Drow Battle Wizard

Dallium's page

288 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists.


1 to 50 of 288 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | next > last >>

Look, this feels like the 5th time I've had and eventually won this argument on this forum, and there's a buncha threads I missed and more from before my time. I'm not particularly interested in doing it again, so this will be my last post here. There is no argument to be had that, by RAW, you can Overrun during a charge. You've laid out a perfectly reasonable house rule (one functionally identical to my own house rule, though I also grant players a +2 on their CMB check), but it is a house rule. Action economy precludes it and even if it didn't, per charge rules that Overrun makes no effort to be more specific than, you have moved TO the first square you may legally attack from. It's that damn comma. If the action economy works we could probably ignore the other reasons it doesn't work, but there's just no way around that comma.

The reason I bash this point so persistently is that I think it's vitally important to have a good grounding in what the rules actually say, and adjust them from there. Then you can tell your players exactly what you're changing (and why) before the game ever starts. If you make an incorrect assumption about the rules, it won't occur to you to bring it up. I'm reminded of the time a one-off GM told a Magus, in midcombat, that he couldn't use Arcane Mark with Spellcombat because, even though it was legal, the GM thought it was cheesy and stupid. Which caused the regular GM to remark "wait, that's not legal, is it?" and the whole table dissolved into arguing about Magi. The whole thing could have been avoided (or been less disruptive) if the temp GM had brought that particular ruling up at session 0. Just tell your players you let them overrun during a charge and they do or don't get +2. I don't really care if you believe its RAW or not, just communicate with your players/ask your GM on rules you know are controversial, before they come up at the table.

RAWmonger wrote:
Also, they were wrong about not being able to overrun as part of a charge w/o the feat 'charge through'.... "as a standard action, taken during your move or as part of a charge, you can attempt to overrun your target,

They were right for the wrong reasons. You can't Overrun as a part of a charge because 1) action economy and 2) movement from a charge ends as soon as you reach a square from which you threaten the target. Overrun was obviously intended to be used during a charge, but you have to houserule it.

Cavall wrote:

Hardcovers tend to be generic rules and are purchased more, with more content. So they got the most focus.

As it stands none are getting updates so its moot anyways.

Huh. I've been using "splatbooks" as a general term for anything that isn't the DMG or PHB for over 20 years. This is the first time I've heard anyone suggest that's not what it means. But it does make sense.

You guys get that this is just Flame Blade all over again, right? Was there ever a consensus on that?

Cevah wrote:
Dallium wrote:

Further Discussion on Authorial Intent/Error:

However, I'm unaware of any official method for a non-Paladin to get Mercy.

The 3pp oracle curse Merciful has:

At 5th level, you gain a mercy, as the paladin ability.
At 10th level, you gain a second mercy, and can exchange your first mercy for a different one.
At 15th level, you gain a third mercy, and can exchange one of your existing mercies for a different one.


Right, but 3PP isn't official. It's a method that is available to players, sure, but we can't assume the devs know about them when they develop new content.

On closer inspection, it sure seems like Lelomenia is onto something. Holy Guide doesn't explicitly do anything post level 6 other than giving you the option of taking a terrain instead of a mercy. Holy Guide even specifically says "This ability replaces the mercy gained at 3rd level" whereas, for example, Chaos Knight's Blessing of the Maelstrom reads "This replaces mercy," which implies that a Holy Guide may still chose mercies, whereas a Chaos Knight cannot.

Knight of Coins has an even better example in Blessing of Prosperity:

Blessing of Prosperity wrote:

At 3rd level and every 6 levels thereafter, the paladin can select a blessing (see Blessings below)...

A knight of coins who takes the Extra Mercy feat can gain an extra blessing of prosperity instead of an extra mercy....

This replaces the mercies gained at 3rd, 9th, and 15th levels.

Bolding added. So on one hand we have an archetype of Paladin that replaces some (but not all) of a Paladin's mercy picks, lists out a specific interaction with the Extra Mercy feat, and thereby implicitly states that said archetype qualifies for said feat, and thus is considered to have the Mercy class feature. On the other hand, we have an archetype of Paladin that explicitly replaces the entire Mercy class feature, who presumably therefore does not qualify for Extra Mercy (and BoM doesn't progress the same way Mercy does, so there's no obvious way to apply the feat).

I think the answer is yes, definitively so by level 9.

Further Discussion on Authorial Intent/Error:
So it would be overstating BoP's explicit interaction with EM to hold it up as demonstrative proof that a KoC qualifies for EM in a vacuum. However, I'm unaware of any official method for a non-Paladin to get Mercy. Even in such a method exists, it seems... unlikely that the authorial team included the interaction just in case a KoC somehow regained Mercy through creative multi-classing. The simplest explanation is that the team believed they wrote BoP in such a way that didn't preclude a KoC from taking EM. It's possible they're wrong, as the rules aren't obligated to work or do anything (Release Prone Shooter, Overrun as part of a charge, Mounted Combat Feats in general, etc.) but the intent seems pretty clear that KoC was intended to be able to take EM. And if a KoC can take it, there's no reason a HG can't. The interaction is even simpler than in BoP's case. I guess the existence of BoP's EM rider could be compared to FT's lack, but BoP NEEDED an explicit rider. Without it, there's no interaction. FT is more concise, as it triggers "whenever" the Paladin gains a new Mercy, regardless of source.

blahpers wrote:
A holy guide never gains the mercy class feature, so they don't qualify for Extra Mercy anyway.


Melkiador wrote:

It’s an axiom I’ve never heard. And I am on these kinds of boards and discussions a lot. Like, a lot a lot.

And I see nothing about spells that’s anymore specific then feats. They can each be varying degrees of specific.

Edit: I also did a search for the phrase “spells trumps feats” on google and it returned no results.

I'd never heard it before I said it. It's still demonstrably axiomatic. If spells aren't automatically more specific than feats, that player is 100% correct about being able to Cleave despite being paralyzed.

Melkiador wrote:
I’ve never heard of “spells trumps feats” either. Sounds like a house rule.

It's not a rule, it's an axiom. Specific trumps general. Spells are more specific and/or less general than feats. Ergo, Spells trump feats.

3 people marked this as a favorite.

Specific trumps general. Spells trump feats.

DM: Okay, you he casts hold person on you, and you failed you save. It's your turn, do you want to roll again?

PC: No, I Cleave him

DM: You can't, you're paralyzed.

PC: I read on the forums that feats always happen last. So even though I'm paralyzed, that happens first, and then Cleave says I CAN make a single attack at my full BAB as a standard action, so that's the ONLY thing I can do, but I CAN do it.

The spell doesn't care what the feat says. It scoffs at the puny restrictions, does what it was cast to do, and the feat cries quietly in the corner.

I don't think Wheeling Charge abrogates the normal "move at least 10 feet first" rule of charging. It does say you may attack during "any part of this move", however the word "part" is used consistently within the feat to talk about the portions of the move before and after the turn. So you can attack before or after your turn, but still must travel 10 ft first.

Was this organized play or a home game? And I strongly doubt you'll get a truly official ruling.

Unless there's a rule somewhere obscure that turns abilities off when you sleep, I don't see Link Links severing over any amount of time. While it's not unreasonable to think that people traveling together will, at some point in the day, move more than 110 - 300 ft away from each other, that should have been something the GM already discussed with you. It seems reasonable to me that your character would automatically refresh the links when their allies came back into range if nothing else is going on, if that's how the link broke.

It's pretty sticky. One workaround is to not give checks to people who have no reason to make checks. Although soldiers patrolling a road at twilight who see a big patch of fog should be pretty suspicious anyway.

Actually, now that I think a little bit more about it, the Fog Cloud might make them MORE suspicions that just relying on natural conditions.

Yes, why wouldn't you be able to?

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Taudis wrote:
I can't find anything that specifically disallows this

You would need to find something that specifically does allow it, not vice versa. Spells do what they say they do, they don't also give you free traits, or the ability to swap between them.

Meirril wrote:
Really, its just a difference of opinion. I don't feel either of us can really say we are 'correct' here.

No, we can safely say Fuzzy is correct. Most Golems contain the line "[Specific golem] is immune to any spell or spell-like abilities that allow for spell resistance..." with exceptions at the end. Magic items are neither spells nor spell-like abilities, though some of them cast (a) spell(s) when used. Magic items are also not subject to spell resistance (again, unless they're used to cast spells). Having failed all criteria, a golem's Immunity to Magic (EX) does not apply to magic items (though it may apply to spells cast by/with them, subject to the specifics of each golem type).

Meirril wrote:
Anything that directly copies a spell effect shouldn't work.

This may or may not be true in the meta sense, but it's unarguably incorrect from the standpoint of the rules. Magic items don't cast spells unless they specifically say they do.

Meirril wrote:
You want to teleport to the next town? Golem is immune.
Teleport wrote:
Only objects held or in use (attended) by another person receive saving throws and Spell Resistance.

This is up to the GM. Someone COULD argue that the golem body is an object attended by the Spirit, and thus is subject to SR and thus can't be teleported, but unless that person is the GM I can't see why they would, and even then they could just say no by fiat. This may be a loophole, as you can't even attempt to teleport the unwilling, so why bother with saving throws or SR entries? I don't think the devs considered someone teleporting a golem.

Meirril wrote:
Want to Magic Mansion for the night? Golem can't enter.

Mage's Magic Mansion doesn't allow for spell resistance, so the golem should have no problems entering.

You are entirely correct about Plane Shift and Mass Fly.

Look, maybe Golems shouldn't be allowed to use magic items or teleport or enter a MMM, but they can, because general rules suggest they can, and the specific ones don't say they can't. Whether that's balanced or not is off-topic.

I'd bring it up with the venture LT or who ever. That's a fundamental intreprative error on the GM's part.

You can also direct them to this thread or any of the others like it.

The preceding statement could be interpreted as passive aggressive or as a backhanded way of rudely suggesting that OP should have made better use of the search function. My intention is only to offer sincere help, not to demean or insult anyone (except possibly OP's GM).

a highlight of that thread ia a link to a statement by Jason Bulmahn that the abilities interact the way we say they do, and much of the rest is some flavor of "The GM is an idiot" and arguing about whether the abilities are clear or not.

All of them

What Claxon said.

Were I your GM, I'd make you beat their CMD unless your character had some way to communicate to that character EXACTLY what you intended to do to the other character in the heat of the moment. The abstraction of combat is that is takes place all at once, and combatants are constantly jockeying about, making feints and probes, attacking and dodging all over the place. If they leave themselves open to YOUR combat maneuvers, they have to leave themselves open to ALL combat maneuvers, and there's no mechanism for that. Allowing you to reposition them requires some agency on their own part, and you generally can't spend actions outside your own turn. Because that's what we're doing here, we're beneficially moving characters around the board when it isn't their turn. If it only costs your own action, it needs to have some chance of failure to be balanced. I'd let them spend their immediate reaction to drop their dex bonus if you work out a series of verbal signals, no dex and you get a +2 aid another if you have a telepathic link, or drop their CMD to 0 if you both take a homebrew teamwork feat. Do with that as you will.

I wasn't being passive aggressive, I genuinely don't know if we're supposed to answer stuff about third party works or where else that would fit if we aren't. Glad to help, regardless.

And if you're ever planning on being in melee, I would run screaming from STW. -3 AC is too much IMO.

Do we do third party stuff on this forum? I dunno, I'ma answer anyway.

@OP The feats you're asking about start on page 8 of the PDF. Favored Terrain Expert gives you +2 to Knowledge (geography), Perception, Stealth and Survival and initiative when in one favored terrain you chose when you take the feat.
Favored Terrain Master requires FTE and raises the bonuses to +4. Also a bunch of other stuff for your allies
Savage Terrain Warrior requires Str 13, Bab +3 and the favored terrain class feature, and grants you a +2 morale bonus to attack and damage rolls and combat maneuvers checks while in favored terrain, at the cost of -3 to AC, activatable ala Power Attack.

Savage Warrior is a fighter archetype. I can't find anything called Savage Terrain Warrior. Where are you seeing that?

Terrain Master is a Rogue talent that gives a Rogue the favored terrain class feature without progression. I can't find anything called Favored Terrain Master. Where are you seeing that?

I can't find anything close to Favored Terrain Expert. Where are you seeing that?

This is the thread that just keeps on giving.

He'd still have to reactivate the item every round, which is still a standard action. Also, Moment of Greatness only doubles ONE morale bonus before discharging, not ALL. So he could use it on his attack roll, but then he doesn't have it for damage.

As for the item itself, I think you should make him make it command word. That's actually supported by the rules, for one think. I'm not sure what would happen to a use-activated item that had a discharging effect on it, but I suspect you'd have to doff and don it to get the effect back, which is actually worse for your player.

EDIT: He absolutely SHOULD be spending a standard action every round to keep MoG up. No part of that "seems to be a bit much."

I can sorta see where they're coming from. There are a lot of classes that get an advanced but separate version of class abilities at higher levels, and sometimes those abilities also have level dependent effects. eg a level 11 Inquisitor wearing a Bane Baldric may use Bane for 16 rds/day, but does not have access to Greater Bane.

That doesn't seem to be the case here. Oracle Curses wrap everything together, so if your effective curse level is 5, you get access to everything 5th level would give you. The only curse level dependent bonuses I can find are all 3PP. The official stuff explicitly says "oracle level" or "character level," so bumping curse level doesn't do ANYTHING if it doesn't give you early access.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Oyabun_Kyuubi wrote:
Pizza Lord wrote:
So by your logic and the logic of the game persay then this means that theoretically a Belt of giants strength or Boots of elvenkind should not last more than a dungeon or two?

Well, yes. I can't speak for anyone else, but I certainly don't LIKE how fragile magic items are according to the rules, for many of the very reasons you've raised. But the fact that I don't like the rules doesn't change them.

It could be argued that Imp Overrun doesn't help with the AoOs one provokes while moving, but I think the wording of the Overrun rolls the actual combat maneuver into the movement in such a way that the movement from Imp Overrun doesn't provoke, as it's part of "performing an overrun combat maneuver." The problem with that interpretation is that movement no longer provokes at all, so a character could use their Imp Overrun to get out of a pack without provoking. At the table, I would probably rule that Imp Overrun just means you don't provoke your target.

Basically, I think you either provoke from everybody or provoke from nobody, and I don't think that's how it was supposed to work.

For the first set:

1) I don't see why not, assuming you meet all the requirements outlined under charge and acrobatics

2) I think Imp Overrun only removes the AoO from the target of the Overrun. Movement should provoke as normal.

3) Depends. Technically, action economy precludes Overrun as part of a charge. Obviously, the intention is to allow you do it, because Overrun explicitly says it can be used during a charge. Still, the charge rules themselves only mention giving a bonus to Bullrush. Personally, I allow players to make an Overrun with +2 when charging, but this is really an "Ask your GM" question.

As for other attacks, the rules explicitly award the +2 to the attack at the end of the charge, not as a blanket statement, so it's the only attack that gets +2

If you charged, you have -2 AC until your next turn, period.

4) So Overrun and Charge is weird, as I glossed over above. Using Overrun during a charge shatters the normal charging rules. The action economy is wonky (Overrun is always a Standard Action unless it specifically isn't), and charges have to end in the closest square from which you can attack your target, so you technically can't keep moving into their square, let alone past them. Finally, Overrun doesn't technically replace the charge-ending-attack, so you still have to wind up somewhere you can attack your target, even if you get around the "closest space" clause. At the same time, Overrun was explicitly intended to be used during a charge, but how to make that work, or to even bother to, is up to the individual GM. Personally, I let the Overrun replace the attack and let the Overrunner move past their target, but again, "Ask your GM."

As for the others:

1) Yes. Technically, the square you're in isn't adjacent to you, but any enemies within 5 ft ARE, which includes enemies within your square. Because the feat reads "enemy ... adjacent to you," the rules support stomping them. If it had instead read "enemy ... in a space adjacent to you/yours," I'd say that they're technically safe. I'd still give you your AoOs personally, though. Also, I might be wrong about your own square not being adjacent to you.

2) I don't think Gr Overrun and Vicious Stomp stack, as both are triggered by the opponent going prone. If they do, they should both get the prone attack bonus.

As for Spiked Destroyer, it triggers on the successful Overrun but so does the proning. I think they happen at the same time, so you don't get the bonus there (presumably, you hit him with your spikes at the same time you knock him over).

3 people marked this as a favorite.

The general rule of thumb is if Vital Strike would be good, you've made a mistake somewhere

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Yeah, there's no universe where it grants early access to greater bane. You could be 100 levels higher with respect to your bane ability. If you aren't a level 12+ inquisitor, you don't get greater bane.

Now if the Bane ability was worded like "At level 12, the amount of bonus damage dealt by the weapon against creatures of the selected type increases to 4d6." then yes, early greater bane. It's not worded that way. Bane has nothing to do with and has no effect on Greater Bane.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ultimis wrote:
I think the wording makes it perfectly clear that it does not. You have to read into the item (based on its low cost) to come to that conclusion.

No, actually, I didn't. That's how I read it at first brush. Upon further reading, I stand completely behind my initial thoughts.

It seems perfectly clear that bane/greater bane last 5 rounds longer. You don't turn a class ability called bane on in the same way that a Barb turns on a class ability called rage. You use the ability to grant bane to your weapon for CL+5 rounds a day.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
It's no different than a character interacting with a real door versus an illusory door based on the real one (that they failed the save on), the character would react equally towards both subjects, illusory or not, because the character perceives and interacts with both doors exactly the same.

Ok, that's it, I'm done. These scenarios aren't even remotely comparable. To call them "exactly the same" is so disingenuous it borders on outright lies. Good day.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
_Ozy_ wrote:
Dallium wrote:
_Ozy_ wrote:

True, I think part of what people are overlooking with respect to the blur spell is this:

The subject’s outline appears blurred, shifting, and wavering. This distortion grants the subject concealment (20% miss chance).
If the images are also shifting and wavering, why wouldn't they get the same miss chance?concealment

Corrected emphasis mine

Because the shifting and wavering grant concealment, which carries with it a miss chance. An image cannot hide behind itself, therefore the blurred image doesn't have concealment, thus no miss chance.

You can't ignore words that are there. Shifting and wavering mean something,

No they don't. There is no definition of "shifting" or "wavering" anywhere in a Pathfinder rulebook. Also, I can ignore fluff text whenever I wish.


You insist that the shifting and wavering image can't hide, when there is nothing in the rules that says the miss chance is solely from 'hiding' compare to shifting and wavering.

Uh, yes there is. You gain concealment. That's the miss chance. This isn't blink, where you really aren't there.


A blurred image still shifts and wavers, and thus provides a miss chance. In fact, there is nothing in the rules that says this interpretation is less valid than yours.

What? No. Absolutely not. The images don't gain the effects of blur, per the rules. That's unarguable. Mirror Image functions exactly the way it says it does. So does Blur. This has never been about whether the images actually, per the rules, gain the miss chance. Of course they don't. Per the rules, the images don't even change to match the caster if the caster changes, and that doesn't matter, because Mirror Image doesn't have any clauses that would make it stop working.

This has always been about how, conceptually, it SHOULD work. If you wanna bring RULES into it, the Mirror Images don't benefit from Blur because nobody cast Blur on them. Period. There is no argument to be had there. If you think there is, you need to go read the rules again.

_Ozy_ wrote:

True, I think part of what people are overlooking with respect to the blur spell is this:

The subject’s outline appears blurred, shifting, and wavering. This distortion grants the subject concealment (20% miss chance).
If the images are also shifting and wavering, why wouldn't they get the same miss chance?concealment

Corrected emphasis mine

Because the shifting and wavering grant concealment, which carries with it a miss chance. An image cannot hide behind itself, therefore the blurred image doesn't have concealment, thus no miss chance.

@Darksol Ok, I looked at Mirror Image again, and I think maybe you think an attacker always rolls to see if they are attacking the caster or a figment. (If you don't think that, then I am wrong and I apologize) They don't. The only make that roll if the attack roll is successful. If they miss the caster by 5 or less, they pop an image, no roll required. If they miss, they just miss.

@Serum I don't think it matters. Both spells do what they say they do. Mirror Image doesn't have an riders that would cause it to stop working. And everyone is still in the same square.

Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
No, I'm arguing that, because the images have the same visual effects as the creature that has Blur cast on it, that it would receive the same benefits.

And that's nonsense. The caster has an magic field distorting his outline, causing the visual effect. The image is itself causing the visual effect. If you hit the visual effect around the caster, you hit a blur spell. If you hit the visual effect around the image, you hit the image.

Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
since the visuals of Blur and the mechanics of Blur are one and the same,

No, they aren't.

Also, no you can't just ignore mirror image based on miss chance. If you could, you'd also ignore it after the first time you hit the caster.

Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
Not directly, it doesn't. But an Image's AC (since you can't outright target them) would be equivalent to your current AC - 5 for the purposes of removing one. Except, since you just said mechanical effects don't transfer to your Mirror Images, if you were dispelled of, for example, Mage Armor or Shield, and had to recast it, your Mirror Images' effective AC would actually be your current AC - 5, as well as the difference of any other adjustments in AC after applying Mirror Images, whether penalties or buffs. But that's if we want to argue that all mechanical effects don't transfer to your images, and that way leads to madness.

At no point does the Image have an AC, equivalent or otherwise, for any purpose, ever. The images cannot be individually targeted. If you miss the caster's AC by less than 5, you pop an image. Why on Earth do you think the image has any need for an AC? I went back to read the spell again to try to understand where you're coming from, but I can't figure it out.

Ok ok let me try this again. Blur isn't a visual effect that gives you a miss chance. It's a visual effect that grants you CONCEALMENT that gives you a miss chance. A caster can hide behind/within an illusionary field that grants concealment, but a mirror image can't hide behind or within itself.

2bz2p wrote:
You were the one that said NO SPELL EFFECTS are upon the Mirror Images, then you become selective "the spell effects I don't want to apply are not on it and the ones I want to apply are".

Totally, utterly, completely false. I am not being selective. NO spell effects are upon mirror images. Zero. Nada. If the appearance of the caster changes, the images change themselves to look like the new apparance. That isn't a spell effect working on mirror image, that's the mirror image working.

2bz2p wrote:
I am taking the psoition Mirror Images appear exactly as you appear now. Blur is not REAL - it is an illusion, a trick of the mind, once you see it it has this effect - 20% miss chance and if you miss because of this 20% miss chance YOU DO NOT ACTUALLY HIT THE TARGET.

Except you did, because the blurry part of the image is still the image. For the image to be blurred, if must have blurred itself, using itself.

2bz2p wrote:

So there are two paths you can follow regarding an already Blurred caster casting Mirror Image.

1) The spell Blur says the target is creature touched, the mirror images are not blurred because they were never creature touched, you get one blurry figure with a number of non-blurry figments. This is the path I don't like (but would accept as being in accordance with the spells).

2) The Mirror Images create blurry figments and if you strike the blurry part (20%) you MISS the actual figment. This is an effect of an illusion. If you have a fire shield up, all the figments would appear to have fire shields but if you struck a figment the fire shield is an illusion and has no effect. Blur is ALREADY an illusions, your mind has already been impacted the moment you saw them, you miss because of striking a untrue part of the figment, you missed the figment.

Bot are acceptable,

Actually neither of those are acceptable. The first is saying "mirror images aren't mirror images" and the second is saying that somehow you can hit part of the image without hitting the image. The only nonsense going on here is this hullabaloo about "You can hit THIS part of the image without it counting because reasons!"

As for making blur making the images easier to hit by virtue of being larger, a) you can't directly attack images, b) even if you could they don't have an AC, and c) even if they did, they wouldn't change size category so their AC wouldn't decrease anyway.

_Ozy_ wrote:
Dallium wrote:
Which makes perfect sense conceptually, because the Mirror Image of a caster with Blur doesn't have an outline that APPEARS "blurred, shifting, and wavering," it has an outline that ACTUALLY IS "blurred, shifting, and wavering."

Assuming that the blurred region created by the blur spell isn't large enough to cover the region in which the mirror images exist in the first place.

Which isn't actually specified anywhere AFAIK.

Blur wrote:
The subject’s outline appears blurred, shifting, and wavering.

Emphasis added.

If you want to waffle about how large an outline can possibly be, that's your business.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
Making you look distorted is precisely all that the Blur spell does, which is mechanically simulated by granting a 20% miss chance.

If you want to talk semantics, Blur mechanically grants concealment to the subject of the spell. The conceptual explanation of how it does so is irrelevant.

Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
When you make a spell effect that's entirely visual, and you have a different effect that mimicks those exact visuals, it's basically impossible to argue that they don't receive that spell effect without breaking the fundamentals between either effect involved.

Not only is it not "basically impossible," it's the only argument that makes any sense whatsoever. You're arguing that the image can just grant itself concealment because. Just because. The only thing it can possibly use to grant itself concealment is itself. If the caster holds a blanket up in front of themselves, they might, theoretically, if the GM is feeling particularly generous, grant themselves concealment, because you don't know exactly where behind the blanket they are. The Mirror Images, being mirror images, would also hold up blankets, but since those blankets are part of the images, they wouldn't grant concealment even if that tactic worked for the caster. The caster has a physical blanket that isn't made of caster. The images don't.

Again, if you could directly cast Blur on one of the images (somehow), you would have an independent illusion over another independent illusion, in which case everything is hunky dory.

Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
If the Mirror Images are supposed to mimick your visuals exactly, then I fail to see how Blur, a purely visual effect, doesn't transmute over to them, both mechanically and visually.

Well, it doesn't transfer mechanically because Mirror Image doesn't say anything about effects like Blur transferring in it's spell description, and Blur doesn't say anything about transferring to effects like Mirror Image in its description. Mechanically speaking, no interaction.

Which makes perfect sense conceptually, because the Mirror Image of a caster with Blur doesn't have an outline that APPEARS "blurred, shifting, and wavering," it has an outline that ACTUALLY IS "blurred, shifting, and wavering."

Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
After all, if I Polymorph into a Dragon, have my AC change based off of my new form, wouldn't the Mirror Images now have the new and adjusted AC (for the purposes of calculating near misses)? According to you, they wouldn't, based on you saying Blur doesn't transfer.

Uh, yeah, the AC change doesn't transfer to the images, but not because Blur doesn't transfer. It doesn't transfer because Images don't have an AC for any purposes. The caster has an AC, not the images.

Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
What I'm contending is that, to a visual degree, spell effects on the caster transfer to the Mirror Images, because if they didn't, then Mirror Images would break and not work as they're intended to.

I mostly agree with this.

Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
And based on my above argument, I'd have to say that the spell effects are transferred to a degree even greater than that, since then we'd have to sit there and calculate what the Mirror Image AC would be if spell effects (such as Mage Armor) didn't factor into your Mirror Images.

And I'd have to say you'd be wrong in every case where the actual mechanics of the effect don't at least imply they would transfer to any illusion effects the target is subject to.

Also Mirror Images don't have an AC. The caster does.

Imagine you're standing on the bank of a still lake on a clear night, and in the sky you see a distant star going supernova, bright enough to be reflected on the surface of the lake.

When you point at the supernova, even if you could instantly stretch your finger across the reaches of the universe, you wouldn't be able to touch it, because the supernova happened thousands of years ago. To you, it appears there, now, in the sky, but it isn't actually there, and hasn't been there since long before you were born.

When you point to the image in the lake, you point at the image. The image isn't actually thousands of light years away, it's a few feet away. The lake doesn't care that the light it's reflecting is thousands of years old, it just reflects it. The lake doesn't care that the light it's reflecting is from an explosion that dwarfed the size of the solar system, it reflects the spec of light that reaches it.

Mirror image only cares about the appearance of things, and strives to appear as it's caster does. It only has it's own substance from which to draw. If you could somehow only hit the illusionary flames simulating the caster's fire shield, you would have hit the mirror image itself and destroyed it. If the caster benefits from displacement and appears 2 ft to the left, all the images ARE 2 ft to the left. What and where the caster appears to be are not always the same thing. The images are always precisely where and 'what*' they appear to be.

*'What' insomuch as they are illusions. If the caster APPEARS to be a duck, the images ARE ducks.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
2bz2p wrote:

So, if this is applied fairly - "spell effects being carried over to Mirror Images is absurd" - then a caster under the spell effect of an alter self, polymorph, hat of disguise, etc, would have mirror images of what they actually look like, because no spell effects carry over to the mirror images. In fact, any magical alteration of the caster would not carry over to the mirror images at all - a simulacrum casting this spell would have mirror images of an ice sculpture of the caster because they were made by a spell effect.

I don't... this is nonsense. I can't understand how you could honestly think this is either a cogent argument or a logical consequence of the logic at play here. How can you possibly equate "the image only looks blurred, it isn't actually blurred" with "polymorph renders the spell useless."?

I think we're all operating under the assumption that the images created by mirror images are created indistinguishable from the caster, and the spell allows them to change so as to remain so, as that's ostensibly how the in-universe workings of the spell are explained. The spell doesn't actually say that, and within the game system the images could all be ducks without affecting the mechanics of the spell one iota. But I think we're all taking it as read that the images have to look like the caster for the spell to function conceptually.

So the images look like they've been polymorphed, or fire shielded, or blurred, or whatever they need to look or sound like to continue to be indistinguishable from the caster, but they are not any of those things. They just look like they are.

I honestly don't understand what's so hard about this. For an image to appear blurred, something has to blur it. If someone somehow casts a blur spell on it, great, the blur spell handles the blurring, and it gets all the benefits of the blur spell. In absence of another effect, the spell adapts itself to appear to be blurred. It isn't actually blurred. Mechanically because nothing actually grants it that status, and conceptually because the only thing it can use to blur itself is itself.

On the other side of the coin, if the caster uses disguise self to appear a foot shorter, and something (somehow) attacks the apparently empty space 6 inches above the caster's head, they hit the caster in the face, because that's where the caster's face actually is. If something (somehow) attacks the apparently empty space 6 inches above an images head, the attack travels through the actually empty space. It's not a 6 ft image with a disguise self effect making it appear to be 5 ft tall, it's a 5 ft tall image.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:

No, I know what you're trying to say. You're saying that, because an image is blurry, and you hit the blurry part of the image, you still hit the image because the blur is part of the image's appearance. Problem is, the distortion isn't what the image itself actually is, as that's simulated with a 20% miss chance of you not actually touching where the original image is, as per the effects of Blur. By that logic, Blur does nothing to the original caster because the blurry part of the caster is still part of the caster, so I should've still hit the caster anyway.

You can't make an argument that Blur doesn't apply to the Mirror Images, or vice-versa, without breaking a key functionality of either spell. Blur's sole purpose is to make you look distorted without actually being distorted, and Mirror Images are meant to be exact copies of you, spell effects included.

I don't think you've a leg to stand on with any of this.

Firstly, the image is objectively not under the mechanical effects of Blur. Nobody cast Blur on those images, and you'd be hard pressed to demonstrate that you COULD deliberately target them to cast Blur on them. The image looks blurry because it's trying to mimic it's caster, but there is only one illusion going on there; mirror image. It's just an simulation of blur, not good enough. A mirror image illusion wrapped in a blur illusion would benefit from blur. That isn't the case here.

Secondly, the notion that somehow this logic carries over to blur having no effect is strained at best. The caster has an illusion laid over them to appear somewhere they aren't, something the images don't have. Blur is not disrupted by near misses. An attacker can strike at what appears to be the caster while "hitting" a visual-only illusion. The image is only pretending to have a second illusion layered over it. The only actual illusion present is mirror image, so any part of the total effect that it hit is actually the mirror image. Hit the blurry part of the caster? You actually hit an illusion that doesn't care, and thus miss. Hit the blurry part of a mirror image? You hit a mirror image pretending to be a blurry mirror image, thus destroying it.

Thirdly, there is no reason, at all, to assume that spell effects are carried over to mirror images. That's, frankly, absurd. Are you contending that if you hit the mirror image of a caster with fire shield, you take elemental damage? If yes, what part of the spell description of either of those spells leads you to believe this? If, OTOH, you believe there is a distinction between blur and fire shield, what is it?

bobsayshi wrote:
That what constitutes a 'single melee attack' is not defined within the rules.

It doesn't need to be, because it's defined in English. A 'single melee attack' is not (in and of itself) a game term, it's an English phrase used to describe what the character may do.

It's the difference between an Attack (which is explicitly defined) and an attack (which has no special definition in Pathfinder).

In a somewhat gross oversimplification, you don't get out a tape measure to decide which enemies are within 5ft of you. You know that when the book reads "you," it means your character. But the book never comes right out and SAYS that, you need to fall back on what you know about reading and interpreting English, and authors in other languages make similar assumptions about their readers.

bobsayshi wrote:
Dallium wrote:

bobsayshi, my understanding of your confusion is that you think that 'single melee attack' and 'attack action' are or should be synonyms. They are not. They are related, but different things. Not because of an FAQ or special instructions on reading Pathfinder, but because that's how parsing English works.

If this is NOT the source of your confusion, I am in error and apologize in advance.

That I believe is the source of the confusion. Without some outside knowledge, the available 'Actions in Combat' don't define a 'single melee attack' as a term which leaves only really two options, it isn't in the list or it is equivalent to an attack action which is a single attack. As a standalone either are really equivalent, only after considering the weight of balance for each can you start to make assumptions about what is intended or not.

The jump from, it's a term undefined but should be handled separately, is one that is really only found through FAQ and general past interpretations and not any rule set.
It doesn't appear even a direct FAQ tries to correct it, just answers that you can compare to. I still think that they should have just added a line to table8-2 to resolve all the confusion clearly and future questions while keeping with the intent.

I think it's at least possible something is getting lost in translation here. I don't think "single melee attack" needs to be rigorously defined. You are correct, in that it's not listed in the 'Actions in Combat' section, because you can't ever just make a 'single melee attack' in isolation. It's always brought about by something, like a Charge, spell, feat, class feature or magic item. It always in sentences like :

"As an [action type] and/or when you (use) [feat/ability or prerequisite action occurs], make a single melee attack. [Stuff happens]"

Charging wrote:
After moving, you may make a single melee attack. You get a +2 bonus on the attack roll and take a –2 penalty to your AC until the start of your next turn.
Attacks of Opportunity wrote:
An attack of opportunity is a single melee attack, and most characters can only make one per round.
Cleave wrote:
As a standard action, you can make a single attack at your full base attack bonus against a foe within reach

In the case of single (melee) attack, it means what it says: You make one attack. It doesn't require further definition.

bobsayshi, my understanding of your confusion is that you think that 'single melee attack' and 'attack action' are or should be synonyms. They are not. They are related, but different things. Not because of an FAQ or special instructions on reading Pathfinder, but because that's how parsing English works.

If this is NOT the source of your confusion, I am in error and apologize in advance.

James Risner wrote:

“Single melee attack” never means attack action.

Only “make an attack action” means that.


Cavall wrote:
graystone wrote:
Cavall wrote:

Yes. He could be one specific thing. In which case your second point is moot because it's the first thing I'd buy.

Why would he buy the tools when he could either put fitting on tiny armor or have someone cast fabricate. If you can find the 132000 gp for the huge armor, you can find someone that can cast the spell and has enough skill. Why spend the extra for the tools [12000gp] when spellcasting [450gp] will do instead AND save 6 weeks of work...

When ever I see a pet in plate from now on I'm casting dispel magic.

I wonder how much damage having armour made of super durable metal does when it goes from huge to tiny around ones chest and privates?

Um, like zero? That's not how armor works. The straps holding the armor together would break long before they injured the wearer.

You can only VS as an attack action, so the single melee attack granted by SUaS can't be a VS.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Ok so, it totally makes sense from an abstraction stand point that a blind attacker could pop mirror images. That's something my intuition and emotions are telling me you should be able to do.

BUT. The rules don't actually appear to support it. Houserule away, I guess.

It would be neat if there was an abstraction the reflected the character using sense motive having to keep their composure if they caught a particularly unexpected/important lie, but there's not.

1 to 50 of 288 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | next > last >>