Fair enough, thanks for the insight.
Search Posts
Hi all, seeking clarification on how these abilities interact. As an example, suppose a target is hit with a fireball (failing the save) from an oracle with the burning magic revelation using a rod of dazing. Does the damage from the Burning Magic revelation ability trigger the Dazing effect on subsequent (1d4) rounds? My guess is yes so long as the damage from burning magic is considered damage from the spell and not its own source. As the case might be for one casting a dazing fireball using alchemist fire as a power component (which I think could be argued the alchemist fire would be considered its own source of damage and not trigger the dazing effect on subsequent rounds - but I'm not sure - hence the post). Thanks for the consideration!
Thank you for the clarification! Much appreciated
Hi all, I'm hoping someone can help clarify for me how this spell works with regard to what is the state of the target after it fails its save and while the caster is spending up to five minutes creating a memory. Does the target know its failed the will save and being messed with in some fashion during this time? REF "Casting the spell takes 1 round. If the subject fails to save, you proceed with the spell by spending as much as 5 minutes (a period of time equal to the amount of memory you want to modify) visualizing the memory you wish to modify in the subject. If your concentration is disturbed before the visualization is complete, or if the subject is ever beyond the spell's range during this time, the spell is lost." Side note: Is the caster entitled to know whether the target failed their save or not? Thanks as always for the reply!
Very good, thanks for the quick reply
Hi all, Seeking a clarification please. Is Trample damage subject to DR? Thanks,
This seems like it would be a problem (imagine the full plate wearing barbarian) but I haven't read anything yet that suggest it can't be done (guy puts holes in armor for spikes to poke through maybe?). Fiend Totem (Su)
Benefit: While raging, the barbarian sprouts dozens of wicked barbs from her body. Anyone striking the barbarian with a melee weapon, an unarmed strike, or a natural weapon takes 1d6 points of piercing damage. Do totem spikes work while wearing armor?
Thanks Gauss, I'm looking forward to seeing what becomes of those playtest results.
Fair enough, it's a pretty technical thing. Thanks for the help
Komoda, I understand that all squares are rectangles but not all rectangles are squares, but when you say "While you may not be visible in the fog from one direction, you may be visible from another. " that sounds to me a lot like When you are invisible, you are visually undetectable to some but not to others with 'see invisibility'. seems like the same thing
Sorry, I think perhaps I have failed to share my thoughts clearly. Thanks everyone for the input. I have a better grasp of uses of both the blinded and invisible conditions. As for why it matters, well the end result is the same but I wanted to see if the invisible condition was exclusive to something as specific as the spell or if it would apply to other circumstances that sneak attack using characters might arrange.
It doesn't really matter what is more appropriate. The rule is that they function as blind--you only count as invisible when you are invisible. Sorry, I think perhaps I have failed to share my thoughts clearly. I understand that there is no double dipping or stacking of effects for the Invisible and Blind conditions (IE +2 to hit and -2 to AC). This part I don't think applies to the scenario I'm dealing with. "Under conditions in which the enemy can't see you, but you are not invisible, they are considered Blind, rather than you being considered invisible." A lot of effects come with being blind "Blinded The creature cannot see. It takes a –2 penalty to Armor Class, loses its Dexterity bonus to AC (if any), and takes a –4 penalty on most Strength- and Dexterity-based skill checks and on opposed Perception skill checks. All checks and activities that rely on vision (such as reading and Perception checks based on sight) automatically fail. All opponents are considered to have total concealment (50% miss chance) against the blinded character. Blind creatures must make a DC 10 Acrobatics skill check to move faster than half speed. Creatures that fail this check fall prone." With darkness out of the equation (call it a sunny day even), I can't see giving the blinded condition to targets that can see normally, standing just outside of a fog cloud effect just because they can't see the enemy inside the fog (enemy has total concealment). I wouldn't think they would be effected by any conditions. Now if the enemy inside the fog (who can see through fog without issue) fires an arrow at those people not in the fog, should the attack be treated as if from an invisible source. "Invisible Invisible creatures are visually undetectable. An invisible creature gains a +2 bonus on attack rolls against sighted opponents, and ignores its opponents' Dexterity bonuses to AC (if any). See the invisibility special ability." Since the archer in the fog is 'visually undetectable', is that the correct way to handle it? Is saying 'Invisible creatures are visually undetectable' the same as saying 'visually undetectable creatures are invisible'? If not then the logic breaks down for me when the archer in the fog drinks an invisibility potion. In that case he's absolutely invisible and would gain the benefit of the condition, but the targets outside the fog wouldn't know the difference because they couldn't see him in the first place. So to them he's been invisible the whole time. I apologize now for over explaining : )
I'm not sure if that's applicable in this case. Targets not in fog being fired at by an unseen archer with the ability to see through fog firing from within the fog, are considered blind? Would it be more appropriate to simply consider the archer invisible?
Okay, thanks Kazejin Now for an archer who can see through fog and is in fog shooting arrows at an enemy out of the range of the fog but unable to see into it, does the archer get the bonus as if he were invisible being that he is 'visually undetectable'?
Thanks for the reply Komoda, I would imagine if the character with darkvision fighting in darkness against enemies without darkvision drank an invisibility potion then technically he would qualify for the invisibility +2 to attack bonus, but in actuality that wouldn't change or make a difference to what the enemy could see since he was already blind. Might this condition only apply to the darkness blinded character- "In areas of darkness, creatures without darkvision are effectively blinded. In addition to the obvious effects, a blinded creature has a 50% miss chance in combat (all opponents have total concealment), loses any Dexterity bonus to AC, takes a –2 penalty to AC, and takes a –4 penalty on Perception checks that rely on sight and most Strength- and dexterity-based skill checks." -and the attacker with darkvision being technically 'visually undetectable" able to use the benefit of the to hit bonus that goes with the invisible condition?
Lets say you have a character with darkvision fighting against enemies in the dark without the ability to see him. Would he be considered invisible and able to apply the appropriate modifiers. Condition: Invisible "Invisible creatures are visually undetectable. An invisible creature gains a +2 bonus on attack rolls against sighted opponents, and ignores its opponents' Dexterity bonuses to AC (if any). If a character tries to attack an invisible creature whose location he has pinpointed, he attacks normally, but the invisible creature still benefits from full concealment (and thus a 50% miss chance)." If so would it also apply to someone who could see through fog fighting someone who couldn't in a fog cloud effect? Thanks for your input.
I'd be very interested in joining a bi-weekly weekend campaign in this neck of the woods should one get started or a seat open up.
After searching around a bit myself, I thought it would be nice to have a sub forum for gamers in this neck of the woods to express interest in starting or joining a game.
Are you guys (and gals) still playing? If a seat opened up I'd be interested in hearing more about the game :)
Thank you everyone for your input, especially that of my GM whose opinion matters the most in our campaign. I have a much better understanding now of how to handle the rules regarding shooting into melee.
Yeah it's a little weird. I don't intuitively consider something five feet away from me (1 square) as also being adjacent to me. Hence the clarification request.
Thanks for the reply. So for the above example, the answer is no, the shooting into melee penalty would not apply because the enemy target (threatening with reach) is considered 10 feet away (2 squares) from the friendly PC?
Hi, I have a question regarding the following rule: "Shooting or Throwing into a Melee If you shoot or throw a ranged weapon at a target engaged in melee with a friendly character, you take a –4 penalty on your attack roll. Two characters are engaged in melee if they are enemies of each other and either threatens the other. (An unconscious or otherwise immobilized character is not considered engaged unless he is actually being attacked.) If your target (or the part of your target you're aiming at, if it's a big target) is at least 10 feet away from the nearest friendly character, you can avoid the –4 penalty, even if the creature you're aiming at is engaged in melee with a friendly character." Please help me to understand exactly how far away a friendly melee engaged character needs to be away from the target creature (or targeted creature's distant square if it's large) to avoid this penalty. R= Ranged Attacker, F= Friendly PC, E= Enemy with a reach weapon (2 squares away from F) |R|_|F|_|E| With the above example would the ranged attack still incur the shooting into melee penalty?
I would greatly appreciate your input in figuring out how to handle this correctly. Thanks,
Thank you! That certainly helps. I appreciate the detective work finding the post :)
That helps thanks. I was trying to find a source that mentioned it bypassing DR but I couldn't find anything specific. I read the part about energy, spells, and spell like abilities ignoring DR but wasn't sure if the Whirlwind Blast counted as a non specific 'energy' or as a 'normal' attack that DR might apply to. Could you please clarify where the rules deal with this? This attack seems like one of those grey areas that is open to different interpretations. Thanks,
I could use some guidance on how to handle a special attack please. Would DR bludgeoning be an appropriate defense to apply to a Whirlwind Blast or does it circumvent DR and Resistance? Whirlwind Blast (Su) When in wind form, a bralani can attack with a scouring blast of wind, dealing 3d6 points of damage in a 20-foot line (Reflex DC 17 half). The save DC is Constitution-based. Thanks,
Thanks, wow that's quite a drop! Sadly the link didn't work for me, but I'll take your word for it. Any thoughts on being able to ground another creature with your own weight?
Hi, I could use some direction on how to handle an airborne grappling scenario please. In one turn, creature 'A' flies over to creature 'B' and initiates a grapple, then 'A' stops flapping his wings to become dead weight (presumably more than 'B' can carry and continue flying) with the intention of falling down to the ground with 'B' (possible fall damage for both) while maintaining the grapple so his non flying allies will be able to engage the target'. Is this possible? If so, what amount of dead weight would be enough to ground a flying target, at least 1 pound more than the targets heavy load capacity? If not, is there a more appropriate way to do the same sort of thing? I'm familiar with the option of a round two grapple check move at half speed action, but being able to ground a flyer in one round would really help. Thanks, (side note question) Has it been determined how much a free falling object would drop in six seconds? |