Baron_Yves's page

16 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists. 2 aliases.



1 person marked this as a favorite.

I am in search of some RAW explanation of how I reconcile the following situation:

Can a Gnome Fighter-3 still gain access to Item creation feats that require a caster level? The argument is the racial spell like abilities grant a caster level equal to the gnome's class level, which in this case would be 3rd level.

As far as I understood, when legitimately creating a magic item, the use of spell like abilities can be used as a source for magic, so long as they can reproduce the spell needed. If that's true, it would seem reasonable that they could also fill the requisite caster level needed for the feat.

I'm interested in people's thoughts on this, and any hard rules I can go to.


1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. 1 person marked this as a favorite.

For the purposes of determining a Perception Check penalty / bonus when pinpointing an invisible creature, could I get some clarification as to what is meant by 'in combat'?

Reference from CRB:

Invisible creature is... In combat or speaking
Perception DC Modifier –20

Would an invisible mage casting a spell (from within combat) with only somatic components (no verbal) and not taking a move action apply the +20 Perception Check DC for non-movement, or does the movement of casting violate that?

In the following scenario, what would be the Perception Check DC to pinpoint the invisible creature? (Please break out the modifiers so I can follow along, if you don't mind)

A mage casts Invisibility prior to combat. Combat ensues. Mage is casting Summon Monster from within 30 ft. of enemy. Mage is not moving. Enemy wants to use Perception to pinpoint where mage is.

I am about to introduce Invisibility into my game and I've never had to deal with it tactically. I was hoping that the players around here could give me some examples of how invisibility can be properly used from a Wizard point of view, and what might need to be avoided to minimize rules misunderstandings.

Thanks,

Yves