Nihilo's page

So, what about blocking a line of effect?

Well suppose you're a wall... in order for you to block something, you must potentially be hit instead of the stuff behind you.
But if you, the invisible wall, can't be hit, you're not blocking anything are you?
See where this is going?

Yes, it blocks line of effect.

Should the wall be hit logically? Yes.
Is it hit RAW? No.

This Rule-Logic disconnect is pretty common in RPGs.

If the target gets all of the benefits of cover, including full cover, but the cover cannot be hit... then what exactly happens when you fire at somebody behind a full cover granting invisible wall? RAW says you cannot make an attack on someone behind full cover, so do the gods come down and physically prevent the archer from drawing his bow on someone hiding behind an invisible brick wall? Does the arrow just suddenly veer off at a 90 degree angle to avoid hitting it?

As to the first question - the same thing that would happen if an enemy moved behind cover and someone then shot an arrow at them. The DM could say "you can't attack him" or the attack simply misses (If I was the DM I would describe it as the arrow glancing off something solid, but others might do it differently)

Never said anything about changing the RAW. Its a discussion about what looks to me to be an oversight in the RAW and the best way to handle it if it should ever come up.

I think it's clear to me what RAW says happens, given a single target and a single wall, with any combination of them invisible. I could certainly be wrong, and the RAW often doesn't match up with what I would expect to happen in reality, but that's my view on it.

If the caster is on the material plane it does 1/2 damage (min 1), because it is spell damage that is not also force damage.

If the caster is on the ethereal plane it will do full damage.

RAW - Yes, you can still use mounted combat when your mount is paralyzed unless your DM says otherwise.

RAI - Your DM should slap you over the head for even asking and say "of course not".

That is correct, it doesn't matter if you add 100 or a million to the saving throw roll, if the die roll comes up a 1 you fail anyway.

The normal way around this is to use feat (like Force of Will), spell, etc. that allows you to reroll a failed save, although there are probably some more exotic abilities that might also work (was there a deity power that allowed them to still succeed on a 1 or was that 3.x?).

RAW? No.

It's up to the GM to decide what all "potables" is applicable to.

The GM can change any rule he wants, but he can't redefine the English language. There is no special definition in Pathfinder defining "potable", so it means "a liquid that is suitable for drinking" (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/potable).

This includes extracts RAW, unless the GM makes a house rule to exclude it (which the GM probably should, if he doesn't just ban the feat entirely).

No, the target may forget they were the target of an assassination, but they would still be immune to it for the rest of the day, since the immunity is not contingent on anything other than making a successful save.

What you could do is walk up to some unsuspecting victim and sneak attack them (they should be flat footed), then cast memory lapse and say "Sir, is that blood on your coat? Are you alright?" then assassinate them as they try to figure out why they're hurt.

Another use of memory lapse would be to walk up to two people, assassinate one, cast memory lapse on the other, and then say "Is your friend hurt? Is there anything I can do to help?" as you assassinate the second person.