Madcap Storm King's page

One big thing I ran into when I was starting out is that my group wouldn't tell me if they were engaged. But, if you do it right (Even on accident) their faces and reactions will tell you. What I had to do was figure out what parts of the game people didn't have fun doing and instead replace them with something fun. Figuring out what's fun for your players is your job, but with a lot of gamers once they're engaged they're having fun. So find out what captures their attention and lead them with it into the rest of your plans.

Anything that isn't fun, even if it's something in the rules of the game (like checking for traps), you can probably think of a better way to deal with it that's simple and easy to remember. And if you can't think of something, resolve the un-fun part of the game with a ruling and move on. Having the players stagnate in something (Whether combat, traveling, or trapfinding) can sap the will of even the most enthusiastic player.

Californication wrote:

Cheapy wrote:

You mean swamp weed?

I don't think cannabis plants would do well in a swamp environment. Too little soil, too much water.

Explains why Lizardfolk are Neutral... cannabis communes are a rather peaceful sort. ;-)

Hey man.

That'sssss like, sssstereotyping, man.

Yes, and the -5 to hit and 1/2 Str Damage to the natural attacks kinda sucks. I agree that just going for the natural attacks is a better choice.

Grabbing multiattack and getting damage not dependent on Strength is a good way to use secondary attacks as well. Unlike in prior editions, all natural weapon attacks remain primary despite one being used first that say they are primary. Using any manufactured weapon in there makes all your subsequent natural attacks all become secondary.

I'm glad to hear that Paizo got a lot of constructive testing out of this! I hadn't posted up anything, but the playtest was something of a hot topic amongst myself and my gaming group.

A bit of friendly advice: I'd suggest looking at the benefits offered by a variety of things already in the system to help with pricing. A 5 resistance to an element should definitely be expensive, as should upgrading it to resistance 10. That's a slotless version of a least resistance ring, worth about 20000 gold. An item that gives a +5 to a single skill is far cheaper than that, and I was very surprised to see that the two were priced about the same, only the skill bonus was a +2. Natural armor +1 for example is roughly as good as the Dodge feat. It's priced at 2 points, which is reasonable. Getting more on top of that is still just as powerful, it shouldn't be any cheaper. I think you've really got to pump up the costs on non-standard ability scores. Those can influence a lot more of a character's abilities than even a single feat, and the general populace knows it, hence why they are afraid to allow non-standard races with non-standard ability scores.

I'm glad to hear that the new idea is to be honest with the stats of the races as they are, and that there's a lot of cool original content going in. I hope that you can still browse some of the hot spots in the forums from time to time to get a good idea of what things people catch even after the playtest is over, since they'll still be playing around with the mechanics.

I will be a bit unprofessional for a bit here to express one idea: The tengu racial proficiency? That is NOT 3 points. It is not more, either. The player's actual benefit from the ability is one, maybe two, proficiencies in a specialized section of weapons, or minimal benefit if they are a caster. When you have the option to pay 2 points and either get proficiency in ALL martial weapons and immunity to effects that target humanoids (native outsider) or proficiency in any weapon you craft (ratfolk), then I fail to see how either of those provide less benefit than the tengu swordmaster ability. In fact, I'm fairly sure they both provide more.

Anyway, that aside, I know you've got a lot on your plate and a lot to playtest! Have fun with this, and have a great release!

I know it all quite well.

Even though birds are the descendants of a particular line of dinosaurs, they still aren't dinosaurs. That would be like saying Canines and Ursines are the same creature because they have a common ancestor.

There's also the confusion over the word "dinosaur" and exactly what it means because it covers a large group of unrelated creatures that happened to live in the same time period.

I wouldn't say that's an apt comparison, because modern bears did not evolve from modern dogs, nor vise-verse. It's more like saying that proto-bear and bear are from the same family in this case. Therefore anything you have that affects "bear" will affect "bear", which both things can be considered.

I would say I'd want it to affect both reptiles and birds, rather than only one or the other, since you can affect "proto-reptile" and "proto-bird" using your class ability.

Of course magic isn't science.

Dinosaurs aren't magic, though. :p

And simply because this is a magic setting doesn't mean that real-world knowledge should be completely discarded. (ref. Electric Eel again).

At the very least, avians should have been included rather than not.

Thomas Henry Huxley and the theory of bird evolution.

And to show how extremely useless and nerd-irky this thread is - I don't even USE dinosaurs in my gaming. :p

I'd reread that article again if I was you:

Huxley took this to mean that small carnivorous dinosaurs had evolved through time to become birds.

Plesiosaurs? Crocodiles? Both of these bear some similarity to "modern" marine reptiles.

While velociraptors are awesome and belong in your game in some kind of Jurassic Park scenario, there are quite a lot of dinos out there that don't fit that description.

Quote:

I'd like to say that I've only bought a couple of the tribes books from you and they were very useful and had good "fluff" material in them. Definitely worth the money, especially if you want to flesh out a community but don't have a lot of time.

Thank you very much. I'm glad they worked for you and did exactly what they were supposed to do! Which ones did you get?

I got the Lizardfolk of the Dragon Fang, and the Bleached Skull Gnolls. They went a long way in establishing some of the fiercer tribes in one of my settings, and giving a more dynamic conflict between the tribes the players were interacting with. The stat blocks were also a big help.

Leopold wrote:

Raging swan press is another one like TPK games. Simple, easy to use, and full to the brim of everything you need and nothing you don't. Don't let that plain black front page fool you, if you need something in that book you'll end up saying "OH! I can use this too!" It's a veritable DM treasure trove of ideas.

That's rather decent of you! Thanks very much. Can I snag this quote for my website? I love it and it typifies the response I am to get from our releases. Out of interest, which products have you found particularly useful?

I'd like to say that I've only bought a couple of the tribes books from you and they were very useful and had good "fluff" material in them. Definitely worth the money, especially if you want to flesh out a community but don't have a lot of time.

Madcap Storm King wrote:

We at Little Red Goblin Games would like some attention as well! We have been putting out material for about half a year now, and we believe it's steadily been improving. Admittedly, our release dates are a bit delayed here on Paizo, but we're making sure we get 'em out quick!

Here is a link to our products: LRGG Product Page

We have a free sample pack up there, so what have you got to lose?

And here's our website, which has a very useful initiative tracker and a built-in dice roller: littleredgoblingames.com

Dogs of War is our newest release, with the Ravan & Shaper supplement releasing by October 16th, and the Tome of the Bizarre releasing on October 30th!

I hope you give our products a try! Someday we'd like to be talked about with glowing words as well!

Oh, you are Little Red Goblin?!

Whatever happened to the Conductor? I recall having some comments on some of your products, but I don't see them anymore. The products, not the comments.

Yes, indeed. I. AM. LITTLEREDGOBLINGAMES!

Or at least I'm the lead hobbyist game designer. But enough about me.

We are revamping the Conductor along with a few of our earlier offerings, improving the art (And giving me more time to playtest to my heart's content!) The Martialist will be part of a pack being released in December, The Conductor will be sent back out likely next month in November with a few new items and expanded favored class content.

If you've already bought one of our products, we will be happy to reimburse you with these improved ones at no cost! Just shoot me an email at calebaylsworth@littleredgoblingames.com and we will put you on the list to get one. As far as the Martialist goes, we may provide only it as a replacement, but we're thinking on the rest of the book as well as thanks to the people who supported us in the beginning when things were still a bit rocky.

We also have things up a bit earlier on drivethru, but we're trying to synch or nearly synch release dates on Paizo. Rest assured we have a lot more coming now after a period of slight confusion.

Let me see, the Martialist, Wrestler (in the same pack as the martialist in December), and Conductor are all coming back. The Noble relaunched as the Tome of Ingenuity. If there are any others I've missed feel free to ask and I shall answer.

We at Little Red Goblin Games would like some attention as well! We have been putting out material for about half a year now, and we believe it's steadily been improving. Admittedly, our release dates are a bit delayed here on Paizo, but we're making sure we get 'em out quick!

Here is a link to our products: LRGG Product Page

We have a free sample pack up there, so what have you got to lose?

And here's our website, which has a very useful initiative tracker and a built-in dice roller: littleredgoblingames.com

Dogs of War is our newest release, with the Ravan & Shaper supplement releasing by October 16th, and the Tome of the Bizarre releasing on October 30th!

I hope you give our products a try! Someday we'd like to be talked about with glowing words as well!

I was hoping I could get some input from people more familiar with the 3PP material out there.

I'm playing a half-orc natural weapon ranger in a Kingmaker campaign and I've been looking for interesting ways to play with the natural weapon style.

Can anyone point me to some books that have feats, alternative rules, or archetypes that lend themselves to helping PCs that focus on natural attacks? I'm not opposed to splashing levels in a different class, so support for barbarians, summoners, alchemists, or anyone else that gets to mess about with natural attacks is definitely welcome!

Fairly soon here, Little Red Goblin Games is going to be releasing the Shaper class, which (aside from coming packaged with a cool race) allows you to make a character filled to the brim with natural attacks, as well as being able to dynamically change shapes on the fly. The best part is, having worked on it, I can tell you that multi-classing into it works fairly well, and its unique flavor allows for the DM to have some fun with it too.

Expect it in October, when we're also releasing the Tome of the Bizarre.

(I am allows to advertise here, right?)

Here's a rough guesstimate:

Armor: For a boost like that given by platemail (+9), you should increase the CR by at least 2. 3 is what I'd recommend. Stone golems have a very good attack bonus, and only at past +3 CR and higher is that going to be downplayed. Check the bestiary's appendix, looking for the average stats of monsters by level.

As far as extra limbs go, I'd suggest increasing the CR by at least +1 per set of arms, legs to increase speed should maybe increase its CR by +1 no matter what the number of legs. Doubling the number of natural attacks is nasty, but from 2-4 isn't too bad.

If you wanted to do other things, like give it more immunities to model certain kinds of stone, give it some new combat abilities, or make it intelligent, those are all things you have to eyeball. The best way to make something that you want is to make it yourself and ask for advice along the way.

You too, can become a game designer. It was discrepancies like these in 3.5 that got me going on it.

Welcome to the biz, Meredith! Hope you enjoy your mind-numbing cataloguing, sometimes having the brain half-on can be almost relaxing.

From those Paizo folks I've met they've been a friendly bunch. Just remember not to feed them after midnight.

D door is verbal only. It's designed for getting out of grapples. No contingency required. You're grappled, you say the magic word, poof you're elsewhere.

If you're grappled, no matter what kind of spell you cast, you have to make a DC 10+ grappler's CMB + double spell level concentration check. Verbal only spells are the only ones you can be allowed to cast.

I'd actually argue it takes more skill to run a supporting character than a main character. Being able to remain useful while not overshadowing any other party member is as delicate a balance as you can get. In fact, I'd suggest not running one that starts out with the party and instead letting them make the choice to hire a character.

Being able to subtly lead them in this direction is another good skill to learn. You effectively want to give them enough information, phrased properly, so that they come up with something and think that it was their idea. Knowing your friends is an important part of this, so don't be surprised if it takes a while. You are the plot, after all. If you want input into what they do, you have to get them to want to do it!

If they're all first-time players, I'd suggest looking over the rules on CR and how to lower it, so that you can match the suggested level -1. Also keep in mind that despite appearances, the characters here don't have full BAB- They may have a lot of trouble in melee. It's your job to make sure they can figure out how to deal with it, whether through their own ingenuity or through finding or hiring a new party member to help out.

And I don't know if RotRL has werewolves in it, but they are NOT CR 2. It's a trap.

They are calling them these names because, as you get multiple versions of the same basic creature (troll) you want to be able to tell them apart. "Bladerager" has more flavour than, say, troll type 3. It's really that simple. They already own the IP through copyright of the books - so trademarking the names (and by the way, a trademark has "TM" written after it, which none of these monster names do) really makes no difference. You maybe need to explain what advantage WotC would gain from trademarking names like these, assuming they would even be granted. And maybe consider whether the cost of registering and policing thousands of individual trademarks would be an adequate trade-off. Especially when you consider that the basic term "troll" isn't IP anyway. I'm not a lawyer and even I can see this doesn't really hold water. You undermine your credibility with this stuff, which in any case has absolutely no bearing on whether you (or anyone else) enjoyed playing 4e.

Actually, there's something in the fantasy biz called a "noun-verber", used to refer to an uncreative mash of words that sounds cool. Usually it's a person's name, like Kurin Darkslayer, or Mydys Angelpuncher. It sounds really silly and rarely has any baring on anything. SOME MMOs (And MUDs) use this naming convention. I can't think of anything else that does aside from terribad fantasy novels.

The names are all noun-verber names. They sound silly. Those that aren't a mash of a noun and a verb are usually something like an adjective or two on the front that don't seem to relate to anything.

At least, that was my experience. Maybe they hired a writer since I read through the MM.

Well, isn't this nice. I have not once been uncivil in this discussion. I have been clear that what I wrote was MY opinions. And yet, I have been called lots of things here, none of them pretty. Apparently, it is okay to criticize 4th edition AS LONG AS you do not try to explain WHY you don't like it, because when I tried that, I was held to massive standards: Previous posts I made did not even exist, everything that could even remotely bemisconstrued was, I was called out on providing PROOF for every tiny part of a sentence. And so on.

But fine. Even saying that it's my opinion and that others' mileages vary wasn't enough. It was still apparently an attack, inflammatory and downright evil. So I can honesty say that I understand why you guys get crude remarks about your beloved game.

Hey, if I've learned anything around here in the last couple of days, it's that honestly trying to express your opinion is the most bitter and sarcastic way to express it of all! In disguise!

BigNorseWolf wrote:

Eacaraxe wrote:

BigNorseWolf wrote:

Targeting a creatures stuff is the same thing as targeting the creature.

That's nice, but you haven't explained how it incurs direct harm in the same sense invisibility's rules use.

As I said, pickpocketing does not directly incur damage, negative modifiers or negative conditions.

You don't need to directly harm someone to break invisibility, you just need to target them.

If you target them, and targeting their stuff is targeting them, then you've targeted them.

Targeting breaks invisibility.

Targeting has a specific term with invis. It references AoE's and target per the magic chapter. You are using the generic term which would also include targeting them for harm by cutting a rope on a bridge which would not break the spell.

Yeah, spells all break it, harmless ones, daylight, any spell that targets a foe or includes it in its area.

Madcap Storm King wrote:

@ Wraithstrike

My main purpose here was say a monster with an aura is walking through a building invisible. Another invisible creature walks into his aura. Since they are now in the area of the effect, if his aura is treated like a spell, he drops out of invisibility because, whether he wants to or not, he's using the effect on the creature. Meanwhile, the other guy is still invisible.

I see your point, but most of these monsters are very big, and I think what happens in an actual game is more important than trying to find a way to make an example work, even though by the rules the monster with the aura that won't turn off might be in trouble assuming he can sneak past anyone anyway. Being huge or larger is not the way to be stealthy.

I think that "swift action" is a typo and it should be immediate. As a swift action the ability is not all that impressive. <--I houseruled it into an immediate action for my game, the one time I used it.

The invis rules have always worked that way though. I think many people have a habit or partially reading abilities or learn something under a GM, and assume it is the rules, only to find it is a houserule. I am guilty of it also. It seems I learn some obscure(to me) rule every week.

As an example I never knew greater dispel magic gave you a +4 bonus when used as a counterspell.

What happens when you roll a nat 1 versus an AoE damaging spell is something I did know, but was a surprise to some very well versed posters.

That is why I like these boards though. Everyone gets to learn from someone else.

edit:stealth I agree with.

Yes, I suppose so. Maybe something like the gremlins which have auras would be a better example. Pugwampi I believe have a negative affecting aura they can't turn off.

I was trying to justify this because of some things I half-remembered, but I guess it can go either way. It is a muddy area of the rules for a reason, because things are complicated being mostly non-standard effects.

I houseruled the hell out of that monster. It does not work as intended.

I am glad that we both got to learn something, I'm just sorry that it had to be full of unnecesary internet drama.

Like I've said time and time again, I've played this game for eight years and I'm still learning new rules.

@ Diego Rossi

This is exactly my point: It's hard to tell what is an attack and what isn't with a lot of abilities with the supernatural descriptor. I guess most of the ones I'm thinking of are hard for me to come up with at the moment or in an older edition. But anyway my point is that you shouldn't lump them in with the "Spell is affecting someone as a target" portion of the spell because it results in things like what I'm about to explain.

@ Wraithstrike

My main purpose here was say a monster with an aura is walking through a building invisible. Another invisible creature walks into his aura. Since they are now in the area of the effect, if his aura is treated like a spell, he drops out of invisibility because, whether he wants to or not, he's using the effect on the creature. Meanwhile, the other guy is still invisible.

Actually, no. He's not invisible, he just runs down the hallway into the aura. That circumstance is one that I think is weird if we lump that in, especially since I think that any sleep effects that are (su) or something just as powerful are already covered by specific rulings.

I did think the X---- thing's effect would work the best for this. The real question with it is does stealing buff spells for itself count as an offensive action? (I am not expecting an answer here, just wondering out loud)

Interesting thing about that thing's ability: It steals spells as a swift action. Its ability can't work most fo the time unless someone tries readying a spell to cast on its turn or it readies by RAW. I did not play it like this. < My best attempt to illustrate that I'm not some kind of RAW monkey.

I'm of the opinion that this really needs errata'd, as well as what constitutes an attack. I've asked 3 people today if they considered suggestion/charm person an attack and NONE of them did. I didn't tell them about this conversation either, as that would have influenced the result.

And while I'm at it, stealth needs work as well.

Madcap Storm King wrote:

If you say something is acid go swim in it the spell immediately fails because that is unreasonable, except to something that wants to die or is immune to acid.

It is only unreasonable if they know it is acid. If they just see a liquid they will think it is water until they step in it.

Quote:

But I see your opinion now. I just guess the majority of people I know have been houseruling it to work that way because they also don't consider it an attack.

What if we say that the intent of the suggestion is what matters, here? Because suggesting that someone paint their toenails purple or doing something silly will never seem like an attack to me. The fact that it also doesn't force them to do it immediately makes it seem less like an attack, as opposed to command which is definitely a nonlethal offensive option, like disarming someone in combat.

Charm person is a bit more justifiable, but...

The issue is that it qualifies for the purpose of interacting with the invis spell and since this discussion is how things interact with the invis spell, specific trumps general even if a group would normally rule otherwise.

With that aside:
I would also consider myself to be attacked if someone tried to mind control me, and while suggestion is not as strong as charm or dominate it still takes control of you even without the invis spell it could still be considered an attack by many people. You don't have to do something that is quantifiable by numbers(hp damage, level drain), and so on for it to be an attack.

I don't consider making me(via spell) put on makeup a harmful thing, even if it is embarrassing, but an intrusion on the mind is no less an assault than one on the body. It seems the game designers look at it the same way or suggestion would have gotten a free pass.

I think their main reasoning was in case of something like what I was talking about with the Ravenloft monster, where it stayed invisible while bombarding you with effects.

The main thing here is that a lot of the (su) effects can't be considered effects that are attacks, like auras which imply some kind of defense, and despite people not being affected by them would turn invis off simply because there was another creature standing in their aura due to the way the effect works.

Quote:

The main thing I'm getting at here is that it doesn't say they have to go do it immediately. In fact, it gives them an hour per level to decide.

Sooooo the point of your argument is that the spell doesn't count because it doesn't work? You're essentially telling me I can do the activity whenever the heck I feel like it even beyond the duration of the spell. So why even cast it?

Again this is common sense. The spell doesn't give the capacity for the target to make the decision it says they do it period. All it does in that regard is allow the caster to enforce a trigger when the suggestion can take place. The way you describe the spell matches not a single precedent set by AP's, written encounters, or heck even other GM's I've talked to or played with.

Lastly if forcibly removing someone's will is not a harmful act then I'm a scientologist.

I'd like to note that there is in fact a tagline added to spells to determine immediately whether or not they're harmless. It's usually put in parenthesis called "harmless".

You technically have to add the word "now" to the suggested sentence. If the guy can't paint his toenail purple, what's he going to do? Fall down into despair because he can't achieve his sudden sentence-long motivation? No, he continues on his way, looking for purple paint, and when he finds it he completes the task. Replace purple paint with some thing that they might want, such as a sword. If there is no sword, the suggestion doesn't fail, they just go on their way till they hit the sword even if it tells them to do it now.

But yeah, at this point it's obvious you're not willing to see things the way I see them, and that's fine. I'm not even arguing the same point anymore so I'm confused as to what the big deal is.

As far as removing free will being an attack... Eh? That's a hell of a slippery slope.

As an example:

Bluff:That liquid over there is acid you should go swim in it.
Even if you believe it is water you are under no compulsion to go swim it, and you may just decide to walk away.

suggestion spell:That liquid over there is acid you should go swim in it.
The spell compels you to go swim in it. The two are definitely not the same since the spells forces you into a specific action that may be harmful. It is an attack on the mind in the sense that it can control you where as bluff can not. <--In short the spell is form of magical mind control.

suggestion: You influence the actions of the target creature by suggesting a course of activity (limited to a sentence or two). The suggestion must be worded in such a manner as to make the activity sound reasonable. Asking the creature to do some obviously harmful act automatically negates the effect of the spell.

The short version according to the PRD---> Suggestion: Compels subject to follow stated course of action.

The above is why bluff is not an attack. It can't make you do anything. It exerts no force over you in any manner. It justs hands out bad information. Suggestion can force you to act on bad information.

If you say something is acid go swim in it the spell immediately fails because that is unreasonable, except to something that wants to die or is immune to acid.

But I see your opinion now. I just guess the majority of people I know have been houseruling it to work that way because they also don't consider it an attack.

What if we say that the intent of the suggestion is what matters, here? Because suggesting that someone paint their toenails purple or doing something silly will never seem like an attack to me. The fact that it also doesn't force them to do it immediately makes it seem less like an attack, as opposed to command which is definitely a nonlethal offensive option, like disarming someone in combat.

Charm person is a bit more justifiable, but my main point here is the invisibility+aura thing. I guess it's harder to find an example of this now than I thought it would be.

Madcap Storm King wrote:

I don't think it's common sense at all. I have killed someone using a suggestion spell, and I still don't think it's a directly offensive effect because it doesn't have to be. They were very extenuating circumstances and I couldn't have accomplished anything glibness wouldn't have. You could suggest to have someone run away because you will hurt them, for example. I don't think that's offensive because you could do such a thing with diplomacy, and it's not an offensive effect, except perhaps in a bazaar.

Then you are not applying it. The bluff score does not force a creature to act a certain way. Suggestion forces a creature through strength of magic to act a certain way. The difference is choice. That's common sense. If you are forcing me to do something without being granted a choice that's an attack. You are inflicting a status effect on me. There's no debating that.

It depends on the suggestion. While you ultimately have to accomplish the task, it's up to you how you do it unless it's ultra-specific. The main thing I'm getting at here is that it doesn't say they have to go do it immediately. In fact, it gives them an hour per level to decide. I get what you're getting at, but I don't think forcing someone to do something they want to do already, for example, or suggesting a new course of action that is not necessarily self destructive constitutes an attack and should break invis. An attack is something that harms a person, and some things that provide penalties could be considered attacks. I don't believe this effect harms a person. It's sort of like darkness, for example. It can be disadvantageous, sure, but it doesn't hurt anyone with damage or give them a penalty.

In terms of skills, diplomacy does force you to act in a certain, if roundabout, way. Not for PCs, but for NPCs. In addtion, have someone not act on a bluff phrased properly at a table after they beleive it. Nothing gets the hackles stirred up like someone not doing something reasonable that they beleive as truth that needs to be done right now.

Madcap Storm King wrote:

I construed that as meaning it cannot be used directly offensively, which would qualify for the caveat in invisibility talking about indirect stuff.

It still requires a save and still requires you to perform the action repeatedly until the effect wears off. The "harmless" caveat is entirely up to GM interpretation as a savvy player can and will justify the negation by saying the effect is harmful in some way no matter how ludicrous. Generally speaking I define attack as any direct or indirect spell or effect that enforces damage or status effect on the opponent.

Skill checks except for perhaps intimidate don't function like this as they do not enforce this harm on another character so much as create a situation where harm is possible. This falls under the category of illusion effects and buffs as well since no direct harm is being done only incidental harm from falling for the illusion or getting curbstomped by the invisible mans allies. Suggestion in this case inflicts a status effect on the opponent; that is they force the target to do soemthing they would not normally do by removing their control. The same goes for charm person which is an even more indirect method it still inflicts a status effect on a person.

Now before you go on saying that an effect that doesn't cause direct harm via hit point damage shouldn't break it consider that many combat maneuvers don;t deal damage either by the definitions your pulling an invisible opponent could bullrush, drag, dirty trick, trip, and even grapple all day long purely because they don't deal damage but rather establish an effect. Yet, I don't believe that you would go so far as claim that these to would fall under the no popping invisibilty category. You'll also note that the spell itself even establishes what constitutes indirect methods of attack including summoning monsters and directing them to attack none of these mention interaction with the opponent at all beyond speaking.

What really needs to be...

I don't think it's common sense at all. I have killed someone using a suggestion spell, and I still don't think it's a directly offensive effect because it doesn't have to be. They were very extenuating circumstances and I couldn't have accomplished anything glibness wouldn't have. You could suggest to have someone run away because you will hurt them, for example. I don't think that's offensive because you could do such a thing with diplomacy, and it's not an offensive effect (except perhaps in a bazaar).

As far as other aura effects, I believe there were some that had emotions tied to them. There's an excellent example of a monster in Castle Ravenloft that could rage creatures and remain invisible, as well as a few other emotion based effects. It fed on negative emotions. In a situation like that, suddenly deciding that you hate the thing that's making you angry and then having it pop out of invisibility the next time it tries it doesn't make sense to me.

I'd consider combat maneuvers attacks because when you make them you are making an attack roll. Since you can't actually force anyone to harm themselves with charm person or suggestion except through trickery, I don't see those as offensive effects.

Madcap Storm King wrote:

wraithstrike wrote:

Lying to someone is not an attack, nor does it do harm. Acting on a lie that was told to you might cause harm, but the bluff itself is no attack.

The specific ways to attack someone in a game are physical(weapons), and magic.

Then a suggestion spell or effect should be classified under the same ruling. What was being said was that anything that targeted a creature was an attack. Bluff and diplomacy have targets listed in their descriptions.

For ease of lookup: suggestion

I don't think something that was a hypothetical (su) suggestion should trigger the effect.

I'm afraid where this logic fails is that you are comparing what amounts to a simple lie (the BBEG isn;t home right now you better go hom to your wives).

To a compulsion effect that quite literally wrestles your mind. (I suggest you turn around and go home. Don't mind the arrows in your back.)

What makes it an attack is that it quite literally and aggressively forces your mind into something.

tldr: Lying to someoen is not atacking them forcing them through magic is.

This is why Invisible tricksters dont bother trying compulsion effects, typically you can expect illusions, taunts, buffs to the bad guys allies.

It does say you have to make it sound reasonable, but I see what you mean.

Especially because it says:

The suggestion must be worded in such a manner as to make the activity sound reasonable. Asking the creature to do some obviously harmful act automatically negates the effect of the spell.

I construed that as meaning it cannot be used directly offensively, which would qualify for the caveat in invisibility talking about indirect stuff.

Madcap Storm King wrote:

wraithstrike wrote:

Note the word "can" make is optional, and it takes a swift action to use the ability if the monster chooses to do so. There is no AoE. Now if the monster redirects the spell towards a foe then its invisibility is broken, but your concern of invisibility being broken by an aura the monster can't control is not an issue here.

I didn't mean that portion. I meant this one:

pfsrd wrote:

Redirect Spell (Su) Any creature that attempts to cast a spell within 30 feet of a xacarba must cast the spell defensively. If the caster fails the concentration check to do so (or if the caster opts to not cast defensively), the xacarba can choose the target of the spell as a swift action. The new target must be a legal target—if there's no legal alternative target to choose from, this ability cannot be used.

It imposes that restriction on every creature within 30 feet. The caster may not be aware, but he is being targeted by that effect.

Also, I'm out for now.

I knew what you were taking about. That is not an attack. All it does is allow the monster to effectively steal the spell. Stealing spells is not an attack.

It does not fit the AoE criteria, nor does it do direct harm. Until the monster throws a spell back at the party that is would be used to break invis he can stay invisible.

It does have an area of effect. 30 feet.

Lying to someone is not an attack, nor does it do harm. Acting on a lie that was told to you might cause harm, but the bluff itself is no attack.

The specific ways to attack someone in a game are physical(weapons), and magic.

Then a suggestion spell or effect should be classified under the same ruling. What was being said was that anything that targeted a creature was an attack. Bluff and diplomacy have targets listed in their descriptions.

For ease of lookup: suggestion

I don't think something that was a hypothetical (su) suggestion should trigger the effect.

Note the word "can" make is optional, and it takes a swift action to use the ability if the monster chooses to do so. There is no AoE. Now if the monster redirects the spell towards a foe then its invisibility is broken, but your concern of invisibility being broken by an aura the monster can't control is not an issue here.

I didn't mean that portion. I meant this one:

Redirect Spell (Su) Any creature that attempts to cast a spell within 30 feet of a xacarba must cast the spell defensively. If the caster fails the concentration check to do so (or if the caster opts to not cast defensively), the xacarba can choose the target of the spell as a swift action. The new target must be a legal target—if there's no legal alternative target to choose from, this ability cannot be used.

It imposes that restriction on every creature within 30 feet. The caster may not be aware, but he is being targeted by that effect.

Also, I'm out for now.

sooo....as long as the invisible creature charms,dominates or compels creatures that aren't hostile to it, and therefore aren't foes, it stays invisible? Wierd.

I think it's weirder that if the creature's hostile, they would turn visible after we consider what you've mentioned. The other side of the argument considers that an attack, which would mean that even against a non-hostile target it would make you visible.

Madcap Storm King wrote:

BigNorseWolf wrote:

an attack includes any spell targeting a foe

I got that part. I am asking where ELSE it says that suggestion is an attack. Why would it include that caveat if suggestion is an attack anyway? It's covered by the phrase indicating that an attack breaks the spell.

Quote:

Please demonstrate something within the established rules that targets someone elses' mind and is not an attack WITHOUT using the idea that spell like abilities are not inherently not attacks because they're not spells. If it targets a foe or includes a foe in the area of effect its an attack.

By that definition, cure light wounds is an attack.

Not true at all.

Quote:

For purposes of this spell, an attack includes any spell targeting a foe or whose area or effect includes a foe.

Now if the foe happens to be undead I agree.

Alright. Now imagine any of those effects I mentioned targeting a foe.

Madcap Storm King wrote:

You're assuming that anything targeting an opponent is an attack, which is not defined within the rules. Everyone who I have played with has said that no, suggestion is not an attack, no, singing and fascinating people is not an attack. You are making that assumption, assuming I know it but am delibrately ignoring it, and then getting mad at it.

I have not seen the rule that says "anything" targeting the mind is an attack, and there are plenty of ways I can imagine that it would break established rules. The arguments you are making are not the conclusions I reached after looking over the rules.

I am not assuming anything. For the purpose of the invis spell magic targeting an opponent is an attack. That is in the spell description. It does not matter what the people you have played with have said with regard to the actual rules. It only matters what the book says. By the book if an opponent is target then it is an attack.

Once again:

prd and invis wrote:

he spell ends if the subject attacks any creature. For purposes of this spell, an attack includes any spell targeting a foe or whose area or effect includes a foe.

As I said target is a specific term with regards to magic. The only way suggestion would not be an attack is if there is specific verbage in the invis spell stating it as an exception, but there is not.

I am not saying targeting an enemy is always an attack for the general rules. I am saying it is an attack for the purpose of the invisibility spell because the spell says so.

Sorry man, I was responding to the other guy there. I forgot to quote him. I responded to your post just before you made that one.

an attack includes any spell targeting a foe

I got that part. I am asking where ELSE it says that suggestion is an attack. Why would it include that caveat if suggestion is an attack anyway? It's covered by the phrase indicating that an attack breaks the spell.

Please demonstrate something within the established rules that targets someone elses' mind and is not an attack WITHOUT using the idea that spell like abilities are not inherently not attacks because they're not spells. If it targets a foe or includes a foe in the area of effect its an attack.

By that definition, cure light wounds is an attack. Diplomacy is an attack. Bluff is an attack. Channel positive energy is an attack. I do not consider these attacks. I do not think they break invisibility.

Suggestion is not an attack by your prior definition if you use it in certain ways, such as saying "The weather outside is nice." If I cast a spell on you to cause you to have a thought, without forcing you to do anything, is it an attack?

How can an action sometimes be an attack, and other times not be, when every other part of the action is the same aside from the thought planted in the target's mind?

This is what I am trying to figure out. I can't follow your logic.

prd wrote:

Aiming a Spell

You must make choices about whom a spell is to affect or where an effect is to originate, depending on a spell's type. The next entry in a spell description defines the spell's target (or targets), its effect, or its area, as appropriate.

Target or Targets: Some spells have a target or targets. You cast these spells on creatures or objects, as defined by the spell itself. You must be able to see or touch the target, and you must specifically choose that target. You do not have to select your target until you finish casting the spell.

If the target of a spell is yourself (the Target line of the spell description includes “You”), you do not receive a saving throw, and spell resistance does not apply. The saving throw and spell resistance lines are omitted from such spells.

Some spells restrict you to willing targets only. Declaring yourself as a willing target is something that can be done at any time (even if you're flat-footed or it isn't your turn). Unconscious creatures are automatically considered willing, but a character who is conscious but immobile or helpless (such as one who is bound, cowering, grappling, paralyzed, pinned, or stunned) is not automatically willing.

Some spells allow you to redirect the effect to new targets or areas after you cast the spell. Redirecting a spell is a move action that does not provoke attacks of opportunity.

Effect: Some spells create or summon things rather than affecting things that are already present......

The invis spell references targets and areas of effect. These determine the spells aiming/target selection method. Charm person along with dominate uses the target method. Fireball uses an AoE method.

Alright. What I'm saying is that the EFFECT isn't an attack.

Some auras can be turned off.

Yes, but I meant some other auras or I guess in this case a proximity based effect? Take a look at the xacarba. Its ability affects any creature within 30 ft, and has an additional action it can take in response to a spell being cast. This effect immediately affects any creature within 30 ft by imposing a caveat. Therefore, if it approaches any creature, it becomes visible.

I don't think that occurrance makes sense, but that's as far as my thinking process goes in terms of what you're saying.

You're assuming that anything targeting an opponent is an attack, which is not defined within the rules. Everyone who I have played with has said that no, suggestion is not an attack, no, singing and fascinating people is not an attack. You are making that assumption, assuming I know it but am delibrately ignoring it, and then getting mad at it.

I have not seen the rule that says "anything" targeting the mind is an attack, and there are plenty of ways I can imagine that it would break established rules. The arguments you are making are not the conclusions I reached after looking over the rules.

Quote:

You have made that obvious. And that's your opinion. I disagree with it. You explain later how you reach that conclusion, why were the rest of your sarcastic comments necessary?

I thought how i reached the conclusion it was an attack was obvious from the get go.

OK.

Are you arguing that you were not being an ass? Please reread your posts.

I did. I don't think it qualifies as being an ass.

Besides your circular arguments that these are allowed so they're allowed, do you have any arguments for them being allowed?

I don't know how to deal with bold faced malarkey except to point out that it is in fact bold faced malarkey. If I had more tact i might find another way to put it that both fully pointed out exactly what logical fallacy you were using and spared your feelings but I don't.

I questioned your reasoning, which even you admitted was rules lawyering. Instead of answering for your reasoning, you instead assumed that said reasoning was ok, used it by the standard by which conclusions were to be reached, and then used it by the standard by which conclusions should be judged. I'm rather insulted that you didn't think I'd notice.

You toss up backhanded insults and a facade of arrogance and wonder why people aren't bending over backwards to phrase things less succinctly.

Clearly you have not been polite, have been accusatory and angry since your first response, and are trying to make me look like the bad guy for calling you out on it. I've insulted you because you ARE being inflammatory, and I don't think I've been any more snooty than any other regular members of this forum. If you can't deal with that, you should have been prudent enough to step away from the argument by this point. I asked you to give arguments, but you refused and kept insulting me, kept acting inflammatory, and kept up a steady tone of general sarcasm and anger. If you can't see that, I'm hoping that this may show you what you've been saying to me to make me believe that you've been unreasonable.

Wraith figured out what the argument was and responded reasonably. I reacted reasonably to him. I don't know why you couldn't do the same, and assumed from all of 2 posts that I deserved so much piss and vinegar.

By the rules it is an attack. It is not even up for argument since it targets someone. Targeting and Area of Affect have very specific meanings in the game with regards to magic.

I was arguing more about the effect than whether or not it's a spell. Could you please tell/link me to what you mean by "Targeting and Area of Affect have very specific meanings in the game with regards to magic."? I don't think I know exactly what you're implying.

No it won't, and nobody is suggesting that SU's follow the exact same rules as spells. We are only saying for purposes of attacks they are the same. Your argument is completely different than the one we are making.

If the SU targets someone it is an attack. If it does damage it is an attack. That has nothing to do with it in other regards.
SU's don't provoke, are not subject to dispel magic, and so on. The rules explicitly prevent those interpretations.

I really wish someone had said that earlier. I assumed something in that original post where I shouldn't have, that he was implying that ranged legerdemain was a spell-like ability.

SU effects that include people in their area are the main problem. Targeting people is something that shouldn't reveal with supernatural abilities, because it undermines a number of supernatural abilities that should not break invisibility like auras that can't be turned off, making bluff checks with the aid of a supernatural ability, and other abilities that don't seem like attacks or can be supportive and fall somewhere in-between. I believe this was a deliberate classification to avoid such circumstances occurring by the designers. That is the reason why I was making that argument.

Quote:

I know this. I am pointing out effects that are not spells, not attacks, that would be looped in with spells as far as "an effect targeting a creature goes.

I have no idea how you're reaching the conclusion that a harpy's song is not an attack.

You have made that obvious. And that's your opinion. I disagree with it. You explain later how you reach that conclusion, why were the rest of your sarcastic comments necessary?

I am about this close to not being polite anymore and just reporting you.

You calling me an ass (twice) is polite?

Compared to how you're acting, I'm showing exceptional restraint. Are you arguing that you were not being an ass? Please reread your posts.

If you're put off by my "calling it like I see it", consider what you've said earlier as well. The attitude you currently have towards me. There are far more descriptive terms I could use for the way you're behaving, but calling you them would not be appropriate behavior.

You're overreacting by quite a bit, calling me arrogant for doing something like trying to illustrate my point and believing something you don't, and generally being mad on the internet.

So you're OK with aura effects, bluff checks, and various other things that sit in an area where they are not supposed to trigger as they are not an attack, and letting them trigger? I do not believe this. Understand that this is what I am arguing. You fail to provide any empyrical evidence that this is what the designers intended, pay attention to the reason I am illustrating this, or allowed any of my points to stick because they don't agree with your ideas. If you were presenting actual definitions as to what an attack was, why abilities are (su) instead of (sp)

And I still don't know why. So I can only assume you're either trying to stir up trouble or just verbally abuse me some more. I only claim you're being an ass because, guess what. You're behaving in an inflamatory manner when I say anything you don't agree to, claim that the rules are crystal clear when I'm not arguing with them, I'm asking questions that illustrate what was wrong as far as considering things spells that weren't goes, and things that weren't attacks goes.

The problem is that when you ask the questions the only answer you will accept as correct are the ones that are correct according to your own ideas. To you (by logic i am unable to determine) a harpy's song is not an attack, so any logic that declares a harpy's song to be an attack (including judging it like a spell) MUST be wrong.

As far as an attack goes, someone's mind is at least as much at the core of their being, if not more so, than their body. Interfering with how their mind works with ANY mind effecting ability, is attacking not only their person but their very person-hood. If...

Because that's the point. If ANY spell targets an opponent, invis breaks. If ANY attack targets an opponent, invis breaks. Supernatural effects that are neither should not trigger because they are neither, and there is a reason for this.

^ My argument.

A harpy's song fascinates you. An attack in invisibility is defined as an effect doing DIRECT HARM to a creature. Being forced to walk is not directly harmful. In fact, the ability gives you a chance to save if you run into hazards. It is not directly harmful because it causes no damage, merely forces you to act in a certain way. If this is considered an attack, you could consider bluff an attack because it causes you to behave in a certain way.

I am still going to ask you to please act more reasonably, because you are still being very inflammatory with your insinuations. Sorry I wasn't clearer, I like thinking out loud.

Just recently in a game I'm running, the party ranger took a critical hit from a chupacabra. The result from the Critical Hit Deck was "Bone Masher: Normal Damage and 1d3 Str damage (arm.)" Essentially, it broke his arm or sprained it or something like. The part I'm uncertain of is that it says "Limb useless until healed." Is that until the ability damage is healed or until the hit point damage is healed?

Is there one that affects a leg that doesn't do ability score damage? If so, what is the wording on that card?

If the effect doesn't do ability score damage and has the same text, it would point towards the hp damage needing to be healed. This way the arm could be usable and still have ability score damage.

The ability score damage is easier to track though, I agree, so use that if playability is your concern. Either way you may need to track it as a separate number from your normal damage, maybe in parenthesis.

Quote:

Because, unlike some people, I have to make an argument for a preconceived notion to be overturned.

The CONCLUSION, not assumption, from the rules is that you cannot attack and stay invisible, and even though a spell like ability or supernatural power may not be a spell it is still an attack.

I know this. I am pointing out effects that are not spells, not attacks, that would be looped in with spells as far as "an effect targeting a creature goes.

I am about this close to not being polite anymore and just reporting you. You're overreacting by quite a bit, calling me arrogant for doing something like trying to illustrate my point and believing something you don't, and generally being mad on the internet.

And I still don't know why. So I can only assume you're either trying to stir up trouble or just verbally abuse me some more. I only claim you're being an ass because, guess what. You're behaving in an inflamatory manner when I say anything you don't agree to, claim that the rules are crystal clear when I'm not arguing with them, I'm asking questions that illustrate what was wrong as far as considering things spells that weren't goes, and things that weren't attacks goes.

I'm sorry that you saw me as trying to stir up trouble, I hope you can stop before this escalates any further.

..but I would not say supernatural effects are not attacks. Some would be, and some would not be. I don't think stealing something counts as an attack. I do think that the object gives the stealer's position away though, which I discussed in an earlier post.

Some SU's do act like spells though.

Back to SU's, a dragon breath weapon is an attack. An SU's that acted like dominate person is an attack, and so on. An SU that summon a monster is not an attack.

PS: Treating them like spells is not the issue. SU's can never be treated like spells even if they reference a spell. They don't have casters levels or spell levels. For the purpose of invis they only need to meet the targeting parameters to be an attack, and/or reasonably count as an attack such as a breath weapon.

Yes, and we agree on most of this. Dominate person is something I'd consider an attack, for example, whereas charm person I would not because of the opportunities the spell creates.

The person stealing the item could also gently set it on the ground, which I think would avoid notice as opposed to the thing floating 30 feet through the air. Then again, I'm of the general opinion that Stealth needs a revamp, so that's really all I have to say on that.

The main reason I'm pointing this out is because Diego Rossi said that it would break invis because it was a spell, which it is not. I attempted to prove why it wouldn't in what I admit was a roundabout manner simply because that is how I think, and I didn't want to look like some kind of ivory tower know-it-all, hopefully have some people along for the ride while I illustrated what the su descriptor is used for: Weird in-between effects that shouldn't be considered spells.

Madcap Storm King wrote:

Any supernatural aura effects.
Any mind-affecting supernatural effect, including beneficial ones such as the succubus' touch because it has to be treated as a spell now.

This is the issue, and it is not true. You only have to look at the SU's abilities to see if it falls within invis's guidelines for an attack if it does not do physical damage like a dragon's breath would, as an example. That does not mean you assign it a spell or caster level which is impossible by the rules anyway.

Those are the problems that arise if you allow supernatural abilities to be treated as spells universally.

Is it cheap to use a hypothetical sleep su effect and put people to sleep when out of battle? I'd say so. Hell, if you were trying to kill them I'd consider it an attack. But saying "all of these are basically the same as spells" will ultimately make things really weird, and I don't think it was what the designers intended, nor wrote into invisibility for that reason.