Kayerloth's page

Organized Play Member. 2,128 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists.


1 to 50 of 2,128 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

Melkiador wrote:
Glove of storing is expensive, but the best. Hard to beat a free action and the book is still available if you end up in an extra dimensional space.


The Glove of Storing does not place whatever it is storing in an extradimensional space. It is based off the spell Shrink Item and not Secret Chest (or other extraplanar or extradimension creating spell).

A burst would not have a LoE to the PC through an existing Sphere. So no it doesn't matter if it 'engulfs' the entire Sphere if a line from the point of origin passes through the Sphere the Disjunction would not effect the PC. But that brings us back to what happens if the Sphere is brought down or more specifically if the 6th layer has been removed. I don't think RAW answers the question. Personally I'd say if the 'barrier' was destroyed then the effects of what destroyed the barrier would continue on.

As an aside Lightning Bolt has the same language --> The line will continue past the barrier if the barrier is destroyed.

What Ryze states is correct. Between Wish and True Resurrection permanently killing a 17+ character is extremely difficult if not impossible.

But maybe a cabal of deities has decided 'man' has gotten out of control ... and all the campaign's high level heroes (and villans) get killed off overnight by the Cabal i.e. they hit the reset button. The squires have to convince at least one deity to reverse their decision.

(Break time over, back later)

I'll second the idea of a 24 hour timer as a good idea and add two bits of support. First if an extraplanar creature is effected by Holy Word (or its alternate alignment variants) and banished by the caster it can't return for at least 24 hours per the spell description. Second if a Druid releases or has to replace their Animal Companion it requires a ceremony requiring 24 hours of uninterrupted prayer to do so.

Generally you're probably right. That said how much depends on how far away the targets are. As for catching targets in a line, dragons are smart and will use the terrain (plus or minus battlefield control spells) to catch folks

It's not a binary thing. It's an entire spectrum. Am I trying to cheat them or give them a chance to employ skills not often used and get a bonus reward for the effort?

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I always figured they copied something nearby when 'born'.

The last one my players ran into was a 'row boat'. About halfway across the large underground lake it revealed itself adhering the characters to its 'benches' and demanding a bit of treasure or it would toss them into the dark, cold waters.

+1 to what everyone is saying. The interpretation gives too much power to what Mind Blank can accomplish. The best interpretation involves direct vs indirect obtaining of information. If it is direct then Mind Blank probably protects. If it is indirect most likely this will get around Mind Blank protection.

Read the description of the following spells and the responses in this thread to Mind Blank then think on it again.

Discern Location, Screen, Sequester.

The first two are 8th level. The last is 7th. Are these more or less powerful for their level than Mind Blank?

blahpers wrote:
It's a handy haversack. The coin isn't visible regardless because it's in an extradimensional space.

Or maybe it's a Shrodinger's coin, do we even know if it exists? (Maybe its actually a Haversack of Devouring? :P) How about if it was a normal sack. Well you've put it down so the sack is no longer invisible and the coin well it may or may not have the invisible state. It is hidden from view (Total Cover) which is not quite the same as invisible. You'd have a LoE but not LoS to the coin if it was invisible but have neither LoE or LoS while it is within the sack. But now you've cast Invisibility on your Sack can you see the coin?

Now the answer bears on another topic in another thread (by Ravingdork) about unusual uses for spells. The suggestion was cast Invisibility on a door. Now you could see through the invisible door and see any occupants in the room, where they were, what they were doing etc.. In order for that to work you would have to answer that you can now see the coin. I thought it was clever at the time but now thinking it wouldn't work. Otherwise you couldn't hide stuff in your pockets while you were invisible because you'd see right through to the object which clearly isn't the case, i.e. the spell isn't 'Transparency' or 'X-ray Vision' or the old 2E spell 'Glassee'.

And now we have to stop and go "because magic" otherwise what do you see? The floor, but then why the floor and not the coin? So just ... Magic.


Neither Meteor Swarm nor Ball Lightning are Shapeable. First neither has any indication of such or the (S) tag on the Area line. Picking targets (Meteor Swarm) or the direction of the path a particular Ball (Ball Lightning) is going to take is not making the spell Shapeable. The size of the effect in both cases is fixed (40ft radius and 5ft radius respectively).

The "see text" in Meteor Swarm has nothing to due with the shape of the resulting Sphere but where it occurs. Because the spell is Ranged Touch with targets the text has to let you know what to do if you "Miss".

Earthquake is in fact a weird duck and if I thought a FAQ would actually get a response these days I would happily hit the button. I suspect it has to do with the equally odd effects and their various outcomes (and probably a bit of legacy lack of editing thrown in perhaps *shrug*). In any case it is very much a specific thing about the spell vs spells in general. It might be as simple as it would allow you to pick a specific structure in the middle of town to effect vs creating lots of undesired collateral damage, no idea though personally.

It hinges upon the game term "target". An emanation does not target a creature or object. The caster picks a point of origin and the effect eminates from there. Note the lack of a "target" line in the spell description for the Greater version, while it is present in the lower level version (Range Personal, Target you)

Does that help?

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Yes, I've certainly done it. And because of the issues Dave mentions it can be strongly influenced by my players, the nature of the campaign, the amount time available to prepare, and gaming time available for the session. Usually it falls somewhere around what Dave describes. Sometimes it'll run towards the detailed end (find buyers, using various knowledge checks, etc.) Less often it'll be towards the 'find stuff, sells for this amount end of the spectrum.

The most off the wall treasure wasn't even intended. I was running a Dark Sun/Athas campaign involving lots of intrigue. It revolved around the party uncovering a super secret sapphire mine. Eventually they thought they'd found it a tried to sneak it to explore and verify. They came across a large iron portcullis gate ... and their eyes about popped out. Iron of any kind was extremely valuable in Dark Sun and here was an entire gate made of it! Forget the sapphires!! Forget their mission/contracts!!!

There's a bunch but I don't think that's really what you're asking for:
Item(s) increasing saving throws (Cloak of Resistance), Items increasing AC (Ring of Deflection, Amulet of Natural Armor), etc.. the sort of things that pretty much any character would need.

That said there are many such items already listed above in various posts that while not strictly usable by casters only probably are found more on non-martial types.

Various Robes such as Robe of Stars, Cape of the Mountebank, other non-armor clothing items. Many off the Wondrous Items entries could fit the bill. If they are just part of the act the exact items don't really matter do they? Pick lots of flashy obvious stuff and go for it.

Quixote wrote:
one thing that stood out to me was that comment about how, as you increase in level, combats tend to focus on fewer, more powerful enemies. Is that something many people find? Can't say I care for that at all. Then again, there are a lot of reasons that the game seems to start breaking down once you pass a certain threshold.

A few thoughts.

I do think combats tend to focus on fewer more powerful enemies as level increases. I don't think that is necessarily because it has to be that way. But fewer more powerful foes tend to be easier for the DM to run and keep track of to a point. More powerful foes also tend to be more interesting with more options for the DM to enjoy while running things as well as being less familiar to the Players (particularly first time a player encounters foes of that strength). Encountering ever greater numbers of Orcs gets increasingly difficult to make interesting and challenging, but it can be done.

As for the game, and in particular game mechanics, breaking down past a certain threshold, that is an extremely GM and group thing as to when and why that occurs which is why we have things like E6, E12 and 'why ever stop' as preferences for folks. And that's without considering things like Mythic, magic rare or low magic preferences.

So do you want him using an Ioun stone that gives a +1 caster level, several Pearl's of Power, a Headband and a Ring of Wizardry type items?

High levels of Disguise maybe?

For the most part the only folks that can question his 'act' are likely casters themselves.

How does foot size relate to how fast you need to go? If you double foot size what's the effect on how fast you need to go?

And how fast would you need to go if under a Reduce Person spell?

And why does a foggy memory of watching Jackie Chan trot across water in some gigantic shoes come to mind?

1 person marked this as a favorite.
CRB on Concealment wrote:
To determine whether your target has concealment from your ranged attack, choose a corner of your square. If any line from this corner to any corner of the target's square passes through a square or border that provides concealment, the target has concealment.

You pick any of the 8 corners of your space (5ft cubic square for a size M creature). Draw a line between that corner and all the corners of the targets space. That's going to be a total of 8 lines between your square and their square. Then answer the question of "do any of those lines pass through a square or border that provides concealment.

Now reverse the situation. You'll find that one guy (the one in the OM) has a better level of concealment vs the other when attacking. One has 20% (partial) concealment and the other none OR one has 50% concealment (total) and the other 20% (partial). The later will occur when you pick a square just inside the outer ring of squares of an Obscuring Mist spell for one of them and the other square is out in the open (no concealment or cover)

And boy do I hope I kept all that straight while typing this out. :D

About the only thing I would add is it says "A shaped effect or area can ... " and not "The shaped effect(s) or area(s) can ... .

Make of that as you will. I don't think game balance etc., is going to be put out of whack either way.

IMHO it certainly should have a saving throw.

And for what it's worth both the Archives of Nethys and the PRD list it as having one.

MrCharisma wrote:


As much as that's a cool spell, I think the idea behind it is that you specifically can't take 20 (subject to GM discretion of course).

Don't even think this is a case of potential Take 10 or 20 (or anything else time wise) it's more like a case of same bonus not stacking or overlapping effects of a given spell. Heck there's no effect to even stack really, "you gain a brief but incomplete understanding". All you've done is replaced the first incomplete understanding with another incomplete understanding.

+1 to what Jeff has said. I have to dig around more but I see nothing in the PF rules that unequivocally states it one way or the other. I no longer have many of my old AD&D books but fairly certain it stated that the area must be contiguous with no dimension less than a 10ft cube as I recall some discussions about it among my gaming friends at the time.

PS And while my word is certainly not official (yours as the GM is) that's they way I've been doing since my AD&D days. My only advice is whatever way its done be consistent (and what's good for the goose is good for the gander).

Agree with much of the above.

Replace the Candle ... test it for toxins if at all possible. Detect Poison could be used on either Candle, the Victim or the Letter. Or
the room or ritual area in general.

Have Delay Poison and or Lesser Restoration available as well as Antitoxin. Many poisons do Ability damage, hence the Lesser Restoration.

Learn more about the Letter. Who delivered it? If it was a messenger then who talked to or hired them? Any scent on the Letter? Can the scent be tracked or recognized (perfume etc.). Is it contaminated with the first poison in a multiple part poison. In any case it's your best link to the perpetrator that you know about at the moment.

Status before the daily ritual. Any change in his condition more likely to be picked up before it becomes fatal. Or have someone volunteer to play stand-in for Gafrey

Haven't annoyed any high level Monks right or rather Gafrey hasn't? (That's in jest, if you've annoyed a 15th+ lvl Monk all bets are off.)

Dave Justus wrote:

There are quite a few rings that have spell effects. Rings of elemental commands have several spell effects and ring of spell storing, especially if they have someone else who can recharge it, would be great for this.

Personally, I'd probably start with a cloak of the hedge wizard though.

One thing to keep in mind is that is isn't exactly obvious how easy (or hard) it is to tell if someone is casting spell normally or using a magic item to create a spell effect or using a magic item to cast a spell. Is it totally obvious? Is it a perception or knowledge check?

The point of this is, if the GM and the players don't have the same understanding about how this bit of the rules works, it could lead to players feeling 'cheated' if the GM uses this to 'fool' them.

Spell Storing Rings have the advantage of being charged with either arcane or divine spells or both. The assumption seems to be a mid-level arcane caster but ... .

Dress the role but given that between all the varieties of both arcane and divine casters the "stereotype" mold has been smashed all to heck and back that shouldn't be much of an issue. Dressing would include bearing weapons of those typical for the show.

As for the question of detecting the deception (cast from item vs cast 'normally') it probably comes down to the appropriate Spellcraft and or Knowledge Arcana checks. And the ever pesky question of spell manifestations and how they are used by the GM and group in question. I don't recall for instance if casting from an item creates manifestations or if that is a potential issue right there i.e. no manifestations then obviously it wasn't cast by our martial. And he needs to avoid being the subject of Arcane Sight.

And our high level martial doesn't have to go around casting much of anything. Just act the role and let folks make assumptions. Something folks are very good at doing generally. Unless, of course, the locals are asking for magical support to fight off the orc army camped outside the city.

And then there's the question of what is his usual high level martial equipment? And is he willing and able to wear a Cloak of the Hedge Wizard, Ring of Elemental Command and Ring of Spell Storing instead?

Fair enough. It can get considerably colder although none of these temperatures are likely going to be naturally occurring below the upper 20s F. Been a long dang time since I studied the physics around it.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Thomas Keller wrote:

<stuff> ...

Can you tell me where this assumption of constant motion by the character is referenced?

No there's no place where it specifically states such in a rule book. But if they weren't able to choose being mobile then a whole bunch of other things come into play. Like no Dodge or Dexterity bonuses to AC ... how else would they exist? Like I said a static portrayal of a dynamic situation.

Huge difficult topic in many ways mostly due to the highly abstract nature of a system of hit points representing injuries/injury/damage ranging from trivial to life threatening and even including things like objects and things not really alive etc., ... Undead, Elementals, Constructs, Incorporeal beings.

A) How long do you wish for it to take? Will the type of injury make a difference in what sort of spell is needed? Probably the two main causes of poor healing results in a patient are nutrition and infection.

B) Will the number of instances of injury make a difference (i.e. 1001 cuts vs 1 nasty critical)?

C) Can go either way. That is the Heal Check effects the result of the Spell or the Spell effects the result of the Heal Check? Appears if the first is where you're leaning.

Part of the problem here is the same 10 pts of damage is not equal from instance to instance. 20 damage can be a very serious injury to a 24 HP wizard (never mind an 18 hp one) vs a 54 hp barbarian. This issue grows worse as both gain levels. Modify the Heal check based on the relative damage to the character perhaps?

Will the number of instances of injury play a role in the Heal DC. That is if the 20 points is the result of 6+ different instances of injury to be treated as the same as a single critical hit resulting in 20 damage? Do you make 6+ rolls vs 1 roll. Do work off the total damage regardless of the number of instances of injury? Or their nature and cause?

D) Agreed. It really makes not having access to magical healing almost moot (almost). But that's because generally speaking spending game time twiddling ones thumbs healing up is not how folks want to spend their gaming time. So they made it relatively painless and easy sacrificing a degree of realism in the process.

E) That's likely to get fairly involved really quickly if you move beyond something along the lines of Heal 5+ ranks means you can do "Surgery". Starting with defining what is meant by Surgery.

F) The nature of the bonus and its value will depend on how the above points are answered. The Obvious answer is something along the lines of +1/level of cleric/druid etc..

Quixote wrote:

I've also added the following:

Icy water: water between 60-41° is treated as cold weather, except Fortitude saves are made every 5 minutes. Water between 40-33° is treated as severe cold weather, except checks are made every minute. Water that is 32-0° is treated as extreme cold, except damage and saves occur every round.
A character jumping into icy water must make a Fortitude save (DC10 for cold, 15 for severe cold, 20 for extreme cold). Failure indicates they gasp and inhale water, and must make a Fortitude save (DC15) or begin drowning.

Thank you for your imput so far.

I was assuming those degrees were Fahrenheit degrees but naturally occurring liquid water never gets anywhere near 0 F. Somewhat over 28 degrees F is the coldest naturally occurring on planet earth. And 60-41 C is definitely beyond "warm" into hyperthermia inducing (not hypothermia). Mixing scales accidentally or am I missing something?

Matthew Downie wrote:
Goblin Guard wrote:
Thus, I was wondering - what monsters lend themselves best to encounters against mounted characters?

Something like a bunch of archers scattered over a wide area, using hit and run tactics? A guy with a sword will struggle, but a guy on a horse can catch up with them and run them down fairly easily.

But it depends on the rest of the party - archers and wizards will have less trouble with this kind of opposition.


Basically any battle involving more distance or mobility between foes or targets.

The Party encounters foes along the road or trail. But what is beyond them is the village, town or gate and its closing. The mounted character is the one who can reach the gate and prevent its closure. Or maybe if their foes can reach the gate they can enter and 'vanish' into the crowd (or the fight must cease because the town has laws against folks slaughtering each other within its walls).

Thomas Keller wrote:
Wait. Are you saying that you can move out of the mist, attack, and then move back into the mist? That can't be right. You only get one move action.

No, not in the sense of leaving their space i.e. use a Move Action.

But remember or envision this as a static portrayal of a dynamic situation. The bandit has no area within his space with cover or concealment (or he would have those bonuses). He only has his ability to move about within the space protected by his deflection bonuses, armor, ability bonuses etc.. The defender within the OM however has areas within their space which put more or less mist between him and his foe in addition to the above. He's assumed to take advantage of these areas when attacks are incoming and likewise assumed to take advantage of the areas within his space with less mist between them to launch his attacks at the bandit. Neither creature/character is thought to stay motionless through out the entire Round. If there were then other modifiers would come into play ... loss of Dex bonus, Dodge bonuses etc. right up till he would be consider "helpless" as his situation deteriorated defensively.

Yes the rules seem quite solid and playable.

I do have a question as to why the range limit to the perception check while wearing goggles?

Yes magic does tend to trivialize extreme but mundane environments. I think though that typically won't happen until the resources used become trivial to acquire as well. Coming up with enough Endure Elements, for example, to cover an entire 1st level party is not trivial until something like a wand is available (and can be replaced fairly easily every 2 weeks or so). Same is true for things like Create Water or Create Food and Water. And said party has to be ready and able to handle the sudden and unexpected loss of the effects. For instance, the BBEG, drops a Dispel on the party.

It is, regardless, an issue the DM needs to decide how soon and thoroughly he wants it to become trivial (if at all).

Two thoughts:

1) "The most important rule." 4th paragraph of "Getting Started" section in the CRB.

2) Also in the Getting Started section under Common Terms is the definition of an NPC. "These are characters controlled by the GM."

You are the GM. Ultimately only you (and your players) can decide how to handle the situation with your decision being the last word.

Someone forgot to flip the switch on their sarcasm meter.

MrCharisma wrote:

So I don't remember where I found 1 page per minute, but i found a few books HERE.

They're mostly "small" books, and they take 10 minutes - 1 hour to read (or less to just reference). This would be 200 minutes - 20 hours if taking 20.

My advice: Since it sounds like you're the GM, you can give them whatever time you like. If you want them to finish it within a week or two that sounds reasonable to me. If you want this to be something they don't get till later then 1 day per read (or even two days per read) wouldn't be unbelievable for a bible.

Don't know if this is what you were recalling but there's this bit of text from the longer descriptive text of Read Magic.

Portion of Read Magic text wrote:
You can read at the rate of one page (250 words) per minute. "

Dampen Presence agrees with Claxon.

Portion of Text of feat description, Archives of Nethys wrote:
This feat does not confer any advantages against other forms of perception, such as scent, vision, or tremorsense.

The only catch is Lifesense has a line about "just as if it possessed the blindsight ability." I seem to recall however as Lifesense being something an incorporeal creature such as a Dread Wraith or Greater Shadow could use even when within the Total Cover of a wall to detect and locate living creatures in the adjoining room. And that clearly precludes it as related to normal vision in any way. I think the reference refers more to the fact in can be used to perceive creatures within 60ft without needing a Perception check.

Now if I could locate the text about Lifesense, Total Cover and wall hiding incorporeal Wraiths etc. rather than foggy memories.

Quixote wrote:
Watery Soup wrote:
I personally think rules as written is poorly written and that rules as interpreted should be asymmetry. It makes more sense and it makes for more fun.
Agreed. I think we've all seen fog before. It appears thick from a distance, but you can out of it easily enough when you're in it.

Most of the time yes. But I have been driving (albeit very, very, slowly) in a fog so dense I could barely make out anything beyond the hood of my car (i.e. about 5 ft or so) and it was giving me vertigo it was so disorienting while trying to move. And at no point did I feel as if I could see any easier while inside the fog. Reading the description of OM and its LOS leads me to believe the "mist" described is in fact an extremely dense fog and not the fog that, for example, I've dealt with the last two nights heading home where I can see well beyond 5 ft while within it much as described.

That said like many of the oldest legacy spells it suffers a bit in editorial clarity.

Older RAW was definitely written more with the expectation of one GM running his own campaign and making independent decisions, i.e "guidelines not hard and fast rules". Current rules and rules books are much more concerned with writing in a manner aimed towards having all DM's see the rule as meaning one same thing, i.e hard and fast rules. Works much better for things like PFS, and its multi-table, multiple GM community based gaming.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

"You can’t run across difficult terrain or if you can’t see where you’re going."

Oh pure nonsense ... if you're doing 'realism'. I've seen plenty of horror movies where the latest about to be victim has gone shooting off across the room in a terrified run. Light levels clearly do not prevent your from running, the rules prevent you from Running.

Please turn on your sarcasm meters.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Watery Soup wrote:

The people who are arguing that those outside the mist get concealment from those within will point to the description of Obscuring Mist and use the rule of "specific trumps general" to say that the rule about concealment is irrelevant.

I personally think rules as written is poorly written and that rules as interpreted should be asymmetry. It makes more sense and it makes for more fun. But it does make Obscuring Mist disproportionately powerful relative to other 1st level spells.

Color me a little confused. I don't think anyone is saying those outside the mist get concealment from those inside, at least in this thread, if they are in one of the outer edge spaces of the OM. Then again maybe my brain is just reading it the way it did the first time through again, then again. That's not to say you can't set up such a scenario but it would involve firing along the 'curve' of the OM in such a way to have a portion of the LOS pass through another space of the OM rather than, essentially, directly away from its point of origin. Everyone so far has kept it fairly straight-forward. No 3-dimensional set ups for instance.

* Those on the outside have concealment from a person fully 5' inside OM. The person inside has total concealment from those outside.

Unless this is what you are referring to?

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Magda's quote on Concealment wrote:
To determine whether your target has concealment from your ranged attack, choose a corner of your square. If any line from this corner to any corner of the target’s square passes through a square or border that provides concealment, the target has concealment.

This quote from the CRB is where this is stated. Bandit without concealment chooses a corner. Then connects to any and all of the corners of the square of the target who is within OM. When drawing a line between those corners do any of those lines pass through a square or border with concealment? If so they have concealment against the bandit.

Now do the reverse but recall the target within the OM chooses which corner to start the line to any and all corners of the bandits square. Assuming he chooses something other than the corners furthest from the bandit his line will not cross a border or square containing concealment hence the bandit receives no benefit from concealment.

Think of it as the target is moving around in the square. When firing at the bandit he's right near the very 'front' edge of the fog, no interference with seeing clearly. Then he fades back into the 'back' of his square putting most of his square full of mist between himself and the bandit. Net effect is the bandit doesn't get a clear view of him all the time. The game mechanics have decided this results in a 20% Miss Chance.

1) My view would be if you can crit you should be vulnerable to precision damage as well.
2) Yes if it meets all the other requirements.
3) Yes they effect incorporeal creatures normally per Universal Monster Rules and the CRB Glossary for Incorporeal condition.

This is however where one of the changes from 3.5 to PF jump out at me. Undead, probably the most common form of incorporeal creatures characters run into, were immune to critical hits in 3.5. No such language exists in the PF bestiary entry for Undead.

2 people marked this as a favorite.

If I'm following you, yes. The DM can certainly stage a fight for the PCs to witness and make the outcome turnout any which way they wish. And in any manner they wish from totally rolling it out to just telling the blow by blow as a story/narrative. A DM really can not cheat, which is not to say that not following the rules (i.e. cheating or fudging things) is necessarily a good idea.

By the way usually the individual losing the encounter should be wearing some sort of red shirt or uniform :P

Freedom of Movement effects you, you're the one wearing the Ring. It doesn't give anyone else its protection.

As I recall the feat in 3.5 was called Practiced Spellcaster.

Firebug wrote:
Kayerloth wrote:
Strictly speaking Firebug is correct.
Ah, my favorite form of 'correct'. 'Technically'.


Strictly speaking Firebug is correct. That said I think probably most GMs would view it an oversight to not to allow the Touch of Idiocy to crit and thereafter figure it either correctly (as Firebug states) or incorrectly :P since that is a common rule malfunction.

"which means physical barriers wouldn’t stop scents like they do for us."

Not sure how this follows. The scents aren't incorporeal the creature with Scent is. Now if the door was airtight I might compare the door to a solid wall (or perhaps if the smell was present for a very long time and could permeate the wall then maybe) but I didn't get the impression that is what the OP was talking about.

I'd try to find a copy of (iirc) Savage Species. The whole book was essentially about turning monsters into PCs. and included EL (Effective Level) modifiers instead of CR ratings. Sometimes CR and EL are fairly close other times very definitely not. Lots of judgement involved.

Since they are two differing sources I'd probably roll 2 attempts twice ... but you are kind of off in DM judgement territory near as I can tell. Just try to be consistent.

Far as I can see there is no clear ruling one way or another.

But my guts tell me an incorporeal creature while under full cover within a wall can not use Scent to track or even become aware of a creature elsewhere. The Wall blocks the odor/odor particles from reaching them to be detected by Scent. (or any other sense relying on smell to be effective). To pick the odor up they would have to poke themselves out of the wall i.e. partial cover from the wall. To my thinking only Tremorsense and Lifesense abilities could potentially detect something outside the wall for a creature totally within the wall under full cover.

Heck to be completely clear I'm not sure Scent would work at all for an incorporeal creature especially since it is a Ex ability and not Su. I'd certainly lean heavily towards saying it is only partially effective at best. But there's very little in the way of hard and fast rules available.

@Mr. Charisma, I believe the poster is asking whether a PC's eidolon with both Incorporealness and Scent could track or detect something in the room while within the wall. But I may be wrong.

Claxon wrote:

What I've seen happen most often in groups Dasrak is that only on person in the party really tries to develop stealth so group stealth isn't an option.

And prolong reconnaissance by one person usually involves at least one bad roll that gets you noticed. Which then results in getting you dead, as you try to take on an encounter designed for the whole party rather than you alone.

While I agree I see this a lot I think that's a tactical issue, mistake by the groups in question. Scouting is probably the best means a group has for gaining surprise, setting ambushes and otherwise generally getting in the first blow. And stealthy character(s) are probably the primary way of doing so. When one character is the the only truly stealthy character they should be getting support from the remainder of the group. Many spells can help keep the group involved and essentially give the scout a buddy system. Arcane Eye, Status, Telepathic Bond to name a couple such spells. Some of these due to duration should be used when contact is expected or imminent , while other longer duration spells should be used more generally. And the scout needs to remember his primary purpose is to see the foe first then report back. They should not be overstaying their welcome and engaging them but have a means of breaking off contact as needed, retreat and bring the whole party back. If they are pursued this is where some of those spells come in handy as the main part of the group can now set up to ambush any careless pursuers.

Dotting for later.

1 to 50 of 2,128 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>