SeraphM's page

According to the feat:

Preferred Spell

Choose one spell which you have the ability to cast. You can cast that spell spontaneously by sacrificing a prepared spell or spell slot of equal or higher level. You can apply any metamagic feats you possess to this spell when you cast it. This increases the minimum level of the prepared spell or spell slot you must sacrifice in order to cast it but does not affect the casting time.

IMO, it seems that feat refers to a spell on the Sorc/Wiz spell list. However, depending upon the definition of the words ability to cast , Sorcs and other spont casters would only be able to cast it if it was a known spell, agreeing with your statement that the feat would be useless.

In the PFSRD, it mentions the -4 penalty to Dex and the -2 penalty to all attack rolls and CM checks that don't concern the grapple, but it does not say it restricts the grappled party to certain types of actions.

So, as long as the penalty is taken into account, I don't see why the grappled party couldn't full attack as long as it didn't require 2-handing the longsword.

Well, that depends. One could simply say that your GM or whoever didn't want it to work that way, and therefore it didn't.

However, it depends upon how the GM interprets the three bullet-points. Threatening to call the authorities might not be considered endangering it, and offering you the price you want might not fall under 'limited assistance'.

Still, I've never seen an Intimidated npc try to Intimidate back.

*edit. I agree with Pathos though, by nature of the definition of the word FORCE, the merchant should have cooperated for the time being.

According to the PFSRD, under the heading of Influencing Attitude, it says the following:

You can use Intimidate to force an opponent to act friendly toward you for 1d6 × 10 minutes with a successful check. The DC of this check is equal to 10 + the target’s Hit Dice + the target’s Wisdom modifier.

Success: If successful, the opponent will:

* give you information you desire
* take actions that do not endanger it
* offer other limited assistance

After the intimidate expires, the target treats you as unfriendly and may report you to local authorities.

Considering the sting at the end of this, Diplomacy is the far better option if you intend to keep using the same merchant, or you are attempting to avoid skirmishes and whatnot with local authorities.

Does [knife] cause damage? No.
Does [rope] cause damage? No.
Does [bridge] cause damage? No.

It would go Imp -> [bridge or rope] || [fall] -> [PC]

There is a clear break where the line of damage is concerned. The Imp and the bridge do not cause the damage. The damage is caused by the [fall], or in essence by [ground] breaking their fall.

Once again, I think it is a matter of chain of effect from invisible creature to damaged creature.

Invisible Imp can cut the rope on the bridge and kill the PCs. He remains invisible because he interacts with [rope], which does not in any way damage the PCs.

Invisible Imp can open portcullis to release attack dogs or summon creatures to do his bidding. He remains invisible because the decision to attack the PCs belongs to a third party [dogs] or [summon].

I think the key word in the entire description is REMOTELY.

The reason i think the Imp would lose invisibility in the case of the falling statue is because Imp interacts with [statue] which immediately falls and damages [PC/dwarf]. You can draw the cause of the damage as a direct line from Imp to PC, with the statue being in the middle.

Firing the trebuchet would require the Imp to directly interact with [trebuchet] which immediately fires at [PC]. There is a projectile that flies directly from [trebuchet] to [PC], which was fired by the Imp.

So Imp -> [trebuchet] -> [projectile] -> [PC]

Maybe the easiest way to do this is to draw a line. Although I understand in cases that this can get messy, it seems plain to me (at least currently).

Invisible creatures can cut ropes on a bridge filled with enemies. They can open doors, open a portcullis to release attack dogs, summon creatures, etc.

I think it is easiest to say this: if the object (not a secondary effect) that the invisible creature directly interacts with moves towards an enemy and deals damage as a result of the invisible creature's interaction, it should end the spell.

Feel free to disagree and say why, but that's how I view it.