Brandenfascher's page

42 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists.


thejeff wrote:

It doesn't have a '+' in front of the value in the Perception DC modifier column.

For example, the "Not moving" entry has "+20", so you obviously need to add that 20 to something for it to make sense. The "Using Stealth" entry has "Stealth check +20", so there's no need to add it to anything, it's a base of its own.
If that entry was "+Stealth check +20" it would be clear it needed to be added to some other base value.

I see what you mean now. I didn't think of it as possibly meaning "re-setting the base DC" before you mentioned it. So with that line of reasoning, the stealth check becomes the new "base" with its a +20 adjustment, replacing the original 20 DC, which basically means just a -20 to how I was looking at it before?

Still, if that's the case why didn't they just put "+Stealth check" then? It's redundant to have to set a new base that starts at the same DC as the new base (EDIT: I meant old base), excluding the stealth check roll.

thejeff wrote:
Note that, unlike every other entry on that table, the stealth one doesn't have a "+" in front of it...

It does have a plus (unless the d20pfsrd table I'm looking at is inaccurate). It says "Stealth check" first, then "+20". I don't think the arrangement should make a difference.

Ferious Thune wrote:

Ok. I at least understand where you're coming from now. I believe in past threads on the topic, that table entry has either been widely considered an error, or that it replaces the normal base DC of 20. Anyway, I now understand better why you don't view it as a separate modifier, even if I still think it's incorrect to add that extra +20 in.

One of the problems with that table entry is that it's never explained where that particular 20 comes from.

Is this because of the Stealth entry having "+40 to stealth when not moving, +20 when moving" mentioned, and people trying to puzzle out how those fit into the Special Ability's DC modifiers?

Ferious Thune wrote:

He's counting the bonus to stealth and the base DC and the bonus to pinpoint. Something in there is being counted twice when it shouldn't be. Either because it's the same bonus, or because there are two bonuses from the same source.

Brandenfascher - Are you getting the +20 +stealth from the table under the invisibility special ability?

The entirety of where I'm getting all of this (table included):

Special Abilities - Invisibility wrote:

A creature can generally notice the presence of an active invisible creature within 30 feet with a DC 20 Perception check. The observer gains a hunch that “something’s there” but can’t see it or target it accurately with an attack. It’s practically impossible (+20 DC) to pinpoint an invisible creature’s location with a Perception check. Even once a character has pinpointed the square that contains an invisible creature, the creature still benefits from total concealment (50% miss chance). There are a number of modifiers that can be applied to this DC if the invisible creature is moving or engaged in a noisy activity.

Invisible creature is… Perception
DC Modifier
In combat or speaking –20
Moving at half speed –5
Moving at full speed –10
Running or charging –20
Not moving +20
Using Stealth Stealth check +20
Some distance away +1 per 10 feet
Behind an obstacle (door) +5
Behind an obstacle (stone wall) +15

thejeff wrote:
Where's that (+20 plus stealth) coming from?

..."+20 plus stealth check result if using stealth as part of it..."

It was meant to be all inclusive, referring to the table modifier entry:

"Using Stealth: Stealth check +20"

Ferious Thune wrote:
Maybe I'm misunderstanding what he's advocating. Because it sounds to me like he's saying you get the bonus to stealth and the +20 to pinpoint and the base 20 to notice for a DC 80, not 60.

To get right to the point (from my first post on this thread, slightly modified for clarity):

Not in combat/speaking:
*Not moving: Base 20 DC, +20 base pinpoint, +20 not moving, +20 plus stealth check result if using stealth as part of it:
DC 60 not moving, +20 and more if using stealth

In combat/speaking:
*Not moving: Base 20 DC, +20 base pinpoint, +20 not moving, +20 plus stealth check result if using stealth as part of it, but taking -20 for being in combat/speaking:
DC 40 not moving, +20 and more if using stealth

The rest is here: ure#99

Ferious Thune wrote:

If you're sneaking past the guards, and they don't yet know you are there, then you are not in combat...

...My problem wasn't that the DC was difficult when you have no idea that someone is there. My problem was that there seemed to be no adjustment to the DC once you're aware of the invisible creature and it's hostile. But there is an adjustment in the penalty for being in combat.

Yes, yes! I agree with all of that. Flavor wise and "realistically", outside of combat it should be very difficult to detect and maybe even just 'happen' to pinpoint and invisible creature minding its own business, but I agree that basically once the creature must roll initiative due to being involved in combat (even if it is not so much that the creature is trying to attack, but for example other creatures are attacking the invisible creature and it is trying to escape) there's the in combat penalty since "they're on to him" and their senses are dialed in on locating the creature.

Ferious Thune wrote:
A positive modifier is a bonus. A negative modifier is a penalty. No, the modifiers listed under invisible creatures are not modifiers to stealth. They are modifiers to the DC to pinpoint. Stealth is also a modifier to the DC to pinpoint, so a modifier to stealth is therefore a modifier to the DC to pinpoint.

I understand now; this ultimately gets down to the semantics for that Special Ability modifier table. Are you saying this means the table says there is an untyped Stealth Bonus (modifier) for the creature? What I'm saying is that the table strictly says that all of the modifiers listed are "Perception DC Modifier" per the column descriptor. While it does include a stealth check result, it is not referred to as a bonus to a stealth check, and therefore not subject to the "no stacking untyped bonuses" rules that were referenced earlier from the Magic section.

As for definitions of bonuses and modifiers, in "Common Terms" I read the definition of bonus is: "Bonuses are numerical values that are added to checks and statistical scores". From my understanding a DC (Difficulty Class) is not a check or statistical score, and as such the stacking rules don't apply for DC modifiers such as on tables like that. You can roll a check to beat a difficulty class, but a check a DC ain't. So that is where I'm not following this line of reasoning. Perhaps a DC is a statistical score, but statistics seems like such an out of place word to describe a DC, and yet the common terms description for Difficulty Class does not refer to it as a check or a statistic.

Ferious Thune wrote:
The invisibility special ability mentions a +20 to pinpoint. The contention is that is the same +20 as the +20 to stealth for a moving creature using invisibility. The chart includes a +20 for not moving. That makes the total bonus +40, the same bonus as stated in invisibility for a stationary creature.
Ferious Thune wrote:

You're also missing a reference. Stealth the skill also mentions a +20 for an invisible creature, +40 if they are not moving.

Stealth wrote:
Special: If you are invisible, you gain a +40 bonus on Stealth checks if you are immobile, or a +20 bonus on Stealth checks if you're moving.

Apparently that's another thing I missed, "hidden" in the bottom-most parts of the stealth skill's features (I failed my perception check again). I'm tempted to assume that this was geared toward the typical PC character using the stealth skill with the invisibility spell... but I can't argue assumptions for RAW. It makes little sense to not simply refer directly to the Special Ability for the precise details, but yet I can see their purpose as being a faster set of rules for improved gameplay flow. Why Special Abilities would be left with a much different looking set of rules otherwise is beyond me.

thejeff wrote:
I also refuse to believe the intent of the Invisibility spell was to have no effect if the user wasn't using Stealth. For example: I cast Invisibility and run away. You can be targeted because you're not using stealth and invisibility does nothing but provide a bonus to stealth checks.

I agree with you. If my understanding of the spell's use as only a modification of the detection rules, you are correct. That doesn't leave out total concealment miss chances, though, so that at least is still effective, and the spell doesn't end just by being detected.

The same thing would happen (as I stated in my first post) if we were strictly using the Special Ability rules (especially if you consider "in combat" to mean "participating in combat rounds" such that the creature is considered a combatant, or in other words, has a place in combat initiative):

*Starting Pinpoint perception DC = Base detect DC (20) +20 = DC 40
*Running/Charging (Can't use stealth, -20 to DC) and "in combat" (-20)
End result perception DC = 0. Everyone who can't roll a negative perception check succeeds 100%.

The only thing going for not being pinpointed while running away is any additional bonuses such as being behind a door, wall, or a long distance away.

I see, I glossed over the "active" part. You're right. So this means Special Ability invisibility also doesn't allow a creature to be detected with a perception check if it's standing still (not active), so Case 1 is out the window. Thanks for pointing that out.

The reason I bring up differences between the spell and the special ability is because of what others keep bringing up about "bonus types" and un-typed bonuses. There literally is no mention of "bonus" in all of the special ability's mechanics. The closest thing that someone might infer a bonus (which is a stretch) is that one of the table modifiers says that there is an increased perception DC modifier (by 20) if the creature is using stealth. It does not explicitly state that it is a bonus of any kind, however, but it is explicitly a modifier to Perception DC according to the table column that the represented number is placed in. However, the spell itself explicitly states a bonus to stealth that is even a much different amount than the special ability's perception DC modifier, and it seems like everyone tries to interpret that to somehow make stealth part of "standing still" in the special ability's rules.

Interesting enough, that stealth bonus didn't even exist in the original 3.5 invisibility spell description (yes yes, it's not proof for RAW, but more a supporting evidence):

D&D 3.5 Invisibility Spell wrote:
...Of course, the subject is not magically silenced, and certain other conditions can render the recipient detectable (such as stepping in a puddle). The spell ends if the subject attacks any creature...
Pathfinder Invisibility Spell wrote:
...Of course, the subject is not magically silenced, and certain other conditions can render the recipient detectable (such as swimming in water or stepping in a puddle). If a check is required, a stationary invisible creature has a +40 bonus on its Stealth checks. This bonus is reduced to +20 if the creature is moving. The spell ends if the subject attacks any creature...

The bold part is the mechanical changes added to the spell in Pathfinder. If that part were absent in Pathfinder's spell, then I believe we would have much less issues and just go by the Special Ability's mechanics. But, the changes were made, so it seems like the invisibility spell was intentionally meant to work in its own way, at least for the mechanics of detecting an invisible creature.

There are other differences that suggest the Invisibility spell is a modification to the Special Ability rules. For instance, the invisibility spell states that if you pick up an object, the object becomes invisible.

Spell wrote:
Items dropped or put down by an invisible creature become visible; items picked up disappear if tucked into the clothing or pouches worn by the creature.

However, the Special Ability states that the picked up object remains visible unless it gets tucked into or behind something invisible:

Special Ability wrote:
If an invisible character picks up a visible object, the object remains visible. An invisible creature can pick up a small visible item and hide it on his person (tucked in a pocket or behind a cloak) and render it effectively invisible. One could coat an invisible object with flour to at least keep track of its position (until the flour falls off or blows away).

The spell does specify that light still is visible as per the Special Ability though, as if to clarify that this aspect isn't modified.

Ack, I misread the quoted part of the spell. It does state that items disappear if tucked into clothing. Disregard.

thejeff wrote:
Or just realize that they don't actually conflict, any more than any other parts of the hot mess that are the invisibility/stealth/perception/vision rules.

I have a hard time realizing no conflicts. Ultimately it seems the spell's description is what's causing confusion since it's the only thing bringing up anything about a bonus to a skill check in the whole process. If the rules of the Invisibility (the spell) is supposed to be exactly the same rules listed as Invisibility (the special ability), then by RAW they conflict.

Case 1

Special Ability states:
*A 20 DC perception check is available to detect presence of an invisible creature within 30 feet, and the creature doesn't have to be doing anything in particular to qualify for this perception check, although it can be very high DC to beat. It could be standing perfectly still, using stealth, and everything, and the invisible creature would be involved in a perception check made by a creature who initially isn't aware of its presence.

Spell states:
*There is no perception check available until the creature does something to trigger a perception check, making it purely a reactive check (makes noise or causes visual disturbance).

Case 2

Special Ability states:
*A 20 DC perception check +20 modifier to pinpoint the square of the creature, and a +20 additional modifier for standing still, based on the list of table modifiers. The special ability does not state that the creature is requiring to use the Stealth skill to gain any "stealth bonuses" or anything for these modifiers (it would be RAI to read into it that it is).

*It is not a stealth bonus; otherwise it would (should) have specified the creature gets a stealth bonus instead. DC modifiers and skill bonuses are different things! A creature choosing not to use stealth for example would still get all of the DC modifiers against (and for) being perceived that don't involve stealth. For the Speacial Ability, in the modifiers table there is only a +20 if using Stealth with the stealth check result, and it's not a bonus to stealth, but a modifier to the DC if the creature is using stealth. In any case, the creature only loses +20 DC modifier (plus skill check result) if choose not to stealth.

Spell states:
*There is no DC specified to perceive the creature.

*Instead, the creature gains a flat +40 Stealth bonus for standing still; if the creature decides not to use stealth, they loose +40 stealth bonus. Big difference to keeping "Standing Still" DC modifier but losing Stealth modifier in the Special Ability description. In the spell it does get reduced to +20, but only if "moving" at any conceivable speed, which that in of itself is another case:

Case 3

Special Ability states:
*Standing Still: +20 modifier to Perception DC.
*Moving, but less than half speed (such as 5-foot step): No modifier to Perception DC.
*Moving, at half speed: -5 modifier to Perception DC
*Moving, at full speed: -10 modifier to Perception DC
*Running/charging, -20 modifier to Perception DC

Spell states:
*Moving any speed is reduced to a +20 to stealth bonus, which is strictly -20 less than standing still (but still only with a stealth check), which evens out to being the same reduction as the special ability's 5-foot step, except only when used with stealth (if we're making the attempt to compare the two as the same), even if the character is moving half/full speed, but the Special Ability confers worse modifiers with higher rates of movement.

Maybe we are reading more into the general use of a general invisibility rule than is necessary because of the description in a specific spell. Maybe this is more like how gaining a new feat can alter a character's standard combat abilities, but doesn't alter everyone else's use of it, like how a bull rush normall provokes AAO, but a character gaining the Improved Bull Rush feat gains prevention of an AAO. In this sense the invisibility spell might be a modification to the normal invisible detection rules to increase the flow of a game since it's one of the most commonly used spells in the game; keeping track of a party of 5-6 players made invisible would be difficult using the Special Ability rules, for instance.
(Let's see, Jhiharda is using stealth at half speed... Rhoki is moving at full speed without stealth, but Uma is full speed with stealth, and Leroy is running around the cultists like a madman... Screw it, let's just make this a flat stealth bonus!)

Ah, but I just found invisibility is listed as a condition, and the condition says to refer to invisibility under Special Abilities. I missed that. Well, back to square one then, but with that being the case, invisibility is really weird. Because RAW is so ambiguous on invisibility between the spell and the special ability I'd say it either needs FAQ or Errata as has been suggested. Personally I'd make a GM call to just stick to either the Special Ability or the Spell mechanics as far as how to use perception to perceive the creature.

thejeff wrote:

I'm pretty sure all the special ability invisibility stuff applies - as well as all the other random bits on invisibility elsewhere.

Otherwise the Invisibility spell only helps you when you can actually use Stealth and may not even be enough to use it depending on how strictly you take only what's specified in the spell.
Certainly if you're running or doing something else that forbids using stealth.

Humor me if you will:

Interestingly, the spell seems self contained in its mechanic. It says "If you cast the spell on someone else, neither you nor your allies can see the subject, unless you can normally see invisible things or you employ magic to do so... ...Of course, the subject is not magically silenced, and certain other conditions can render the recipient detectable (such as swimming in water or stepping in a puddle). If a check is required, a stationary invisible creature has a +40 bonus on its Stealth checks...".

So with the invisibility spell, it implies that there is not even a check to even attempt to detect a creature made invisible by its effect unless the creature does something that would require a check (cause a visual disturbance or a noise). From what I gather, at that point if the invisible creature is not using stealth, they're detected, but if they are, they have a big chance to avoid being detected.

For example, here's "The Invisible Man". Under his special abilities, there is "Natural Invisibility (Ex)" which is not a spell related effect: invisible-human-rogue-6-assassin-8/

So the mechanics for this NPC would follow Invisibilty Special Ability rules with pinpointing and all of that.

Otherwise a creature under the invisibility Spell effect only gets a single untyped Stealth bonus (+40 standing still, +20 moving), and no pinpointing mechanics and whatnot; purely a stealth vs. perception.

Ferious Thune wrote:
Under Spell Effects "Bonuses without a type always stack, unless they are from the same source."
Special Spell Effects - Bonus Types wrote:
Usually, a bonus has a type that indicates how the spell grants the bonus. The important aspect of bonus types is that two bonuses of the same type don’t generally stack. With the exception of dodge bonuses, most circumstance bonuses, and racial bonuses, only the better bonus of a given type works. The same principle applies to penalties- a character taking two or more penalties of the same type applies only the worst one, although most penalties have no type and thus always stack. Bonuses without a type always stack, unless they are from the same source.

I bolded parts that was describing what it was referring to in terms of "bonus types".

Under the Magic rules for "Designing Spells":

Designing Spells - Bonus Types wrote:
There are many types of bonuses in the game. It's tempting to look at that list of bonuses, find "holes" in the spell list that don't have spells for certain bonus types, and create a new spell that adds one of those unused bonus types to your favorite statistic or roll. Resist this temptation. Not all bonus types are equal within the game, and many bonus types are only meant for certain things. See Table 2–7: Bonus Types and Effects...

Instead of recreating the entire table here, I have included the URL to that Bonus Types section for reference: #bonus-types

The bonus types it refers to in the table are: Alchemical, Armor, Circumstance, Competence, Deflection, Dodge, Enhancement, Inherent, Insight, Luck, Moreale, Natural Armor, Profane, Resistance, Sacred, Shield, and Size.

Nothing refers to spells themselves as a bonus type, or invisibility as a bonus type, or the DC modifiers as having or being a bonus type.

The bonus types that the magic page was referring to are all modifiers for things like Attack, Damage, Skill check Bonuses (not alterations to a DC modifier), CMB, CMD, Saves, and the like. As far as I can tell these bonus type rules have no relation to the modifiers being discussed with the invisibility special ability; neither the words "Bonus" or "Type" are mentioned at all on the Invisibility Special Ability page.

The only place where bonus types might have some relevance is that the invisibility spell says a stationary invisible creature has a +40 bonus on it's Stealth checks. This is an untyped bonus. Unless otherwise specified, untyped bonuses stack (EDIT: forgot to note, they stack as long as they're from different sources. However, this is the only stealth bonus mentioned in the entire spell...). I have no idea how that works with the modifiers mentioned in the Special Ability invisibility section.

If the spell and the ability by the same name are referring to the +40 stealth bonus being the same as the DC modifiers of "Base 20, +20 while not moving to detect a creature's presence in the area" as being one and same thing, then of course it's utterly confusing (as we can see) that it would describe it differently between the two and it would have been best that the spell simply refers the Special Ability for the invisibility modifiers in the first place (but it doesn't, so here we are).

On that note, perhaps its possible that the spell is to be treated as a separate effect than the special ability, as I can't seem to find a direct reference to the invisibility special ability from the invisibility spell description, or vice versa. (EDIT: After giving it more thought, I think this is exactly how it's supposed to be. It just doesn't make sense otherwise. The Spell (by the same name only) does not use Special Ability mechanics, but only grants +40 untyped bonus to stealth check, lowered to a +20 untyped bonus if moving, and that's it. No pinpointing rules for the spell. The Special Ability (by the same name only) follows mechanics I described from my last post.)

Irontruth wrote:

A single source can only give one modifier to a check.

Identify the largest applicable modifier and only apply it once.

So correct me if I'm wrong, but are you saying that only the best listed modifier on the table is applied, so for an invisible creature at its best:

*Base DC of 20, ignore lone pinpoint bonus because using Stealth, +20 DC for using Stealth + opposed Stealth (Final DC of 40 + Stealth result) to pinpoint; Having no additional modifier bonuses even if the target is also holding still (+20 DC) 50 feet away (+5 DC) behind a stone wall (+15 DC)... And this is because the single source is "everything related to the placement and varied actions of the invisible creature"?

And at it's worst:

*Base DC of 20, +20 to pinpoint, -20 DC when creature is speaking/in combat (Final of DC 20) to pinpoint; Having no additional penalties even if the target is also running/charging (-20 DC)?

That doesn't seem right. Or did you mean:

*Modifiers, such as penalties for moving at half speed vs at full speed vs running don't stack; So if movement of the creature is running, use only the (-20 DC) as it's the largest penalty modifier from the same source (source as in types of movement).

That would make sense, but in that note, there aren't any modifiers besides types of movement which appear to be "from the same source" in the table in that regard. I guess I don't understand what was meant by "from the same single source", and that makes a big difference.


In any case, I think the penalties for invisibility perception DC's are being overlooked which seem to give some semblance of balance, even with stealth involved.

If I assume all bonuses/penalties in the chart stack besides the varying types of movement (and non-movement), and the invisible creature is not in combat/speaking/running/charging, the creature would be difficult to pinpoint, although movement does greatly decrease the DC:

*Not moving: Base 20 DC, +20 base pinpoint, +20 not moving, +20 and (non-negative stealth score willing) more if using stealth as part of it:
DC 60 not moving, +20 and more if using stealth

*Moving at half speed: Base 20 DC, +20 base pinpoint, -5 moving at half speed, +20 and (non-negative stealth score willing) more if using stealth as part of it:
DC 35 at half speed, +20 and more if using stealth

*Moving at full speed: Base 20 DC, +20 base pinpoint, -10 moving at full speed, +20 and (non-negative stealth score willing) more if using stealth as part of it but also taking a -5 penalty to stealth check due to Stealth rules for moving at greater than half normal speed:
DC 30 at full speed, +15 and more if using stealth


Now add the In Combat/Speaking penalty to the mix (I'll assume "in combat" means "has combat initiative", but I'm not going to argue that point because I have no idea for sure. At the very least the invisible creature is making attack attempts or is casting a non-offensive spell with a verbal component without silence metamagic or something):

*Not moving: Base 20 DC, +20 base pinpoint, +20 not moving, +20 and (non-negative stealth score willing) more if using stealth as part of it, but taking -20 for being in combat/speaking:
DC 40 not moving, +20 and more if using stealth

*Moving at half speed: Base 20 DC, +20 base pinpoint, -5 moving at half speed, +20 and (non-negative stealth score willing) more if using stealth as part of it, but taking -20 for being in combat/speaking:
DC 15 at half speed, +20 and more if using stealth

*Moving at full speed: Base 20 DC, +20 base pinpoint, -10 moving at full speed, +20 and (non-negative stealth score willing) more if using stealth as part of it but also taking a -5 penalty to stealth check due to Stealth rules for moving at greater than half normal speed, and also taking -20 for being in combat/speaking:
DC 10 at full speed, +15 and more if using stealth

The DC's are greatly reduced here, and while still difficult, again the perception checks get much easier when there's movement involved. In addition, some very important notes:

*A creature in stealth that attempts an attack loses stealth (goodbye stealth bonus + check; this also ought to force everyone to get a new perception check each time this happens).
*A creature in stealth that "strikes" (I assume this means a landed hit) a person adjacent to it is instantly pinpointed by that specific person (still loses any stealth bonus + check as well) until the creature decides to move.
*I'd understand the rules to be that while a 5-foot step is not "moving at half-speed", it is also not "not moving", so neither bonus or penalty would be given for perception checks for that kind of movement.
*A running or charging creature can't use stealth, so it would get a straight up DC 20 to be pinpointed. If also "in combat" or speaking, it's pretty much a perception check against DC of 0 to pinpoint the creature.
*Everything I've stated in these examples is of course barring anything else like bonuses given by distance and obstacles.

I know I'm a bit late to the thread, but since this has gone unresolved -

Cuup wrote:
Maybe I'm crazy, but I thought that Ghosts - and any Incorporeal creatures, for the matter - wielding Ghost Touch weapons added their Charisma modifiers to the weapon's damage, replacing Strength, but I can't find anything supporting this in the rules. Can anyone confirm one way or the other?

According to UMR:

Universal Monster Rules: Incorporeal (Ex) wrote:
...It has no Strength score, so its Dexterity modifier applies to its melee attacks, ranged attacks, and CMB.

By RAW this states that melee attacks gain the attack bonus from Dex (but this does -not- imply Dex bonus to damage according to the glossary definition of "Melee Attack").

Concerning Incorporeal creatures and applying Str Damage to Melee Attacks:

Ability Scores: Strength (Str) wrote:
...A character with a Strength score of 0 is too weak to move in any way and is unconscious. Some creatures do not possess a Strength score and have no modifier at all to Strength-based skills or checks.

By RAW, they don't get to apply Str Bonuses (or penalties) at all to melee damage or any other strength based skills or checks.

However, I can't see why by RAW an incorporeal creature with both a weapon finesse feat and an agile + ghost touch enchanted light melee weapon wouldn't gain Dex to damage.


Imbicatus wrote:
My biggest complaint about incorporeal creatures is that they should have STR scores, but They just can't normally use them. You have all kinds of edge cases like ghost touch weapons...

The UMR rules I quoted should resolve issues about incorporeal creatures using ghost touch weapons.

Imbicatus wrote:
...Tetoris grappling them and so on that just don't work with them having a null score.

This is about the Inescapable Grasp ability, correct?

Tetori: Inescapable Grasp (SU) wrote:
...At 17th level, the tetori’s unarmed strike gains the ghost touch special ability, and an incorporeal creature that he strikes gains the grappled condition (Reflex negates, DC 10 + 1/2 the wrestler’s level + his Wisdom modifier). Inescapable grasp is a swift action and lasts until the beginning of the wrestler’s next turn.

That is a very interesting ability. It says that when the monk uses an unarmed strike, the incorporeal creature itself gains the grappled condition. It doesn't actually say that the Tetori participates in that grapple as part of the attack or has the ability to use normal rules to initiate a grapple maneuver and maintain it against incorporeal creatures, just that he simply imparts the grapple condition to the creature "until the beginning of the wrestler's next turn". It isn't even allowing the incorporeal creature to use the usual "resist grapple" Combat Maneuver/Escape Artist check against Opponents CMD when struck, instead using a specific Reflex save just for that ability. Because of this, it seems like a strength score for incorporeal creatures is a non-issue for this specific ability's special mechanics. That doesn't downplay how devastating this can be to an incorporeal creature though; without the Tetori being in a grappled condition himself (which is a major beneifit), he imparts the following grappled penalties to the creature:

*-4 to Dex
*Can't move
*-2 penalty on all attack rolls and CMB checks
*Can't take action that requires 2 hands to perform (might be a non-issue except for ghost touch weapons I suppose)
*When casting spell must make concentration check (DC 10 + grappler’s CMB + spell level) or lose the spell
*No AOO's allowed
*Can't use stealth even if normally allowed

Snowblind wrote:

There is the whole "Hands of Effort" unwritten rules thing, but that is very much a Pathfinder problem, not something inherited from 3.5.

For some reason Pathfinder lacks rules for how to handle burrow. You have to refer to the 3.5 rules.

Since Pathfinder lacks anything resembling comprehensive rules for Illusions, you will sometimes see people referring to the 3.5 "All about Illusions" articles, which give a much more in depth explanation for how to adjudicate things like disbelief (which makes up for 3.5's lack of comprehensive illusion rules).

As far as I can remember, that's about it.

Great, thanks! I'll have to remember the illusions and disbelief too. I've been waffling on how to treat that kind of animal. However, I did find the burrow rules when searching the d20pfsrd a few months ago for an encounter I was preparing. It seems to indicate that it's part of the Universal Monster Rules. Maybe it was a very recent errata that it was added in.

EDIT: Hah, I totally failed to notice the note stating that burrow rules were not included in the Pathfinder rules. I guess it never was added as you said. Strange.

MikeM16A4 wrote:

I'm going to have to agree with coxey292 here. If the item actually worked like this, it'd be useless for anything not a minimum of fighter 3 (which isn't true because a fighter 1 or 2 with this item would get the ability). If it worked the way you said it did, even without having shown actual rulings for it, then this item would be useless not only for any multiclassed fighter, but any fighter below level 3, in which you already got the ability you were looking for, and even the majority of the fighter archetypes.

Yes. A character with a Fighter class would have beneficial use of the Sash of the War Champion as it benefits the Fighter class's abilities, armor training and bravery.

However, a Brawler class doesn't have armor training and bravery, and only has levels in Fighter (not the class), and only to the specific effect of feats as well as and magic items that benefit shared abilities between the Fighter and Brawler.

MikeM16A4 wrote:
There are rules specifically stating that a zombie's con is "-", but from what coxey has said there has been no clarification on whether or not class levels are null or 0.

Well, that's we've been trying to clarify for you. The clarification is that there simply is no level 0 for characters or class advancement in the rulebook, period. Look at the class advancement tables. They start at level 1, and there is no explained concept of 0. Look at Character advancement. It starts at level 1. Please, for the love of Wisdom, be clarified!

coxey292 wrote:

Okay, so let's say I have no apples, and somebody gives me 4 apples, how many apples do I have? I think 4, you think that I don't get them, because I didn't have any apples in the first place.

None = 0 in all of mathematics. If they have clarified this, please link it to me. I really would like to know because I think this brawler thing is b@#~&+*~, but it does work, rules as written.

I also have never seen a rule saying that magic items cannot give you class abilities, and following the logically nature of nothing + 4 = 4, this does indeed give you the armor training and bravery of a 4th level fighter.

Again, if I am wrong, I will gladly admit it, but you have to show me the rules.

EDIT: Even if I have no levels in something and something gives me 4 levels, no matter what(no prereqs for those levels in the Sash), then I have 4 levels.

Your math is sound. But this isn't simply an addition math problem. These are rules for an RPG (and even beyond that, there are situations where you definitely don't start counting at 0).

The fact is that there is no level 0 in the rules for character or class advancement. The closest thing to a level 0 are cantrip/orison spells (accessible to a level 1 wizards/clerics/druids etc., for that matter). The proof of burden is on you to provide proof that a level 0 character or class exists in the core or any other rules.

Duiker wrote:
That is not even remotely true. A null value is distinct from zero "in all of mathematics".

That's a very solid way of putting it, great example.


Rynjin wrote:
It's like asking "How far will this gallon of gas get me?" when you're riding a bicycle. You're putting gas into something that doesn't run on gas. It doesn't do anything.

And another good example, Mr. Ninja.

coxey292 wrote:
If I am level 0

There is no level 0. If you have 1 level in a class, then yes, you could make use of items that are associated with the abilities granted by that class.

A brawler has fighter and monk levels for specific purposes (feats and magic items). The magic items cannot grant new abilities that don't exist with the brawler class itself.

EDIT: Think of the implications if there were such thing as a level 0. That implies that a character has every conceivable class there is, just at level 0, granting that character any abilities if their level is somehow improved by various means beyond actually leveling, like magic items. The fact is, there just isn't a level 0 on any class chart or character advancement chart, at least that I've seen.

My Self wrote:

Brawlers inherits a decent chunk of the Fighter's biggest class features: Bonus feats!

... Which still isn't all that much.

That's a good point. I don't usually think about bonus feats as a class ability since they ultimately translate into just being more feats in the end. Although they get a few less bonus feats than Fighter, they do compensate by becoming "combat feat casters".

MikeM16A4 wrote:

Yes, BUT it specifically mentions i count as a fighter AND a monk for the purposes of magic items, then specifically references the monk's robes, which state "When worn, this simple brown robe confers great ability in unarmed combat. If the wearer has levels in monk, her AC and unarmed damage is treated as a monk of five levels higher. If donned by a character with the Stunning Fist feat, the robe lets her make one additional stunning attack per day. If the character is not a monk, she gains the AC and unarmed damage of a 5th-Level monk (although she does not add her Wisdom bonus to her AC). This AC bonus functions just like the monk's AC bonus."

I would count as having monk levels to receive the first effect, and not the effect of having no monk levels. On the FAQ for the Sash of the war champion people are saying that if you have no levels in fighter the sash doesn't work, but my own ability is stating that i do have levels in fighter, which begs the question.
The sash of the war champion nor the FAQ state i need to have the abilities, just levels in fighter. This is why i'm asking. Because if it works for the monk's robes, it'd have to work for everything else.

... But you don't automatically gain all of those respective classes's abilities from a magic item, only the ones the Brawler inherits from them. Since a Slayer has sneak attack damage, he can benefit from sneak attack feats and magic items that improve or effect it, but a Slayer doesn't gain benefit for magic items that enhance animal companion abilities, since a Slayer class doesn't have an animal companion ability, only the Ranger/Druid (and other) classes do.

A Brawler has Unarmed Damage and AC Bonus inherited from Monk, so he can benefit from the Monk's Robes from those. But a Brawler doesn't inherit Armor training or Bravery from Fighter, so he can't benefit from magic items that boost that.

EDIT: The Brawler generally benefits from "levels in fighter" for meeting Feat requirements. There's really no class abilities that a Brawler inherits from Fighter, unfortunately.

I wouldn't think so, as those class features belong to Fighter class. You're a Brawler, you don't have armor training or bravery. So the item is useless to you.

Snowblind wrote:
Brandenfascher wrote:
Well, ok then. I suppose if that's how it works, then that's how it is. But where can I find the rule of "specific overrules general"? I've never spotted this in the core rules or anywhere else, unless I've overlooked it.
You won't find it in the PF ruleset, because it isn't spelled out. The concept was explicitly stated in 3.5, and it is assumed that Pathfinder works the same since the rules literally don't function otherwise. Seriously. The concept of having a general rule that is overridden by specific rules elements (aka an exception based ruleset) is seen throughout the PF RPG. As far as I know, attempting to apply any other paradigm to the ruleset results in the rule being completely broken, because so many parts of PF contradict each other (which specific-beats-general resolves by treating those contradictions as exceptions).

Ah. Well, that's good to know, but it's a bit disconcerting to someone like me who touched 3.5 and past editions minimally or not at all, and has been using Pathfinder for a good while now. Are there any other unwritten rules I should be wary about?

Well, ok then. I suppose if that's how it works, then that's how it is. But where can I find the rule of "specific overrules general"? I've never spotted this in the core rules or anywhere else, unless I've overlooked it.

kinevon wrote:

No, you cannot take 10 with UMD unless you already have a class feature or other ability that bypasses UMD's "You CANNOT take 10 with UMD." clause.

As a GM, you could allow it at your home game. As a player, you could ask your GM. Otherwise, no.

Skill Mastery wrote:
The rogue becomes so confident in the use of certain skills that she can use them reliably even under adverse conditions. The rogue selects a number of skills equal to her Intelligence modifier. When making a skill check with one of the selected skills (or any of the skills selected through the rogue’s edge class feature), she can take 10 even if stress and distractions would normally prevent her from doing so. A rogue can gain this special ability multiple times, selecting additional skills for skill mastery to apply to each time.
Special wrote:
You cannot take 10 with this skill.
You cannot take 10 with this skill.

I do understand that UMD states the restriction, but how did you determine what is the official wordage that an ability would need to bypass that, if at all?

On one hand, the Bard's 19th level ability from Jack of All Trades explicitly states that she can take ten "even if it is not normally allowed".

As well as that, we have Arcane Savant Prestige class which grants at first level that "An arcane savant can always take 10 on Use Magic Device checks, except when activating an item blindly."

On the other hand, the mythic trickster's Unwavering Skill (Ex) explicitly states "You can always take 10 or 20 on class skills, even if threatened or in a hazardous situation", but also that "You can't use this ability with skill checks that don't normally allow you to take 10 or take 20."

On the third hand, we have Skill Mastery which does not specify either way, and does nothing of the sort to warn the player/GM in any way that it won't overcome UMD's requirement or not.

And finally, on the fourth disembodied hand, 3.5's warlock has syntax almost precisely the same as Skill Mastery that allows taking 10 with UMD. Comparing the two (bold and italics for emphasis):

"Deceive Item (Ex): At 4th level and higher, a warlock has the ability to more easily commandeer magic items made for the use of other characters. When making a Use Magic Device check, a warlock can take 10 even if distracted or threatened."

"Skill Mastery: The rogue becomes so confident in the use of certain skills that she can use them reliably even under adverse conditions. Upon gaining this ability, she selects a number of skills equal to 3 + her Intelligence modifier. When making a skill check with one of these skills, she may take 10 even if stress and distractions would normally prevent her from doing so."

I know we aren't discussing 3.5 rules here, but I am comparing a nearly exact syntax that, English language's faults granted, should apply to both cases equally. If the phrasing for Skill Mastery indeed does not bypass restriction to allow taking 10 on UMD, then it definitely wouldn't allow it for the 3.5 warlock, which would have made it a pointless, self-defeating ability for the warlock. The only reason we wouldn't naturally think of it that way is that the Warlock ability specifies UMD as the only skill it is designed for. Skill Mastery's wordage apparently allows any skills to be picked without restriction, which should mean UMD is on the table, whether it actually works with UMD or not.

So that's where I'm coming from. I would put my opinion that by RAW it allows taking 10, but as I find it's generally not all very consistent overall, I find it's difficult to say either way. Ultimately, if it really were to prevent Skill Mastery being useful with UMD, it would have been better worded to be similar to the Mythic Trickster's Unwavering Skill.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Weirdo wrote:
Snowblind is correct. The only problem with the FAQ is that it says you can't disbelieve the sleeves because they're a glamour, when the actual reason is that it never allows a save.

Re-reading that FAQ, I think they simply failed to put enough emphasis in that the sleeves are "like the glamered weapon and armor properties", which don't have any saves, but can be overcome with spells like "True Seeing". I'd have to guess that's probably their intention, and not that all glamours can't be disbelieved.

Apologies for necroing a semi-old thread, but after (quite a bit of) researching this I am very certain UMD is usable with Skill Mastery. It appears as if the "even if stress and distractions would normally prevent her from doing so" is very misleading to most, the crux of it due to a broad misunderstanding of the logic behind "even if" (Another apology for introducing English grammatics):

Here's the English logical operative meanings of "Even If", where "She may take 10" = {B}, and "stress and distractions would normally prevent her from doing so" = {A}.

Even if {A}, {B}:

1 - If {A} happens, {B} will still happen.
2 - Whether or not {A} happens, {B} will still happen.
3 - {B} is true, regardless of {A}

It seems most people read it by #1, which gives the appearance that the Skill Mastery use only gives new ability where {A} is true:

-If "stress and distractions would normally prevent her from doing so", "She may take 10" will still happen.

However, that is only half of what even if means. Following the meaning of #2 it would read as follows:

-Whether or not "stress and distractions would normally prevent her from doing so", "She may take 10" will still happen.

Following the meaning of #3, it would read as follows:

-"She may take 10" is true, regardless of "stress and distractions would normally prevent her from doing so"

#2 and #3 state that {B} is true regardless of whatever {A} is. {A} is just a side note that pretty much says "Yes, you can also take ten when stress and distractions would normally prevent it." Because {B} is its own clause, and the even if statement prevents it from being restricted in any way by clause {A}, this means I can also say just {B}, and it would be true:

-"She may take 10."

Or, in fuller context:

-"When making a skill check with one of these skills, she may take 10."

If it is supposed to be worded to mean otherwise, it should have been worded like this:

"When making a skill check with one of these skills, she may take 10 when stress and distractions would normally prevent her from doing so."

Nice. I just happened to create a Two-handed Fighter PC last year who is bent on beating up bandits with his self-made coffin. Haven't tried him yet though... But he'd probably be pretty awful.

I don't know that it will help much, but if you are considering using it as a weapon, my GM OK'd it to be compared to a simple greatclub just for simplicity, even though it seems "official" coffins are listed as being much, much heavier according to the equipment/gear section of the core rules.

Ascalaphus wrote:

Why does blindsight block stealth, even if you have cover/concealment?

I mean, I understand how blindsight helps against concealment by darkness or fog. But suppose you're hiding behind a shrubbery that grants concealment?

That is a good point. I would suggest adding some clarification in the example by stating that in this situation, failure to to stealth is based on lighting (dim-light, darkness) that blind-sight overcomes, but not other forms of concealment that form an opaque barrier to vision, such as a wall.

EDIT: Actually, I realize I don't know whether blindsight would allow sensing through transparent barriers like windows... Probably not that either. My suggestion probably would have worked for darkvision though.

Ah, I see where you are coming from now, and I think we're already on the same page; I'm just thinking you misunderstood me. I stated:

Next turn, you can attempt to stealth if you try to end up in at least dim-light or cover, as you aren't observed again yet (unless you fail your stealth check).

So I'm saying, you leave complete darkness and enter standard cover or dim light (standard, not total concealment). If you fail your stealth check in those spaces, you will be observed, as I understand it. I guess I could have worded that better.

Shadowlord wrote:
The only thing I would comment on is statement I bolded. If the creature's Perception beats your Stealth, it will know where you moved to, but it still wouldn't be "observing" you (from a game definition standpoint). You still have Total Concealment and my attempt another Stealth check. The creature in your scenario is blind, it may know which square you moved to, but it's like knowing what square an invisible creature moved to. That information is only good until the creature moves again with a successful Stealth check.

You say a character still has total concealment from someone when their perception check beats his stealth check? I don't understand that when the stealth skill states:

Creatures that fail to beat your Stealth check are not aware of you and treat you as if you had total concealment.

To me this would indicate that if the opposite were to happen (if a creature succeeds) they are aware of you and do not treat you as if you have total concealment. Am I missing something?

What is the purpose of having the "isn't being observed condition"? What change does it make?

Basically, I was trying to emphasize that being in stealth is the same as not being observed. Two sides of the same coin you could say.

Especially if it means you can just try again on your next action.

Well, I guess you're right on that point. Perhaps if I modify my previous statement like so:

Meaning, when you enter cover or concealment if not already observed, you are given the opportunity to try and stealth. That is, make a stealth check as opposed to the viewer's perception check in an attempt to attain or keep the property of stealth, and thus stay unobserved.

This would change it such that if you're being observed already, such as being seen in bright or normal light, and you just entered dim-light (or anything that is concealment, but not total concealment), you can't attempt stealth with a check, because you're already observed as you enter it; it's not entirely difficult to make out when you just barely entered that light and move around while still in that light.

But what about ending in darkness for Total Concealment? So, maybe you pass through dim-light, but still have moves to enter darkness, so you do. Your opponent is now blinded to you (assuming normal vision), and no longer observes you. Next turn, you can attempt to stealth if you try to end up in at least dim-light or cover, as you aren't observed again yet (unless you fail your stealth check).

Does that sound better?

I think I get it now, but please, anyone correct me if I'm wrong.

Essentially, we don't need to further define what "to observe" means, as long as we can agree that it means "to succeed in a Perception check". In this situation, it is against a stealth check DC.

Reading this passage in stealth with that definition in mind:

If people are observing you using any of their senses (but typically sight), you can't use Stealth.

This means then that a person cannot have the property of stealth if he is being observed, or that is, if he failed his stealth check against the viewer's perception check.


Against most creatures, finding cover or concealment allows you to use Stealth.

Meaning, when you enter cover or concealment, you are given the opportunity to try and stealth. That is, make a stealth check as opposed to the viewer's perception check in an attempt to attain the property of stealth, and thus become un-observed.

Thus, one of two things could happen:

1- Viewer succeeds in the perception check, and the viewer is now observing the other character who failed the stealth check; The "hiding" character is confirmed as being observed now, even while he is in concealment or cover; because of the failed check. He is thus, unable to have the condition of Stealth. This fulfills "if people are observing you, [...] you cannot use Stealth"

2- Viewer fails in the perception check, and thus the viewer fails to observe the other character who succeeded the stealth check; The hiding character managed to attain stealth, and is now not observed while in concealment or cover. This also fulfills "if people are observing you, [...] you cannot use Stealth"

So, to answer the OP question about whether or not a character in concealment can stealth while being observed is actually no; This is because that would mean the the character attempting to stealth has already failed his stealth check.

Does that sound correct? Am I overlooking something?

I'm in agreement with you there.

I guess a finer way to state my point is that it is my understanding that in a typical situation, a normal humanoid can observe a sound itself; but that doesn't lead to meaning that he is observing whatever is producing the sound, and not necessarily where it actually comes from. Not without visual observation, at least. Therefore, audible sounds aught to not count as observing a creature itself. I would say the same with smell. Ignoring special sensory abilities, of course.

fretgod99 wrote:
1. You see a guy dive behind a crate 15' away from you. You can hear him moving around. Are you observing him? Undoubtedly yes. Why do you need to see something to be observing it? Why do you necessarily even need a special sense ability to be able pinpoint a creature's location with a sense other than vision?

That's the irritated, rabid badger inside the crate making that noise. The guy has already snuck off by the time I looked behind the crate.

I'm kidding a bit, but a problem with sound is that it doesn't necessarily identify something, and it can easily fool listeners in thinking it came from a certain spot when it didn't.

I could hear a bang, and that could be anything from dropping a small anvil on a flat wooden surface, someone bull-rushing into a wall, a gunshot, lightning, etc.

In fact, just last weekend my Dad helped me remove a wall-mounted AC and patch the empty hole it left in wall of my house. While my dad used his electric driver to unscrew the bolts holding up the AC, the loud noise it made caused my neighbor to stop by. You see, he thought it was coming from his own son's truck that was parked in front of my house as his son was starting up his truck to leave, thinking he was having engine problems. Only to find his son's truck was fine.

So in that instance, my neighbor incorrectly identified the cause of the sound, and the direction too. Sound has a funny way of bending around walls, confusing anyone of their direction.

Looking at it again, I'd have to guess that either
A) you're right, it's a contradiction or not clearly worded, and the line of sight passage was actually meant to refer to total concealment exclusively, as you noted the examples referred to.
B) Dim-light is an exception to the line-of sight rule. Of course, there's no evidence for that beyond the explicit description of how dim-light's concealment functions.

I'd wager that it's "A", as the description of the Fog Cloud spell quotes thus:

"The fog obscures all sight, including darkvision, beyond 5 feet. A creature within 5 feet has concealment (attacks have a 20% miss chance). Creatures farther away have total concealment (50% miss chance, and the attacker can't use sight to locate the target)."

... implying that basic concealment doesn't block line of sight.

I guess for me it's back to what exactly "to observe" means when it comes to basic, non-total concealment. To bad it wasn't even expressly defined in direct context with concealment, but it would be a mess if the designers had to define every single word.

thejeff wrote:

Agreed dim light certainly provides concealment, but no where else does it even imply that dim light blocks line of sight.

The consequences would be severe.

With a ranged weapon, you can shoot or throw at any target that is within the weapon's maximum range and in line of sight.

Ranged weapons would be completely useless in dim light, if it blocked line of sight.

Even more specifically

If you have line of effect to a target but not line of sight, he is considered to have total concealment from you. You can't attack an opponent that has total concealment, though you can attack into a square that you think he occupies.
If any concealment breaks line of sight, then any concealment is total concealment.

You have a good point there. It seems to just flop concealment into total concealment between my Line of Sight reference and your last reference there. I'll have to look more into that.

thejeff wrote:
Brandenfascher wrote:

This might be of some help to clarify the effect of concealment. This is found in the Common Terms section (emphasis mine):

"Line of Sight

A line of sight is the same as a Line of Effect but with the additional restriction that that it is blocked by fog, darkness, and other factors that limit normal sight (such as Concealment)."

That seems to be pretty clear cut to me. Concealment is described as a factor that limits normal sight.

Which is just more sloppy language. What are the other effects of even dim light blocking line of sight?

Forget 20% miss chance, can you even target someone you don't have line of sight to?

Edit: Interesting that the specific examples give total concealment. Dim light isn't mentioned.

Well... Maybe not specifically an example of line of sight, but in the Vision and Light section of Gamemastering it explains that dim-light specifically DOES grant concealment (emphasis mine), to normal sight of course. It also implies dim-light is "darkness":

"In an area of dim light, a character can see somewhat. Creatures within this area have concealment (20% miss chance in combat) from those without darkvision or the ability to see in darkness. A creature within an area of dim light can make a Stealth check to conceal itself. Areas of dim light include outside at night with a moon in the sky, bright starlight, and the area between 20 and 40 feet from a torch.

Edit: I realized I misread your post. I thought you were asking for an example of dim-light blocking line of sight.. ah well.

This might be of some help to clarify the effect of concealment. This is found in the Common Terms section (emphasis mine):

"Line of Sight

A line of sight is the same as a Line of Effect but with the additional restriction that that it is blocked by fog, darkness, and other factors that limit normal sight (such as Concealment)."

That seems to be pretty clear cut to me. Concealment is described as a factor that limits normal sight.

Zandari wrote:

There is also a little pouch, and that pouch is full of index cards cut in half, so they are 3"x2.5". Each index card represents a wand, with the PC's name, the spell and original number of charges listed at the top, and the chronicle on which I purchased it.

I have been looking for an easy way to keep track of Wands and other assortments of items/weapons. I can't believe I never thought of using index cards. Thank you sir, this is genius.