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

PaizoCon 2014!

Illegal character death?


Pathfinder Society® General Discussion

1 to 50 of 167 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>
Andoran

Played a mod this past weekend, was killed during it. Got home from the convention and reviewed the scenario... Monster that killed me hit me 5 times in one round one of which was a critical hit for a total of 147 points of damage. After reviewing the stat block I noticed that something was off, as 147 was the maximum damage the monster could have done rolling max on all attacks (including max rend and assuming power attack which did not happen.

Is it possible for anything to be done after the fact? I assume it was just a judge accidental mathematical error. I had no reason to suspect foul play during the scenario so why would I question it at the table?

** Venture-Lieutenant, Croatia—Zagreb

One shots are quite possible on some scenario's, especially on Rend ability.

Maybe you should send a email instead rather or talk with your Venture Captain first.

Osirion

Chaos ... this is often a touchy subject for players and DMs alike.
I would suggest discussing it with the DM if you are able, in a nuetral and non-confrontational manner. Even though you don't presume any kind of fudging or anything, it is often the case that people in general (judges or not) get defensive when things like this are brought to their attention.

It is a bit odd that the numbers would happen to match up like that, and assuming that you are both correct with your math and that the creature was not using Power Attack, it would be highly unusual for numbers to align that precisely. I don't think that the tier or the scenario is particularly as important as the fact that you have valid concerns about what numbers came across the table. A downside to this is that, after the fact, there is no way to confirm the numbers unless the judge himself is particularly agreeable and verifies them for you, or there are other players who offer verification. The trouble is that even with some kind of person to reconcile the numbers, there's little that can be defensibly argued on the point.

I would suggest that if you're not able to discuss it with the judge, that you send Mike Brock an email about it via the "report a problem with this scenario link in your reported sessions, or by emailing him directly. I don't know that he would set a precedent by questioning the judges rolls, but, if it is particularly egregious, and can be shown as such, Mike would do something about it.

We, as players, have rights, and that includes reporting a judge who is not playing by the rules (including mechanics like making proper damage rolls), and having something done about it.
Hopefully it will work out amiably with the judge and you won't have to go that far.

Qadira ***** RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16

Generally speaking, reviewing a scenario after the session in order to find GM errors is considered poor sportsmanship. Claiming that a death or other ill-adventure was "illegal" is even more so.

This kind of activity was specifically called out in earlier versions of the Guide, but I don't see that it's in the current edition.

Did you have fun during the scenario?

If so, there you go. If not, then the PC death was probably not the greatest of your worries.

*

Reading a scenario first is an obvious problem, but I have no recollection of a ban on reading the scenario right after playing.

Maybe he was going to DM. Maybe he wanted to see if there was anything cool that the party missed in the adventure.

Cheliax ****

Saint Caleth wrote:

Reading a scenario first is an obvious problem, but I have no recollection of a ban on reading the scenario right after playing.

Maybe he was going to DM. Maybe he wanted to see if there was anything cool that the party missed in the adventure.

Chris was very specific:

Chris Mortika wrote:
Generally speaking, reviewing a scenario after the session in order to find GM errors is considered poor sportsmanship. Claiming that a death or other ill-adventure was "illegal" is even more so.

I read scenarios after I've played them, because I get really curious. What I don't do is change a bunch of things on my chronicle sheet to make up for presumed inadequacies.

Cheliax ***

The question becomes did the monster need the full 147 to actually kill you? or would 127 have been enough? or even 107? as if it didnt need anywhere near the full damage to kill you then its possible it was a math error that actually had no bearing on your survival of said onslaught, its also possible that the monster was power attacking and the GM didnt call it out (he isnt required to but its considered bad form by most GMs not to call out power attack on monsters), and thus the legality of the death is irrelevant, its best if we know all the variables.

How much was the maximum damage if it was power attacking?, how much to hit would it have lost? would you still be easily hittable (basically your AC-11 is less than its to hit with powerattack on)? does its tactics say it always power attacks?

* Venture-Lieutenant, Washington—Ballard aka Uktabi

Ive had a few "you did how much damage?!?" moments before and asked to see the monster after the game is over. I even caught a HUGE mistake by doing it. But i think tact is key in all this. Talking to your GM privately and in a non confrontational way is your best option. And if a mistake was honestly made and caused your character death, talk to your local VC together. More will get done if both player and GM are in agreement that a mistake was made then if you try to escalate your issue with acusations of illegal play and cheating.

Taldor ***

Huh, I don't expect the GM to call out all the maneuvers a monster is using. Leave the player in the dark just a little to keep him or her wondering, not giving the fuel to metagame it.

I'd want to know what is the scenario in question.

Qadira ****

Mergy wrote:
Saint Caleth wrote:

Reading a scenario first is an obvious problem, but I have no recollection of a ban on reading the scenario right after playing.

Maybe he was going to DM. Maybe he wanted to see if there was anything cool that the party missed in the adventure.

Chris was very specific:

Chris Mortika wrote:
Generally speaking, reviewing a scenario after the session in order to find GM errors is considered poor sportsmanship. Claiming that a death or other ill-adventure was "illegal" is even more so.
I read scenarios after I've played them, because I get really curious. What I don't do is change a bunch of things on my chronicle sheet to make up for presumed inadequacies.

this is a pretty far leap from what the OP did. He's simply saying that he probably shouldnt be dead, and that frustrates him. Assuming he's altering character sheets is calling him a cheater, which I think is unfair.

Is it poor sportsmanship to tell your GM that you don't appreciate them literally altering the rules in a way that negatively impacts your character?

What if a GM full-attacks on a charge with something that doesn't have pounce, and it kills you? that's cheating, you died because a GM cheated. I don't think its poor sportsmanship to not want to be dead.

Where is the line drawn? If you're curious about the adventure, OR you liked it a lot and wanted to run it next week, then you notice that it couldn't possibly have killed you...what then? or your metagame knowledge tells you "that was a fighter, not a beast totem barb, it couldn't have pounced let me check that"

wrongful deaths happen, but it's pretty easy to fix the PP spent on a rez and pretend you didn't die, because you shouldn't have.

Shadow Lodge ** Venture-Lieutenant, California—Silicon Valley aka JohnF

Chris Mortika wrote:
Generally speaking, reviewing a scenario after the session in order to find GM errors is considered poor sportsmanship.

Well, so is questionable GMing. I've been tempted to seek access to a scenario after a ruling that I've questioned at the table. I haven't done that, but when I later get access to a scenario I will definitely review anything I've wondered about.

I've found at least one case where an "alternative solution" to a faction mission that was not allowed at the table is explicitly called out as an option in the mission notes. I've also found traps, obstacles, and the like that I remember from playing the scenario don't seem to be listed anywhere (or spells we faced aren't even in the BBEGs spellbook, let alone listed in the tactics).

Relying on "good sportsmanship" from players to avoid being caught ignoring the instructions on how to run a scenario is, IMO, rather worse for the overall health of Organised Play than players questioning GMs.

I think "Trust, but Verify" is a reasonable maxim.

*

Ive changed many times the route to getting a mission complete, as the players solutions are usually loads better than a DC 15 sleight of hand

Havent changed a stat block....a few time ive had players say 'what the hell tier are we playing at'

It is only game, so we shouldnt get to grumpy, but i do have some sympathy for the OP. Shocking as it may be to say, but some frankly unpleasent folk do run RPGs, even PFS, and are out to kill / feel the power

Ive I read the mod later, with the thought of running it, and see i had taken max damage from 5 attacks in a round, without the response / feedback at the event....ie 'I see the 12 6's the GM had just rolled, OR the GM goes OMG look what ive rolled, etc' id rip up the chronicle and call it void

Andoran ***** Venture-Lieutenant, Minnesota—Anoka

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Caderyn wrote:

The question becomes did the monster need the full 147 to actually kill you? or would 127 have been enough? or even 107? as if it didnt need anywhere near the full damage to kill you then its possible it was a math error that actually had no bearing on your survival of said onslaught, its also possible that the monster was power attacking and the GM didnt call it out (he isnt required to but its considered bad form by most GMs not to call out power attack on monsters), and thus the legality of the death is irrelevant, its best if we know all the variables.

How much was the maximum damage if it was power attacking?, how much to hit would it have lost? would you still be easily hittable (basically your AC-11 is less than its to hit with powerattack on)? does its tactics say it always power attacks?

Why is it bad form for a GM to not call out power attack? I almost never do. Although I may describe the monster especially hacking hard or gripping his weapon tighter or grimacing as he strikes.

Osirion

Andrew ... I don't think that it's entirely meant that the judge has to say, specifically, "This creature is Power Attacking." And in all reality, with a good judge, they shouldn't. A good judge will describe what the PCs see, so that they can understand what's happeneing. I think a better way to have said might be "It's bad form for a GM to not inform the players in some way that an ability is visibly being used."

Another similar example of this is Damage Reduction. The judge has no requirement to say, "This creature has DR." But, since DR is something that is apparent by observation, and though the PCs may not know how to get around it or anything, it should be apparanet that their damage is somehow being mitigated. It's not something they'd need a Perception check for.

In sum, it's only bad form if a judge is hiding it/not giving the players info their characters would have.

Shadow Lodge ****

Had something similar happen at my Games day only it was the GM that came forward and told me he screwed up (Screw up resulted in a TPK)

***** Venture-Lieutenant, Illinois—Carbondale aka Disturbed1

W. Kristoph Nolen wrote:

Andrew ... I don't think that it's entirely meant that the judge has to say, specifically, "This creature is Power Attacking." And in all reality, with a good judge, they shouldn't. A good judge will describe what the PCs see, so that they can understand what's happeneing. I think a better way to have said might be "It's bad form for a GM to not inform the players in some way that an ability is visibly being used."

Another similar example of this is Damage Reduction. The judge has no requirement to say, "This creature has DR." But, since DR is something that is apparent by observation, and though the PCs may not know how to get around it or anything, it should be apparanet that their damage is somehow being mitigated. It's not something they'd need a Perception check for.

In sum, it's only bad form if a judge is hiding it/not giving the players info their characters would have.

I understand the point you are trying to make, but in some cases, it's not likely to make any difference, IMO. Yes, a GM should be making the party aware that their weapon/spell isnt doing as much damage as they would have otherwise thought (DR/Resistance/Immunity/etc), but Power Attack has no bearing on what the players can do to the enemy so there is little reason it needs to be brought up.

Edit:
That said, if I do change back and forth with power Attack with an enemy, I do make note of it to the players, as they might notice the grip on the weapon, the ferocity of the swing, etc. However, if the enemy comes out power attacking and never stops, then there is no way for the players to know that he was or wasnt doing it the entire time. unless they have fought this particular enemy before (and not even one of the same species/race, just this particular one) they have no way of knowing how that enemy fights in combat, so they wouldnt be able to tell if its a normal swing or not.

Grand Lodge ** RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Chris Mortika wrote:
Generally speaking, reviewing a scenario after the session in order to find GM errors is considered poor sportsmanship. Claiming that a death or other ill-adventure was "illegal" is even more so.

For piddly stuff, I agree. For character death, however, I would not mind at all if my players checked things afterwards and brought concerns to me.

I say that having actually had that happen to me - and you know what? I reversed some deaths. The players (well, one player did most of the talking) checked the curse that killed them, politely explained how he would interpret it differently than I did, and so I did some research (even asked James Jacobs about it), and decided the player's interpretation was correct and that none of the PCs were in peril of death, so I reversed the deaths.

They checked up on my ruling in a serious situation (character death), all sides were respectful, the issue was resolved, and there were no hard feelings.

That seems like how things should happen, and I don't like the idea of saying those players were poor sports.

*****

8 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

As the GM in question, that creature, hitting 5 times including a crit and rend while power attacking does 119-156 damage. Please remember that Power Attack damage is also included on the rend attack and that it is also a 1-1/2 times stength attack meaning that the rend becomes 1d6+22.

I would also recommend either messaging your GM first (me) or Kyle Pratt (the event coordinator and local VC) prior to bringing it to the boards. Had this been an actual mistake, I would have taken care of it for you by sending you a fresh chronicle.

*****

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Wraith235 wrote:
Had something similar happen at my Games day only it was the GM that came forward and told me he screwed up (Screw up resulted in a TPK)

I did this at Dragon*Con. I realized that 4 rounds late that a PC had actually made a will save that I had thought he failed. I stopped combat, explained that I screwed up and discussed with the players how they wanted to handle it. Saved that PC from dying and I'm glad that I caught it despite it making me look like a n00b.

*****

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Caderyn wrote:
does its tactics say it always power attacks?

Considering that I wrote the tactics...

"X's are brutal combatants driven by hunger. The X's utilize Power Attack as much as possible; each attempts to kill a single target and retreat with the corpse."

Andoran *****

Paizo Charter Superscriber; Pathfinder Deluxe Comics Subscriber
Kyle Baird wrote:
Saved that PC from dying and I'm glad that I caught it despite it making me look like a n00b.

Kyle, n00b is your default setting... ;)

Edit: just ask Greg Vaughan ;)

Grand Lodge ** RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

BAZINGA!

Cheliax ***** Venture-Captain, Nebraska—Omaha

2 people marked this as a favorite.

This thread is entertaining. Not only is the OP complaining publicly on the boards about a GM before talking to them about it, but the GM in question is a 5 Star GM and the Author of the scenario in question. I think this thread is done.

** Contributor

Kyle Baird wrote:
Please remember that Power Attack damage is also included on the rend attack and that it is also a 1-1/2 times stength attack meaning that the rend becomes 1d6+22.

Really? I never thought so: Power Attack adds to melee damage rolls, and rend is a special attack. Do you also add Power Attack to other "rider" damage effects, like Powerful Charge damage rolls?

(Upon looking over the rules a bit further, I think Power Attack would definitely apply to rake attacks, as those are expressly called out as extra melee attacks, but I wouldn't think it applies to rend or other "rider" damage effects.)

Grand Lodge ** RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

11 people marked this as a favorite.

Way to put that player in his place, Todd. Wouldn't want anyone thinking he just didn't know a better avenue for voicing his concern or that he made an honest mistake in his interpretation of the creature's damage potential. Good thing we have people like you here to make sure everyone understands that if their beloved character dies, they'd better not get caught wanting to investigate. We definitely need people to grasp the fact that GMs are above them, and not to be questioned under any circumstances.

*****

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Todd Morgan wrote:
This thread is entertaining. Not only is the OP complaining publicly on the boards about a GM before talking to them about it, but the GM in question is a 5 Star GM and the Author of the scenario in question. I think this thread is done.

To be fair, everyone (except Brock) can make mistakes. Posting about them on the boards first isn't the way to address them.

Qadira *

Todd Morgan wrote:
This thread is entertaining. Not only is the OP complaining publicly on the boards about a GM before talking to them about it, but the GM in question is a 5 Star GM and the Author of the scenario in question. I think this thread is done.

Be fair. The OP may have no recollection of the identity of the random guy who ran a session at a Con, nor who Kyle is. How was he supposed to talk to him?

[Edit: The timing of this and Kyle's subsequent post is unfortunate. I believe we both posted without seeing the other.]

*****

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
brock, no the other one... wrote:
Todd Morgan wrote:
This thread is entertaining. Not only is the OP complaining publicly on the boards about a GM before talking to them about it, but the GM in question is a 5 Star GM and the Author of the scenario in question. I think this thread is done.
Be fair. The OP may have no recollection of the identity of the random guy who ran a session at a Con, nor who Kyle is. How was he supposed to talk to him?

He was sitting next to me and could have asked after the encounter to see the monster's stat blocks.

For the record, Sean was a good player and I enjoyed having him at my table.

Qadira *

Kyle Baird wrote:
brock, no the other one... wrote:
Todd Morgan wrote:
This thread is entertaining. Not only is the OP complaining publicly on the boards about a GM before talking to them about it, but the GM in question is a 5 Star GM and the Author of the scenario in question. I think this thread is done.
Be fair. The OP may have no recollection of the identity of the random guy who ran a session at a Con, nor who Kyle is. How was he supposed to talk to him?

He was sitting next to me and could have asked after the encounter to see the monster's stat blocks.

For the record, Sean was a good player and I enjoyed having him at my table.

Indeed he could, but from his post I formed the impression that he read the scenario once he got home out of interest and only then wondered if the maths on that attack had been botched.

If he was concerned at the time, I agree - tackle the matter in person at the time. However if it was only after the fact and he didn't know how to get in touch privately...

Osirion

Well, it certainly seems that the suggestion to discuss things withthe judge was an appropriate one.

While Kyle does have a reputation for not pulling punches with character death, it seems that this one was certainly not out of line.

Kyle, I will offer you lauds on having discussed things with a player and reversing a death in other situations. That is something that judges are often touchy about, and it is a good thing that you are open to hearing the opinions and thoughts of your players.

Grats on providing evidence for the theory that you really are just a Care Baird! <impish chcuckle>

*****

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Ron Lundeen wrote:

Really? I never thought so: Power Attack adds to melee damage rolls, and rend is a special attack. Do you also add Power Attack to other "rider" damage effects, like Powerful Charge damage rolls?

(Upon looking over the rules a bit further, I think Power Attack would definitely apply to rake attacks, as those are expressly called out as extra melee attacks, but I wouldn't think it applies to rend or other "rider" damage effects.)

I would based on the "to gain a +2 bonus on all melee damage rolls." Of course this is my interpretation (backed up by asking several other GMs/Coordinators/VCs) and I would expect variation w/o an official ruling by Jason. Which, funny enough, if he had brought up to me at the table I could have asked Jason since he was at Dragon*Con.

** Contributor

Kyle Baird wrote:
Ron Lundeen wrote:

Really? I never thought so: Power Attack adds to melee damage rolls, and rend is a special attack. Do you also add Power Attack to other "rider" damage effects, like Powerful Charge damage rolls?

(Upon looking over the rules a bit further, I think Power Attack would definitely apply to rake attacks, as those are expressly called out as extra melee attacks, but I wouldn't think it applies to rend or other "rider" damage effects.)

I would based on the "to gain a +2 bonus on all melee damage rolls." Of course this is my interpretation (backed up by asking several other GMs/Coordinators/VCs) and I would expect variation w/o an official ruling by Jason. Which, funny enough, if he had brought up to me at the table I could have asked Jason since he was at Dragon*Con.

Interesting. I could see it going either way, although I wouldn't apply it on rend or powerful charge myself. One of the great things about organized play is seeing different interpretations like this. Thanks!

Shadow Lodge ***

Kyle Baird wrote:
Please remember that Power Attack damage is also included on the rend attack

James Jacobs says that it isn't added btw. Although there's some dissent in that thread.

*****

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Pirate Rob wrote:
Kyle Baird wrote:
Please remember that Power Attack damage is also included on the rend attack
James Jacobs says that it isn't added btw. Although there's some dissent in that thread.

FWIW, James isn't a rules source as he's said plenty of times himself. I had several opportunities to ask Jason this past weekend and wish I would have. (inquiring minds want to know!)

p.s. Thanks for the link Rob.

Shadow Lodge ***

I agree that he's not a rules source, I just think it's not clear whether it's added or not, and thus objected to your definitively worded statement.

Qadira ***** RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16

Hi, Kyle. (waves) Do you add Power Attack damage again for sneak attack damage? (It is melee damage, after all.)

*****

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Chris Mortika wrote:
Hi, Kyle. (waves) Do you add Power Attack damage again for sneak attack damage? (It is melee damage, after all.)

Nope.

Qadira *****

Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Comics Subscriber; Pathfinder Card Game, Maps, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

You wouldn't Chris, because sneak attack isn't own attack in itself. Sneak attack damage is added to the attack that it is part of; that's why you would only apply DR once. Note that depending on your interpretation, PA applying either hurts or helps, as if PA applies, DR would apply separately, but if it is a rider on the second hit (and no PA), then DR would only apply once.

** Contributor

Chris Mortika wrote:
Hi, Kyle. (waves) Do you add Power Attack damage again for sneak attack damage? (It is melee damage, after all.)

What about adding sneak attack damage on top of rend damage, assuming the conditions for sneak attack apply?

*****

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Ron Lundeen wrote:
Chris Mortika wrote:
Hi, Kyle. (waves) Do you add Power Attack damage again for sneak attack damage? (It is melee damage, after all.)
What about adding sneak attack damage on top of rend damage, assuming the conditions for sneak attack apply?

So a greater invis'd rending creature? hmm.. Seems excessive, but on the other hand you're rending a vital area. The magic 8-ball says "reply hazy, try again"

Cheliax ***** Venture-Captain, Nebraska—Omaha

Kyle, adding Sneak Attack to your X would add insult to injury. Make an X Ninja coming out of Invis getting sneak attack for all the attacks. I would drive up to Milwaukee and pop your car tires...

Shadow Lodge ***

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Doesn't need to be greater invis, just one with darkvision in the dark.
Note to self: add troll rogue to quest + source of darkness.

Qadira ***

Pirate Rob wrote:

Doesn't need to be greater invis, just one with darkvision in the dark.

Note to self: add troll rogue to quest + source of darkness.

(Note to self: buy Cloak of Displacement)

*****

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Would I add SA to Rake if conditions were met? Yes.
I've always seen Rend as a greater version of Rake that just doesn't need an attack roll (i.e. their claws are already buried deep inside your chest cavity).
So I guess I would add SA to Rend? God that's scary.
Also, the SA giving class should definitely be a "Key" class in this case for the extra +1 CR because that's just mean.

*****

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
nosig wrote:
Pirate Rob wrote:

Doesn't need to be greater invis, just one with darkvision in the dark.

Note to self: add troll rogue to quest + source of darkness.
(Note to self: buy Cloak of Displacement)

That's why all sneak attacking rending creatures have true seeing.

Shadow Lodge ***

Not that a cloak of displacement helps against sneak attack. (Other than the 50% miss chance, which drastically lowers the odds of Rend)

Qadira ***

Pirate Rob wrote:
Not that a cloak of displacement helps against sneak attack. (Other than the 50% miss chance, which drastically lowers the odds of Rend)

while I have been wrong before (several times), I was under the impression that the 20% miss chance ment there was no Sneak Attack...

I'll go looking for a referance.

*****

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
kinevon wrote:

Really? I see at least three GMs in this thread doing what I, as a GM, would consider a questionable practice.

If you, as a GM, require your players to announce that their PC is using X ability, like Power Attack or Deadly Aim, or the ability is not used, what gives you the right to use the ability without announcing it first?

Or can I always wait, as a GM, to see if the critter would have hit with PA active, and say it was, after the attack was rolled? Isn't that why players have to announce it before the attack is rolled?

If it matters to you, I tell every table I run to just add Power Attack, Rapid Shot, Combat Expertise and the like w/o telling me because I trust them. It speeds up the game.

*****

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
nosig wrote:
Pirate Rob wrote:
Not that a cloak of displacement helps against sneak attack. (Other than the 50% miss chance, which drastically lowers the odds of Rend)

while I have been wrong before (several times), I was under the impression that the 20% miss chance ment there was no Sneak Attack...

I'll go looking for a referance.

You can't get precision based damage when your target has concealment.

Qadira ***

Kyle Baird wrote:
nosig wrote:
Pirate Rob wrote:
Not that a cloak of displacement helps against sneak attack. (Other than the 50% miss chance, which drastically lowers the odds of Rend)

while I have been wrong before (several times), I was under the impression that the 20% miss chance ment there was no Sneak Attack...

I'll go looking for a referance.
You can't get precision based damage when your target has concealment.

Thank you Kyle, and I went for the refrences for Pirate Rob.

Minor Cloak of Displacement says it works like the spell blur.

Blur says: "...This distortion grants the subject concealment (20% miss chance)." (CRB pg. 251)

The last paragraph of Sneak Attack says: "The rogue must be able to see the target well enough to pick out a vital spot and must be able to reach such a spot. A rogue cannot sneak attack while striking a creature
with concealment." (CRB pg. 68)

and then True Seeing: "...The subject sees through normal and magical darkness, notices secret doors hidden by magic, sees the exact locations of creatures or objects under blur or displacement effects, sees invisible creatures or objects normally, sees through illusions, and sees the true form of polymorphed, changed, or transmuted things...." (CRB pg. 363).

1 to 50 of 167 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>
Paizo / Messageboards / Paizo Publishing / Pathfinder® / Pathfinder Society® / General Discussion / Illegal character death? 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.