Shinigaze's page

Shinigaze wrote:

Ximen Bao wrote:

Shinigaze wrote:

As an interesting aside, does this mean that if a shadowdancer with Hide in Plain Sight walks through an enemie's threatened square that the enemy immediately gets an AoO even though he does not know that the shadowdancer is there?

He would be able to take an AoO. Just as he would be able to make a melee attack on his turn against an invisible ninja within melee range. If the enemy doesn't know the ninja is there, would it make the attacks it could make in either case? Probably not.

But the difference is that attacking an invisibe ninja's square on your turn is a concious choice that requires you to know (or at least assume) that the ninja is in that square. On the other hand a shadowdancer using Hide in Plain Sight does not prevent others from using AoOs on him and when he moves through a threatened square automatically provokes an AoO from the enemy.

Taking an AoO is a conscious choice as well.

An argument could be made that it is not, namely from this rule:

Making an Attack of Opportunity: An attack of opportunity is a single melee attack, and most characters can only make one per round. You don't have to make an attack of opportunity if you don't want to. You make your attack of opportunity at your normal attack bonus, even if you've already attacked in the round.

An attack of opportunity “interrupts” the normal flow of actions in the round. If an attack of opportunity is provoked, immediately resolve the attack of opportunity, then continue with the next character's turn (or complete the current turn, if the attack of opportunity was provoked in the midst of a character's turn).

Shinigaze wrote:

As an interesting aside, does this mean that if a shadowdancer with Hide in Plain Sight walks through an enemie's threatened square that the enemy immediately gets an AoO even though he does not know that the shadowdancer is there?

He would be able to take an AoO. Just as he would be able to make a melee attack on his turn against an invisible ninja within melee range. If the enemy doesn't know the ninja is there, would it make the attacks it could make in either case? Probably not.

But the difference is that attacking an invisibe ninja's square on your turn is a concious choice that requires you to know (or at least assume) that the ninja is in that square. On the other hand a shadowdancer using Hide in Plain Sight does not prevent others from using AoOs on him and when he moves through a threatened square automatically provokes an AoO from the enemy.

As an interesting aside, does this mean that if a shadowdancer with Hide in Plain Sight walks through an enemie's threatened square that the enemy immediately gets an AoO even though he does not know that the shadowdancer is there?

What's more interesting is that if he still failed his perception check he would be unsure as to why exactly he attacked that seemingly empty square.

Shinigaze wrote:

Dear James,

I know stealth has always been a point of contention on the forums but I have a question in regards the the Shadowdancer and Assassin's Hide in Plain Sight supernatrual ability. If a shadowdancer is standing is standing within 10' of an area of dim light does the ability let him use stealth against everybody? Or, can he not stealth against people who have for instance Low Light Vision who do not perceive the area around him as dim light but instead see it as normal light?

A point of contention in some places on the forums, perhaps. I like to think they're not a point of contention here! :-)

If a shadowdancer is within dim light and can thus use Hide in Plain Sight, yes, that lets him try to Stealth against everyone. Low Light Vision and darkvision don't particularly help or limit this.

From the mouth of James Jacobs here is his ruling.

Steath - 25' from torch, is DIM LIGHT Present, regardless of elf perception? YES. Does it stop elf from seeing? NO

HiPS - 25' from torch, is DIM LIGHT Present, regardless of elf perception? YES. Does it stop elf from seeing? YES

Except it doesn't stop the elf from seeing anything. It just ALLOWS the shadowdancer to make a stealth check. There is every possibility that the elf can make his perception roll against the Shadowdancer's stealth check and still see him.

At some point, somewhere in the argument, you have got to agree to the fact that via stealth, your claim applies what the elf perceives (actual DIM LIGHT state doesn't matter) and at another point in your argument, via HiPS you claim what the elf perceives does not matter, (actual DIM LIGHT state does matter)even though there is no EXPLICT statement stating as such.

That's because this is a game of checks and balances, you take the relevant rules on one side, and apply the rules from the other side to determine what happens.

When using normal stealth you have:

A: I am in dim light, I have concealment and am unobserved so I stealth and you can't see me.
B: Yup.
C: Yup.
D: Hold on, I have LLV and so the dim light you are in does not provide concealment and therefore you are not stealthed from me.

When using HiPS:

A: I am 10' from dim light, I do not need concealment or be unobserved so I stealth and you can't see me.
B: Yup.
C: Yup.
D: Hold on, I have LLV and so the dim light you are in does not provide concealment and therefore you are not stealthed from me.
A: Does LLV alter the dim light to normal light?
D: No.
A: Then I am still stealthed to you because I do not need concealment to stealth.

Or for simplicities sake:

Steath - 25' from torch, is DIM LIGHT Present, regardless of elf perception? YES. Does it stop elf from seeing? NO
HiPS - 25' from torch, is DIM LIGHT Present, regardless of elf perception? YES. Does it stop elf from seeing? NO

But we have to apply a third question to the second situation:

Does it allow the Shadowdancer to make a stealth check? Yes.

Nothing about HiPS is negating or stopping the elve's LLV from operating as per normal. If the elf beats the Shadowdancer's stealth check then he would still be in an area of normal light as per the elf's perception, and would not benefit from the miss chance. The only thing that HiPS is doing is allowing the Shadowdancer to hide in places that your standard rogue cannot, which makes sense as it is a Prestige Class that requires you to be level 5 before you can even start taking levels into it and allows you to be a better rogue.

Dear James,

I know stealth has always been a point of contention on the forums but I have a question in regards the the Shadowdancer and Assassin's Hide in Plain Sight supernatrual ability. If a shadowdancer is standing is standing within 10' of an area of dim light does the ability let him use stealth against everybody? Or, can he not stealth against people who have for instance Low Light Vision who do not perceive the area around him as dim light but instead see it as normal light?

You are misrepresenting the claim though. In our claim this is a simple boolean expression.

HiPS Stealth
As a computer would see my claim:
A Shadowdancer wants to HiPS.

Radius within 10' of shadowdancer is DIM LIGHT = X

If X=true then
HiPS can be used
Else
HiPS cannot be used

Where we have the disconnect is again if the subjective perception fo light determines if the X is true or not.

On our side of the arguement it is not "Can the elf see through DIM LIGHT at that square and all squares with 10' of Shadowdancer? Doesn't matter" and that is a gross misrepresentation of our argument much like some of us misrepresented your argument earlier in the thread.

Our side of the argument is:

Can the elf see through DIM LIGHT at that square and all squares with 10' of Shadowdancer? Yes
Does the elf seeing dim light as normal light change it to normal light? No.
Thus X=true as there is DIM LIGHT present within 10' and HiPS can be used.

1)You have stated that you agree that the actual lighting level does not change due to who is perceiving it, i.e. an orc in darkness does not alter the lighting conditions to normal light.

2) Again HiPS says: A shadowdancer can use the Stealth skill even while being observed. As long as she is within 10 feet of an area of dim light, a shadowdancer can hide herself from view in the open without anything to actually hide behind. She cannot, however, hide in her own shadow.

Please explain to me why exactly you believe that if the lighting conditions do not change the DIM LIGHT in that area is insufficient to allow the character to use his ability.

Also, you sometimes fall back on an argument that you don't think HiPS should, as you see it, "negate" the special visions of some races and yet you fail to see how if we operate from the way you rule that it would make this ability and the class in general effectively useless.

Which is the part that confuses me the most. We have already established on both sides that the lighting levels do not change. What a character perceives does not alter the physical world itself. Then we take a look at HiPS:

A shadowdancer can use the Stealth skill even while being observed. As long as she is within 10 feet of an area of dim light, a shadowdancer can hide herself from view in the open without anything to actually hide behind. She cannot, however, hide in her own shadow.

It does not say "As long as she is within 10 feet of an area of dim light relevant to the observer"

It does not say "As long as her enemies perceive her to be within 10 feet of an area of dim light"

It says you have to be within 10' of dim light period.

My point is that "As long at that dim light is there, it satisfies the requirement for using stealth to hide herself from view."

Also applies to NORMAL STEALTH, so if you are saying it is there no matter how the ELF perceives it, No matter if the elf sees through it or not, it would apply to both.

This is an utter fallacy, NORMAL STEALTH requires cover/concealment which DIM LIGHT provides. The rogue using NORMAL STEALTH would not be able to hide because the elf perceives the area to be NORMAL LIGHT and would not confer the cover/concealment that the rogue requires to hide.

HiPS requires just DIM LIGHT to be present it does not use the cover/concealment that DIM LIGHT provides because HiPS specifically negates the need for it. You have already agreed that an elvs LLV does not change the actual light levels just the perceived light levels as relevent to the person with LLV. Because the actual light level is still DIM LIGHT that is all that is required for the shadowdancer to use his HiPS.

Alright, you seem to agree that light levels do not change, this means that the shadows present do not change. The Shadowdancer's HiPS ability does not care if you have darkvision or low light vision, all it cares about is if you have an area of dim light within 10'.

Even using your idea of light being subjective the Shadowdancer perceives an area of dim light 10' from him, he then activates HiPS which allows him to use stealth even while being observed and without cover. If an elf with low light vision is looking at the same area and does not see dim light within 10' of the shadowdancer it does not matter as the shadow is present for the shadowdancer. As you have already stated light levels do not change therefore shadows do not change and therefore the act of the elf perceiving the area of shadow that the shadowdancer is using does not magically illuminate the shadow and cause the shadowdancer's HiPS to fail as the shadow is still there.

If we use your idea of light being subjective HiPS specifically states that the shadowdancer can hide IN PLAIN SIGHT if there is an area of dim light within 10' then the shadowdancer should be able to close his eyes and hide from everything, because subjectively everything is in an area of dim light now and HiPS allow him to hide from everything regardless of if they can see in the dark or not.

Nearyn - I am not looking to house rule it. I believe that my examples and logic give a basis to prove my claim.

Except your logic is flawed and based on the premise that fundamental aspects of the world are subjective. If I have fire immunity, that burning building over yonder does not cease to be on fire. If I am immune to positive energy, the positive energy plane does not cease to exist. If I have DR Infinite/- weapons do not stop existing. You are implying some form of reality warping perception ability that does not exist. Elements of the physical world are not subjective, your perception of them might be but just because you perceive something differently does not mean that reality is altered to your perception.

I understand that you disagree. That is fine. I would not say you are "houseruling" it because you disregard any benefit of Low Light Vision or Darkvision. I would say that you feel those are the rules.

Yes, we are disregarding "any" benefit of Low Light Vision and Darkvision. (/sarcasm) This multitude of other instances where a character with darkvision could use it effectively to fight creatures without it apparently cease to exist because in this one instance it doesn't help him negate a core class ability. Hey I think i'm starting to see a pattern here!

I would say we disagree. Using my interpretation, all rules regarding vision are applied.

While disregarding the rules for HiPS yes.

Using your interpretation, Low Light and Darkvision do not apply at all. Can we agree upon this disagreement? Because that is the crux of our disagreement.

Because the rules for HiPS specifically state that you can hide while being observed. Once again, light and darkness are not subjective and this is crux of your argument. The dim light within 10' is a conditional modifier to HiPS which states that it must be present for the Shadowdancer to use HiPS. This is not Shcroedinger's room, the room is not both light and dark at the same time, the room has it's lighting conditions regardless of who views the room. Note, this does not change those areas to normal light.

I can find no logical reason why your way of ruling darkvision/low light vision in regards to darkness/light should work. Take for example the spell Deeper Darkness. You posit that a creature with darkvision is unaffected by darkness and treats it as normal light. Under your ruling that light is subjective that means that if someone cast Deeper Darkness on that area to try and create an area of supernatural darkness that creatures with darkvision would be able to see perfectly fine because the "normal light" that they are in goes two steps down to "darkness" which would be negated and put back to "normal light" by their darkvision. This is made doubly ridiculous by the fact that apparently characters without darkvision would be in an area of supernatural darkness.

Now add HiPS. The only thing it allows you to do is stealth up to 10' outside of the dim light. It gives you a larger area that you can stealth within.

Incorrect. HiPS also allows you to use stealth even while being observed and while having no cover. If a dwarf uses his darkvision to observe a shadowdancer then he cannot see him throught the use of darkvision because he is trying to observe the character which HiPS prevents.

Now I ask you if you agree that the above is logical? I am not asking if you would rule this way, or even if you think it is correct, but does it in fact appear to apply the rule in a consistent manner?

Your argument appears logical but it is predicated on a flawed assumption of what HiPS actually does.

I will agree, however, that there is no RAW either way.

Except for the RAW of HiPS which explicitly allows you to use it to hide in plain sight sure, why not?

In the real world light is always subjective to the observer. One person with dilated pupils will see more light than another without. In game light levels are all about what we can see, not some scientific measurement as to the photons or whatever makes up light.

Incorrect, light is never subjective. Light is a form of energy that is present in the physical world regardless of if I view it. If I close my eyes the amount of light in an area does not fluctuate, my perception of how much light there is might change but THAT is what is subjective, not light.

Logic does not seem to agree with the idea that the vision type does not matter.

Logic does not usually come into play when discussing magic.

On the other hand, the feat Hellcat Stealth and the spell Shadow Walk are problems with the way I would rule it. I chalk it up to a miniscule detail, albeit important one, that the designers did not consider when designing the game. I had never used or read either until today.

If the way you rule things comes into direct conflict with multiple rules inherent to the system, and the way others interpret those rules only come into conflict with the one rule you are arguing, then Occam's Razor would indicate that we are not the incorrect ones.

Schroedinger's Darkened Room! It is both dark and not dark at the same time!

Drakkiel wrote:

@James: Assassin's HiPS is also (SU)...just wanted to avoid confusion with anyone that wanted or IS playing an assasssin

My apologies.. for some reason I thought that it was EX. Weird.

Thanks for the catch,

James

I think the confusion might have stemmed from the fact that the Ranger HiPS is EX while assassin and shadowdancer is Su.

I make no ruling as to how they hide. I don't care if they bring shadows from another realm or if they turn into shadow, or if they just hide in or around shadow. None of that matters to me nor has anything to do with my claim. My claim actually has nothing to due with HiPS.

My only claim is that the lighting condition is based on the observer. If a human was to attack the square indicated in my example, he would suffer a 20% miss chance. If an elf were to do it, he would not. If a half-orc was 65' away, he would also suffer a 20% miss chance. If the half-orc were 35' away, he would not.

In all these cases it is clear that the condition of the square is relevant to the observer.

My claim is only that it would also apply to the use of HiPS, or stealth in general. And in this case, that would extend to 10' from an area of dim light, as perceived by the observer.

What you are saying is that the existance or non-existance of certain fundamental aspects of the world is determined subjectively. Just because you are able to perceive in darkness, does not mean that the darkness is not there. The Shadodancer's HiPS ability is a Su ability that requires dim light as a condition to activate, nothing in there says that the dim light/shadow/darkness is even used in the act of hiding. You ay that the lighting condition is based on the observer, which would mean that a character with darkvision is in normal light when in natural darkness. If the lighting condition is based on the observer, then when an enemy spellcaster cast Deeper Darkness that would mean that the lighting condition for a character with darkvision goes down 2 steps to ........ Darkness? This is patently ridiculous and thus we can only assume that darkness is an objective quality that is present regardless of who is observing it. This means that if a shadowdancer is standing within an area of darkness, and is surrounded by half-orcs, he can still use those shadows to HIDE in PLAIN SIGHT notice the ability is not called Hide in Obscured Sight? This is to show that you are able to be standing directly in front of the enemy waving your arms up and down and doing jumping jacks so long as the conditions are met and you are using the Su ability of HiPS.

If you don't apply it based on the observer, how could you run your game? You take away a huge tactical advantage of the elf and half-orc. If the encounter is elves vs. elves and the shadowdancer is an elf, do you still say he can hide at 25' from a torch?

The only logical way to adjudicate it is to base it on the observer. Type of vision matters just as much as other senses, such as tremorsense, that can be used to thwart the ability.

On the other side you take away a huge tactical advantage of the shadowdancer CLASS by allowing anything with Darkvision (see almost every monster past CR5) to bypass a core ability of said class. Also, you are precluding said races from being a shadowdancer because if they have darkvision they will never be within 10' of dim light as their darkvision extends out 60'.

Time to reroll my Half-Orc Shadowdancer as apparently I can never be within 10' of dim light as my darkvision extends 60'.

Drejk wrote:

GeraintElberion wrote:

Thanks for the translation. 'Mobs' is really counter-intuitive to me.

Because it is strictly computer game term referring to game code. There is absolutely no excuse to use it during table top game.

According to some, having that opinion makes you a horrible, stupid, ignorant neckbeard t&~#, who only comes out of your cave to pretentiously declare your hobbies superior to all others.

So watch out!

Now this statement right here is the problem. You are adopting the "use my lingo or get the f@#$ out" mentality. Aside from your ridiculous example earlier you have only given examples of terms which you know but dislike when people use at your table. Here's an over the top example forr you:

Player: "Dang, my toon died, guess I'll roll a new one."

GM:"YOUR WHAT?!?!?!!??"

Player: "My toon? You know, the character I'm playing."

GM:"I KNOW WHAT A TOON IS!!!! THAT TERM IS UNACCEPTABLE AT MY TABLE!!! YOU EITHER USE PC OR CHARACTER OR YOU CAN GET THE F#$% OUT OF MY GAME!!!!"

You can dislike how I speak, you can ask politely for me to stop using it if it is hampering the game, but nothing gives you the right to tell me how to speak especially if you understand what I am saying and are only asking me to speak differently because you are annoyed. The statement of "there is absolutely no excuse to use it during a table top game" really equates to "I am going to try and force you to speak the way I like solely because I feel I am the most important person here and you should think so too!". Also, BBT's hilariously vindictive comment only shows that he sees one side to this argument and that is that nobody has the right to speak in a way that is contrary to his views on what is right and wrong.

It is considered polite to notify about any changes made to the quote from the original form. They do not tell you that they want to speak about bold part, they tell you that they added the bold style as it wasn't the part of the quoted text in the first place.

Ah, ok then. I guess I saw some people using it incorrectly then because I have seen people on the forums asking "Is there a rule x for situation y?" and someone will post the word for word rules from the CRB with the section that they need bolded and use the emphasis mine statement.

One odd quirk i've noticed that I never really understood is "emphasis mine". I have seen people post a quote, bold the part that they want to talk about and then precede the post explaining their views with "emphasis mine" like I somehow didn't know that they were going to talk about the bolded section of their quote? When did this start happening and what is the point? I am curious as I don't understand why people do it.

But he's a merc, he's not exactly part of the disciple or the pack. It'd be like the sheriff or mayor got you flogged for calling him a bad name, other than standard law and payment/duties, the leaders can't inflict physical pain, I think so anyhow, it seems obscure.

Most advices here sound like something happening in a modern, patriotic, or permanent army unit, which doesn't sound like mercs at all. He's offering a service (killing) to a customer (army). Calling your boss a c#~% doesn't really fit flogging unless perhaps it's a royalty and you're his subject.

"Watch Full Metal Jacket and A Few Good Men."
Those don't really fit because it's a law-enforced army unit for a country. If it was about a mercenary not agreeing with a General, they wouldn't humiliate or flog him, but terminate his contract and his reputation might take a hit.

It seems like the merc in question didn't cuss out the commander of the army they were contracted out to but the actual commander of the merceneary army that he is a part of. I guess the punishment would depend on how you established the merecenary force. Are they more professional? Or are they just a collection of anybody the commander could find to sign on?

My point, is that there are superior options for considerably lower cost.

Which is a fine point to make, but please stop confusing "there are better items" with "this is RAW". If better options influenced RAW then things like the Prone Shooter feat would not be completely useless. For those of you that don't know, prone shooter takes away the penalties to attack when firing certain ranged weapons prone, the only problem is there are no penalties for firing when prone so this feat does absolutely nothing.

One thing I see consistently argued is that boots of speed cost significantly less than Speed so that makes Speed bad, but lets take a look at what boots of speed would cost if it was following the same rules as speed.

5(Caster Level)*3(Spell Level)*2000(continuous use)*4(measured in rounds)*2(Slotless)= 240,000gp

You are getting an enhancement bonus to an item that if you were to try and replicate with the item creation rules would cost you almost ten times as much. You lose all of the other associated benefits from haste like movement and AC and then you pay roughly 13% of what it should cost. Does that seem overpriced to you?

If the speed property is warping time to make me swing faster allowing an extra attack, why am I only allowed to do it with that one weapon? why couldn't I take that extra attack with a different weapon.

In other words, your example doesn't make sense in this scenario.

See I think the argument about RAW here is all about semantics. Some people see "the wielder of a speed weapon may make one extra attack with it" and see a permissive text that let's you get an extra attack with that specific weapon. Whereas others see "the wielder of a speed weapon may make one extra attack with it" being a caveat or restrictive text saying that you only get one extra attack, but that attack is restricted to use with the weapon itself.

Also, ciretose I was not gloating, I was just excited that SKR came to the thread and posted. I already knew that Ashiel and others would not accept SKR's post as they said as much earlier in the thread so it would be kind of silly of me to gloat.

A speed weapon in your left hand, a speed weapon in your right hand, a speed amulet of mighty fists, and a haste spell cast on you are all "similar effects," and therefore they do not stack with each other: no matter how you try to set up this combo, you only get one extra attack per round, total.

In other news, a ring of fire resistance on your left hand, a ring of fire resistance on your right hand, a resist energy spell cast on you, and your natural tiefling fire resistance 5 are all "similar effects" and therefore do not stack with each other, even though they're from different sources...

Wooooooo! Although I question the effectivness of this post on convincing Ashiel as he already completely disregarded multiple quotes from SKR and James Jacobs saying "my interpretation is the correct one". But thank you nonetheless!

Ahh, what the hell, I'm bored might as well keep the argument going. I agree with the developers argument that an AoMF only grants one extra attack and not one for each attack. It is consistent with my earlier argument that the weapon is isolated from the wielder. With an AoMF, this isnt the case. The amulet imbues the user with it's abilites, the wielder IS the weapon. Therefore they would get only 1 extra attack from speed and zero from a haste effect (this is contrary to what I said earlier but I hadn't really given the AoMF much thought at the time).

This is an interesting take on the AoMF, except for the fact that there is absolutely nothing in the text of the AoMF which states this this could be an effective way of describing why a Speed AoMF would not grant the extra attacks that multiple speed weapons would if it worked that way.

For clarification:

Also, you cannot disregard FAQs and Dev input while still arguing that this is RAW. It always amazes me to see the extent people will go to not consider their ruling a houserule. I have seen people arguing their point and when James Jacobs makes a ruling they state "Well you don't have the word designer/developer in your title so your ruling doesn't count". I have seen these same people respond to a ruling from SKR saying "Well this is what the words in the book say so until you release a new book/errata that changes the words your ruling doesn't count!" I mean really? The developer states what was intended and if you do not like it then rule it differently but stop trying to argue it is RAW.

Obviously you cannot try and argue that your interpretation is the only interpretation of the RAW as otherwise this thread would not exist. The difference between the two sides of this argument though, despite the fact that your arguments are well thought out and have tempted me to switch sides, is that one side has the backing of the developers of Pathfinder.

If we disregard developer input when trying to determine RAW then we open the game up to even more unbalancing than is already present. For example, SKR has already said in the FAQ that an AoMF with speed doesn't grant an extra attack to every natural weapon on say a Marilith. The main reasoning behind this ruling was that he felt that a weapon enchancement that DOUBLES your DPR for only 45k is way too cheap and overpowered. But, if we disregard his rulings then obviously the RAW of the AoMF states that the enhancements apply to every natural attack and if we take your version of the RAW of the Speed enchantment then we get a Marilith that can one shot most party members with a full attack. This even extends to PCs though as unless i'm mistaken Eidolons can wear an AoMF and a natural attack fighter tiefling could get 6 attacks before reaching BAB 6.

But SKR ruled that you don't gain an extra attack for every natural attack while using a Speed AoMF so are we to assume that this is the exception to the rule? Nothing states that this ruling is an exception to any rule so we can only assume that the intent is that Speed does not stack with itself and if you do not get an extra attack for multiple natural attacks, that you do not get them for manufactured weapons either.

It is already a rule that you can't put the same enchantment on the same weapon twice.

There is no need to add the 'doesn't stack' line if the intention is that you can't put Speed on the same weapon twice.

The intention must be that the wielder can't benefit from Speed more than once per round.

Well, to play the devil's advocate here, the line in Speed that says it does not stack with similar effects only mentions Haste as an explicit example.

Lamontius is my hero! Two things, first I'm cannot be sure of the tone of AD's use of the word nerd but you seem to be using it in a derogatory manner(which is funny as he is well known on the forums of Pathfinder so I guess he's being facetious?) which I don't find appropriate even if you are trying to be funny.

EDIT: OOOOOOOHH, AD is talking TO the person with nerd in his forum name! That makes a lot more sense!

Second, people use slang and abbreviated phrases because it is easier for them to type out. I myself held your opinion about the abbreviated phrases because it frustrated me to have to look up new ones all the time and it seemed like they were arbitrary and people just made them up even if no one had ever used them before. After I learned what the phrases meant though I started using them because it was a lot easier to type out especially when I had to use the phrase multiple times.

People speak/type differently because of the changing times and the social situations that they grew up in. The people who use new slang/terms/abbreviated phrases are no more wrong in using them than you are for not changing with the times and adopting this new language. Words adopt new meanings all the time and the word toon adopted the meaning of "character" despite it's origins. Getting pissed off that someone is using a word that you don't use to describe their character is just plain silly. You are in effect being a Grammar Nazi but instead of actually correcting someone's grammar you are reprimanding them for using a word you don't like.

In conclusion: This sums up my feelings quite nicely.

A speed weapon gives an extra attack with a weapon with that property. Another speed weapon gives you an extra attack with a different weapon, a different effect.

Minor quibble, it is the same effect. The argument being made is that because the same effect is being applied to a separate object no stacking is taking place.

The weapon is not making an attack roll, the creature wielding it is.

"A masterwork weapon is a finely crafted version of a normal weapon. Wielding it provides a +1 enhancement bonus on attack rolls."

"The wielder of a speed weapon gains an extra attack with that weapon."

Both are properties granted to the wielder by the weapon.

If we go off of this logic then that means that the wielder of the Speed weapon is gaining the benefits of Speed. Because he is gaining the benefits of Speed he cannot gain the benefits of Speed from another weapon because it is a similar effect to Speed that the wielder is already benefiting from. A Speed weapon is in effect a continuous use item that casts a limited version of Haste on the target with the caveat that it can only be used with that weapon. The character not the weapon is gaining the benefits of Speed, and therefore is not allowed to gain the benefits of Speed again, or Haste.

If they have the same speed, and if the quarry is visible to trigger the ready, then move followed by Ready Action (Move, if he moves) will get an AoO if he moves, but not if he withdraws. Nice creative idea that puts the GM in the metagame hotspot.

This seems like a good idea until you realize that the question was how to deal with withdraw spamming. If your ready move action does not work to counteract withdrawing then it is not a solution to the question that was asked.

I'm pretty sure the ready action idea wouldn't work, at least in cases where both characters have the same speed. The idea here is that assuming the characters are 60' apart so that a double move puts you adjacent to the fleeing enemy using one move closes the gap to 30'. When you ready your action to him moving you either A)Interrupt his move before the movement takes place and so you are in the square that doesn't provoke or B) Interrupting his move after he has moved at least 5' which puts him 35' away which is 5' more than you can move.

Ah, okay then after going over the rules feint does say that after you use feint the next melee attack does not allow him to use his dex. So, if we are to extend from there all Greater Feint does is allow for the same mechanic to work until your next turn, i.e. melee attacks do not allow him to use his dex so ranged attacks should not work.

Well then I apologize if I came off as overly harsh. Tone not translating well over the internet I sometimes mistake what people are trying to say.

Personally I would say the miss chance would stack giving you a -32% chance to hit the right image. You can't take one rule and disregard another as it gives you a better chance to hit something, that's just utterly ridiculous in my opinion anyway.

Except for the fact that Mirror Image explicitly states that you need to see the images to be fooled by them I would totally agree with you. According to the RAW if you close your eyes you get a 50% miss chance and if you hit you hit the real target. It is kind of cheesy though to try and close your eyes to gain the benefits of blindness for one attack and then open them before your turn is over as SKR said in that thread Cheapy linked.

I find it funny that they list Mirror Image as a figment type illusion that creates a false sensation of being real and yet just closing your eyes can let you bypass it.

Feint allows you to make your opponent lose his Dex bonus to AC to your next attack and only your next attack. Greater Feint makes him lose that Dex bonus COMPLETELY until the start of your next turn and then also to your next attack. This means that every one of your allies can attack him and he does not receive his Dex to AC against any of their attacks.

This seems like a good idea. I was once in a campaign where the town we were in was just recently deserted and so we made a beeline to the magic mart to steal the magic items and our DM just had them sitting in cases with traps. We decided to only steal a few things so as not to outbalance the game but you can bet he learned from that mistake.

Tanglefoot bags are also overly risky. With a 10 foot range increment you're likely going to have serious penalties and if you miss there's no way you're going to catch the fleeing enemy. (Unless you're the speed 55 character I mentioned above).

I'll admit that it is a bit risky but assuming double moving puts you right up next the the enemy that means that using a single move action puts you 30ft out which is giving you a -4 on a touch attack. Also, does anyone know if tanglefoot bags would still work if you throw it at the square the target is in and not at the actual target?

4e handles this in few ways.

*There's no Withdraw as we know it. You can shift away as a move action (Shift being a 5-foot step) and then move away safely (effectively moving 35 feet away).

So despite there being no withdraw action you run into the same problem as you cannot move 35ft without using two moves.

*Pursuing characters can run as a move action. A run is a normal move plus two extra squares. This has the downside of imposing a -5 penalty on any attack you make that turn but at least you can catch the fleeing character and attack.

So you can take a high negative to attack to try and catch an enemy... this seems like a cool option for chasing down running foes.

*Alternatively, you can charge as a standard action (through difficult terrain).

I never really understood why you were not allowed to charge through difficult terrain, why not just let you charge through it and count up the squares at their increased cost? I would probably adopt this when I DMed.

What would you rule it means by "catching" the escaping foe? No rules are listed so would you rule that he gets a standard action or that the escaping character is already grappled and bound once he is caught?

Good! The relevent rules and quotes from devs have been posted, now we just need the person who was arguing against it to come to the thread so we can see if he is convinced.

Shinigaze wrote:

Link

Here is a link to a new thread I created in the rules forum to discuss this speed issue. I also quoted the FAQ post that john was referring to and SKR never said that the Speed property gives all natural attacks extra attacks although he did say that the main reason it was disallowed is that it would be too powerful.

Thank you Shinigaze!

You are quite welcome!

So some people was wrong on a forum. Is there a question hidden somewhere?

They don't stack... Read haste or speed or any of the "extra attack" abilities/spells they all say - don't stack..

The question I guess is hidden in the fact that I said that people were arguing about this issue, so I guess the question is does Speed stack with itself if the property is on a separate weapon? I opened a thread in the proper forum so that the people having an argument about this issue would not derail the original thread, I don't understand your need to post a snarky response.

Link

Here is a link to a new thread I created in the rules forum to discuss this speed issue. I also quoted the FAQ post that john was referring to and SKR never said that the Speed property gives all natural attacks extra attacks although he did say that the main reason it was disallowed is that it would be too powerful.

Please excuse the intentionally mistaken title. In a discussion on the advice forum some people made the mistaken claim that the Speed property stacks with Haste and also that Speed would stack with itself if the property were on different weapons. So as to not derail the thread I am making a new thread here so that a discussion can take place. Also, a claim was made that SKR said in the FAQ that the Speed property on an AoMF would give extra attacks to all natural weapons but was disallowed because the combination was too strong so I am posting the relevant FAQ here.

Amulet of Mighty Fists: If a creature with multiple natural attacks (such as bite/claw/claw) wears an amulet with the speed property, does it get one extra attack with each of its natural weapons?

No... mainly because that combination is way too good for monsters with multiple attacks, and gets better the more natural attacks a monster has. Doubling a creature's attacks per round is really powerful, even for 80,000 gp (the price of a +4 amulet).

—Sean K Reynolds, 07/29/11 Back to Top

Correct. Any terrain worth mentioning.

I don't consider sparsely scattered patches of difficult terrain 'near perfect design'. Most battles I've seen take place on maps with some degree of difficult terrain and/or blocking walls. A single patch of difficult terrain ~60’ apart is not some sort of dastardly escape plan.

Aha! I understand now, terrain without difficult terrain is apparently not terrain at all silly me!

Correct.

Your opponent withdraws 60'. Moving at speed 55 (requiring you to double move again), you get adjacent. He withdraws again. Your superior speed has accomplished nothing.

Any speed less than double the fleeing character's speed does nothing.

So you ARE talking about a 1v1 situation. Well if you are so hell bent on catching this fleeing opponent that you will completely abandon the rest of your party then I guess you are kind of out of luck.

We've already established that a group of people can pin down a fleeing character. I'm still interested in 1v1 options. Chasing a withdrawing opponent for an hour is not a viable option.

So you are so focused on catching this attacker that you leave your party behind but after an hour of chasing you just go "meh"? I don't really understand why you are so upset that a character with absolutely no preparation for catching a fleeing opponent is not able to catch one. You know what would help? Tanglefoot bags, ranged weapons, hell even a reach weapon. Draw it as part of your move action and when you get within 5 feet you threaten 10 feet out so you can still get your AoO and use a trip action. Don't like those options? Adopt the 4e chasing system as apparently it's better and use it as a house rule otherwise all you are accomplishing right now is complaining about an easily fixable situation.

The terrain isn't near perfect. Any terrain prevents charges.

False, the only terrain that prevents charges is difficult terrain, terrain with obstacles that interrupt your path, or dungeons with lots of sharp turns (and that only stops charges if you are in the situation you are currently in).

Superior speed does nothing unless your speed is literally double the fleeing character's.

False, if I move at 40' per move and you move at 30' per move then on a double move I am 20' closer to you than I was previously. If the enemy starts at 60' away it only takes you one round before you catch up to him to allow you to use a single move and your standard action assuming you go first. Unless of course this is a 1v1 situation, is it?

As for letting opponents flee, I don't normally mind but it comes up on occasion where an important opponent has to be captured or killed. It continues to strike me as odd that one single person can easily evade another (faster) person indefinitely with even the most minor amount of terrain.

As stated by others the person being chased will eventually tire out and be unable to run so this is less of a problem than you are making it out to be.

Well...

Our iconic barbarian, Amiri, does precisely this. She wields a Large bastard sword in one hand, and she does so by taking the Exotic Weapon Proficiency feat to use the weapon in one hand. Essentially, that lets her wield the weapon in one hand in the exact same way that a Medium character would wield ANY Large Medium weapon, like a Large longsword or a Large scimitar.

So... the fact that one of our iconic characters does this, and has done so for 5 years, means that it needs to be something that our game lets you do. Whether or not folks out there think you can or can't...

... you can.

Because one of our Iconics does it. And I'm not interested in interpreting the rules in any way that makes one of our iconic characters a rulesbreaker.

You did mean two right? Because the sizing rules for inappropriately sized weapons states that an appropriately sized one handed weapon when increased a size category requires two-hands to wield.

The debate I was referring to is the one where people assert that because of the descriptive text of the bastard sword you are able to wield a large bastard sword with two hands without Exotic Weapon Proficiency and also without taking the -4 non-proficiency penalty.

Ah, ok then never mind. I thought it was a standard action.