Herr Malthus's page

Your point is pretty logic.

Thank you, Zhayne

Instant armor is made of force. According to the spell description, "Instant armor acts in all ways as armor typical of its type (armor bonus, maximum Dexterity bonus, arcane spell failure chance, and so on)".

IMO, maximum dexterity bonus and arcane spell failure chance do not really imply weight, just the constraint due to the force presence/existence.

I would go for no weight but the "and so on" clause bothers me...

Thank for your reply, wraithstrike.

I would to ask you your opinion about 3 scenarios (below).

You are the GM ruling a 34th level campaign ;) and a player of yours prepares for a fight against a party of 'generic' 30th human foes, very tough guys.
His character is 'Stiffy' the gargantuan violet dragon with levels in whatever you like.

Before battle, he decides to use antimagic and ignore all other wondrous epic features Stiffy may have.

You always asked yourself how your player managed to get to the 34th level. Anyway he did and then he says to you:

First try:
"I cast antimagic on Stiffy tail tip.
Moving my tail is a free action, isn't it? I can move it whatever I like and intercept all the melee attacks against me even if they are flanking me..."
please note the human foes are 30th and dumb and they just attack melee with their +9 adamantine! club ;)
what would you reply?

Second try:
"I cast antimagic on this interception of the side of the 4x4 gargantuan miniature of stiffy." Well, at least the point is set once and for all.
"They are attacking me from all sides!!!, Please GM, is there facing in the game? may I flip around 180° as free? immediate? as a swift? or at the end of my turn my head is there and my bottom the other side and I just stuck until my next round in this position? Have I -5 to perception the side my bottom is?
what would you reply?

Third and last:
"Hello GM, my friend. I want to do that: I cast antimagic on mail tail tip, then i stretch my tail, 90% of my body is still outside antimagic
if 90% of my body is out I could cast another antimagic on my left claw, I stretch if far far away, I'm a very elastic dragon, and now 60% of my body is out...
I can cast a third... well now probably stop but I've antimagic everywhere and I don't fear their club anymore
how would you insult him?

Put apart my stupid jokes, those are all things players would try to call into game...

As DM, applying what I consider common sense, I'd rule for 10ft outward.
It was clearly thought for medium characters...
What would be the purpose of the spell for a huge/gargantuan/colossal dragon otherwise?
Why all huge+ dragons would have the spell in the default list. To duck and cover? Squeeze in it to protect themselves?
Of course my players are thriving to apply things RAW.
FAQ requesting!

You're assuming time has been taken for buffing before the fight. That's not always the case. Mage Armor is hardly an all-day effect for a level 1 wizard, to say nothing of shield. All magical defenses assume a certain action economy to get them in place. That's action economy you don't have when, in the first round, the fighter tells you that you smell funny and you rush forward to bonk him on the head.

Presumably, Jeremiziah, people here just plays arenas...

Edit 2 - What is more likly to happen is the wizard gets taunted and move to the fighter. The fighter hits him for about a quarter of his hp. The rogue hits him for half hp. The others just arent working together or are tied up in combat or just are not paying attention. The wizard takes a 5ft step and color sprays the party.

The fighter hits him for about a quarter of his hp...? The fighter hits him for about a 2 TIMES his hp...

I've never seen a long-living used-to-melee wizard in my life.

Actually, father Zastoran is a cleric of Nethys in my game.
He's an alchemist in Just Pete's one.
He's reluctant just because the AP says so. Anyway he's already given them 10+ potions (lesser restorations, cure light wounds), nearly for free.

Anyway you probably pointed out some issues about the party/game: characters were build with a 15 point buy system (against the typical 25); there're not power-play characters because we agreed about it; no CLW wands were given because of the setting which, at the beginning is clearly scarce-item based; some of them has really few hp: bad bad luck on the dice roll leveling up...

Hi everybody,

yesterday the party met the dust digger... potentially a massacre and only a hero point expenditure (APG new rule) saved them. I’ve planned to use hero points as an extremely rare resource, one point is given at the begin of each module, while the official rule states one per level.
It must be said, indeed, that they weren't lucky. Saeraenre's light abandoned the group since their departure from the monastery early in the morning.

In my setting, the old Pugwangpi-infested temple is on a ridge towering the valley where the pesh field and the town are. In order to avoid being spotted from gnollscouts in Kelmarane, the party decided not to use the winding path to reach the valley below. So they planned to rope themselves together and to lower themselves down the cliff, ‘landing’ in the far west of the Pesh field. This was planned considering heavy use of the ring of father fall they had found.
Even if climb checks were just DC 5, two members were able to repeatedly fail, overall getting down with 4d6 of damage… Two of the three potions of CLW provided reluctantly by father Zastoran were used to partially restore the situation. Shortly after, cutting across the field of Pesh, the group reached the clearing used by gnolls to invoke the dust digger. The ranger 10 ft. preceding the other 3 members (oracle, sorcerer fighter) who all remain (what a shame !) clustered in a 10 ft. square just the size of a dust digger mouth...
The foe perceived them immediately, moving hidden at half speed, rolled 18 + 5 stealth = 23, and here, bad luck: all failed perception checks. The foe positioned itself beneath the 3 members and…….... panic!
Everybody tried to save and EVERYBODY failed -> entangled! Moreover, the three above the mouth found themselves prone! I couldn’t imagine such a bad start…
1st round: the fighter tried to hit from prone position, failed; the oracle tried to cast sanctuary (defensively), done, ah yes, you're entangled too, another concentration check please (DC 16)... failed; the sorcerer tried to cast, please 2 concentration checks, failed; the ranger tried to get closer, but difficult terrain + entangled = 1 / 4 speed, he covered only 2 squares with a double move action, the dust digger did its AoO, hits, the ranger is 9 hp left; and now it was the beast turn: 3 guys can be swallowed, randomly 1d4, 1-2 the fighter, 3 the sorcerer, 4 the oracle ......... 4! ......... Hit, grabbed, 2 hp left, the oracle (with a kitchen knife as only slashing weapon) was already a swallowed corpse in my mind... then 5 tentacles, two hit the sorcerer, left with a miserable bunch of hp, one misses, two hit the ranger, 3 hp left, another potential dead...
2nd round: the fighter got up, monster AoO… missed, the fighter missed too; the already dead oracle cast another sanctuary as last desperate act. Two concentration checks, the first done and... the second … done!!!!!!!! A miracle…; the sorcerer got up and moved one square out. The ranger hit and landed the first 7 hp of damage to the creature, which was about to swallow the oracle but, due to the sanctuary spell, lost hopefully its round letting him free.
3rd: as a desperate DM I had to start to prepare psychologically the poor ranger: "you know, you've been brave ... however you'll realize that you're the only one who has done damage to the dust digger ... I fear you'll be the next target ... do you understand,… it's logical ... I'm sorry ...". I mean, the creatures was still there with 30 hp.

Finally, The Goddess of Sun had mercy of their poor lives and, when everybody was beginning to plan for his character, the fighter landed a 20 with his falcata (x3 critical) ............. confirm please confirm!!! ... 7 .................. NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO ................. 7 +7 = 14 not enough, but here the hero says: "I use my hero point to confirm...". Moved by such a sacrifice I allowed his blow to be a x4 critical and he managed to kill the beast with a tremendous powerful blow.

Now, I was a bit verbose… I want to conclude saying that I thought, sincerely, everything lost. They weren't lucky, that's sure. All players treated me as a crazy DM for letting them face this monster at 2nd level…
That’s definitely a hell of a menace especially if you consider all negative environmental conditions. The ECL is not really a 4, in my opinion.
Or perhaps it's my fault, I don't know.

PS thanks for your advice, Just Pete, too late, I read your post this morning!

Hi everybody,
I’m currently running too Howl of the Carrion King (just finished freeing the monastery). I’ve added few minor changes: sometimes wishes take place randomly (the wish-torn continuum) and tempest is a weapon of legacy much more powerful than the one described.
I’m happy to find people doing the same in order to share the developments.
The party is composed by a fighter, a ranger, an oracle (heavens) and a sorcerer (air elementalist)
I’d like to ask a suggestion.
Hoping that none of my players discover this post, I’m concerned about the near future: they’re 2nd-level, very overzealous and they’re about to encounter the dust-digger: last words were: “Yes, easy: we’ll approach Kelmarane through the pesh field…”.
Now, don’t you think that, even if rated CR 4, this foe could be a really serious threat (I mean easily 2 deaths) for four 2-nd level characters? Perhaps, have you had this problem?

1) the cloak of resistance +1 doesn't increase saves

I quote myself...

Found why, it works in Landscape character sheet but not in the Portrait one.

Now, it seems that you want to have these 2 visualization (Portrait and Landscape) and probably you prefer the L-one since it seems to be the most updated in terms of formulae.
Keeping both up to date requires double work.
I'm not sure if this is a trivial suggestion (I mean, I don't know well the mechanics of your sheet) but if you would just work on the L-one and for the P-one you'd just do (for each cell) P_cell = L_cell, this could make you just work on the L-one...

Example for Reflex save, 'OTHER' field:
L-Front cell is the BS53
P-Front cell is BP33
in BP33 P-Front cell you put ='L-Front'!BS53 and it's done once for all...

If this is a stupid non-sense, please forgive me...

Hi Erian_7,
I'm new to all this, great job, really.

I started today using your tool for a 2 characters, a witch and a summoner.

Everything runs smoothly but 2 small things:
1) the cloak of resistance +1 doesn't increase saves
2) about the Large Eidolon: I think it's matter of adding:
+IF(Eidolon_Size="Large",8,0) for Str, and the others skill + NA, at least that's what I did and it's ok...

Now, I don't know if these suggestions are the kind of things you need for your feedback or we must be more specific, or we should try to correct and send you a solution... just tell me.

Thanks

Forgot to mention she's terribly neutral evil (but he couldn't still know it, since we were 3rd level!)...

This act, anyway, was funny but indeed very dangerous: if the paladin would have saved -> felt some dizziness in his 'brutal' mind, he could have come to some unhappy conclusion and perhaps... smitten her? ... ... ... ... I mean in terms of smite evil! ;)

Last night, I had a monster, posing as a hurt sheperd trapped in a cave on the side of a deep ravine, cast mass suggestion on the unaware players, outside their line of sight, and forced the players to roll saves (I don't like depriving my players of being able to roll saves, and rarely do their rolls in secret). One player asked if he could tell that someone tried to mess with his head.

My ruling last session was "No", as I can sorta see several problems with this:
- If he does, enchantment could no longer be subtle, even with still/silent spell metamagic. Anyone who have been charmed/compelled would automatically KNOW that they were affected, making an already weak school of specialization even weaker.
- Would make sense motive rather redundant.
- You can roll spellcraft to identify effects, in this case at +10 DC, since the caster was out of sight. (The wizard made his check and the players figured it out this way, a solution I think is good)

But, I want to know if there is an official ruling on this.

I & my entourage, we'have always done like that:

The price rules are more "guidelines" than "rules". The Dm is supposed to look for similar items in the book and use that as a guide as well. I could, by the guidelines, make boots of expeditious retreat that would be cheaper than boots of striding and springing and provide better bonuses, but a DM would be within his rights telling me that it costs more.

That's a very important point...

When I've said I felt a rogue could sneak through well-lit occupied areas, I have never once intended to say that he could 'start' his stealth in such areas under observation (unless he happens to have special abilities that allow him to of course.)

Full support. That's exactly my main point in all the story.

1. Does allowing stealth in plain sight of a target that is distracted in combat unbalance things? Frankly I can't see how. At best you are giving one extra sneak attack per opponent then the rogue would get just through good movement. Additionally, this ruling effects the enemy as well, so NPC rogues will get the same benefits.

2. Is allowing stealth without cover or concealment against the RAW? As I said earlier, I don't really care, but as I read the rule on distraction as its written, it is vague and as such RAI needs to be applied because distraction is up to DM interpretation at least until Piazo decides to clarify it, if they ever do. Won't matter to me one way or another

Again, total agreement with you too.

Herr Malthus wrote:

No no he's so clear.

(and they can use Perception)
Use perception = use 1 of your 5 senses, 1 IS ENOUGH (here is hearing, not sight)
Use perception doesn't mean use ALL your 5 senses necessarily.
I can use perception just to smell.
If the super powerful rogue in invisible (no sight) and flying (no sound) I can even get the perception for his damned stink!

I mean, this seems so obvious, no? Am I saying something against RAW?

Ahh, I have finally discerned the root of our misunderstanding. You see, nowhere in my post did I say the observer cannot use PERCEPTION. I have never said that. What I said, what I have always said, and what the RAW says, is that the sneaker cannot use STEALTH. There is a big difference you know.

Actually, no, this is not the root of misunderstanding.

I told you before that I know BY HEART, REALLY, your posts; thus, even if I was not aware before of rules as intended by you and the others that follows your way (you can call it RAW if you wish, no problem), well now it's about 1 month that I've understood clearly your way. And the DC 0 Perception story was again well undestood since the beginning.

I started to post when my DM, just for joke, after 10 years that we were using happily our interpretation (to be clear RAW to us) of stealth, said to me in an occasion, "NO! you cannot keep Stealth when you go out in plain sight (even with the target distracted/unaware). That's the new!" It was just to provoke and to force me to go on the battlefield of this subject in many forums (you bastard DM).

I did it, in order to present what I interpreted from the rules about stealth since the beginning of 3.0, 3.5, pathfinder at the end, RAW in my mind. And I discovered that my interpretation was not accepted as RAW.

So I tried to read things carefully in the rules and following your posts to understand why mine was not RAW and your yes.

Now after some debate kept civil at the beginning I was still convinced that my interpretation could be the RAW. But things heated then. I don't know who was first, but I start to feel attacked and, wrongly, to attack others. You surely were one of the attacked. After then, when I could not see any opening even in front of what I considered to be obvious, I became to be sarcastic and sterile (sterile like answers that I got IMO)

Now, I'm sorry to say that I'm still not convinced of who is right (in terms of what was in the mind of the creators of the rules when they wrote them). I say it sincerely. Some answers by authors made me feel confortable and kept to be arrogant.

Now, it's now clear that a solution could not be found, apart from the one: you Herr Malthus, you're interpreting the RAW and then house-ruling. Again I firmly don't agree, I keep to see a kind of closure to every opinion different from a certain one. I tried to explain it, but I probably couldn't as I wanted. Fine, I'll continue to do what I think is right. And you'll do the same.

To conclude, I want to apologize when I was harsh, and believe me, I respect you for your untameable devotion to this subject... even if I can't absolutely agree ;)

James Jacobs wrote:

What those rules are saying (although perhaps not as clearly as they can) is that you can't use Stealth in bright light when the target can see you.

So, when a target CAN see you, you cannot use steatlh in bright light. No problem. This is just a restatement of the RAW - this exact rule appears in the description of the Stealth skill.

James Jacobs wrote:

If you're sneaking up on someone who's looking away from you, you CAN use Stealth (and they can use Perception) since a visual element of the situation doesn't apply.

This directly contradicts what James said in his previous sentence. If the observer is looking away from you, he CAN still look your way. In an instant. He CAN turn his head much faster than you can move 5' or 10' or whatever. Therefore, he CAN see you. Which means, according to James's statement immediately preceding this one, you cannot use Stealth. Or you can. Or you can't.

It seems even James is unclear on this.

No no he's so clear.

I mean, this seems so obvious, no? Am I saying something against RAW?

Unless subject to something that removes this, a creature sees everything within its line of sight.

Stealth does allow something the chance to remain unobserved while it maintains cover or concealment. It does not allow something to remain unobserved when it does not.

You are, I guess, trying to confuse (or are confused by) rules for sniping, distractions to hide and/or feinting in combat to get the rules to go differently.
-James

No, we're only confused by common sense, thing that is not given to everybody

I'm really relieved from seeing that MANY people reads things in this way (which is also mine) and realizes that it is logical, funny, and not unbalancing at all. We are so many to have come to the same conclusion (from different paths and contexts) overcoming great literal obstacles that sometimes I wonder if this were not what it really was meant to be by authors about Stealth&Co....

Owen K. C. Stephens... I love you...

The Wraith, basically are you telling me that James Jacobs is house-ruling the game?

Let me ask you all your opinion:

1) I see that a witch must pay a little bit of time and gold, to recover her familiar if one dies. How do you rule that works? In particular, if the characters were, say, sealed in a spaceship on its way to another planet, and the Witch called for a pig, where would it come from?

2) Does the recovered familiar need to be of the same species as the one that was killed?

3) Let's say my fighter decides to dip a level of Witch. Does the familiar automatically come, for free, or does the brand new witch need to summon the familiar for the first time, just as he would if he ere replacing a slain one?

All in my opinion:

but as I always state, the loss of a familiar must be considered a tragedy and a good DM should always try to avoid it if possible, so I would not mind too much about a loss of familiar

Actually I continue not to understand who or what gives to someone (and thus not to another) the power of divinely stating: "this is what the RAW truly and unquestionably means!". I mean even if we take words literally as machines...

Until I don't see an official answer on this subject I'll never consider my reading as an house-rule.

james maissen wrote:

what designers have explained the rules as saying, and what supplemental things have expanded the rules from

Could you point to what you are referring to ?

Yes please, absolutely.

Thanks for the contribution even if it's not adding much to what we already knew:
Someone is interpreting things in a way, someone else in another.

If we could get to the point that the rules about stealth and plain sight are not univocally interpreted, probably we could start to evaluate this two main different mechanics and the implications in a game.

Now, I'm eager to get to this point.
Because it can be that my preferred mechanic is really unbalanced and I wouldn't want this to happen. That's the main reason why I'm still here.

So the question is: can we get to this point? THIS FIRSTLY IMPLY THE ACCEPTANCE OF THE FACT THAT ME AND OTHERS ARE NOT NECESSARILY OUT OF THE RULES.

If someone can accept this, we could get to the main subject.
If not, we cannot go on.

Those unfamiliar with the game rules are often quite surprised to learn just how limited the game rules are when it comes to being sneaky. When personal intuition conflicts with unfamiliar rules, you're going to have a lot of discussion and debate; usually people trying to take the words of the rules and bend them to match personal intuitions.

But why should I be unfamiliar with rules?

In the rule book we have rules made of words.
Everybody reads and interpret words in different ways. When things are straightforward generally people agree on the interpretation.
If not we have debates. But passing from words to reality requires always interpretation. Who decides which interpretation was the right one associated to the words written? The majority? The one who speaks more about the subject?

I could take all the rules written in the book about stealth and plain sight and argument about them showing that there's no conflict with the easy scenario I presented before. And then someone will come out telling "no you are wrong because it is written something else" BUT THIS IS ALWAYS ACCORDING TO AN INTERPRETATION.

Everything just starts in this sentence: "hide in plain sight".
to me, it means "make a stealth check when someone is already perceiving you and you are in plain sight". Why the need of "when someone is already perceiving you"? because hide means, to me, passing from a situation of not hidden to a situation of hidden.
I've no need to hide if my initial status is already hidden.
And I'm deeply convinced of that. Who can tell I'm wrong? is it written somewhere?
When I come out from the pillar being already hidden I don't need to hide again because I'm already hidden and I keep this status.
Now since I move (I do something else than only stay hidden) and the other has the all around vision and I've not cover, he must make a perception check to make me pass from my status of hidden to not hidden.

For others "hide in plain sight" could mean "make a stealth check when you are in plain sight".

For others "hide in plain sight" could mean "keep the status of hidden when I get to plain sight".

For others "hide in plain sight" could mean "when you are in plain sight I don't care about you initial status but you're not hidden any more and so you have to do your damn check to gain your status of hidden".

And, at the end of the day, all of our discussions starts from this plain sentence.

I've been so harsh with DM_blake because he's sure about his interpretation as being exactly what rules were meant to say. And whoever says something else is wrong. And we already discussed with him those things before more than once. I can assure I've read all his posts and I've NEVER SEEN the slightest doubt about such position.
Since I want to discuss, clashing with someone who tries to kill any discussion is an obvious consequence.
So I'm willing to discuss with someone who can conceive other interpretations about THE RULES. It's not HOUSE RULING. That's why I'm in the Rule section.

For instance Jeremiziah asked:
The broader question for people who do things this way (and I'm not making judgements, if you have fun then great!) is: Does anyone in any of your games ever actually take the Hide In Plain Sight feat? If so, why do they? It would seem to be a waste. What benefit do you permit it to afford them that they are not already receiving?

And this is an open approach (he's not telling I'm right making me happy, he's probably stating the he doesn't agree anyway) but at least he asks in order to evaluate another point of view.

Herr Malthus wrote:

But please, tell me really if this reasonment is shocking because I'm willing to discuss the subject openly

Shocking? Not in the least.

However, the RAW don't support using stealth in plain sight, so when you move out from behind that pillar, the cleric will want to see you. He will get a perception check to see you, but you won't get a stealth check. And if he sees you, then you won't get any Sneak Attack at all.

But if he blows that amazingly easy perception check, then you can sneak attack, just as you described.

Please, DM_blake, don't lose time repeating yourself. I've read (as everybody) all your posts and know BY HEART your interpretation of the rules about the subject.

About my sentence: "But please, tell me really if this reasonment is shocking because I'm willing to discuss the subject openly."
Was addressed only to the ones that are willing to discuss the subject openly not to the ones that tells me "no you're wrong because your interpretation is wrong and mine is correct". Thanks.

The broader question for people who do things this way (and I'm not making judgements, if you have fun then great!) is: Does anyone in any of your games ever actually take the Hide In Plain Sight feat? If so, why do they? It would seem to be a waste. What benefit do you permit it to afford them that they are not already receiving?

Hide in plain sight gives enormous advantages...

Just a first consideration:
Really, all this story of coming out from stealth is not so devastating for players, it's not necessarily a TPK, I mean as a DM it is not my task to create ambushes by 8 high level rougues because this would bring party death even without the story of coming out from stealth.

Now about the subject. Don't want to put surprise in the story so imagine there's the famous pillar and the bad guy 2 squares away. Me the good rogue I'm hidden behind the pillar and the bad guy KNOWS it but unfortunately he's distracted by something (a fight, I don't know) and we've already rolled initiative, he's not flat footed, not flanking, full light, no invisibility, and so on.
It's my turn as rogue, come out, winning the stealth check against perception cover 2 squares (in plain sight at half speed) and hit with ONE sneak attack (ONE sneak attack is not necessarily devastating). Now it's the guy turn, he hit me. Now my turn again, I'm in plain sight I cannot hide, to hide I've to go again towards the pillar. If I do so I could face an attack of opportunity or maybe not, it depends on reach, anyway I loose all my round to get to the pillar and hide behind the cover.
My next round I could reiterate the story. So balance: 1 round every 2 I potentially could do 1 sneak attack... this is not catastrofic... and to just get this sneak attack I face I full attack and maybe an AoO -> conclusion I do this just 1 time...

If I'm dumb and want to do it over and over, the guy could get tired of this story and:
1) follow me behind the pillar
2) just move away 2 squares from the pillar (and so I'm done because at half speed I can cover just 3 squares)

What happens if someone has hide in plain sight? now simply if there's a damn shadow near the guy (even his own shadow) I can hide in plain sight in front of him without getting to a cover and the next round I'm ready to sneak him over and over and yes now he cannot do anything to avoid this whole situation except perhaps try to destroy all shadows around him... that's the advantage, in my opinion.

But please, tell me really if this reasonment is shocking because I'm willing to discuss the subject openly

Weirdness.

We've always played that the rogue can restealth if he gets 100% cover, and can move and attack, getting the bonuses on the first attack, if the target failed a perception check.

It makes for some awesome stealthing villains. With spring attack, or shot on the run, move attack move *stealthing as part of the move action*

Rinse and repeat until someone makes the perception roll, or applies a light spell appropriate to bring the ambient lighting up to bright.

Of course, with hide in plain sight, we've assumed that's a negated requirement as well :/

I think we're a lot out there interpreting things in this way (following perhaps not "rules" but what I consider a kind of common sense)... and I've recently discovered there are also many people interpreting things in another way (which it is said to be following "rules")...

So, just choose which one you prefer.

Goodbye guys, I give up this story...

DM_Blake wrote:

tanonev wrote:

I challenge you to simultaneously observe everything you have line of sight to (or even to observe everything you have line of sight to over the course of the next 6 seconds). But leaving this misdefinition of the word aside, let's just accept it for the moment and see if we arrive at a contradiction.

If you give me six seconds to observe a 6' tall human standing 10' away from me in plain sight in good lighting, I am fairly sure I'll find him. I might even go so far as to say I'm positive I'll find him.

That is, after all, exactly what the poster presented in the original post on this thread.

"What if that same human were hiding behind a pillar. With two sides? And you were trying to watch both sides? And you thought you saw movement on the other side! But no, it was only a mouse. And what if that shadow just moved? Oh, wait, it was a curtain blowing in the wind. Was that footsteps? No, those were my comrades in the other room. I wonder if they found anything? Wait! No, just the mouse. Where is that rogue? And why does my back hurt. That's weird, I should go lie down."

And just remember that to cover 2 squares = 10 ft in "plain sight" can take what... half a second?

And probably this means too that if bad-guy X is fighting with somebody, unaware of me (super hidden sneaky rogue), I could cover 2 squares even in "plain sight" and sneak-attack him if he fails his perception check...
Could I ask to state your opinion about this subject since people is killing each other about it?

Fred Ohm wrote:

DM_Blake wrote:

the rogue stepped out, became visible, and lost his Stealth.

And that's what isn't the rule as written. The only explicit mention of what happens when a character walks into open terrain from a place of hiding is the rule from complete adventurer.

How about this sentence?

"A creature can't use Stealth in an area of bright light unless it is invisible or has cover."

That seems pretty clear to me: "no cover" (or concealment) + "bright light" = "visible".

I interpret this line from static point of view. If you are (initially) without cover and in bright light => surely no stealth.

DM_Blake wrote:

the rogue stepped out, became visible, and lost his Stealth.

And that's what isn't the rule as written. The only explicit mention of what happens when a character walks into open terrain from a place of hiding is the rule from complete adventurer.

Correct, again I've never seen an official (I mean core) position about the subject...

I agree with The Wraith and Fred Ohm.

I think we have 3 position up to this point in this forum:
1) hidden characters remain hidden (if they succeed check) for the round in which they leave plain sight (at least against their target);
2) hidden characters remain hidden (if they succeed check WITH PENALTIES) for the round in which they leave plain sight;
3) plain sight is plain sight, comma.

Now, I think that we will never find a solution to that and could debate forever.

I'll go for 1 personally as DM, I hope my DM would agree when I'm player.
Someone is arguing that a monster with this rule could kill a character in one round, well in my 20+ years of gaming I've never faced a so helpless situation, probably because I've always found reasonable DM or probably because this attack is not so unbearably powerful...

According to me, the round in which a hidden rogue goes against its target to strike, even if he makes 2 or 3 squares of movement in plain sight, remains in a stealth condition: in a stealth check it's embedded the fact that he pauses, stops, waits the right nanosecond to move without being seen by his target (only). I'm not telling that he's hidden to anybody and I'm not telling that he will remain hidden the next round.
Someone elso could say that plain sight is just plain sight from the first second, I must agree of course...

Now, since I think that interpretation could be taken still into account about this subject, personally I prefer to go for the first hypothesis. IMO, it adds flavour, gives a little bit more role to the rogue or whoever goes for stealth and, at the end of the day, it is just one attack, cannot be done every round... I mean a rogue, to reiterate the story, must loose 3 rounds...

By the way, I think that there is not a really really strict official position about this subject.

Somatic and material components are different stuff.

Having somatic components implies that you need a free hand to gesture, furthermore you suffer arcane spell failure chances when wearing armor.

You still need to retrieve material components (if any), and you need a free hand to do so (your hand is free when using ligth shields and bluckers, not heavy shields or weapons. However if you use two-handed weapons, you can hold it with just one hand-free action, while you cast the spell with the other hand). The same hand used to perform the somatic components can be used to retrieve the material component from your component pouch. There are some articles written by Skip Williams in the Wizards of the Coast site that explain the issue, but what happens when grappled is a good example (page 206 of pathfinder - casting spells).

If you don't need somatic components, you don't suffer armor and shield arcane spell failure, but you still need a free hand to retrieve the material component. It's never an issue, unless you are grappling or your are using a heavy shield or a tower shield.

I strongly agree about everything you said.

Thanks to everybody, my doubts are dissolved.

Michael Grimm,
as a DM I'd rule exactly like that (and I do) with respect to the cleric (the target). The rogue stealth check becomes focused on the target in order to sneak attack it.
The only doubt is about other enemies who could have plain sight on the rogue. Probably for them I would apply a good -20 on the stealth check (just to give the rogue a small chance...). But I'm opened to discussion about this.
I'm quite firm on my position about the cleric, otherwise rogues would be... ehm... useless?

Herr Malthus wrote:

Gorbacz wrote:

The rules don't say that you need a free hand for using Material components.

I know that nowhere it's said I must have a free hand, otherwise it seems quite logic (I cannot access the pouch with my left foot I'd rather tell...).

Are you suggesting something like I can extract things with the power of the mind?

My usual thought is that a somatic component for fireball (for instance) involves waving around a pellet of bat guano and then hurling it at the enemy. So using the material component is part of the somatic component.

Question for you: if I have the still spell feat and not eschew materials, how do you reconcile things?

To Herr Malthus: you know that if I'm wrong I have no qualms to admit it :D ...

No offense meant...

The rules don't say that you need a free hand for using Material components.

I know that nowhere it's said I must have a free hand, otherwise it seems quite logic (I cannot access the pouch with my left foot I'd rather tell...).

Thanks,
anyway the question that comes to my mind now is: the feat still spell allow you to avoid the somatic component but you still need a hand free to get your materials from your pouch... this means that you always need a hand to cast a spell... and the conclusion is that to avoid using hands to cast imply necessarily 2 feats: still spell and eschew materials, right?

Hi, I don't know if this question is too trivial but yesterday my DM announced to me that to cast a spell (I'm a witch) I needed 2 hands free... one for extracting materials and the OTHER to fulfill the somatic prerequisite. I was holding a bow (I'm an elf) and wanted to cast without throwing it to the ground.
In my mind I just needed one hand free to cover both the material and somatic tasks...
Am I so wrong?

Now, after said all this, the real question is ‘Is it Fergus like Batman ? All Alignments depending on the situation ?’
Or the truth is that Alignment is a fluid thing, not set into stone, and only repeatedly acts of a set Alignment in fact change the Alignment of the person involved?
Can a Lawful Good person (not Paladin, we are not speaking of loss of power - which is the real problem with Paladins) kill his wife's murderers in a gruesome way, defiling their bodies and howling to the moon (a clearly CE act) JUST ONCE and keep being LG (with a lot of remorse) for the rest of his life, being that his only CE act?
I truly believe so.

Wow great story...

Surely CE in Glantri...
Then CN or CG? I think that's about why were you doing things: basically to bring good per se or to bring good as a reaction to some other stimuli (satisfying yourself, even if nihilistic ones)? ;)

udalrich wrote:

It sounds like it works better at higher levels. At higher levels, the summoner will have more hit points. Additionally, attacks do more damage so it is more likely that you go straight from conscious to "dead" without passing through unconscious.

If the Eidolon has 5 hit points left and the Summoner has 40, 20 points of damage to the Eidolon would trigger Life Link, and possibly heal the Eidolon back to 24 hit points while still leaving the Summoner conscious.

It does seem like it would work better as an ability that either triggered at negative hit points or whenever the Eidolon takes damage.

The Life Link doesn't say it heals damage, only prevents damage. I think you can only transfer hit points to cover the damage of the last attack, which would still leave the Eidolon conscious at 5 hp and the Summoner down to 20 hp.

you are right... the word is 'sacrifice', ok I didn't understand

So, this power is far less appealing to me now.

Ex: eidolon has 4 hp, takes 9, goes down at -5 hp. it stays here until -14 hp. you summoner can do nothing. Now the big ogre who has smitten it from +4 to -5 can:
1) go on with someone else (very likely) -> your life like is uneseful
2) or continue to smash stupidly the poor eidolon on the ground (very unlikely) -> now your life link can be used
3) if the ogre is just a little bit smart it can coup de grace your eidolon -> your life like is uneseful

So I can use the life link only in an very unlikely situation?

Or as a full round? ...

Life Link, as it currently works, doesn't work very well. A Summoner cannot simply 'trade off' (as at first glance the ability seems to intend to do) his own hp to the Eidolon to keep him going during the fight, but it is simply a 'band-aid' for the damage the Eidolon sustains between 0 and -Con (and to Reebo Kesh, yes, the Eidolon is still in existance at negative hit points - this is a special rule of the Eidolon itself:

"Eidolons are treated as summoned creatures, except that they are not sent back to their home plane until reduced to a number of negative hit points equal to or greater than their Constitution score. In addition, due to its tie to its summoner, an eidolon can touch and attack creatures warded by protection from evil and similar effects that prevent contact with summoned creatures." )

Moreover, if the Eidolon is killed by an effect which DOES NOT deal hp damage, the Life Link ability doesn't even trigger off. Luckily in Pathfinder there are very few abilities which kill without hp damage, but they still exist:

- Con reduced to 0
- Phantasmal Killer spell, failing both saves
- Weird spell, failing both saves
- Power Word Kill spell
- Death Knell spell on a negative hp victim
- Circle of Death spell
- (optional rule) Massive Damage, failing Fortitude save
- the most common one... Coup de Grace, failing Fortitude save

This is basically what happened in the last session I GMed this Sunday, when the Summoner's Eidolon was Coup de Grace'd by a Goblin (for 3 hp damage !) and failed his Fortitude save (DC 13) (on a side note, I initially thought the DC was 15 + damage dealt, but the Eidolon rolled a natural 1 anyway...)

I was there...

So how do you know the difference between Lay On Hands and Cure Moderate Wounds?

It's probably matter of how each of us plays...

I have a relatively easy of determining if people know or not.

If they have legit PC levels, they know.
If they have only NPC levels (like commoner), then no.

To me it's just matter of skill check.

If my player asks, while staring someone casting whatever, to have an hint on him, I'd ask for a spellcraft check + knoledge arcana/religion (let's say to focus on 'style/source of power'). If he gets 'good' results, he'll probably know that that girl casting the divine spell X is doing it in a way that makes you doubt on the fact that she can be simply a 'standard' cleric. If he gets outstanding results I could even suggest: "you remember the time when you heard the story of a strange guy who did that and was called in a strange way, something like inquirer..., bla bla"

I think that an event such loosing a spellbook/familiar should be considered very 'improbable'. IMO a DM must try always to avoid this kind of things, of course this can happen (but should never be intentional!).
As a DM I could have tried dozens of times to steal/subtract in any other way my wizards' books (being succesful!) but, frankly speaking, isn't this just perversion and out of the scope?