SGriffit's page

Thats not what I said. Read the spell.

And like I said in the beginning, for purposes of this, every stealth beats every perception. So no matter how many you roll, you lose.

The only rule support against it, is the legality of the movement, which they believe the enemies to be aware of.
"I cannot enter that square THEREFORE there is an invisible enemy"

The spell invisibility states I can (as the invisible person) determine who my foes are. Its up to me not them. If you don't believe me, read it. Obviously, you're silly statement about yelling I'm a friend after your fireball doesnt apply. It should be reasonable to say I treat him like an ally and let him pass.

The problem I see, is there is ABSOLUTELY NOTHING that supports using a characters attempt at an illegal move into a square as proof of an invisible opponent. Or else every movement impediment unknown to the players would be treated as an invisible opponent.

"You cant move there/youll have to chose another path"
"Why not?"
"You're not sure, the reason is unknown"
"At what point does my movement become invalid"
"Here"
"There is an invisible guy there. Whack."

You assume the conversation to be between the character and God.
I assume that conversation to be between GM and Player.
If you don't know why you are trying to make an illegal move, you don't know why. To use the knowledge that you were trying to make an illegal move to help locate an invisible creature as a player, is labeled metagaming.
How is it different as a GM?

Touching someone has rules. Perception or waiving arms. I have yet to see ANYTHING about attempting illegal movement as a valid technique.

SGriffit wrote:

Hello board! came up today, looked for a while, couldn't find a real thread on it:

Situation:
Im invisible. I move. (for intents of this consider every stealth to beat any perception to detect)
An enemy goes to move through the square I am now in (coincidence).

At some point, he tries to enter my square this is where I butted heads with GM.

from the GMs perspective, although he(the enemy) failed to detect me via normal means, he knows me to be in that square because he cannot enter or end his turn there. So because of mechanics, the enemy can deduce an opponent is nearby because god stops him or tells him he cannot end his turn there.

What I have seen many times in the past, and also what I attempted to do, which was silently let him slip through, forgoing any attack of opportunity so he had no reason to suspect. The response to that was, 'there is no rule that lets you let an enemy pass through your square' which is, technically correct. However, 'there is also no rule that allows for' what the GM claimed either.(which was you "sense" invisible creatures when you try to enter their square, when sensing invisible creatures is explicity what perception is for.)

Is there anything to this? Or is it just another table variance discussion? It seems unlikely that due to a mechanical hole, you can pinpoint invisible creatures without a perception check.

To me, the GMs adjudication implies the creatures involved to have a somewhat '4th wall' understanding of the game's mechanics.

"Gee steve, I can't end mah turn here....must be an divisible guy"
Whack.

Your GM made a bad call, there are rules to move through someones square that he could use as the basis for this. For this scenario Acrobatics seems applicable. (Overrun which would be more applicable if the creature is charging.)

The enemy effectively makes an Acrobatics check with a result of 'it doesn't matter what he rolls, you are not blocking it'.

It doesn't matter that he is not trying to do...

This is also what I was thinking, but as a PFS table, I have to try to find as much hard rule support as I can, and have yet to be able to locate willingly getting hit. I know you can willingly fail a save, but have been unable to find something about taking 1 on CMD.

I guess you guys are also ignoring that touch is covered under perception. So I dont see how he bumps me knowing im there when he failed his perception check, and is not actively searching for me via the method you described.

The rules I see under invisibility say that I can choose to consider him NOT A FOE, meaning I can allow him through.

The rules under perception say in order to use your senses to detect me you roll a perception check.

Your standard action touch thing is legit also, but that requires a touch attack with miss chance. Which was not what the enemy was doing so irrelevant.

So far nothing in the rules supports automatically perceiving creatures you pass through or (try to) end your turn in.

My understanding is the character never tried to move into the illegal square, so he chooses another square, he is not aware he was barred from entering the first square because he never tried to, it is illegal.

Your understanding is the rules bounce him out of the square alerting him to the presense of an invisible enemy.

There are already plenty of rules we have discovered for detecting invisibility. See invisibilty, invis purge, standard action waive with miss chance, perception check, water displacement or the like (as described under the spell invisibility). However, nowhere have I seen anything that says trying illegal movement is a method for detection.

I would love another solution other than find a new GM, as this is a very rare occasions of disagreement between us and he is a great GM. After 41 posts I do believe it to just come down to table variance, you have shown me a few more pieces to solidify my stance that I will show him and see if it changes his mind. If not, oh well, I'll file it under 'barely comes up anyway'

A few things,

Glamer: A glamer spell changes a subject's sensory qualities, making it look, feel, taste, smell, or sound like something else, or even seem to disappear.

Easily within the description of illusion (glamer) to mask all senses, yes I know scent exists and has rules for interacting with invisibility.

Also under invisibilty, I found my final most obvious piece of rules support. The spell itself speaks for me.

"..Of course, the subject is not magically silenced, and certain other conditions can render the recipient detectable (such as swimming in water or stepping in a puddle). If a check is required, a stationary invisible creature has a +40 bonus on its Stealth checks. This bonus is reduced to +20 if the creature is moving. The 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. Exactly who is a foe depends on the invisible character's perceptions."

Under the spell it is my choice if you are foe or ally, giving yet another example of why you can let someone walk through you, as it is your choice if they are your enemy.

The rules for perception are not the only rules in the book. You're conveniently ignoring the other rules regarding being able to pass though or occupy the same squares as other creatures.

It's also common sense (although admittedly not spelled out terribly well in the rules) that being invisible should only make it harder to be detected by visual means, not other tactics such as by scent or by touch.

Finally, Pathfinder is a turn-based combat system, and isn't going to match reality perfectly in most situations. While it would make sense just to step out of the way if you were not in combat rounds, you are essentially stuck in your square while in combat barring things that specifically move you.

Thus, you would need a specific rule to allow you to dodge their movement. I actually gave an example of one earlier available to everyone: use a ready action to move out of their way.

---

As an aside, I do feel the GM may have run this incorrectly if the monster had no awareness of your character lurking around invisible, yet still decided to hunt you out by conveniently wandering into your square. But this is more an issue of the GM playing monsters realistically, rather than a fault with the actual tactic.

Im not ignoring the rule, I fully understand the rule stated. We just understand it differently.

I understand it to mean
You cannot legally chose that square as a square to move in. (The monster is not aware of this, as it would mean the creatures involved have an understanding of the games mechanics.) So the creature in question chooses a different LEGAL square. He wasnt bounced from that square by an invisible force, he never tried to move into it. (The rules to support this have been linked above)

You understand it to mean
I tried to enter the square and was stopped somehow... clearly there is a creature there.

That by my understanding, is textbook meta-gaming.

Also, you do realize you just said "if something is invisible, its only harder to see, not touch"...

Perception does not necessarily involve touching - you can spot invisible creatures without moving from your space!

Why is walking around an area with your arms spread out not a valid method of detecting invisible things in the room. Go and play Blind Mans Buff and tell me it isn't. You get an attack of opportunity and the searcher still takes their miss chance of they have an action left to attack.You can even ready a move if you really want to stay out of sight. If a player was say pressing themselves against the wall give them a chance to avoid the searcher.

It doesn't invalidate the scabbard combat trick as that allows you to Attack without miss chance, not move from your square or provoke an attack of opportunity.

The obvious flaw in that method is I am not a stationary object and can move in opposition of your silly hand waiving. Also, keep in mind, I was one of 5 PCs, he was moving to engage another enemy, not searching for an invisible opponent.

Waiving your hands as per the rules is a perception check. Opposed by my stealth. If you fail...you dont perceive me. I dont see how you can say you fail all the other senses except touch.

Walking around an area to try to bump into and find an invisible foe is a tactic I've seen used quite a few times. It's really not that unreasonable of an idea if you already suspect an invisible creature is in the area.

If the GM is using this tactic with a savvy foe, they should do their best to keep their GM knowledge separate from the creature's. I've seen GMs ask that the character remove their mini from the board and secretly mark their location on a piece of paper. They then move the monster around and the player informs the GM if they've bumped into them.

A way to partially defeat this tactic is for the invisible person to ready an action to move out of the way if the foe tries to enter their square, which will often allow them to avoid detection unless the foe does a lot of backtracking.

Saying this tactic works is directly at odds with the perception skill, and other feats out there such as equipment trick (scabbard) which lets you, as a move action, swing your scabbard into an adjacent square in order to detect invisible enemies.

There may be more information needed.

If this is a combat situation where everyone is going in initiative, and of course where everyone is doing their actions within the same 6 seconds, I don't think there is a problem. You were in the square and he got too close and was able to detect you. Probably bumped into you when he was trying to move into/through the space.

If this was a series of actions outside of initiative then I think that it should have been a bit more free form. You mention you are trying your best to avoid detection and if there is a guy moving and he will potentially move into you, you get to sidestep.

My problem with the accidental bumping is, touching something is part of perception. If you fail your perception, you fail to touch me, as per the skill.

Hello board! came up today, looked for a while, couldn't find a real thread on it:

Situation:
Im invisible. I move. (for intents of this consider every stealth to beat any perception to detect)
An enemy goes to move through the square I am now in (coincidence).

At some point, he tries to enter my square this is where I butted heads with GM.

from the GMs perspective, although he(the enemy) failed to detect me via normal means, he knows me to be in that square because he cannot enter or end his turn there. So because of mechanics, the enemy can deduce an opponent is nearby because god stops him or tells him he cannot end his turn there.

What I have seen many times in the past, and also what I attempted to do, which was silently let him slip through, forgoing any attack of opportunity so he had no reason to suspect. The response to that was, 'there is no rule that lets you let an enemy pass through your square' which is, technically correct. However, 'there is also no rule that allows for' what the GM claimed either.(which was you "sense" invisible creatures when you try to enter their square, when sensing invisible creatures is explicity what perception is for.)

Is there anything to this? Or is it just another table variance discussion? It seems unlikely that due to a mechanical hole, you can pinpoint invisible creatures without a perception check.

To me, the GMs adjudication implies the creatures involved to have a somewhat '4th wall' understanding of the game's mechanics.

"Gee steve, I can't end mah turn here....must be an divisible guy"
Whack.

The redemption entry of the Atonement spell fits your needs. It also gives some roleplaying fuel. You seek out a Priest of ______, and seek to walk a new path.

Having no material component means cost would just be the NPC spellcasting services cost, which shouldnt be that costly. Perhaps the GM could waive the cost in exchange for clerical services rendered in the future to your new church.

Atonement is the in game justification for just using an eraser.

You mind is muttled, makes it hard to do anything 100% effectively. I go with #3, mainly because in 3.5 there was a higher level spell that actually included the text for using the most deadly means. Ive searched for the spell, but seem unable to find it at this time.

Were I GM'ing and this situation arose, I don't think I would have any issue with the PC choosing to stay dead helping out the others. I haven't found anything specifically allowing or disallowing it, so it will probably come down to the GM's discretion. I guess what I'm saying is, expect table varaition. Unless someone else comes along with a post or a quote addressing this situation.

Fair enough, I am the GM in question here, I see no reason to say no, I actually asked the other GM and he gave me an affirmed 'yes' so I went with it, in the immortal words of Han Solo..

"I can fix this!"

A situation arose in a game that I have not found the wording to support.

The things that matter:
Tier 3-4
TPK with body recovery required.

Now, one of the party members wanted to accept his death and donate his gold on hand to another PC to help him defer the cost of his raise. FAQ and GTOP reviewed, I see nothing that specifically excludes this. To be clear, the question proposed is: Can a dead character opt-in to the pooling resources clause of the GTOP?

The initial decision was 'No' with no source of reference. Upon further inspection I am no longer sure that is the case.

If you say no, please cite some sort of reference.
Thank you

Check out Polypurpose Panacea, its how I get the "drug user" concept with no negatives. I doubt your GM would have a problem with it simulating a different effect than hallucinations.

So "reflex negates" apparently is meaningless for this spell. Since a reflex save does not negate it according to Mr. Reynolds' ruling. Upon casting of this spell your target is either dropping his weapon or taking fire damage regardless of the saving throw.
I don't see why it doesn't work similar to grease...if you try to grease someones weapon and they succeed initially, the spell is over.

My question would be how do you roll over a 20. You're physically rolling dice for this ability unlike crane wing or deflect arrows which are just "No you don't hit me" abilities. If the wording was you expend an attack of opportunity to make an attack against you kiss I'd say it could negate a natural 20 but it specifies that the roll has to be higher. If it said equal too or higher, like a regular to hit roll vs ac, then maybe but it's specifically only on a higher roll. Could be wrong but I have a feeling this will be closer to the intent than building in a crane wing style deflect that you can then also stack the real deal on top of.

It is referring to the modified attack roll. (d20+modifier)

Hey guys, I tried to post this in the class discussion forum for the advanced class guide but for some reason it wouldn't let me add a new thread. This scenario came up in a PFS game today and both the GM and I were stumped. So here goes:

Scenario:
Swashbuckler attempts to use his opportune parry ability. Enemy rolls a natural 20 to hit (modified to an AC of 22). Swashbuckler's parry roll is also a natural 20 (modified to a 28).

Issue:
Natural 20's always hit.

The opportune parry ability reads:
"The swashbuckler makes an attack roll as if she were making an attack of opportunity. If her attack roll is greater than the roll of the attacking creature, the attack automatically misses."

So, I see two outcomes here.

One- It's a natural 20. You get hit. Suck it up wussy.
Two- since the modified attack roll of the parry is higher than the modified attack roll of the attack, the attack gets parried as normal ignoring the fact that it was a natural 20.

If you agree with outcome two, would you also agree if the parry attack roll wasn't a natural 20 but still higher than the modified natural 20? (I.E. a 15 modified to a 23)

Assumptions:

• You have multiple pantheons (i.e. the orc pantheon, the elf pantheon, the desert human pantheon, etc) in the setting.
  
• Deity list length varies in size depending on values important to each society.
  
• Deities from different pantheons can overlap (i.e. orc god of war has similar areas of concern and domains as the hobgoblin areas of concern and domains, even if the stories about each are completely different)
  
• Average person worships a whole pantheon. Clerics, however, specialize on a particular deity. (i.e. whole orc clan worships whole orc pantheon, but there are 3 clerics in the whole clan, one for each of the 3 deities that the orcs venerate above all others)
  

With all that in mind, how would you handle a pantheon with only 1 deity in it? Thoughts?

If you go through the Greyhawk deities you will find one called Pholtus. This deity is basically Medieval fantasy Catholicism. One of his concepts was that the "other deities" were just aspects of him. He was the one true god. Perhaps reading about him will give you some insight into how that might work.