forever for faq and errata. But you can tell your GM about an exploit so they can ban it.
But he then argues they aren't exploits or loopholes. This is why I don't have a problem with Ravingdork. When he figures out something is broken he goes "Look how broken this is!" where as Ashiel will go "The Devs totally wanted players to have genie simulacrums and +1 ability items. It would be cruel not to allow it."

The RD I know only does that after being pounded(not literally) in the face with rules.


wraithstrike wrote:
Nicos wrote:
Even if the spell make no noise, the creature could make a noise when arriving, like at steping in the ground or something.
You are assuming he is stepping on the ground. I am see it as he is firmed planted on the group not stepping down from a higher altitude. He does not teleport, and then float to the groud.

This is how I see it, he's just sort of... there.


Aelryinth wrote:
This is so wrong on so many levels.

You're right. You are wrong on so many levels. :3 *tongue-in-cheek*

Quote:

Let's start with the beginning:

1) Summoning a Good outsider is a Good spell. Can an evil character even cast one successfully? I couldn't find support either way, although it was a NO in 3.5.

You may want to go re-research this. That's a limiting factor for cleric spells. Wizards, sorcerers, druids, and bards, do not suffer such restrictions.

Quote:

So, let's say for argument's sake, they can.

2) The mage waves the feather of the last angel it 'enslaved' at an angel of chaos and good.
Instant -4 to the mage's charisma check for mocking the principles upon which it stands. Now, if it waved the horns of a Pit Fiend at it, that shows power and dominance. That might get a boost for anathema.

The feather has no actual power. It is merely an object. The geas spell requires the Ghaele to retrieve the feather. However, for each day that the ghaele could not, she suffered a -4 to all her ability scores, to a maximum of -12. The feather has no power. It could have easily have been a spoon, or a porno magazine, or piece of lint. The point is that it's an object that she cannot retrieve. The angel feather bit is purely flavor.

Quote:

3) The Angel, wrenched from its home by corrupted magic, and hundred of years older then the wizard, coolly looks around. First, it notes the wizard, makes the Knowledge (Arcana) check to identify him, and inspects the circle, all in an instant.

Let's say the mage was industrious and put the second magic circle inside the first with Dimensional Anchor, and it can't teleport out.

It rools the Charisma Check and the Will save...two things it gets to do EVERY DAY.
And remember, a nat 20 is ALWAYS A SAVE.

You may wish to actually read planar binding. It does not allow repeated saving throws. Once you are trapped, you have two options. Spell resistance or Charisma check. You can try each once per day. If the summoner has any good sense, then he has already made the correct calling diagram which prevents a spell resistance check completely, and increases the Charisma DC by +5. Good luck with that.

Quote:

It's stuck.

It addresses the wizard by name coldly asking his business. If he actually managed to geas an angel before, the ghaele likely knows ALL ABOUT this rat who thinks he can bind celestials.

Mostly because he can bind celestials. So far, he's doing a damn good job of it.

Quote:

4) Serving an evil spellcaster is akin to voluntary slavery, and violates every precept of being a celestial, let alone an aspect of Chaotic Good. NO MATTER WHAT THE EVIL MAGE THINKS, HE CANNOT BIND THE CELESTIAL TO SERVICE. It will die first.

Service is refused coldly, and the celestial notes that it is contacting its kin to let them know it has imprisoned and by whom, with Commune, contact other plane, sending, or some other such thing. regardless, it is not where it should be, and its fellows are looking for it even now.

It's not really the angel's option. It's a magical compulsion. If you want to get really anal about it, the wizard can just cast charm monster on the enfeebled Ghaele and force her to accept the contract in that manner too. This Ghaele is going to be enslaved. That is what the BBEG is doing, and he's doing it well.

Quote:

5) The mage casts a geas on it.

Wide-eyed, the angel defies the geas and takes the penalty...and steps out of the circle the mage just violated, because casting a spell on the celestial that is not specifically geared to work with a binding ritual violates the boundary of the circle as surely as tossing a rock into it.
Ditto the Spectral Hand/Curse combo.
Nevermind that a sufficently strong Celestial can Limited Wish/Remove Curse away the debuffs instantly.

Neither geas nor spectral hand disturb the summoning circle inscribed on the ground. Tossing a rock into doesn't violate the boundary. Only by breaking the seal on the floor does the barrier break. He's doing neither in both cases.

Quote:
If this stricture is not in place, then Binding becomes a euphemism for Summon and Murder, because a spellcaster would simply summon outsiders of the opposite alignment who oppose them, and while they are Bound, simply destroy them from perfect safety. You CANNOT cast spells on the bound beings that are not specifically set aside to work within the binding parameters.

Got a citation for that? Because the spell does not say that at all.

Quote:
And does not Protection From Evil, which they all radiate/can cast, suppress the compulsion completely?

It's not a mind-affecting compulsion or enchantment. So no. Might block the charm monster though, which would be help to hold out resisting longer.

Quote:
6) The wizard, realizing he's about to be very stupid, leaves the angel to stew, since he can't do anything more then an opposed Charisma Check backed by power items. Secure in the belief he'll eventually win it, and ignorant of the fact that he absolutely CANNOT GAIN the service of a celestial for his schemes as an 'unreasonable request', he stalks out to get a few more icons of evil to buff his charisma check.

Unreasonable is not exactly well defined. If we go with consistent, suicidal would probably fit. However, simply declaring something unreasonable isn't going to stop the spell. One could say it's unreasonable to ask anything of an outsider.

Quote:
7) The ghaele sits patiently down, and once a day for the next few days, makes a spiritual check and a Will save to get out of the circle. The wizard, festooning himself in icons of power, is outraged when the angel keeps ignoring his requests.

Except it gets no will save each day, and will assuredly fail the Charisma check. See above.

Quote:
On the fifth day, on average, the wizard comes in, and his jaw drops to find his completely unreasonable summoned angel gone from the circle, as a result of rolling high on the opposed check, with a nat 20 on the Will save automatically winning against even the most unfavorable circumstances. If you want to contain a celestial permanently, you will have to Trap the Soul on it...it even references it in the Binding spell for long term containment.

Nope.

Quote:
8) The wizard resolves to summon up some devils or demons that won't find his demands unreasonable, and he's already got an angel feather to give him +2 on the check. The fact a very angry Ghaele celestial is out there spreading word of him to all and sundry, and what he wanted it to do, is a niggling worry at the back of his head that he shoves down in his irritation and arrogance.

You think that devils and demons would find his demands more reasonable? Doubtful.

Quote:

And that's why evil spellcasters don't try to Planar Bind celestials...it's a complete exercise in frustration. 'unreasonable requests are never agreed to' is an ABSOLUTE lock on the service of a celestial.

And I don't even want to think how badly a celestial would loop the orders of an evil boss.

==Aelryinth

Please try again. I appreciate your interest, but next time please cite something, read the spells, attempt to remain consistent with the way magical compulsions work, and show why it won't work or why you actually wouldn't do it in the game as a big bad evil guy who feels like enslaving the forces of good to do their bidding (hey, 3.5 gave us fiendbinders and malconvokers, and what's good for the goose...). And please, don't bother with "But it's a [Good] descriptor..." because that doesn't matter.


Tels wrote:

This, this right here is my biggest issue Ciretose. You completely ignored Ashiel's post on that subject, simply so you can dislike him more. Ashiel pointed out the Simulacrum issue a long time ago. Ashiel also said it was broken as hell, and posted an alternate spell specifically to get rid of things like infinite wishes. But you don't care about that. You don't care that Ashiel posted a patch for the Devs to implement, which they then ignored. You simply care that Ashiel pointed it out at all.

Ashiel gives tons of great advice on innumerable numbers of threads and subjects. But damned near every time I happen to read a thread, and you're commenting on Ashiel's posts, you are commenting on how Ashiel promotes the uses of Simulacrum + Wishes for power gaming. You try and tear apart Ashiel's posts claiming he's a power gamer, a min-maxer, a munchkiner. Then you try and pass it off as 'I wish he wasn't that way as Ashiel knows a lot of rules and could be a big help if he wasn't always gaming the system'.

You're acting like most mass-media companies and miss-quoting everything Ashiel says out of context. I'm sure you'll bring up Dragons in armor, even though Ashiel pointed out that a Dragon wearing armor was actually the least optimal thing it could do as it has access to spells that give better defenses, but don't stack with the armor, such as Mage Armor.

You seem to have difficulty of reading any post Ashiel makes, without viewing it as some attempt to game the system, or twist everything into the most optimal light for his argument he can. You are so biased against Ashiel, that I seriously think the Mods on this forum should implement some method of completely hiding any and all Ashiel's posts from you being able to see them at all.

Firstly, thank you Tels, for your understanding on the whole gender thing. I believe you "get it" perfectly. That story about the girl at E3 upsets me a lot. Do you know how surprised people are when I tell them Paizo is owned by a woman? I've met people who seem to think it's owned by Jason Bulhman, or James Jacobs, or even Erik Mona. They obviously hadn't done their homework, but just assumed.

Secondly...words cannot begin to express the elation that your post gives me. It feels good to see someone who sees what I feel when it comes to these petty arguments. Truth be told, I was having way more fun talking about event-based GMing with you guys. +_+


While Aelryinth does know the game well he is incorrect on some of those planar binding rules. Wish Binding is possible due to there being no restriction of putting a geas or dominate monster spell on an outsider that has been captured.

I can't knock him though. I learned a lot from reading his post on the WoTC boards.

Andoran

@Tels - I am saying teleportation is an action, which would make you active. It is a spell that moves you from one place to another, but I don't think you can use stealth with it. We disagree on the reading of the rule and I think your reading is what causes the problem with the encounter.

The rest of the post...I addressed it above, we disagree about him and there probably isn't much more to say than that.


ciretose wrote:

@Tels - I am saying teleportation is an action, which would make you active. It is a spell that moves you from one place to another, but I don't think you can use stealth with it. We disagree on the reading of the rule and I think your reading is what causes the problem with the encounter.

The rest of the post...I addressed it above, we disagree about him and there probably isn't much more to say than that.

Either it's movement and you can make a stealth check or it's not movement and you don't need to.

There aren't any "pseudo-movement" rules to support your claim.

Andoran

Aratrok wrote:
ciretose wrote:

@Tels - I am saying teleportation is an action, which would make you active. It is a spell that moves you from one place to another, but I don't think you can use stealth with it. We disagree on the reading of the rule and I think your reading is what causes the problem with the encounter.

The rest of the post...I addressed it above, we disagree about him and there probably isn't much more to say than that.

Either it's movement and you can make a stealth check or it's not movement and you don't need to.

There aren't any "pseudo-movement" rules to support your claim.

Don't confuse what others are saying my claim is with my claim.

My claim is casting Teleportation is an action, and that you are therefore active. The only requirement for someone to get a perception check for invisible creatures within 30 feet is that those creatures are "active".

Others are claiming you can use stealth as part of casting a spell, not me.


wraithstrike wrote:
Aelryinth wrote:

Logically, on this stealth argument:

How is the teleporter making a Stealth check for an environment it isn't even in?

The Stealth check by rote has to happen AFTER arrival.

Arriving IN the square is definitely an action and an activity...your environment has changed, something is not there that was before, and you are not where you were before. Furthermore, you're going to instantaneously get the Perception check as it arrives, before it can adjust to its new environment and make the Stealth check.

So, the ghaele would teleport in, the characters would instantly get the DC 20 check to notice an invisible creature, and then they'd roll initiative against the Ghaele to see if it gets to make a Stealth Check before they make a dedicated Perception check to see exactly what square it is in.

Letting it make a Stealth check before teleporting is the equivalent of saying "I'm going to roll to hide myself in a shadow I'm not even in yet." The ghaele has no control over the true environment it appears in. It could step on a pebble, dust could fall from overhead, a fly bounce off it, displaced air stir up the dust around it.

Actually, arriving as a teleport, because it's effectively the end of a spell, probably constitutes spellcasting, with a penalty to the stealth roll! After all, you've less control arriving suddenly in a different place/position then if you moved to that location while interacting with your environment.

==Aelryinth

Nope, not correct at all.

Who supported making a stealth check before it teleported?
Why is the word "active" being ignored?
Arriving is not spellcasting.

Going into detail instead of making a lazy post. :)

The check has to happen after the arrival: agreed

Arriving IN the square is definitely an action and an activity:What type of action is it, and how is it being "active"?

Arriving is not spellcasting. It is the result of spellcasting.

Yeah I know that was not much longer, but I think it covers the entire post.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
ciretose wrote:

Don't confuse what others are saying my claim is with my claim.

My claim is casting Teleportation is an action, and that you are therefore active. The only requirement for someone to get a perception check for invisible creatures within 30 feet is that those creatures are "active".

Others are claiming you can use stealth as part of casting a spell, not me.

I'm confused; are you suggesting that you can teleport without having finished casting the spell? I'm fairly certain teleportation is the effect of the spell, and therefore happens after you've finished casting the spell. It might be an issue if you were trying to cast the spell while in view of someone, but I believe the case under discussion is using teleportation to get to the subjects who may be trying to detect you.

Andoran

Aratrok wrote:
ciretose wrote:

Don't confuse what others are saying my claim is with my claim.

My claim is casting Teleportation is an action, and that you are therefore active. The only requirement for someone to get a perception check for invisible creatures within 30 feet is that those creatures are "active".

Others are claiming you can use stealth as part of casting a spell, not me.

I'm confused; are you suggesting that you can teleport without having finished casting the spell? I'm fairly certain teleportation is the effect of the spell, and therefore happens after you've finished casting the spell. It might be an issue if you were trying to cast the spell while in view of someone, but I believe the case under discussion is using teleportation to get to the subjects who may be trying to detect you.

Here is what I am saying (and maybe this can be the FAQ)

By rule, if an invisible creature is "active" within 30 feet of you, you get a perception check to notice that there is an invisible creature nearby with a DC 20. Pinpointing, etc...is a whole other thing, but you are able to "sense" something invisible is nearby if you roll a 20 perception and it is within 20 feet and "active".

My position is that if you are invisible and teleport within 30 feet of a player, they should get a check to be able to know something invisible just teleported in close to me. In the example it was actually 10 feet I believe as they were setting up for a full attack next round.

It was argued by others you could use stealth as part of your teleportation, because that was a "move".

I have said that the players should get the check when the invisible creature teleports in to realize "something invisible is near" because teleporting in would make you "active", and that is all the rule requires.

Andoran

Under Dominate in the FAQQ

"Yeah; if you force a dominated creature to do something against its nature, it gets that new saving throw. If it makes that saving throw, it throws off the ENTIRE dominate effect and gets to go back to doing what they want.

As for what constitutes "against its nature," that varies from creature to creature. For a PC, I would say that forcing a PC to attack another PC would normally be against a PC's nature and would allow a new saving throw (unless, of course, that PC has already displayed a propensity for attacking other PCs). For most monsters, it would depend. A lot of monsters are just violent anyway and attacking others of their kind is normal. It's left vague deliberately so each time it comes up, the GM gets to interpret it as needed for the specific target in question.

James Jacobs (Creative Director)"

And that is the threshold for Dominate, a higher level spell


Charm Person wrote:
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.

If I win the opposed Charisma check to order it to do something it wouldn't normally do, then I have convinced it to do the act I ordered it to do. That's how I'm reading this spell.

Andoran

I'm reading the spell as if you charm them they like you, but act as they would normally. If you want them to do anything they would not ordinarily do, that is a charisma check. If you want them to do something harmful, not happening unless you can convince them with a good story it is worth doing.

So if the wizard can convince them someone is evil and they need to kill them, sure. But the fact that you trapped the Azata is going to make it awfully hard to convince them you are the good guy, even perceiving you in the best possible light.


wraithstrike wrote:

Ashiel that phrase "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." does not mean You can make a charisma check, and make it do anything it would not normally do. Even dominate has limits. Dominate is listed as evidence.

"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." means that if you want it to do anything it would not normally do you can try with an opposed charisma check.

Example:

My understanding of Ashiel's argument:You are saying Johnny(outsider) will do anything(no limit) for cookies(high charisma check).

My interpretation:In order to even try get Johnny to do anything extra(outside the norm but with limits) you need to have cookies. That does not mean that he will do anything you tell him to do, just because you have cookies though.

edit:The spell does not say the monster will do anything(no limit) just because you make a high charisma check. It is just telling you what you have to do to stand a chance to get to get it to do abnormal things.

See my most recent post. For an actual in-game example, let's go with what happened in my Red Hand Remix. One of the ladies at my table was playing a wilder with the psionic equivalent of charm person. Works the same way. Anyway, she charmed one of the hobgoblin soldiers. She then got some information from him.

PC: "Okay, now tell us about your orders."
GM: "The hobgoblin is hesitant. He would not normally discuss such things, or betray his fellows which he has a religious devotion to."
PC: "You can do it for me though..." *charisma check, wins opposed*
Hobgoblin: "Y-yes...they are coming from *X* to *Y*, across *this bridge* and..."
PC: "Very good."

Another example...
Hobgoblin Cleric with Undead gets charmed.
PC: *speaks goblin* "Quickly, attack them with your undead!" the PC points to the hobgoblins former allies.
GM: "The hobgoblin wouldn't readily betray his comrades. I'm going to have to ask for an opposed check on that one."
PC: *crosses fingers, rolls, wins*
GM: "The hobgoblin quickly barks in goblin for his undead to break off from your allies and turn on his former friends."

Now my PCs aren't into screwing with their charmed minions too much, but if they did something like...

PC: "Okay gobbo, you walk through the acid and flip the lever on the other side. Okay, I get an opposed Charisma check right?"
GM: "No. He won't do anything obviously suicidal or harmful. Loosing a few layers of skin swimming across the acid is definitely pretty harmful."
PC: "What if we cast resist energy on him?"
GM: "If the acid won't hurt him, then he'll do it without requiring an order. It's just flipping a switch with the melting taken out of it."


ciretose wrote:
Aratrok wrote:
ciretose wrote:

Don't confuse what others are saying my claim is with my claim.

My claim is casting Teleportation is an action, and that you are therefore active. The only requirement for someone to get a perception check for invisible creatures within 30 feet is that those creatures are "active".

Others are claiming you can use stealth as part of casting a spell, not me.

I'm confused; are you suggesting that you can teleport without having finished casting the spell? I'm fairly certain teleportation is the effect of the spell, and therefore happens after you've finished casting the spell. It might be an issue if you were trying to cast the spell while in view of someone, but I believe the case under discussion is using teleportation to get to the subjects who may be trying to detect you.

Here is what I am saying (and maybe this can be the FAQ)

By rule, if an invisible creature is "active" within 30 feet of you, you get a perception check to notice that there is an invisible creature nearby with a DC 20. Pinpointing, etc...is a whole other thing, but you are able to "sense" something invisible is nearby if you roll a 20 perception and it is within 20 feet and "active".

My position is that if you are invisible and teleport within 30 feet of a player, they should get a check to be able to know something invisible just teleported in close to me. In the example it was actually 10 feet I believe as they were setting up for a full attack next round.

It was argued by others you could use stealth as part of your teleportation, because that was a "move".

I have said that the players should get the check when the invisible creature teleports in to realize "something invisible is near" because teleporting in would make you "active", and that is all the rule requires.

What are you actively doing?

By the wording in the book the spell that you have already cast is doing the work.

You are not doing anything.

Quote:
Instantaneous: The spell energy comes and goes the instant the spell is cast, though the consequences might be long-lasting.

The spell's energy moves you to the new location. You are not doing anything. It is not much different than Star Trek and its transporter which I brought up earlier. You cast the spell, and then wait for the results to take place. If James T Kirk leaves and arrives, and does not move once he arrives I don't think that counts as being active.

Andoran

If you look at the diplomacy chart, Friendly isn't even the highest. Charmed creatures aren't even helpful, let alone controlled.

Shadow Lodge

3 people marked this as a favorite.

I have nothing to say except: PaizoCon.


ciretose wrote:

I'm reading the spell as if you charm them they like you, but act as they would normally. If you want them to do anything they would not ordinarily do, that is a charisma check. If you want them to do something harmful, not happening unless you can convince them with a good story it is worth doing.

So if the wizard can convince them someone is evil and they need to kill them, sure. But the fact that you trapped the Azata is going to make it awfully hard to convince them you are the good guy, even perceiving you in the best possible light.

But that's not what the spell says. You can give the creature an order (which is viewed in the most favorable manner, I.E. it is absolutely the best idea at the time). If the order is not something the creature would normally do, then there is an opposed Charisma Check. If you win the Charisma check, then you have convinced the creature it really is the best idea, and so the creature follows through with the order.


TOZ wrote:
I have nothing to say except: PaizoCon.

Touche.

Andoran

@Ashiel

Examples of bad GMing don't convince me of your case. The spells says it makes someone friendly to you, but it explicitly says they aren't controlled.

If a GM gave way to much relative to what the spell says, that was a mistake on the part of that GM.

FAQ if you disagree, James already weighed in on dominate with more restrictions than what you described for a higher level spell. There may already be a ruling on Charm Person somewhere in the threads.

Andoran

Tels wrote:
ciretose wrote:

I'm reading the spell as if you charm them they like you, but act as they would normally. If you want them to do anything they would not ordinarily do, that is a charisma check. If you want them to do something harmful, not happening unless you can convince them with a good story it is worth doing.

So if the wizard can convince them someone is evil and they need to kill them, sure. But the fact that you trapped the Azata is going to make it awfully hard to convince them you are the good guy, even perceiving you in the best possible light.

But that's not what the spell says. You can give the creature an order (which is viewed in the most favorable manner, I.E. it is absolutely the best idea at the time). If the order is not something the creature would normally do, then there is an opposed Charisma Check. If you win the Charisma check, then you have convinced the creature it really is the best idea, and so the creature follows through with the order.

Kill your friends interpreted in the most favorable manner doesn't mean you convinced me to kill my friends. It means I took what you said in the most favorable way I am able to take it...which isn't very favorable if I think it is an evil act and I am an Azata.

If I am charmed I'm not even being helpful, I'm just friendly.

I used the wording of the spell:

"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."

If I want him to eat ice cream when he's on a diet, that is an opposed charisma check.

It isn't supposed to be that powerful, it's only a first level spell.


I don't care about Diplomacy. Charmed make people friendly, but has other options including giving people orders. These are not requests, they are orders that they will undertake. Now there are some big differences between charmed and dominated.

1.) Domination lasts 1 day/level.
2.) Domination needs no communication to force them to do simple things.
3.) Domination allows you to see through the subject's senses as though you were there.
4.) Domination works over any distance after the hold is established.
5.) Offensive actions do not automatically break it. You can slap a dominated creature around, cast spells on them, whatever. They don't auto-free themselves.

And this is a huge one compared to Charm Person.
6.) Subjects do not get an opposed Charisma check to resist you. They can try to save against the spell again with a +2 bonus when you give the order, but if they fail they will continue to carry out your order with no resistance. If you fail a Charisma check to order a creature to do something and it resists, further attempts are useless.

A wizard with a 7 Charisma and a 24 Intelligence is going to rock dominate. DC is 22. He grabs your friendly neighborhood high Charisma character, like a bard. He casts debuffs on the Bard to crush his saving throws. "Okay, go forth and slaughter everyone in X village." Bard: "Yes...master."


3 people marked this as a favorite.

You're missing one of the key words in the spell. CONVINCE. If I win the opposed Charisma Check, I have CONVINCED the creature to follow my orders. That's the part you are either ignoring, or missing out of the spell.

Charm isn't as powerful as Dominate because Dominate has less randomness in it. I can give someone an order via Dominate and they'll usually do it. But if I give an order via Charm, I have to CONVINCE them to follow it.

You're using yourself as an example. But the thing you're also failing to take into account in using yourself, is you aren't having your brain messed with via a reality altering force called Magic. Magic isn't just 'using words' it's literally altering the very neural pathways in your brain, to achieve the desires of the Caster.

401 to 450 of 951 << first < prev | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | next > last >>
Paizo / Messageboards / Paizo Community / Off-Topic Discussions / Petition: I nominate Ashiel to work for Paizo as Rules Consultant All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.

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