James Harms's page

STR 3d6 ⇒ (1, 5, 4) = 10
DEX 3d6 ⇒ (4, 3, 6) = 13
CON 3d6 ⇒ (4, 6, 2) = 12
INT 3d6 ⇒ (5, 4, 3) = 12
WIS 3d6 ⇒ (4, 3, 6) = 13
CHA 3d6 ⇒ (4, 6, 3) = 13

Man... The world is my oyster! Just your friendly gnome Life Oracle.... too bad he speaks celestial when he's stressed.

Alakqualyn wrote:

Abraham spalding wrote:

Alakqualyn wrote:

I was just messing around on Hero Labs, when i noticed that since a Ranger's combat style allows him to take a feat without Prerequisites. He could just skip Cleave, for "Two-Handed Weapon", to Great Cleave or the same with Vital Strike. The House Rule/RAI is obvious i just wondered what other people thought.

Think you should go read the combat style part of the ranger again... that's not house rule -- that is RAW.

And one of my single only and biggest beef against the ranger.

Don't need to meet feat prerequisites though.

Yeah exactly -- the ranger gets 5 bonus feats he doesn't need to meet the prerequisites for -- and spells, two good saves, more skill points, same BAB, plus a boatload of abilities.

Fighters get 11 bonus feats, can move faster in armor and invest more heavily in Dex, and gets a bonus with certain weapons.

So to sum up the ranger gets almost half as many bonus feats as the fighter and doesn't have to meet the prerequisites for them and gets everything else he gets.

Each combat style just makes it worse for the fighter too since that's one more way the ranger can be like the fighter and still have everything else.

I won't go into the specifics because this thread is not for it, but this is a terrible breakdown of fighter vs ranger. Saying ranger gets everything a fighter has is silly.

I found it to be a wonky rule as well, I do not allow the ability to ignore feat requirements, but ignore other prerequistes to take the feats.

More reason to ignore Ranger and go fighter! Awesome.

I was just messing around on Hero Labs, when i noticed that since a Ranger's combat style allows him to take a feat without Prerequisites. He could just skip Cleave, for "Two-Handed Weapon", to Great Cleave or the same with Vital Strike. The House Rule/RAI is obvious i just wondered what other people thought.

I've always considered it part of the perk of being a ranger.

What you believe is immaterial.

No. Not at all. Specifically because you contradict yourself in the rest of what you write. Just because you're good doesn't mean you put your own beliefs on the back burner.

Good is about respecting the beliefs and wishes of other people.

You can believe that a body is a meat sack all you like. People who respect your beliefs can take your body and bury it, burn it, feed it to the dogs, or give it to anatomy students for medical dissection. Your spirit will not be troubled by this because it's in accordance with your wishes.

That can be part of being good. It's not what is good. Concepts like good and evil are quite broad and have several meanings. This is your opinion.

If you're without any concept of respect for other people and their beliefs? Then you're a sociopath and you might as well just write CE on your character sheet and quit arguing.

If that was true, good characters couldn't kill anyone, because I'm pretty sure that anyone and anything you encounter will believe that you should not kill them. So all of your characters have been CE? How sad for you.

In the next dungeon, a wizard hits you with a ray of enfeeblement. You save, but still take 2 str damage. The spear thrower takes -1 damage, and -1 to hit in melee, but his to hit with ranged remains unchanged. You take the same -1 to damage, but now you're not strong enough to use your bow, so you take a -4 non-profieciency penalty to hit. Oh, yeah, and your weapon focus and specialization turn off. Because you no longer meet the pre-requitites for them. (i.e. proficency with the weapon).

So composite bows scale with str, true, but they scale very, very, poorly.

All composite bows are made with a particular strength rating (that is, each requires a minimum Strength modifier to use with proficiency). If your Strength bonus is less than the strength rating of the composite bow, you can't effectively use it, so you take a –2 penalty on attacks with it.

Weapon focus and/or specialization shouldn't turn off, since you're still proficient in the use of the bow, or it would give a -4 penalty.

I've noticed there is no swarm template in core books. After doing a search it had been pointed out that a third party book has it, but I don't have access to that, so I ask for assistance making a monster into a swarm.

Cacodaemon from bestiary 2
(http://www.d20pfsrd.com/bestiary/monster-listings/outsiders/daemons/cacoda emon)

Thanks!

Fnipernackle wrote:

This rule implies that a rogue can sneak attack you whether you are flanked or not as long as they move behind you to attack. When he's behind you, he gains total concealment as per the above rule. Rogues just got a lot more powerful.

I agree with you -- if you choose to turn your back on a specific direction, then the rogue can sneak attack you from that direction without flanking you.

But as you correctly point out, by default a character isn't turning his back on any direction. It's a combat option that the character can choose to use but doesn't have to.

Cite please.

Pretty much. The text is reinforcing that, if you want to avoid making the save, then you are, at a minimum, giving the gaze-attacker full concealment against yourself. It suggests a few methods to do that, some of which would also give concealment against other creatures, some of which might not. But either way the other creatures aren't relevant to the rule in question.

So let's use this and throw another example in the mix.

Wearing a Blindfold: The foe cannot see the creature at all (also possible to achieve by turning one's back on the creature or shutting one's eyes). The creature with the gaze attack gains total concealment against the opponent.

So if your back is to a creature they gain total concealment versus you.

This rule implies that a rogue can sneak attack you whether you are flanked or not as long as they move behind you to attack. When he's behind you, he gains total concealment as per the above rule. Rogues just got a lot more powerful.

Or do only monsters with gaze attacks gain total concealment if you turn your back on them? If so, why? Turning your back on one creature is mechanically the same as turning your back on another. You can't see them.

James Harms wrote:

Both of these are fantastic interpretations, but the entry only states that the creature with the gaze attack gains concealment. The section about wearing a blindfold is very clear on that. Hell according to RAW I can continually wear a blindfold and only creatures with gaze attacks will get any benefit.

No. The text doesn't say what happens, or doesn't happen, to other creatures when you wear a blindfold. The text specifies what happens when the creature has a gaze attack.

What happens to other creatures will be determined by other rules -- for instance, the Blindness and Unseen Attackers rules. Which make it very clear that if you are unable to see for any reason, enemies gain a benefit.
Just because all the consequences of a rule aren't spelled out in one location doesn't mean they aren't spelled out. The Gaze Attack rules give us a combat option. Rules in other places give us some of the consequences of exercising that option.

So the text feels the need to specifically state that the creature with a gaze attack gains concealment when the other rules state that it would anyway? Or the rules leave out that other creatures gain the same bonus when it could just say "you gain the blinded condition" instead?

But you're missing the point. In 600 pages there's going to be conflicting information. There's going to be things left open to interpretation. As a post above pointed out, you don't even need to close your eyes to target a square, so why even close your eyes? Now what? You get 50% miss chance AND you can pop an image if you miss?

James Harms wrote:

So the wizard gets total concealment according to the RAW, and the rogue could NEVER gain an advantage over the ranger in combat for this.

I disagree with your interpretation. The three methods listed for "wearing a blindfold" would also provide total concealment against other opponents, except perhaps "turning one's back" which might only provide total concealment against other opponents in one area.

This is at least as much common sense as your "moving your eyelids is a free action" argument, and is more supported by RAW.

The way I read that is that the creature using the gaze has total concealment. Whether other creatures do too, would depend on what specific method is taken to avoid seeing it. Closing eyes or blindfolded gives full concealment to everyone (by common sense), however, the other suggested method, turning your back, doesn't necessarily give total concealment to other creatures, and so it would be inappropriate for the rules to say that everyone gains concealment against the gaze avoidee.

In other words, the creature gaining total concealment is automatic (if it doesn't, you don't get to avoid the gaze), but whether other creatures do is up to the method used, and can't be specified universally in the same way, which is why that rule is worded the way it is.

Both of these are fantastic interpretations, but the entry only states that the creature with the gaze attack gains concealment. The section about wearing a blindfold is very clear on that. Hell according to RAW I can continually wear a blindfold and only creatures with gaze attacks will get any benefit.

Which brings me back to page 1. You can't pick and choose rules to follow and call it RAW. There are countless opportunities to exploit the rulebook that will get you conflicting answers. You have to use logic to determine what is the intended result of some actions. No rule book can ever cover every possible thing that a player can do. Some rules HAVE to be house ruled because anyone reading the rules can read the words differently. Take a look at page one. Some people (myself included) believe that the part in the mirror image description that says you have to see the images to be fooled is trumped by the sentence proceeding it that says you have to see it to be fooled. According to that interpretation of the rules, the person saw it, is fooled, and will continue to be fooled for the duration of the spell. If you can't see it at the time of casting, you wouldn't be fooled (which is actually somewhat contradicted by the fact that the images mimic noise as well, but that's a different argument.)

James Harms wrote:

Blinded for a round may be acceptable as a penalty, but that wouldn't be by RAW, which is the whole point of trying to argue for this side at all. (Free actions include dropping weapons, dropping prone, and speaking up to "a few sentences") I can close my eyelids much faster than I can do any of those things. Closing (and opening) one's eyes is a free action according to RAW.

... except that the one RAW example we have for voluntary blindness is under Gaze Attacks, and very clearly states that if you 'wear a blindfold' you suffer the full effects of giving that person total concealment against you. Which I read as meaning 'wearing a blindfold' (which, incidentally, includes 'closing your eyes' in the description) is a decision made on a round-to-round basis, like Power Attack.

You may be able to blink as a free action, but it doesn't have the effect of blinding you to your target and avoiding the Mirror Image effect. The only action we have in the rules that allows you to do that is a choice whose consequences last the whole round.

Wearing a Blindfold: The foe cannot see the creature at all (also possible to achieve by turning one's back on the creature or shutting one's eyes). The creature with the gaze attack gains total concealment against the opponent.

So the wizard gets total concealment according to the RAW, and the rogue could NEVER gain an advantage over the ranger in combat for this. The wizard would be the sole beneficiary from the ranger's questionable move, therefore negating any chance that anyone else has to retaliate against a ranger with his eyes closed. Even more powerful.

James Harms wrote:

If the rogue is within his movement speed from the ranger

If there is nothing between the rogue and the ranger stopping the rogue from advancing to the ranger (terrain features, etc)
If the ranger doesn't have a spell in effect that will prevent the rogue from getting to him (snare, entangle)
If any of the ranger's allies have nothing in place to stop the rogue from getting to the ranger (blur, displacement, or any spell that can prevent this from happening)

All this basically boils down to, "but he can use tactics to minimize the risk of shooting blind."

Well, fine. He can, and he should be allowed to. Using displacement, or terrain to advantage, or any such factors, isn't cheating.

It is so very simple to prevent negative consequences of shooting blindly that is almost can't be considered a drawback, which is the only drawback mentioned.

To recap because you seem a bit lost, this thread is split between two parties. One party believes closing one's eyes to negate mirror image is ok. The other believes that this is trying to exploit a loophole in the rules to get an advantage.

The group that believes that closing one's eyes to negate mirror image is ok is also split between whether it would be a free action to do so, or if the ranger would be blinded for the round.

Blinded for a round may be acceptable as a penalty, but that wouldn't be by RAW, which is the whole point of trying to argue for this side at all. (Free actions include dropping weapons, dropping prone, and speaking up to "a few sentences") I can close my eyelids much faster than I can do any of those things. Closing (and opening) one's eyes is a free action according to RAW.

Therefore, the only people that have a case at all are the ones arguing for closing one's eyes as a free action. The reasons given that this is acceptable are that the ranger now has a 50% miss chance (which is actually a benefit and the whole point of trying this) and the ranger will be open for readied actions to take advantage of his very temporary blindness. My point in the large paragraph that you tried to negate was that it is very easy for the ranger to successfully close his eyes and shoot, because the limits of readied actions prevents many plausible actions.

First turn: ready an action to move up to the ranger if he starts shooting (you then get an AoO for using ranged weapons in melee). All subsequent turns, ready action to hit him if he shoots, you then get to 5' step and both AoO and normal readied attack.

Readying actions can only be defeated (temporarily) by 5' steps if the readier isn't within 5' to start with, and if you aren't within 5', the better move is to ready a move anyway. Or ready a ranged attack, since he'll be flat-footed against it either way.

If the rogue is within his movement speed from the ranger

Sure he'd get that initial AoO. Doesn't seem too likely to me considering that any ranged weapon easily out-ranges the rogue's movement speed, allowing the ranger to put quite a distance between himself and any visible enemy.

The rogue is still at a major disadvantage to make use of the opportunity at all, let alone make use of the opportunity without putting himself into more danger than it's worth assuming the ranger and his party uses the slightest bit of common sense.

Possible? Sure. There's ways to take advantage of a ranger shooting with his eyes closed.

Likely? Maybe, but I'd guess that someone trying to use intimate knowledge of rules to create the conditions he prefers would also know the rules well enough to prevent the potential negative consequences of his actions, because blocking out a lot of potential counterattacks is not too difficult.

James Harms wrote:

"but only if you don't otherwise move any distance during the round."

Yes, all 5' steps work this way whether readied or not, it's as true for the ranger as anyone else.

So then you'd know that the rogue, as per the example, could NOT 5' step, because he would have had to move adjacent to the ranger and then ready an action. The ranger would be able to 5' step and shoot without triggering the readied action or provoking an AoO, so I don't see your point.

James Harms wrote:

<snip snip snip>The ranger already knows that without certain feats he will provoke an AoO if he shoots next to the rogue anyway, so he 5 foot steps and shoots the wizard with his eyes closed. The rogue can not use his readied action without reach at this point, so his tactic failed. Bottom line: it is VERY unlikely that anyone can take action versus the ranger using this strategy without wasting several rounds of trial and error to do so.

Make sure you know the rules in question before pontificating on them. ;) You can take a 5' step as part of a ready action, which blows that whole long paragraph out of the water.

"but only if you don't otherwise move any distance during the round."

"An attacker must be able to see the figments to be fooled. If you are invisible or the attacker is blind, the spell has no effect (although the normal miss chances still apply)."

Just saying.

The first sentence of that says they have to see the figments to be fooled. Closing your eyes to attack means the attacker saw the figments and was fooled. Just saying.

You can keep quoting the same two sections of the spell, but as pointed out multiple times, the spell conflicts with itself and can only be left to interpretation. You're free to interpret the spell that way, but there's a few problems with that.

First, you're extending the duration of the spell. Instead of just shooting at the wizard and popping his images, you're missing half of the time (if you hit the AC). So now there's more of a chance the mirror images stick around for your allies or for your future attacks.

Second, you're ignoring logic and what is most likely the intent of the spell.

Finally, your justifications for your interpretations are not real consequences. So far the reasons that this is an acceptable mechanic:

-You have a 50% miss chance (which is much, much, much better miss chance than the spell's potential AND this is the entire reason you want to, so it's not a downside at all is it?).

-Your eyes are closed, leaving you open to attacks while you're blind. This would be a real threat only if you actually have to keep them closed for any length of time, but that seems to be a conflicting opinion as well. Some say it's a free action and only a readied action can take advantage of the blinded condition, and others seem to feel that you'd be blinded for a round. I've mostly seen the free action theory, so lets play with that. The class that will gain the most benefit here is a rogue. In order for the rogue to make use of this, he would have to ready an action to attack the ranger when the ranger closes his eyes while adjacent to the ranger. Otherwise the tactic will fail. The ranger has vision before he shoots and can still hear, so he has a good chance of knowing the rogue is there. Considering this is not going to be the first round of combat, I'd assume the rogue will not be stealthed at this point. So there's the rogue, readying an action to attack the ranger when he shoots with his eyes closed. (I'm ignoring the fact that the rogue would have to be observing the ranger to notice him using this tactic in the first place) The ranger already knows that without certain feats he will provoke an AoO if he shoots next to the rogue anyway, so he 5 foot steps and shoots the wizard with his eyes closed. The rogue can not use his readied action without reach at this point, so his tactic failed. Bottom line: it is VERY unlikely that anyone can take action versus the ranger using this strategy without wasting several rounds of trial and error to do so.

Because of all of these reasons, I choose to read the spell as intended without trying to find crazy loopholes in the rules. Logically it makes sense, I believe this is the intent of the spell, and the RAW conflicts itself with vague wording too much to be definitive.

James Jacobs wrote:

That's the thing; they never WERE a valid target, because you can't specifically target mirror images. Since you can't actually aim at a specific mirror image with a normal attack, you can't Cleave one.

If the text for mirror image SAID you could specifically target an image, then yeah, you could cleave them. But you can't. The only time you can hit an image is if you miss the actual target by 5 or less.

Feel free to houserule that, of course; but in this case the rules seem pretty clear to me. If you DO houserule that you can cleave images, you should allow normal attacks to target them as well. Which sorta defeats the purpose of the spell, I think.

--> James

If they are not a valid target then they can not be a factor with your eyes closed meaning we are back to aiming for square and hitting the creature. Images are not creatures.

It still doesn't clarify anything for this question. You aren't targeting the images, but they will still give their miss chance because they are there. In fact, another thing James Jacobs wrote would argue in favor of having the mirror images take the hit even if you did roll the 50% miss chance..."Well, you didn't actually hit the target, or a creature. You missed."

Logically it makes sense. Rules as written don't specifically clarify because they defeat themselves constantly, but here is my last bit on this (and I do hope it's answered as a FAQ question.)

Take the old ball under the three cups trick.

There's a mini of a wizard on your table. Have someone place three cups on the table and make sure that the wizard is underneath one of them. Shuffle them a bit to randomize which cup the wizard is under (simulating the effects of the spell).

Point at a cup. Now close your eyes and point at a cup.

Do you have a better chance of picking the correct cup because you can't currently see them? No. In fact, now there's a chance you aren't actually pointing at a cup at all.

The 50% miss chance determines whether you hit the caster or not. All you are doing is shooting into the squares, and not aiming for an image. You cant' really aim for an image if you can't see it since you can't target anything you can't see. This is my rules argument.

Logically an arrow could pop an image whether the archer hit on the good or bad side of the 50% miss chance, but in that case an image would be rolled for, and then the miss chance would come into play.

Right. Because the ranger closes his eyes he has a 50% chance to hit something in the square. If he succeeds, he gets to roll randomly to see if he hit an image or not.

The 50% miss chance from attacking someone you can't see is because you don't know exactly where in the square they are. Now you're shooting at one of 8 copies of someone while blind. Now you do not know where any of the copies are specifically.

Closing your eyes doesn't change the fact that the last time you could see, there were 8 copies.

the images are constantly moving. Once he closes his eyes he has no idea where they are so he is shooting blindly(figuratively, and literally) into the square. That means only a 50% miss chance. Knowing the spell is up has no bearing on the results.

No they aren't. Again, "These images remain in your space and move with you, mimicking your movements, sounds, and actions exactly." This does not mean they move and shuffle around. They move with the caster or it would be pretty obvious who is who.

the opponent blinded himself for some retributive attacks by readied action

Maybe after the first couple times the ranger tries this trick will the enemy really get the idea to ready an action to hit the ranger when he closes his eyes, but honestly I don't think this is a tactic worthy of mention when it comes to the drawbacks of closing your eyes.

The real problem here is that Mirror Image as written is stupidly overpowered for a second level spell and stays that way up until opponents routinely have True Sight, Blindsight, Tremorsense or Lifesense. As such, people try to get around its stupid overpoweredness by tricks like these, which turns the spells power into an equivalent of a third level spell... which again shows how stupidly overpowered Mirror Image really is.

The weakness is in it's duration. Mirror image can be gone in one round. Displacement is 1 round per level.

The problem with this is you're letting lack of common sense cloud your interpretations of the rules as written. When I read "An attacker must be able to see the figments to be fooled. If you are invisible or the attacker is blind, the spell has no effect" I read an implied "at the time of casting this spell".

Ranger sees wizard.
Wizard casts mirror image.
Ranger sees 8 Wizards.
Ranger closes his eyes.
Ranger's mind sees 8 wizards.
Ranger shoots into Wizard's square.
Ranger still doesn't know which wizard is real.

The confusing effect of having 8 wizards in one square does not magically go away because you cant currently see the images. You don't all of a sudden gain clarity of mind to mentally pick out the right wizard (even with a 50% miss chance to actually hit). You are reading the spell the way you want to minimize the impact of the intended effect.

Bottom line: "An attacker must be able to see the figments to be fooled." The ranger saw the figments and therefore was fooled.

The character with his eyes shut IS blinded. This is raw. It has been looked up, pointed out, referenced, re rereferenced, even though trying to say otherwise is blatantly silly rules lawyering. The person can't see then they can't see. They're blind.

"All checks and activities that rely on vision(such as reading and Perception checks based on sight) automatically fail" is also RAW. Unfortunately in this case, RAW doesn't clarify one way or another.

In fact, if you take a look at blind fight, the feat only applies to melee (Benefit: In melee, every time you miss because of concealment...)

That point would lead one to believe that shooting an arrow is considered one of the actions that rely on sight and therefore automatically fail.

I find the fact that you're trying to claim that any other view other than yours is "rules lawyering" when you are obviously trying to get around a spell mechanic with a free action when even logically thinking about how the spell works would speak otherwise.

James Harms wrote:

Gruuuu wrote:

Here's an even more fun question.

Let's say a wizard casts this, and the big ugly fighter comes along and succeeds in grappling him. Everyone can plainly see which image has a Fighter-Blanket, so do they get a Will save chance then? Or is that direct proof of illusion, and do they all poof? Or does the fighter also get mirrored, and produce 4+ very unhappy wizard/fighter piles?

Throw some water on the wizard's square. Sure all the illusions will look wet, but only one will physically stop the water.

- and as soon as you do that the mirror images all shuffle around and you loose track of them, as part of the spell.

No. "These images remain in your space and move with you, mimicking your movements, sounds, and actions exactly."

If you don't move, they don't move. Throwing water on the square would tell you which one is the real one, and you can keep track of that until the wizard moves again.

Here's an even more fun question.

Let's say a wizard casts this, and the big ugly fighter comes along and succeeds in grappling him. Everyone can plainly see which image has a Fighter-Blanket, so do they get a Will save chance then? Or is that direct proof of illusion, and do they all poof? Or does the fighter also get mirrored, and produce 4+ very unhappy wizard/fighter piles?

Throw some water on the wizard's square. Sure all the illusions will look wet, but only one will physically stop the water.

So let's say that a ranged attacker only takes the 50% miss chance from closing his eyes versus the mirror imaged caster.

Because the spell description has this line "An attacker must be able to see the figments to be fooled. If you are invisible or the attacker is blind, the spell has no effect (although the normal miss chances still apply)" you also say that the mirror images can not be destroyed by the ranged attacker.

The ranger can miss the caster but still "hit" a mirror image from the perception of the ranger's allies. Would that mirror image stay around?

Wizards with flying fortresses protected by laser monkeys wielding flaming burst lightsabers and wearing armor made of magic acid. With wings.

I was going to take a break from running my campaign while I brainstormed some story ideas, but I no longer have to! One question though: the part about the wings, is that the monkeys, the armor made of magic acid, or the flying fortresses. I couldn't tell.

Was considering this class until I realized the inability to move whilst maintaining defensive stance.

For a "tank" character to be immobile seems laughable, but then again I haven't played one. Though, it seems to me though that without the ability to move about, you would quickly become out maneuvered by foes, and thus fail in your role.

Not in a 15' hallway!

Text message blows up suicide bomber by accident

Spam saved lives. Huh.

It'd be great if it was a text message ad for life insurance.

Flat-footed is a condition just like being stunned or sickened. Either you are or you are not. You can't be flat-footed against only one opponent anymore than you can be stunned against only one opponent.

Right, because according to the book flat-footed is only the condition where you have not yet acted at the start of battle. However, the penalties are the same for flat-footed and an invisible attacker, so where you would not be flat-footed against an invisible attacker per the rules, the attack would still be resolved using the flat-footed AC.

The difference being that you can still make AoOs because they are not actually flat-footed.

I am not defending Cartigan or Jason, but it seems that the opinions are biased when they should be made as if Jason's and Cartigan's reputations were unknown.

I don't agree with that. If you have a reputation of negativity directed not only at other visitors but also at the staff, you shouldn't expect to be treated the same way as people who do not. This issue is actually only an issue because of reputations.

So you interpret it as Splat would be attacking the Flat Footed AC? But that would only be for that one attack.

I do understand that while flanking he gets sneak attack against the targets normal AC.

Thanks for the response

I do, but I will concede to the fact that the book does not support that directly.

This was argued at length in one of my game groups. It was decided that because there are certain references to invisible vs stealth listed in spells and other entries that they are acknowledged as giving the same benefit through different means. (For example, the spell See Invisibility states that "It does not reveal creatures who are simply hiding, concealed, or otherwise hard to see." If stealth did not grant invisibility, there would be no need for this entry.)

Basically, I interpret the rules by the logic that if you succeed in a stealth check the enemy can not see you. If they can not see you you gain the same benefit as the invisible condition (which says "Invisible creatures are visually undetectable".)

By raw, no.

-You cannot fight while stealthed.

-There is no provision in the stealth skill for loosing your dex against a stealthed foe.

-The target is not flat footed. Flat footed is not a condition relative to the attackers, it is a condition that either is or is not on the defender. Since the defender is in combat and has acted, he is not flat footed.

Fighting while stealthed...

Sniping: If you've already successfully used Stealth at least 10 feet from your target, you can make one ranged attack and then immediately use Stealth again. You take a –20 penalty on your Stealth check to maintain your obscured location.

OK,

I can't seem to find anything pushing this question either way. So i'm reaching out for input.

Can a character utilize sneak attack on a target already in combat. For example:

Mark the Brave is fighting a vile Orc. Splat the rogue has been hiding well before the combat ever started. Splat wants to get involved in the fight and fires his crossbow. Granted he takes the penalty for firing into melee, but does he get Sneak Attack still?

In this same scenario lets say Splat was close enough for melee engagement. Would he be able to attack the orc (Not flanking) and gain sneak attack on the first attack?

Also in the above scenarios if you believe he DOES get the sneak attack does he attack the orcs' Flat Footed AC?

Any/All input is welcomed!

Thanks.

If a rogue can catch an opponent when he is unable to defend himself effectively from her attack, she can strike a vital spot for extra damage. The rogue's attack deals extra damage anytime her target would be denied a Dexterity bonus to AC (whether the target actually has a Dexterity bonus or not), or when the rogue flanks her target.

An invisible creature gains a +2 bonus on attack rolls against sighted opponents, and ignores its opponents' Dexterity bonuses to AC (if any).

As long as the enemy did not perceive him, Splat would get sneak attack damage on the first attack he makes.

Edit: To clarify, invisibility is not the same as stealth, but the mechanics in this case work similarly.

I ahve come up with a way that might reduce the time spent rolling dice. It has some flaws but tell me what you think. Each weapon has a base damage according to the table below. When a "hit" is scored, compare the adjusted number rolled to the AC of the target. Add the difference in the attack roll and AC to the base damage of the weapon. Criticals are resolved the same as before. Example: Total Attack bonus +6 strikes againts an AC 18 with weapon of base damage 5. Attacker rolls 16 + 6 = 22. Damage is 9 (base 5 plus 4 from the earlier 22 - 18).

1d4 = 2
1d6 = 3
1d8 = 4
1d10 = 5
1d12 = 6
(Essentially I am taking the median damage fo each type of attack)

First the "negatives" of this system:

1. Less min. and less max. damage. Extremes are lost. This is most notable in high damage weapons.
2. Some attacks with very similar damage (1d12 and 2d6 for example) have the same damage in this system.
3. Very low end damage weapons (1d4) do more damage on average than with dice rolling damage.

Now the "positives":

1. Less rolling. No damage dice to roll. After a hit, you will only have to roll again if you need to check for a critical.
2. How well an attacker "hits" affects damage. No cases of an attacker barely hitting for max. damage or rolling 10 over what is needed but only inflicting min. damage.
3. The attacker's skill with the weapon indirectly affects damage which makes sense. A very skilled attacker attacking a low AC will do more damage on average with the same weapon then a lowly skilled attacker attacking a high AC.

Thoughts?

DR would be much more tricky and a bit imbalanced.

The best way I've found to deal with it is rolling attack and damage die at the same time. I also let people use smart phone dice roller apps. For multiple attacks it's pretty awesome.

TwilightKnight wrote:

Really?!? Is this a serious question?

Some aberrations breath, many do not. If you GM allows such a ridiculous use of Wish, then he should just rule that the moon does not breathe (but will become one hell of an opponent). Even if it did, and "died," you were not the one that "killed" it, so no XP for you.

I'm pretty sure that I should get experience points for it. Avoiding combat, and taking actions that lead to the deaths of other creatures are both valid ways of beating encounters. There isn't anything that says you get less experience for an encounter you start, so I don't see what the problem is.

"I wish the moon immediately becomes a living, breathing, oxygen dependent creature without any new means of ambulation."

You wouldn't get xp for this for the same reason you don't get xp for walking to the tavern for a drink. Sure, you avoided that Hail of Arrows trap that's in a dungeon somewhere, but it posed no threat to you from where you are.

Here's some things to get started. There's also different options in the line of "Dazing Assault" to make things fun as well. This is by no means a complete list, and a lot of this you can do with a fighter, but I prefer using a barbarian for the anti-mage type.

Barbarian Rage Powers to pick from:

No Escape

Superstition

Disruptive

Spellbreaker

Witch Hunter

Helpful Feats:

Teleport Tactician (Combat)

Dazing Assault

Step Up

Following Step

Step Up and Strike

If I am still doing 2d4+Dex with one shot at the same time a buddy is firing off 4 arrows then we have a problem.

And when your buddy is trying to hit high armor classes and you're hitting touch AC he's going to be mad that your damage is higher than his.

Do I add SA Dmg to each arrow?

** spoiler omitted **

Parts I think apply highlighted above.

The parts you bolded should be enough to make anyone certain. You get the bonus from class abilities.

Phasics wrote:

this isn't for me its for another guy in the group who dosent optimise or plan that much

at the moment he's rogue 7, he about to shift into sorc and odds are he'll end up sorc 4 and then trickster 9, and yes that does mean no capstone trickster

hence i'm trying to make the most out of what he's doing ;)

Tell him that his strategy should be to pick his spells to complement what he's good at. And keep in mind ray attack spells for that sneak attack love. The AT was very fun in 3.5, it only got better in Pathfinder.

I built one recently to 13. I actually took 4 Fighter (Archer Archetype), Rogue 3, Wizard 3, Arcane Trickster 3. I really like how he's turning out.

The idea is a guy who had no idea what he wanted to do with his life, so he dabbled in the things he was good at before finding a niche that used all his talents.

He's not the most powerful (combat) character I've ever built, but the flavor and range of abilities make up for it.

Hi, just recently I was in a situation where the group I'm DMing for kept intimidating people to quickly get them into the panicked state. Here's how it it played out

Person 1 Intimidate creature goes to shaken
Person 2 Intimidate creature goes to frightened
Person 3 Intimidate creature goes to panicked

It seemed pretty powerful to me and I was wondering if that's how intimidate would stack in a combat situation. To see if you're intimidated I believe the counter check is 10 + your HD + your wisdom modifier. I have a feeling we were using this incorrectly. So any help on clearing this issue up would be great.

Thanks
Greg

From what I can tell, intimidate will only cause the shaken condition unless a feat/ability specifically says otherwise. In the condition glossary, it does not state that if a shaken target is caused to be shaken again, he is instead frightened or panicked. (For example, fatigue and exhausted)

Perhaps a change to Selective Channeling?

I dislike this feat in the first place because other spell or spell like ability changing feats also had a drawback in the form of a higher spell slot or increased recharge time.

Also, I felt that selective channeling was too easy to use. It is easy to place yourself as a cleric where you would only hit a couple enemy targets, therefore your charisma could still be somewhat low and still have the desired effect.

I was thinking Selective Channeling would be something used when needed. You have the option to normally channel, or you could selective channel:

When you channel energy, you can choose a number of targets in the area up to your Charisma modifier. These targets are affected by your channeled energy.

You can choose to be affected by your channeled energy. This does not count towards the number of targets.

Also, as a little extra on the side (I know tactics isn't something you wanted here, but I had a lot of fun with this, so I wanted to mention it) there's a poison in one of the 3.5 Monster Manuals (I think MM4) that causes the target to be damaged by positive energy and healed by negative energy as if they are undead. It was on the tomb spiders.