Rinny's page

some of it is just understanding of the game, and some of it is 3.5 rules, some from the rules compendium that I remembered. Many of the rules are not explained as well in Pathfinder. I honestly probably could not find quotes for all of them because many of them are based on deduction. The other would require 3.5 rulings to be accepted.

Noted, yoh. I can dig it

*does a dance*

Btw my DMs took some conceptual interpretations against the attack avoidance thing (I think they didn't find it realistic enough) but still works for me.

Thanks again for going into depth with me here, and sorry I've left you hanging a bit there. I generally wouldn't mind pounding out the fine details and come closer to a mutual understanding on some points that I still feel may lack representation but I'm at a crucial point in my life where I just don't feel like I can set aside time for that in particular. Anyway I got the answer to my main question, and enjoyed discussing :) . I'm sorry if it compromises any satisfaction, it's my bad, I'm the one ducking out. Anyway peace bro it was nice, I appreciated it ;)

I kinda like you x)

The trap reset rules say:

Pathfinder PRD wrote:

No Reset: Short of completely rebuilding the trap, there's no way to trigger it more than once. [bold]Spell traps have no reset element.[/bold] (emphasis mine)

But that only governs spells that are traps, like glyph of warding. Otherwise, you pay for either unlimited use or single use when you make the magic trap. If you pay for unlimited use, it resets without needing any action from you.

Pathfinder PRD wrote:

Automatic: The trap resets itself, either immediately or after a timed interval.

EDIT: If you want it to have a manual reset, on the other hand, you pretty much get to dictate exactly how you want to reset it, since anything that isn't an instant reactivation is a power-down.

As far as setting goes, I've never heard of a magic trap that can be moved once placed. I believe they're assumed to be permanently tied to a single location.

So you don't have to ever resupply components or anything for unlimited or manual?

Yeah me, I was thinking something much more mobile, almost like caltrops, like.

I cede your 'continuing an action' argument now, the relevant points are my last two comments, the rest is just minor/casual nitpicking.

Nope. Concentrating in games terms actually has two definitions. One is with respect to a spell's duration. The other is with respect to not dropping a spell due to outside interference such as damage, being tossed around(elemental's whirlwind as an example)

Oi oi. I started with hearsay but looked at the SRD to find "To cast a spell, you must concentrate. If something interrupts your concentration while you're casting, you must make a concentration check or lose the spell." And, I'm more trying to get the facts straight than make a pertinent point now but does this not contest what you're saying here? Concentration is a state always undertaken when casting a spell -- especially to avoid disruption but still necessary to cast the spell in neutral conditions. I could see 'ceasing concentration' as referring to this 'concentration', easily enough (though subjectively the ruling appears to be directed just towards duration: concentration, if I had to guess).

A general rule is stated in the regular part of the rules.

But that's my point, is this 'general rule' even really stated anywhere?

Most of it is common sense, but if you decide to not cast that spell the person using the scroll has already won to an extent.

Oh but this scroll can mess you up, easily foil your current spell by itself. It would be one of the better cases to show when you would want to give up the spell.

Passing concentration checks get trivially easier at higher levels, especially with combat casting.

Are you speaking against the ease of losing concentration? However skilled you can become, I speak of the fact that mere distraction can cause you to let go what must be a constant force of will to maintain. I can't help but see this as something relatively easily dropped. Compared to well the momentum of a charge. Though even a charge can be stopped by caltrops and maybe a couple other things. Which points to it being stoppable by the charger themselves, conceptually/logically at least. What you said about a set weapon, is this a key issue? Is it something you sometimes see after you start charging?

Scrolls have terrible saves so I would take my chances with any DC's damage that come from it.

Well this particular scroll has no save. And general practicality isn't too significant here; the exception matters.

I did have some rules support when the ready action says you interupt the action, but then it continues if possible. The rules never allow you to stop your action, only to continue the action if possible.

Aye that is a bit of support, which I did overlook actually and apologize, though I would prefer something a bit more direct since I am aware of inconsistencies in the rules. Still it is clear enough and really I suppose that is where it would be mentioned if anywhere, I wouldn't exactly expect them to lay it out by itself specifically somewhere. Also it keeps the game cleaner/more straightforward which is always a goal. So yes, I'm sufficiently satisfied, thank you for obliging me.

You could move, but you have also done nothing to contribute to the fight for that round. In that sense you have also neutralized yourself. I will also add that your party members won't be too happy with that. The person may also decide to just attack one of them instead, and since your have already committed yourself to a ready action(move away if attacked) that won't take place, your turn is still wasted. The person could also pull out a ranged weapon on the next round. Moving won't put you outside of the weapon's range at that point like it will with a melee weapon.

I don't know, I see a lot of potential here. I assume melee-based boss-type enemies to be fairly significant. If so, one character's standard action foiling potentially its whole turn against your party is huge, if it can be achieved with any reliability -- and I don't imagine it as taking that much organization to get some solid results. Overall it just seems like getting too much for too little. You probably have more expertise here than me but, I just see this much, quite applicable, potential, in something any character can do. Facing off a big baddy who is most likely going to straight up attack a particular character in its next turn does not seem remotely rare or terribly unpredictable to me. Is it not? Hell even half your party doing it at a time could be incredibly worthwhile against certain, no doubt significant opponents. Well maybe just chalk that up to valid strategy, seems a bit much though.

Well if it isn't broken or anything I would definitely be one to enjoy putting such a maneuver to use as I can. Oh god, it would be fun as hell to actually pull off. 'Whiff' "oh oops, wrong choice, buster~ tee hee"

Yeah...

DM would just have to put on ignorance, that's always slightly awkward.

Concentration is not casting. It is something that can be done while or after casting depending on the spell.

Aye I'd agree it'd be a stretch for them to refer to casting as concentration, but you always concentrate to cast a spell, nay?

The greater trip is a specific rule that overrules a general rule.

Aye I must keep this in mind. However this is an inferred general rule yeah? There lacks precedence but 'tis a rather exceptional case and could have gone 'under the radar' rulemaking-wise, so I personally couldn't venture either way.

You drinking the potion is also not an immediate action. If you ready an action it takes up a standard action. You setting up conditions for it does not make it an immediate action.

Yes, I probably jumbled 'interrupt' and 'immediate' in my head.

I don't think it is game breaking to allow it since a caster with a melee weapon is not normally a threat with that weapon. Of course I avoid touch spells like the plague.

Yeah, but I might be more concerned about this getting around fighters thing, yeah? I mean it looks like AoO's are avoided rather easily just by moving down your initiative by a varying amount.

If you could stop a spell then why not any other action such as a charge to avoid a weapon set against a charge when you are the charger? If you can't stop a charge then why can you just stop the spell?

Aye that's a good point, it definitely points towards that general rule. However stopping charging and stopping casting are not the most comparable conceptually speaking. I'm just not sure if the game designers had it in mind at all, or not. I gather it's not directly mentioned, and it would very rarely come up. I mean I can see the DM bringing up some dramatic development just as a character is casting a spell... and I can see like a certain pressure for them not to puss out at the cost of story/dramatic value... but I'm not really seeing much objective still. I do lean towards your opinion but I'm not 100% convinced that there's no chance it may just be a hazy area rules-wise. I can 'see' why one 'couldn't' back out of a charge... but I can also 'see' a wizard abandoning his spell relatively easily (it's disrupted easily enough after all). Basically you are assuming there must be a rule in place and making what would be a valid extension from the charge thing; but I mean sometimes there isn't a rule in place. Is the charge thing specifically documented at all or just subjective/common sense?

Also seriously isn't this 'getting around AoO's of any attacker' thing pretty crazy actually?

Also what if you ready a move action to greatly hinder your attacker's assault? Would the first attack even land then? And by what we're saying they wouldn't even get an AoO. Well it prevents you from attacking but it lets one character neutralize a whole lot of offense by theirself. This much can't be true...

Also I juiced up my profile B]

Rinny wrote:

Ok so say I got this scroll, scroll of Touch of Idiocy. And I move up to this Wizard and ready an action to cast it on him if he starts casting a spell. So say he starts casting a spell in his turn; then I immediately start casting my scroll -- then does he get an attack of opportunity while he's casting a spell? If he does, does that disrupt his spellcasting?

Once he starts the action the can not stop mid-spell and attack.

Ahaha that's cool! A funny tricky way to avoid AoO, haha...

Aw man there's still the stupid 5-foot step in this case, no fun. Well my shadowdancer can always sneak-scroll to avoid the AoO at least. Or I assume so...

Oh but the SRD lists "Cease concentration on a spell" as a free action, and I think casting is concentrating on it, right? Or well I suppose they mean 'duration: concentration', so that's not likely. Well I hope you're right but are you positive he can't cancel that action as a free action? It seems like a plausible thing in my mind. Where are you coming from with this?

Ok say like I set a readied action to drink a potion 'when my opponent attacks me'. Since it's an immediate action and the attack is a standard action I guess it'd be the same as this (assuming they can't redirect their swing to hit the potion or something)? BUT! Someone with Greater Trip gets an attack of opportunity when they trip someone, and can't they take that in the middle of a full attack action? Though it's divided into separate attacks ('attack actions'?). So perhaps 'full attack action being divided into smaller attack actions' is the only exception of someone disrupting their own action with an AoE? But again I'd like to know where you're coming from on this.

Ok so say I got this scroll, scroll of Touch of Idiocy. And I move up to this Wizard and ready an action to cast it on him if he starts casting a spell. So say he starts casting a spell in his turn; then I immediately start casting my scroll -- then does he get an attack of opportunity while he's casting a spell? If he does, does that disrupt his spellcasting?

I'm talking about setting and reloading though

I'm interesting in messing around with spell-casting traps, but I can't garner all I want in the SRD, and I'm already flooding my DM with emails so I want to cut that down as much as possible.

What is involved in resetting a 'manual reset' magic device trap? Disable Device, gold cost, spell to cast...? I'm seeing this gold cost but it may just be for creating, I don't see how reset would have gold cost (excluding components). Or do you even need to cast the spell yourself? I was thinking spell-like abilities and scrolls.

Can you generally buy existing traps wherever?

Also how long does it take to set a trap? Quick Trapsmith rogue talent lets you set lesser traps as a fullround action, that's all I can find.

Thanks.

Rinny wrote:

Any creature that interacts with the spell can make a Will save to recognize its true nature.k so like everyone who witnesses it gets a save

I don't understand witnessing to be interacting, but it sounds from your later post that you're heading into houserule territory anyway. I understand interacting to physical interaction. Something like: you're the target of the spell, the spell effect attempts to attack you, you step on the illusionary floor over the real pit, you make a reflex save to avoid falling into the illusionary pit.

Aye I agree, I had an odd conceptualization of what it was talking about. Anyway I'll try to work out a cool Shadowdancer/shadow mindf%+& with mah DM, some way or another ('_')b

Actually... It would appear that every situation it says "shadowdancer's" level, it means character level.

And everywhere it just says "shadowdancer" it means SD class levels.

If you check, that rule eliminates the crazy results and leave tolerable results.

Ah I see I see. The fact that that goes along with other considerations makes it all good, as far as I'm concerned. I'm glad that consistency is there after all.

That's pretty sad. I didn't realize.

Anyway house rule. You are wherever you 'realized' you actually were (based on the 20%). Anyone else who is convinced you're elsewhere, only perceives you there, as an illusion, like Major Image. And you're unsensible. Until your next turn. I GUESS. Or if they see something pass through the fake you that they see. Yah. This spell makes me unsensible.

I'll do it, I swaer.

It would be cool though, it wouldn't even be 100% predictable. They might think you teleported/disappeared when you're really still there; or do nothing; or functionally teleport.

Or maybe I'd make the level 3 spell switch places with my companion. And then same shiz, and it dispels for any observer when they see something wonky happen. And it lasts some number of rounds, for some reason. Yeah not bad.

And for some reason it's "summoning". Or "creation". Either one. <,<

MINE.

You use material from the Plane of Shadow to shape quasi-real illusions of one or more creatures, objects, or forces. Shadow conjuration can mimic any sorcerer or wizard conjuration (summoning) or conjuration (creation) spell of 3rd level or lower. Shadow conjurations are only one-fifth (20%) as strong as the real things, though creatures who believe the shadow conjurations to be real are affected by them at full strength. Any creature that interacts with the spell can make a Will save to recognize its true nature.

Spells that deal damage have normal effects unless the affected creature succeeds on a Will save. Each disbelieving creature takes only one-fifth (20%) damage from the attack. If the disbelieved attack has a special effect other than damage, that effect is only 20% likely to occur. Regardless of the result of the save to disbelieve, an affected creature is also allowed any save that the spell being simulated allows, but the save DC is set according to shadow conjuration's level (4th) rather than the spell's normal level. In addition, any effect created by shadow conjuration allows spell resistance, even if the spell it is simulating does not. Shadow objects or substances have normal effects except against those who disbelieve them. Against disbelievers, they are 20% likely to work.

Ok so like everyone who witnesses it gets a save... so either a single save (and 80% chance) makes your Dimension Door totally fail; or ANYONE WHO FAILS THE SAVE (or hits 20%) THINKS YOU'RE OVER THERE, AND ANYONE WHO MAKES IT THINKS YOU'RE REALLY OVER HMYAH! The former is underpowered, the latter is kinda overpowered cause it, like, wouldn't end and they'd forever think you were either a) 20ft to the North-Notheast of where you 'really' are, or b) always in that same spot you teleported to all those years ago and never moved away from. Or you could work out some boring lame compromise :(

I wish my lesser Shadow Conjuration caught D Door :(

Aw hell IMA RESEARCH A LVL 3 LESSER DIMENSION DOOR AND MAKE MY DM LET ME SCREW AROUND WITH SHADOW CONJURATION! New save each round... limited duration.........? I don't know that's all I got. :D

Rinny wrote:

Are these just 'questions for the DM'? Cause that would be boring :(

Well, yes these are just questions for the DM.. but that shouldn't stop you from posting them here to learn what others think :)

Yeah dawggy! :)

I'd like to make something like, create a poison on my blade, or transport carried poison onto my blade. Though as I gather I'd have to auto-disbelieve, so like... maybe I end up running around with this illusion of poison, which is still in my bag, being on my blade, that my opponent ends up believing, and then maybe that gives it power and my vial empties and he is poisoned? :D Then I go 'o ok' and walk off :D

And with Infernal Healing maybe you get 'illusory' temp hit points that the dude has to chew through if he doesn't save? And if you believe it or hit the 20% it can keep you from dying... eheheheh...

Anyway illusory spiked pit is just the coolest, I can't wait :D

Too bad my CHA sux Q,Q

Anyway carry on, like, whatevs. Shadow magic! *poofs*

Rinny wrote:

Ok so here's the deal. I want to entangle a b~@%* from an inert rope as a standard action. What say you? Do I get a 'free go' of the effect at the initial casting like concentration spells and charge spells? Conceptually I can see it both ways. For me wording leans towards 'lame' :( but I want to see what you think.

Also it's not a rope it's a ninja wire :D

No, I can't see why you should get a free use, when casting the spell. The spell itself just animates the robe, directing the robe requires a move action.

Becaaaaause! :C there's vague precedence and it's conceivable andand

But you can use a move action on the turn you cast the spell to direct it, so in effect you can use it just as you cast it, albeit by stopping yourself from moving more than 5 ft that round.

BUT IMA HAVE TO TOSS IT TOO OR SOMETHING!

Unless I set up an elaborate trap; but I'd rather be able to drop it then use a move action then ready an actionn~~~

:C

And I'll only have 2 caster levels :( 2 rounds

Ah well I guess it's a house-ruling thing if anything at all.

Ok so Shadowdancer's Shadow Conjuration/Evocation Spell-Like Abilities tap into some pre-existing repitoire of arcane spells, yah? My question is, can you increase this 'repitoire' wherever or however it may exist, by researching and 'creating' new spells? Does creating a new spell bring it into existence in the Plane of Magic or something? What of spells others have created? At what point would it enter your ability's repitoire? Or are some spells more 'core' and only these can be subject to Shadow magic?

Are these just 'questions for the DM'? Cause that would be boring :(

There's no way to separate out your HP from Shadowdancer levels from HP not from Shadowdancer levels unless you've been keeping very careful track,

and BAB is, for any given number, a single number summing the bonus from all class levels. Same for saves. Certainly, there is nowhere else in the rules which separates out bonuses to HP/Saves/Base Attack. With the possible exception of Monk pseudo-BAB, and everyone agrees that's silly.

Lack of precedence fair enough, but I find this loosely outlined, and termed, 'companion', in a prestige class, exceptional if nothing else.

As to familiars: they gain a number of special abilities and bonus which are dependent on levels specifically in familiar-giving classes. However, their HD, HP, Saves, Skills, and BAB increase according to their master's character level, regardless of whether those levels are in a familiar or non-familiar class.

Yeah my bad I toats overlooked that. How Familiar lays out HP, Saves, and BAB in a way that completely resembles Summon Shadow, strongly convinces me to that side. Mm that's nice. Pretty darn potent though. And Shadow's 'special ability' (STR damage) scales with everything else; but on the other hand it does require 3 levels in a prestige class with fairly undesired prerequisites, so it compares ok. Anyway thanks.

Quite an interesting scenario overall; in the process a lot of existing ambiguity was highlighted and somewhat addressed.

Dip in Wizard is haaaaax -_-

You can animate a nonliving rope-like object. The maximum length assumes a rope with a 1-inch diameter. Reduce the maximum length by 50% for every additional inch of thickness, and increase it by 50% for each reduction of the rope's diameter by half.

The possible commands are "coil" (form a neat, coiled stack), "coil and knot," "loop," "loop and knot," "tie and knot," and the opposites of all of the above ("uncoil," and so forth). You can give one command each round as a move action, as if directing an active spell.

The rope can enwrap only a creature or an object within 1 foot of it - it does not snake outward - so it must be thrown near the intended target. Doing so requires a successful ranged touch attack roll (range increment 10 feet). A typical 1-inch-diameter hemp rope has 2 hit points, AC 10, and requires a DC 23 Strength check to burst it. The rope does not deal damage, but it can be used as a trip line or to cause a single opponent that fails a Reflex saving throw to become entangled. A creature capable of spellcasting that is bound by this spell must make a concentration check with a DC of 15 + the spell's level to cast a spell. An entangled creature can slip free with a DC 20 Escape Artist check.

Ok so here's the deal. I want to entangle a b&++$ from an inert rope as a standard action. What say you? Do I get a 'free go' of the effect at the initial casting like concentration spells and charge spells? Conceptually I can see it both ways. For me wording leans towards 'lame' :( but I want to see what you think.

Also it's not a rope it's a ninja wire :D

I have only so much faith in Pathfinder rulebook semantics, though I understand there's only so much to go on. However to make another stab at the spirit of the words I want to take a look at the 'familiar' thing; to those who said Summon Shadow is familiar-based and thus goes by character level, I'm wondering what you're going by cause this is what I see in the PRD:

All familiars have special abilities (or impart abilities to their masters) depending on the master's combined level in classes that grant familiars, as shown on the table below. The abilities are cumulative.

I hope you are right that familiars are character level -based for my shadow's sake, but I honestly doubt it based on balance alone. So do familiars truly offer a precedence for character level -basis or no?

(Also, even then, familiar does not equal companion. Otherwise I could get Improved Share Spells (it doesn't have Share Spells as a prerequisite xD). "[A]nimal companion, eidolon, familiar, [and] special mount" apparently fall under the umbrella term 'companion', but unfortunately something simply designated as a 'companion' is none of these things and is evidently not subject to the same things. The term is used loosely in Shadowdancer and I don't particularly see it employed as a term elsewhere.)

But regardless at the end of the day I'll bat my eyes and ask my kind DM what he thinks the book's wording means and he'll probably say it's total character level and I'll say 'oh okay~' :D

Rinny wrote:

Aye when I think about it, sometimes you want to create a limited effect that may end up with some unintentional conceptual awkwardness, but which is nonetheless what it is ultimately 'supposed to be'.

Yup. I think this is one you chalk up to "it's magic", and move on.

lol :D

The second one is very clearly referring to total character level; the first could go either way as worded.

Eh, that doesn't really make sense to me; if "shadowdancer's level" isn't definite then neither is "shadowdancer's total [hp]" etc, fundamentally. It gives a strong lean and raises some questions but, I could easily enough see them using it to refer to only Shadowdancer hp/BAB/Saves. If they wanted to say that, it would still be about the simplest way to do so; and makes the most sense in terms of game balance. It's not "very clearly"; I'm sick of flimsy subjective pseudo-logic. But thanks for responding at least.

When a shadowdancer reaches 3rd level, she can create visual illusions. This ability functions as silent image, using the shadowdancer's level as the caster level.

This shadow has a number of hit points equal to half the shadowdancer's total. The shadow uses the shadowdancer's base attack bonus and base save bonuses.

Is this referring to the Shadowdancer as a character; or just the Shadowdancer portion of the character? I always thought it only counted the strictly Shadowdancer levels, but I saw people discussing it as though it referred to the entire character in question, and all their class levels and everything. But then I thought of Rogue magic talents and how it would be strange if a few Rogue levels let you cast those spells at max power, more than you can do multiclassing a spellcaster.

Aye when I think about it, sometimes you want to create a limited effect that may end up with some unintentional conceptual awkwardness, but which is nonetheless what it is ultimately 'supposed to be'.

Guys, keep in mind the Pathfinder "flanking" only uses the term 'enemy', whereas it's the 3.5 "flanking" that defines by 'ally'. Long story short, they're defining by negation in this spell and leaving a lot to ambiguous implication, but~ as has been pointed out, the last phrase clearly concludes that this temp ally IS flanking the other bogey. By Pathfinder RAW, if flanking is occurring on a target, it occurs for anyone else indiscriminately, since its "flanking" definition uses the term 'enemy' and does not use the term 'ally'.

This is, unless they have the 3.5 wording in mind while they write out this spell, which would account for the inconsistency in wording; but there's not much to do about that, at least we have a definitive RAW interpretation here. Although, they explicitly say 'considered ally... while determining flanking', which makes me think more that they really DO have the 3.5 wording in mind, which is kinda f*~~ed up as it directly contradicts their new take on "flanking" in the Pathfinder definition.

Also, DOES THIS SPELL KEEP THE TARGET FROM ATTACKING YOUR PARTY IN HIS NEXT TURN?!? I mean Hell! It lasts a whole round, and he is affected such that he STOPS flanking you and goes and FLANKS his teammate -- does he, in that state, carry on attacking you?! It hasn't been addressed but the possibility kinda stands out here. It would be odd for the text not to mention it if it was the case that they didn't attack you -- but it's odd either way. But they still threaten your friends, I suppose. So they don't attack their teammate; I can't much see them attacking you if they don't even flank you; I suppose they attack your mates as usual. But if you're the only one in range, maybe they couldn't attack?

Alchemical Power Components

An alchemical power component is an alchemical item used as a material component or focus for a spell in order to alter or augment the spell’s normal effects. What follows is a sample of these effects; your GM may allow other combinations.
Spells followed by an (M) expend the alchemical item as a material component;
Spells followed by an (F) use the item as a focus and do not expend it.
In both cases, the alchemical item does not have its normal effect and does not affect any other parameters of the spell. You cannot use the same item as both a focus and a material component at the same time.

Can I incorporate this into a scroll/wand?

Well thanks, but, frankly, I can certainly see where that 5-% comes from, if you're willing to be that presumptive in a case with 0 basis.

*link*

Anyway ty. Oh and I thought of a rationalization for it: a higher level scriber uses their skill to make it easier to read? Though the UMD user still has a harder time using higher level scrolls, so that still doesn't make too much sense. Honestly, I know it's a bit awkward, but I think the most preferable *number* for the roll would be 'base ranks in UMD' plus 'CHA modifier'. I can appreciate having the RAW foundation though, I just disagree with it in this case, for concept as well as balance, if not simplicity.

If I'm using Use Magic Device to use a scroll and need to make a concentration check against an attack or to cast defensively or something, can I use UMD to make a concentration check? If I have levels in a class with 'caster levels' but which cannot use that scroll, can I use those levels for a concentration check? (And if so, how about a class that only casts from spell-like abilities, Shadowdancer? They probably know how to cast defensively with their own spell-like abilities using their caster level, but don't read scrolls)

or is my concentration check +0 :/

Oh I just retried my google search and someone said your caster level is the scroll's caster level, which kinda makes rules-sense but is also kinda fracking rediculous when you think about it for 1 second. Is this 'right'?

UMD would tend to be a little high compared to caster levels but... it's casting from a scroll--it's kinda the right skill for the job. Believable enough that it can potentially make it a bit easier for a specialized user to cast from (read: 'read') a scroll than a magician going through the motions of casting a spell.

Alright, thanks. Yeah it sure would let you do things with it you couldn't otherwise do, but it's kinda too fun to pass up (as long as it's not gamebreaking, as you say). Conceptually it's a bit weird to have 1 round of making the image do stuff with a Swift Action worth of concentration, then after that it's a Standard Action of concentration for a like round of effect. But I do agree it's clear enough rules wise, Qicken Spell doesn't do that to these types of spells. I think the concept just gets slightly messed up when it's employed as a consistent, natural aptitude, as opposed to a more technical and dictated, prepared burst of quickness, but yeah, you'd have to make your own exception. My DM BETTER!

Although, it's a whole feat but they can only use it on one of their spells! I wonder if it would be broken at all to just have it that way in general, since it already makes more sense conceptually.

No, I just realized, it's already counterbalanced by the fact that the spell doesn't 'use up higher spell slots' in any way. And it makes it exponentially more effective with certain spells. Well, instantaneous spells probably generally have more 'bang' on that first turn already so maybe not so much. Anyway just case-by-case exceptions if anything I guess.

Rinny wrote:

Thanks yo

I don't totally buy this, cause something being a standard action generally denotes that you're 100% dedicated to that action and can't also fit a move action into it, unless it's specifically part of that action. In this case it would be an exception if anything.

A round consist of: 1 standard action + 1 move action, which can be traded for 1 full round action.

So you don't fit the move action into the standard action, you take it before or after. So by RAW, you are allowed to move around (stealth or not) eventhough you spend your standard action, whether it be an attack, casting a spell, or maintaining concentration.

Yeah. But like... if a caster casts Silent Image, does he have to stay in one spot as long as he wants to keep it in existence? Does he have to do his concentration Standard Action each round, and nothing else besides concentrating cause at that point he would cease concentrating? Or is it that, he just has to dedicate 1 standard action to maintaining it each round if he wants it to continue? And do whatever the hell he wants in between.

Not that I'm too worried though, my RAW interpretation of my feat is bullet-proof. Bo) Would be good to figure this out though. Actually I'd still have to spend a Swift Action each round my way, so yeah.

Thanks yo

Since concentrating is a standard action, you can continue to move, etc., including using stealth.

I don't totally buy this, cause something being a standard action generally denotes that you're 100% dedicated to that action and can't also fit a move action into it, unless it's specifically part of that action. In this case it would be an exception if anything.

You surely aren't allowed to move during an action dedicated to casting a spell, and they're both called 'concentration' actions, but the two cases may be a bit different. Like, some minimal effort to momentarily keep the image from disappearing outright while quickly I duck into shadows, possibly adding some slight movement to the image as well. Surely not quite as inflexible as going through the proper motions to complete a spell.

I guess it's a case where RAW would kinda have you out of luck but you could go into the flexibility with subjective house rulings, maybe make up some concentration checks. Or is it generally acknowledged that it's ok to move around a bit while concentrating to maintain a Silent Image? Anyway I can just do that Swift Action after hiding, I was just interested in trying to replace myself *just* as I Hid in Plain Sight, so that they wouldn't notice the difference. :) What the hell, I'm sure I can go ahead and try that, and just slap a high concentration check on it :) too bad my concentration level would kinda suck :(

Another thing that worried me about the spell-like ability thing was that Shadow Jump acts like Dimension Door, which says you can't take any actions after using it. So I'm wondering if that in particular would still let me maintain Stealth (if I still had cover). I'm thinking that it wouldn't let one *initiate* Stealth if one teleported into hiding from observation, although... if you assumed your Stealthy position just before casting it... and if you placed yourself accurately enough.... So it seems like technically one could do this, well providing you can concentrate while holding a stealthy position...

Maaan I WISH I could Quicken Shadow Jump :( Maybe my DM will let meeeee

And let me put permanent Darkness on a small rock while he's at it :3

Oh LOL

This creature can use one of its spell-like abilities with next to no effort.

Hay RAW, maintaining the duration is part of 'using the ability' isn't it~? :) I guess I'm just THAT good at my Silent Image spell-like ability... m actually does make sense....

I can't WAIT till level 15!

So I'm looking at the Quicken Spell-Like Ability (Monster) feat in combination with a level 10 Shadowdancer's Silent Image. What are the exact limitations of "duration: concentration"? Can I divide my attention at all, moving; and/or perhaps even initiating, or simply passively continuing Stealth?

If I use it at the very very end of my turn, is the image a viable target during the enemy's coming turn? If so I guess it's just standing still? I don't know, if you use up your last action casting Silent Image normally, you likewise don't really have time to move it around do you?

And can you cast spell-like abilities without disrupting stealth? If I'm stealthed in a shadowy area then Shadow Jump to another, can I attempt to maintain my stealth there, unbroken?

Ty

So I'm looking at the Quicken Spell-Like Ability (Monster) feat in combination with a level 10 Shadowdancer's Silent Image. What are the exact limitations of "duration: concentration"? Can I divide my attention at all, moving; and/or perhaps even initiating, or simply passively continuing Stealth?

If I use it at the very very end of my turn, is the image a viable target during the enemy's coming turn? If so I guess it's just standing still? I don't know, if you use up your last action casting Silent Image normally, you likewise don't really have time to move it around do you?

And can you cast spell-like abilities without disrupting stealth? If I'm stealthed in a shadowy area then Shadow Jump to another, can I attempt to maintain my stealth there, unbroken?

Ty

Oh, also, can I store it in a Ring of Spell Storing with its augment? Scribe it on scrolls?

Range, targets, touch, duration, description of Chill Touch all assume you have already casted the spell. It's technically misleading and 'wrong', cause touching a creature isn't part of casting the spell, that's just how it's used after casting it. The standard action isn't used to target that first recipient of the spell, and you can see how it (the standard action/casting) ambivalently turns into 'this melee touch attack' by the end of the description.

But I can understand why they'd describe it that way for convenience of describing the effect. It's pretty redundant and not useful to just fill those slots with "self" "self" "self" for each of these spells.

That said, it's a complex, as in multi-part, spell. The spell charges your hand, and you deliver the charge physically at some point after having casted it. RAW you can't cast this spell on your weapon, RAW your weapon cannot carry out a multi-step spell effect, RAW your weapon literally casts the spell on the opponent. Honestly whatever it says in the descriptors, Chill Touch is not a 'targeting spell', and if you know what it does you should know this. For these purposes that RAW is clearly a fluke.

That said, it's magic, you can always just improvise the weapon to deal with 'part' of a spell or a 'charge', or let the caster mush a Touch spell into one fluid effect (as if casting a charge directly into an opponent), but this alters the literal, existing mechanism of either the spell or the weapon ability. Spell Storing deals with a whole spell. Touch spells are made to imbue the caster's hand with a stable, static charge (or charges), that's its 'programming'. It's quite believable and passable to make slight improvisations in this 'programming', ('Oh, it turns out the magic weapon could handle that too!'/I could make the spell work this way too!') but as it stands, without that stretch of imagination, no. If you previously assumed you could just put touch spells in a Spell Storing weapon, you were wrong.

Smoke pellets only make a 5 foot square, Smoke Bombs is 15 ft radius and lasts like a Smokestick. Totally different league.