The rules under the Blinded condition state
"Characters who remain blinded for a long time grow accustomed to these drawbacks and can overcome some of them."
Again, this is all relative to Pathfinder, I'm not saying anything on what occurs in real life. In Pathfinder, the rules state you can overcome some of the drawbacks of being Blind and do not require magic, per the RAW.
If I'm mistaking what you're saying, please explain.
For those arguing Perception checks and when you get them, keep in mind you technically need to pass a DC 0 Perception check to see something right in front of you, or hear someone talking to you. Since it's DC 0, it's an auto pass for the vast majority of characters.
Again, you would need at least a -2 Perception adjustment to have any chance of failing DC 0 rolls, so there's usually no reason to roll each check.
Now for the character that has that -2, they would absolutely need to make their rolls to see visible characters they are in melee with according to RAW. If you're ignoring these rules, you're not doing justice to the character's skills and abilities.
If you're playing that you need to take a move action to make Perception checks in combat than you would always need to sacrifice said move action, which is clearly not what the rules intend.
For those who want the Perception rules on this, form the PRD:
Notice a visible creature DC 0
Again, all of these are auto passes for the vast majority of characters and don't require rolls.
Also, yes, there are a lot of stimuli out there, but I'm not sure what the "eventually you'll roll a 20" statements are about. The auto pass on a natural 20 only applies to attack rolls and saving throws, not skill checks. If you have a Perception score of +4, even a 20 won't let you hear a bow string being drawn.
I think we're all in agreement that a +36 Perception is above anything we're actually able to do, which is all the more reason not to compare Pathfinder with real life.
As for being blind and other senses compensating, I didn't mean to make a reference to real life. I was just going off the rules for being Blind in Pathfinder, which state:
"Characters who remain blinded for a long time grow accustomed to these drawbacks and can overcome some of them."
Now how this works, we don't know. We also don't know which drawbacks can be overcome, because they don't say. As for whether or not the other senses become "better," I have no clue, though I imagine one would get used to relying on them more.
"If an invisible character picks up a visible object, the object remains visible. An invisible creature can pick up a small visible item and hide it on his person (tucked in a pocket or behind a cloak) and render it effectively invisible."
The only way to make a non-Invisible object "effectively invisible" is if it's small enough to be hidden in otherwise Invisible garb. I think Full Plate would fail to qualify as "a small visible item" that can be tucked in a pocket.
Now for those who have an issue with noticing the bow string and reacting to danger, again lets start with the rules of Perception:
"Your senses allow you to notice fine details and alert you to danger. Perception covers all five senses, including sight, hearing, touch, taste, and smell."
Your senses alert you to danger. The rules then cover instances that this can cover which includes being able to "Hear a bow being drawn."
Hearing the bow being drawn has nothing to do with Invisibility. As Invisibility doesn't affect (change made for Byakko) Hearing; it says so right in the rules for Invisibility. Hearing a bow being drawn is completely covered in the rules for Perception; it is something you sense and can therefore react to.
Remember, my argument is the PC is reacting to the sound of the bow and the fired arrow, not the Invisible Archer. Some have posed how is this different than melee attacks to which I can state three differences:
1) I don't know that swinging a melee weapon creates sound in Pathfinder.
2) If it does create sound, I have no idea what the DC to hear it would be.
3) When using ranged attacks, you have the added element that the Invisible weapon becomes visible once it's released by the Invisible attacker. This adds an additional element to the situation and I would put it akin to the following scenario:
You have a creature with Greater Invisibility cast on them. That creature sees a PC resting from their travels. The PC takes out his sword and sharpens it, then puts it down next to him, unsheathed. The Greater Invisible creature decides to pick up the sword and attack the PC. Now the sword isn't Invisible but the creature is. However, so long as the PC can successfully notice the sword (DC 0 for visible object), the PC can react to the sword attacks without even knowing whether it's an Invisible creature wielding the sword or whether somehow the sword became animated and is just magically attacking the PC on it's own. Now if the creature also had a dagger that was covered by the Greater Invisibility spell, those dagger attacks would be covered under the rules for Invisibility and would therefore be subject to Sneak Attack and other applicable bonuses.
The PC in this scenario isn't reacting to the Invisible creature, they're reacting to other stimulus they CAN defend against.
Let's take a similar scenario:
A permanently Greater Invisible creature (let's go with GIC for ease of typing) finds a set of Full Plate with a Great Sword, neither of which are Invisible and decides they'll start wearing the armor and using the sword. The GIC finds a PC and decides to attack him.
Now the GIC is still fully Invisible, however, the PC can react to the noticed stimuli of the Full Plate and great sword. It doesn't matter that the creature under the armor is invisible. The PC isn't even able to tell if the creature is invisible or not. It's a moot point though, because they're reacting to perceived stimuli not effected by the Invisible condition.
If you think this how RAW works (I don't; again I see these non-invisible stimuli as being covered by Perception), I strongly suggest you go with RAI with these rules or at least create a Rogue and give them the Heavy Armor proficiency and a means of getting Greater Invisibility. All their attacks will be Sneak Attacks as not even True Seeing would be able to see through the armor to counter the Invisibility, as True Seeing cannot penetrate solid objects.
This is my argument. The PC in the original scenario isn't reacting to an Invisible creature. The PC is reacting to the sound of the bow and the then visible arrow which we know from the Perception rules is a viable stimuli covered by Perception.
Okay to all those wondering why Hearing is covered just like Sight, Taste and Touch under Perception, and not some other rule...
Perception from the PRD:
"Your senses allow you to notice fine details and alert you to danger. Perception covers all five senses, including sight, hearing, touch, taste, and smell.
Check: Perception has a number of uses, the most common of which is an opposed check versus an opponent's Stealth check to notice the opponent and avoid being surprised. If you are successful, you notice the opponent and can react accordingly. If you fail, your opponent can take a variety of actions, including sneaking past you and attacking you.
Perception is also used to notice fine details in the environment. The DC to notice such details varies depending upon distance, the environment, and how noticeable the detail is. The following table gives a number of guidelines."
First off, the argument that Perception doesn't say "Hearing lets you know exactly where something is" is ridiculous. As you'll notice in the above, it doesn't say you can exactly notice where something is with Sight, Touch or Taste either. All it says is that this skill incorporates all five senses.
The rules for Scent gives us a supplemental to how Scent specifically is used. If you want to transfer the rules of Scent to Hearing, that would take a house rule.
Otherwise, Sight, Hearing, Touch and Taste all work the same, under the rules of Perception. If a PC touches a football with his hand, you would know where that object is based on Touch; you wouldn't say, you know there's a football somewhere in your 5' square. Likewise, if a PC bites an apple, the DM wouldn't describe the situation as "You know there's a taste of apple somewhere in your 5' square."
Again, Perception incorporates Touch, Taste, Smell, Sight and Hearing. Smell has other rules provided under Scent, so it functions differently. The other four senses do not, so they function the same.
Therefore, if you play that Sight, Touch and Taste allow you to know exactly where an object is, by RAW, that's how Hearing is handled.
Look at that first sentence in the description: "Your senses allow you to notice fine details and alert you to danger." Notice it doesn't say "Your Sight allows you to notice fine details." Why? Because all the senses work that way; you notice fine details.
Scent is a specific rule that changes how Smell works. Saying you're going to play with Hearing working like Smell is fine, but it would be a house rule.
this is the point of my argument; the PC is reacting to the bow draw, which isn't effected by Invisibility and covered by the rules of Perception, and can thereby react as they normally would. If Invisibility doesn't effect hearing, then it shouldn't be applied to Perception that involves hearing.
I disagree. Invisibility clearly states it only applies to vision, therefore, saying it applies to other senses is false. I believe the +20 is meant to be for not seeing the Invisible creature, but being able to see the environment they're reacting with, like footprints they're leaving.
So again, if you want to get to the realism argument, there's no time to react."
This is absolutely not a real world argument; it's not a comparison of real world vs. Pathfinder. It's a comparison of two Pathfinder situations showing that there's plenty of time to react.
You asked for my argument, and again, here it is:
Invisibility doesn't effect hearing.
The fact that it specifically singles out Scent is more towards the argument that the other four senses DO give exact locations than to the argument that they meant Hearing, Taste and Touch all work the same way too, but for some reason decided not to mention that while writing the rules for Scent.
You're taking the rules for Invisibility and making them a blanket rule for Perception, which is wrong. Its odd that you insist on applying a blanket rule (Invisibility) for hearing checks when the source of that blanket rule specifically says it doesn't work for hearing.
Gauss said wrote:
Your logic is backwards. I'm not adding in language to the Perception rule, you are.
Nothing in the Perception rules states hearing works differently than sight, therefore, by RAW, they work the same and either they both give exact locations or they both Pinpoint. For your reading of it to be true, you need to add a house rule that they work differently, which, HINT, doesn't apply for RAW.
Now, the Perception rules specifically state Scent works different. Scent is explained as Pointing within a certain distance. Again, this is because it is specifically stated.
Please don't accuse me of adding in rules when I am not, especially when you're doing what you're accusing me of. Thanks.
In response to what you wrote,
"Note also that the check to know where they are at because they attacked would come AFTER they'd already drawn and released the arrow. You *might* hear the bow being drawn, but you will very likely know where they are AFTER they attack. My post was specifically addressing the perception check needed to hear the bow being drawn."
Keep in mind the scenario we're discussing: Stealh already broke on the Archer's first attack so it's no longer relevant to the drawing of the bow for the second attack.
Remember, Pinpointing is it's own thing in Pathfinder and it is never mentioned in the Perception rules. Anyone who is saying that by making the Perception check to hear a bow being drawn, you are able to "Pinpoint" the location, is wrong. It's not in the rules for Perception. You're adding your own house rules to RAW, which is fine, but don't come on here and say that your house rule is RAW.
Under Perception, there's no "hearing lets you know this," or "seeing lets you know that" differentiation in the skill description. They're handled the same. If you pass the DC to hear the bow draw, you know where it is just like if you pass the DC to Notice A Visible Creature. That's how the skill works per RAW.
Since Invisibility doesn't affect hearing, I'm taking it out of the equation and not using the Invisibility rules for hearing the sound of a bow draw; I'm using the Perception rules which clearly state what is needed.
I understand there are some hard-core loving invisibility peeps on this site that want to apply the +20 to everything, however, that's not how the condition works; it clearly states it only effects visual perception, from the PRD: "While they can't be seen, invisible creatures can be heard, smelled, or felt."
This isn't real life. In Pathfinder, a non-blind character with a -2 Wis modifier and no points in Perception won't see a visible person right in front of them 5% of the time. Is there anyway this happens in real life, no. This same character is just as likely to notice a person standing 180' feet away. That's just how it is.
Also consider this scenario for a possible second round of combat, for those who want to add in "seeing the bow's aiming point is what allows you to defend yourself" or "there's not enough time from hearing the draw to firing the arrow to effectively defend yourself":
PC decides to ready a casting of Faerie Fire with the condition to trigger their casting being hearing the draw of the bow.
Let's assume the PC makes the check, whatever the modifiers, and casts the spell, outlining the Archer in Faerie Fire.
The PC still can't see the bow or where it's aiming, he can only see the Archer's outline, but can still react to the shot. In fact, for all those arguing the time to react isn't there, this sequence show's there's actually plenty of time to react to the sound of the bow being drawn. Granted this is a breakdown based on the rules of initiative, but just listing it to show those that think "there's no time to react between the sound of the bow draw and the arrow being released" that there is, in fact, plenty of time in Pathfinder.
Also, those that think you can't make out the differences between sounds that easily, or while in combat, that's exact what a high Perception does; it allows you to notice these things.
For everyone trying to find out the DC to hear the bow check, even if want to add in the +20 for being invisible (not sure why) keep in mind the archer is not stealthed (broke on first attack) and, per Invisible rules, it's a -20 DC for the Invisible character "being in combat," so even if you're adding the +20 for being Invisible, you need to counter it with the -20 for being in combat.
Just an FYI on all your modifiers...
Nothing in hearing the bow draw in the Perception rules refers to pinpointing, therefore, if that's how you're using hearing, you're not using RAW.
What I'm saying is:
Also, see the Blinded condition which states:
"Characters who remain blinded for a long time grow accustomed to these drawbacks and can overcome some of them."
At no point do we learn from RAW what can or cannot be overcome while being blinded when accustomed to being blind, but certainly we can assume the RAI for this statement is that the other senses compensate for the loss of sight and negate (at least in part) the negatives of not having sight.
I know it's not RAW, but I'd go with a +36 Perception as being at least the level of perception of your average blind person who's adjusted to being blind.
Again, I get that Invis=Sneak Attack. However, as a character is aware of where the arrow is coming from based on hearing Perception, which according to the rules of Invisibility isn't effected by Invisibility because Invisibility only effects sight-based Perception. I feel this should negate the Sneak Attack. However, the rules leave this ambiguous in terms of hearing perception vs sight perception.
I understand others here aren't concerned with that, which is why I stopped arguing it. I'm now trying to keep my posts to clarifying other rules, like Quintain's assertion that Perception requires a move action, or that attacking doesn't break Stealth.
Perception absolutely allows you to do what you think is impossible. To hear a bow string being drawn is a DC 25 perception check. Stated right there in the rules for perception.
Unlike scent, which has it's own rules for what a character notices and when a character notices it, hearing has no such rules, therefore it works just the same as sight by the perception rules. That is, if you make the DC to notice, you notice. Nothing in the rules (so far as I've ever seen) says hearing the bow being drawn is different than seeing the bow being drawn. Therefore, you know exactly where the arrow is coming from.
Either way, see my above posts about doing the impossible in Pathfinder. Comparing Pathfinder to real life dodging arrows is never going to work; just like comparing Pathfinder to a real life casting of fireball will never work. Pathfinder, by the rules, lets you attempt to dodge all sorts of impossible scenarios, so arguing against certain situations using "real life" is completely moot.
Next, you state: "Kirth, the archer in question was using Greater invisibility, not regular invisibility, which does not end after an attack. There was no sniping going on, because sniping would have be superfluous."
This statement is flawed. Stealth and invisibility are two separate things. I'm well aware the archer is using Greater Invisibility (I posted the scenario), however, that doesn't do anything to Stealth. Stealth is a skill with it's own rules. Invisibility is a condition with it's own rules. The rules of Stealth say it breaks with an attack. Nothing in the rules for invisibility change this. Therefore, the archer is still invisible, however, he cannot also gain the advantage of Stealth.
Lastly, you wrote: "Not being able to see it coming means no observable stimulus until after the attack is resolved. This by itself prevents a reactive perception check and as a result requires a move action on the target's turn in order to locate the invisible archer."
Observable, doesn't mean "seen." You can observe something with hearing. So yeah, there is a stimulus (hence why there's a listed DC for hearing a bow being drawn) that you can react to and no move action is required to get one.
I know the RAW and disagree with them in this case (regarding the original post) but as stated above, there's no need to argue it anymore here. Stealth doesn't matter for the sneak attack in this case, but it does for noticing the invisible archer.
I just wanted to clarify the perception rules.
Quintain, a few things about what you wrote:
First, Perception is a reaction to stimulus. Per the PRD:
"Action: Most Perception checks are reactive, made in response to observable stimulus. Intentionally searching for stimulus is a move action."
If you miss the observable stimulus (ie person attacking you) and then want to use a move action on your turn, you can, however, whenever something presents an observable stimulus, it's a free roll.
Second, you wrote "Especially since stealth never ends after the attack." Which is wrong and actually the opposite is almost always true (Sniping being the exception). Per the PRD:
"Your Stealth immediately ends after you make and attack roll, whether or not the attack is successful (except when sniping as noted below)."
So yes, the first attack does break stealth even though the archer is still invisible. Now that the archer is no longer stealthed and is "in combat," which per invisibility rules gives a -20 to the DC to notice, the perception check to know where the archer is becomes the distance modifier.
Now once the archer's turn ends, that -20 goes away and becomes a +20 for standing still, however, as they full attacked, they cannot stealth until their next turn.
I could go either way on the -5 for combat, but I wouldn't go with distracted. The PC knew the archer was there, had already been fired on and the next nearest threat was at least 40 feet away and engaged with the other PCs, plus large objects in between. The archer was the only threat according to the PC.
And remember, in this, I'm not talking about completely dodging the arrow. I'm talking about having the chance to defend against the Sneak Attack. If the PC doesn't know where the archer is, then yes, they can't defend against the SA (see the original post and the first attack). The PC can twist or turn away in either situation.
Invis creature picks up a sword and attacks. Sword is completely visible, yet, per RAW, the PC has no idea where the attack is coming from and can't defend himself.
Invis creature gets covered in flour or tar. You see a white creature or a black creautre, in its entirety, yet, per RAW, the PC has no idea where the attacks are coming from (and still has a 50% miss chance).
Invis creature fails a save versus a fire spell that causes the creature to catch on fire. Invis creature is now wreathed in fire, yet, according to RAW, you still don't know where the creature is.
The hole would be there is no rules mechanism for mitigating invisibility when the invisible creature is otherwise perceived.
Obviously people don't agree with my idea that the other senses could do this, though Blindsight states just that, as opposed to Blindsense which was used earlier to object to my reasoning. But I think more people would agree that an invisible creature covered in a visible item, like powder, tar or visible armor, should not get the benefits of being invisible, however, that is the RAW (and even stated in the rules for invisibility). I think this is a hole in the rules.
Senko et al.,
In Pathfinder, 3 or 4 arrows (or more) can be fired in a 6 second span by the same archer. With those shots, no one (maybe not even the archer) knows where they're going until they're released. The archer could have four different targets if they so choose, which would give none of the targets the chance to know if they're being fired on or not, or what the release point of the arrow will ultimately be, when it will be fired exactly, or which way they need to turn to avoid the arrow, until the arrow is fired, and then they're reacting to the arrow, just like in my argument where the PC is reacting to the arrow. Pathfinder allows defense in these situations (even if it's just .0000001 OF A SECOND, or whatever).
My arguments have nothing to do with real world comparisons. Real world comparisons have nothing to do with Pathfinder. My arguments are comparing different situations within the Pathfinder rules.
EDIT: Wraith, do you have that link? And was that just glitterdust or other covering devices?
As there seems to be a rather strong anti-arguing this point response, I'll stop posting here. Just think invis could use some rewriting to better incorporate the fact that it only effects vision and then only in a certain way (again, outlining the creature would seem to be a way to defeat it), but that's just my 2 cents.
Second, and more importantly, the argument isn't whether a PC would get hit by the Archer, it's whether the PC, not being flatfooted and knowing where the Archer is and where the arrow is coming from, can effectively defend himself. Remember we're discussing Precision Damage here, not a normal attack. The definition of sneak attack states "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." I'm arguing that knowing where the attack is coming from and when, and not being otherwise flatfooted is a valid argument for a negation of the SA.
I pointed out that the same rule applies when an invisible character is using visible items to further the argument; I find it ridiculous to allow an invisible character the benefits of invisibility when they're covered in visible items, but that's just me. If you're giving the invisible knight wearing visible full plate total concealment and bonuses to hit, run with it. I think it's a bad hole in the rules of invisibility.
Again, the rules specifically state the DC to hear a bow being drawn which to me, means the designers intended to allow reactions to said bow draw with a perception check. Whether or not the archer is invisible isn't at issue because that spell doesn't cover hearing. Everyone seems to feel that when these two rules conflict, magic wins out, and that's fine. I just disagree.
Also keep in mind that no other situation agrees that you can't react to an arrow after it's fired. The very fact that noticing a bow being drawn is listed in the Perception check strongly suggests that RAI is you can react to an archer you can't see, so long as you pass the Perception check to notice them another way. It's also pretty classic fantasy: the hero hears the sound of the bow draw and dives to the ground just in time to avoid the assassins arrow (or some such). You can substitute bow draw for the cocking of a gun just as easily.
The rules fully support noticing things through non-visual means, Perception isn't just vision, which is where I believe their needs to be some common sense applied. Just like I would never expect anyone to play with the RAW rule that an invisible character covered in a visible item (whether flour, tar or armor), as Kain said, I would expect the same common sense to be used that if you are aware of exactly where the shooter is based on other senses, you can react.
Gauss et al,
I understand the RAW.
My issue is the PC in the given situation is not blind to where the Archer is, he knows exactly where he is, that he's firing another arrow and when he's firing said arrow, by both sound and because he can see the arrow once it leaves. So Gauss, your example doesn't work, because the PC is aware of where the arrow is coming from and I guarantee that in your given scenario, if you knew where and when the arrow is coming from, you're going to move out of the way as best you can, which is what the Dex bonus to AC represents.
If the argument is that 30' is too close to effectively move, then that would mean rogues would always get sneak attacks w/in 30', which obviously isn't the case.
My issue is that by defeating the DC to pinpoint the invisible creature, you also effectively defeat the advantage of being invisible (at least for attacks), as you perceive where the creature is, however, nothing in the rules covers this. That same hole in the rules is what allows an invisible creature covered in flour or tar (or visible Full Plate for that matter), to still be "invisible" even though anyone would be able to see them. Per the RAW, you wouldn't even need to know the creature under the flour was invisible, you could just think it's a regular creature covered in flour, but it's still invisible. That doesn't seem right to me.
I guess it was more a question of what happens when you pinpoint, which isn't really covered from a defensive perspective, so per RAW would mean nothing. For instance, the invisibility section of the glossary states "One could coat an invisible object with flour to at least keep track of its position (until the flour falls off or blows away)." Nothing states what more than "at least" is, though I would assume this leads to can detect and defend yourself, but according to RAW, that flour-covered invisible monster still gets full cover and to ignore Dex on attacks against opponents.
I'm still unsure why the PC can't defend against the arrows though, as they are visible, it's known when and where they're originating from, and are usually defended against using a dex bonus all the time in Pathfinder games. I'm assuming if an invisible creature picked up a non-invisible shield and sword and started attacking they'd still get complete cover and ignore Dex on attacks as well, per RAW?
Not trying to attack any posters here with that rant, I do appreciate the responses, it just blows my mind that these holes in the rules exist when it comes to invisibility, which isn't exactly a new spell.
Thanks for the responses.
Okay I'm thinking this is just a jumbled stealth/invis/sneak attack rules issue, but here's the situation:
Archer (A) is under the effects of a Greater Invis spell and tries to sneak up on a PC. A wants to use SA so he gets within 30', provoking the 30' perception check to notice an invisible creature, and passes the perception check. PC should have gotten a straight perception check to notice the stealthed/invis'd A, but we forgot and lets assume it would have failed anyway. Also, this is during an on-going combat, so PC is not otherwise surprised or flat footed, though he is otherwise removed from the melee combat, which is about 40' from him, between enemies and other player characters.
PC has a very high Perception bonus of +36. A fires a sneak attack shot at PC and misses against PC's flat footed AC. DM allows A a second SA shot, as part of a full round attack, at PC which hits. Here's where the issue comes up.
PC contends the second shot should not have been a SA d/t the following:
PC is aware of A's exact location as he saw the first arrow once it was fired, as per invisibility rules, once the item leaves the character's possession, it becomes visible, and no factors would have increased the DC to see the arrow above 37.
PC is aware that A is preparing another shot as, per Perception, to "Hear a bow being drawn" is DC 25, +3 for 30' distance, for a total DC 28, which PC passes w/o requiring a roll.
A's stealth broke when he attacked, even though the Greater Invis is still in place, per Stealth rule "Your Stealth immediately ends after you make and attack roll, whether or not the attack is successful". Therefore, PC beat's A's invis check with his Perception during the second attack: +20 DC for being invis, +3 DC for distance, -20 for attacking (per Invisibility rule "In combat or speaking –20"), so even with an additional +20 for "pinpointing" an invisible character, the total DC is 23 and again, an autopass for the PC.
Based on all the above, PC believes he would have the ability to react normally to the second attack; he knows exactly where A is, what A is doing (preparing another shot) and can see the arrow as it's coming. Basically though A is still Invisible, PC's perception defeat's the attacking advantage (though not the cover advantage) by defeating the invis notice DC. PC contends this allows him to avoid the arrow just as anyone would avoid any shot they know is coming.
I've read a bunch on the stealth/sneak attack/Invis posts on the forums but wasn't sure what the answer would be. Any help with RAW/RAI and FAQ's would be welcome to get what the correct ruling should be. Thanks.
And I've seen the arguments for other undead attacks being treated as negative energy attacks, but that's what makes the Shadow's attack an outlier, it IS listed as a negative energy effect.
I find it odd (and probably an oversight) that Death Ward would negate negative levels but not negative ability damage and I was wondering if any FAQs had settled this, but that doesn't seem to be the case.
Thanks for the responses.
Death Ward states the following:
"The subject is immune to energy drain and any negative energy effects, including channeled negative energy.
This spell does not remove negative levels that the subject has already gained, but it does remove the penalties from negative levels for the duration of its effect."
So my question is: what happens to negative energy effects (like a Shadow's Strength Damage) that aren't negative levels that occurred before Death Ward was cast?
For instance, Shadow attacks and does 4 str dam to Cleric A. Cleric A then casts Death Ward on himself.
Does Cleric A still have that Str Dam since that dam occurred before the casting? Are the penalties removed while Death Ward is in effect like with negative levels? Does the Str Dam completely go away as it's not a permanent effect and the effected character is now immune to said effect?
Any help is appreciated. Thanks.
Curious about the magic item vs creature rules. I'm thinking this falls very closely near where intelligent magic weapons rules would be.
If a druid Wild Shapes with an intelligent weapon, I'm assuming the weapon melds as normal gear would. Likewise, what would happen if a druid is wearing a construct with construct armor? It acts like a breastplate, and if intelligent magic weapons would meld, I don't know why other intelligent magic items wouldn't...
Are constructs considered monsters or magical items? We've been doing some teleporting in our game and I'm curious if they should act as "gear" or as a medium/large creature.
The creator also brought up that the construct has the Construct Armor ability and therefore it can be worn as armor (and not take up a valuable teleport slot).
If a Wild Shaped Druid is the target of a Greater Dispel Magic spell, what is and is not effected by the spell?
I know the Wild Shape itself is safe as a Supernatural ability, however, would Wild armor be effected? Technically the armor is melded into the Druid with all his other gear and kind of no longer exists.
With the way GDM works, you wouldn't be able to target just the effect of a magic item (which carries over in Wild Shape), you'd have to do GDM versus the magic item as GDM targets spells or magic items, not the effects of those spells or magic items.
Also, if they are targeted, does that mean any items that aren't active also are subject to GDM and therefore can potentially "soak up" the effects of a GDM?
Leaning towards all items would be subject to GDM, but the fact that items with activation requirements are off limits while Wild Shaped gives me pause that they could be effected (and if they can't be effected, why would other items be effected)?
Also, if all these guys are readying actions, why aren't they just readying actions to "attack if they start casting a spell" and just ruin any spell, fireball included, before it's cast?
If it's the distance you're worried about (ie the party is 300 ft from the caster so wouldn't be able to attack him effectively to break concentration with readied actions), guess what, you're not making your Spellcraft check at +30 DC for that distance to know that it's a fireball being cast.
Again, I don't see this as something that can be abused.
Just my opinion though.
Do you have a rule when you play that everyone must use fireball at all times?
Again, it only helps the players if the group of bad guys wants to waste their actions on the possibility of a single spell being cast, especially since you could ready that action, the guy actually does cast fireball, and you fail your Spellcraft roll to know that's what he's casting.
I also agree that jumping in front of an arrow, fireball, etc, is much easier than shooting one out of the air.
I'm not sure why everyone thinks this is a huge issue. It sounds like a great idea to me.
99.9% of the time, if you want to ready an action to intercept a caster's fireball, you're probably either wasting an action, or already know the caster really loves the fireball spell (in which case kudos for having scouted them out and learning their habits).
As a DM, if players are somehow exploiting this, you're using casters with fireball way too much. Change up your encounters. There are plenty of other spells out there to be so locked in on one. I have no problem with a player taking zero actions against a caster if they constantly ready an action to "intercept the fireball," while my caster does anything but cast fireball.
You don't lose the feat or the bonuses. This is actually covered in the spell descriptioon:
"A reincarnated creature recalls the majority of its former life and form. It retains any class abilities, feats, or skill ranks it formerly possessed. Its class, base attack bonus, base save bonuses, and hit points are unchanged. Strength, Dexterity, and Constitution scores depend partly on the new body. First eliminate the subject's racial adjustments (since it is no longer necessarily of his previous race) and then apply the adjustments found below to its remaining ability scores."
So, per the spell, you only eliminate racial adjustments to stats (and based on the prior sentence, presumably only the physical stat adjustments). Feats and their effects are maintained per RAW.
Just so we're all on the same page, from the PRD:
"In melee combat, you can help a friend attack or defend by distracting or interfering with an opponent. If you're in position to make a melee attack on an opponent that is engaging a friend in melee combat, you can attempt to aid your friend as a standard action."
So first off, you can't just "Aid Another" whenever you want, you need to be "in position to make a melee attack" before you can Aid Another. So you could not do 1 roll with 19 others using Aid Another, unless the 19 others have all already spent their turn using a standard action and succeeded on their to hit roll.
And I agree that multiple creatures with Grab is not a situation clearly addressed by the rules. In Pathfinder, a Grapple is generally thought of as an "arm hold" of some sort. If that's the case, there's no reason why multiple creatures couldn't Grab creatures with multiple limbs (which would probably add to the Grappled condition's restrictions).
Saying that you can't have multiple creatures Rake because there isn't enough room is not supported by any rules. Again, according to Pathfinder being Grappled just means a limb is tied up. So as long as the creatures can all get physically close enough to be in melee range, nothing else states Rake or Constrict need any amount of space. The restrictions would be based on available squares around the target just like any other combat situation (and, obviously, on whether multiple creatures can be grappled together).
I also find it ridiculous to have 1 creature holding onto an enemy's arm, with 19 allies spending their actions only helping him hold onto that arm, rather than doing something a bit more effective to restrain the enemy, but that's not really the point of this post (which is actually to get clarity on the Grab rules with multiple creatures).
If all you can do is Aid Another or a basic attack, you're taking the entire point of Grab away; it's an attack with a Grapple maneuver.
Anyway, thanks for the responses Malag and Tarantula; appreciate you taking the time to post on my question.
So if I'm reading the rules correctly, multiple creatures cannot actually grapple the same opponent. The only thing they can do is Aid Another. This doesn't seem right as it then negates the Grab ability. It also doesn't seem to jive with common sense; if I get jumped by a pride of tigers, they're all gonna be grabbing and raking rather than having one "grab" and the rest opt not to get their share.
Anything I'm missing here or is that the case?
Per the grapple rules:
"Multiple Creatures: Multiple creatures can attempt to grapple one target. The creature that first initiates the grapple is the only one that makes a check, with a +2 bonus for each creature that assists in the grapple (using the Aid Another action). Multiple creatures can also assist another creature in breaking free from a grapple, with each creature that assists (using the Aid Another action) granting a +2 bonus on the grappled creature's combat maneuver check."
Back to the question at hand, you can definitely use move actions while grappled. The Greater Grapple feat even allows you to maintain the grapple as a move action.
Yeah I've seen that before but I've always put that to the "grappler" not the grappled. To me, it's the same as how the grappler has the grappled condition, which clearly states "Grappled creatures cannot move" yet one of the grappler's options after succeeding on a grapple maintaining check is to move up to half their speed.
It may be completely in the rules, I just think it's allowing a lot to allow a lot of movement actions while being grappled and restrained, and their determinations don't restrict it. Again, you can high jump at least 4' in the air (this definitely wouldn't be a "move" as it doesn't breech the 5' square rule) or get that shield off your back and ready it on your arm. I find there are more move actions I'd see as not doable in a grapple, then I see as being doable. Was hoping there was something more clarifying than the written "cannot move" but it doesn't appear so.
Sorry for the confusion.
Not sure how to go with height in jumps as it's not counted as part of the movement. Per the skill description:
None. An Acrobatics check is made as part of another action or as a reaction to a situation."
It can be done as part of a move action, but I don't think height is calculated for movement, only distance. Not sure if there's a rule I'm missing on this though...
So you could jump straight in the air (which doesn't use movement), ready a shield, or draw a bastard sword while grappled, but not take a spiderweb out of a component pouch or wave your fingers in a complex way?
The rules say you cannot do intricate hand motions (somatic components) while grappled, yet a 1-handed caster could do these things, so being grappled seems to indicate both your arms are restricted. Also, you can't draw material components out to cast spells, again indicating you are not free to draw items that aren't already out:
"The only spells which can be cast while grappling or pinned are those without somatic components and whose material components (if any) you have in hand."
Obviously the grapple rules have their flaws (the fact that halflings can pin giants proves that), but "cannot move" seems a bit too ambiguous to me.
Thanks for the replies.