Smallberries's page

I've changed my mind on this, a little bit, given StreamOfTheSky's and Rokugan's comments. Perhaps the spell effect should continue inside the sphere. I think it does; they make a good case. I would say the aqueous orb does not extend beyond the sphere - its effect is fully contained within the sphere.

Here's the controversial part: can you move the aqueous orb when it's inside a resilient sphere? I think you cannot. The ability to move the sphere is part of the spell effect, and since it's inside an object that does not permit spell effects through, I'd say no on that one.

I don't like this. If you had a bigger resilient sphere, maybe. But resilient sphere follows the same kind of mechanics as Wall of Force (it's not spelled out but it's pretty clear they mean this is a small, spherical wall of force).

Given that, I'd think a spell effect that took place inside the sphere, that was also larger than the sphere, would be cancelled. I'd probably also say that if you could make a sphere big enough to contain the spell effect, it would continue.

Basically, the tactic is OK, but you have to be much higher level to pull it off. I don't have anything to back this up with, that's just how I'd handle it.

That's a fair point, but I don't like using the "my way or the highway" argument.

First off, taking damage does not end invisibility. There's nothing to suggest it does. However, taking damage could cause the person who took it to cry out, making it easier to find where he is.

On the other hand, a fireball is going to create a big enough distraction that if he did cry out, it would be drowned out in the noise. I'd call it a wash. He remains invisible, no one knows where he is.

There are a couple things at issue here; there are prerequisites, spell prerequisites, and The Prerequisite.

The Prerequisite is that you have to have the appropriate feat, Craft Wondrous Item. If you don't have the feat, you can't craft items, and that's it. No -5, no anything, you have to have the feat, period. Same goes for rings, wands, scrolls, etc. You must have the feat to do it.

All the other prerequisites add to the cost, or add to the chance of failure, or both. But it is theoretically possible for a 3rd level caster to create a Robe of the Archmage, if he had access to that much money and luck.

The prerequisites are things like caster level, race or alignment you have to meet. If you don't meet them, it's a +5 to the spellcraft DC for each one you don't meet. So if you're a 3rd-level lawful good elf, and you're creating an item that requires you to be a 5th level lawful evil half-orc, that's +15 to the DC. You can still make the item, you just have a much tougher spellcraft check.

The spell prerequisites are similar, but add some additional cost. The idea is you have to cast the requisite spell on the item being crafted, every day, until the crafting is done. If you want to make an amulet of natural armor, you have to cast barkskin on the item once each day of the crafting. If you can't cast barkskin, you have to pay a druid to do it for you. You also incur a +5 to the DC, because you're not doing it yourself.

So in that case, let's say you're a level 3 wizard, creating an amulet of natural armor +1. That's a 2,000 gp item, so it takes 2 days to make. You have the craft wondrous item feat. Your caster level is 3 times the amulet's bonus (a requirement for this item). You do not meet the actual caster level for this item, which is 5th. That's +5 to the DC. You do not know Barkskin. That's another +5 to the DC. You also can't make the item unless you get someone to cast Barkskin on it twice. You hire a druid, it's 60 gold per casting, or 120 gold on top of the 1,000 gp for the amulet itself, for a total of 1,120 gp. The spellcraft check for this item is 20. The base of 5, plus the item's caster level (5), plus five for not meeting being of sufficient caster level (you're 3rd, the item's required level is five), plus five for not knowing Barkskin. If you made this item when you were 5th level, the DC would be 15, because you now meet the item's caster level. You'd still have to pay the druid to cast Barkskin a couple times.

On the other hand, if you were 5th level and made a +2 amulet, the DC would go back to 20 because, while you meet the caster level requirement (5th), you don't meet the requirement that your caster level be at least three times the bonus (6th, in this case). So you would subtract five from the DC for being of an appropriate level, and then add five for...not being...appropriate level. My head hurts. Does your head hurt? Mine does. I'm going to have a scotch.

Much better. Now, with that +2 amulet, remember that it's an 8,000 gp item, so you have to pay that druid to cast barkskin eight times. that's 480 gold, so the total item cost is 4,480. The DC is still 20, but if you waited until 6th level it would be 15 - because you would satisfy both the item's caster level requirement (5th) and the requirement that your caster level be three times the bonus (6th). My head hurts again. More scotch.

Excellent. So let's discuss this MacGuffin item. Let's say you're a 3rd-level chaotic good wizard named Maharishi Bensonmumfjord, and you have the feat Create Wondrous Item (which you must have).

The MacGuffin's requirements are: 16th level caster. Caster must be named Alfred Hitchcock. Caster must be neutral evil. Spells required: Programmed Image, Phantasmal Killer. (I'm really working the macguffin-Hitchcock thing here). This item costs 50,000 gold.

Your spellcraft check is:

5 (base)
+16 (Item's caster level)
+ 5 (you don't meet the caster level)
+ 5 (your name is not Alfred Hitchcock)
+ 5 (you are not neutral evil)
+ 5 (you can't cast Programmed Image)
+ 5 (you can't cast Phantasmal Killer)

The total DC is 46.

The total cost of the item is 25,000, plus whatever it costs to have someone cast Programmed Image and Phantasmal Killer every day for 50 days. I'm not going to bother working it out, but it's a lot.

The point is, you can make items that are over your level. They just cost more, and have a bigger chance of failure. The example I gave was extreme. But if someone found some way to make it possible for a 3rd level caster to reach a DC 46 spellcraft check, he could indeed create the Macguffin. In more realistic terms, when you're creating items that have requirements you don't meet, you can still make them if you're willing to risk losing time and gold if you miss the spellcraft check. Sometimes it's worth the risk, sometimes not. It's your call.

I would always have assumed that this tactic would work. (Another situation where this would come in handy: an enemy cleric has cast a darkness spell that the party cannot dispel or see through in a 50 foot by 50 foot room. The cleric is channelling negative energy every round. What are the party's options?)

Also, just because you can let someone through your square doesn't mean they wouldn't notice you as they were passing through. If you were walking down a narrow corridor in pitch darkness, do you think you'd be able to tell if you passed another human being who was trying to hide from you?

But if you want an excuse to ban it: if you can run through six squares as a move action and automatically connect with any enemies on the way, then that would be a really convenient way to deliver touch attacks.

I agree, the tactic should work; it just should not be guaranteed to work. Both sides should have a chance of success or failure. That's why I think the tactic should be treated as an unintentional overrun: let the concealed person step aside, and give the overrunner a free perception check to notice that he's passed through an opponent's square. There are refinements that people have brought up, such as the 50% miss chance, and stealth considerations, which I'd like to incorporate. Unfortunately, until I get the fundamentals cleared up, I'm never going to get that far.

Also, let me address a one other thing that has come up, about this tactic being ridiculous. For example, MattR1986's post about it having basically no chance of working. Others I think have made similar observations. This tactic is for close-quarters. Of course you wouldn't use it in a big room, or when the bad guy is known to be far away. It's for 5 or 10 foot corridors, small rooms, etc., which are common in a lot of dungeon layouts. So it's not ridiculous per se, and I think some version of it should be allowed. What else are you going to do? A player declares a double-move action over as many squares as he can cover, and you say, sorry, that action is not allowed, because there's an invisible guy nearby? I don't think so. That level of latitude needs to be granted to the player.

Let me give my friend's argument as best I can. He's saying that the movement rules are clear: they say, in no uncertain terms, that you cannot pass through an enemy square. Period. There are exceptions, such as acrobatics and overrun, that let you do it. But in all those cases, the player decided and declared that alternative form of movement (acrobatics, overrun, etc.). Since he did not declare one of those alternatives, their respective "exception" rules should not apply; only the movement rules apply, and those rules do not allow movement through an opponent square, or the ability to let someone through your square. Allowing the opponent to step aside or otherwise thwart this move action violates one of the principles of the game, i.e., that players get to make their own decisions for their character. Making him do an overrun when he had not declared one violates that principle; it's removing his freedom of choice in what form of action his character takes.

Now, there's no need to rehash this too much, a number of people have already addressed a lot of this stuff. My problem is the player treats these rules (or rather, his interpretation of them) as chiseled stone and doesn't understand how unreasonable that is. I like Anguish's approach that you can let someone through your square as if they were an ally, and that it does not take an action to do so. My problem is that since that is not spelled out in 12-point type in the CRB, the player simply rejects it.

Now, I don't want to invite a lot of "Oh, man, your player is a (whatever)" type of posts. He's a good player in most respects, and has been GMing his own game for a couple years and is pretty good at it. He just has some blinders on when it comes to some of these rule interpretations. This is why I'm going to the source, hoping (against hope, I guess) that Paizo will give me a ruling. That's the only satisfactory outcome - I can say, see? The Paizo developers have added it to the FAQ. Then he has to accept the outcome. And I'll say this, if their ruling supports his position, I'll accept it too.

I agree with Lifat and I agree with Anguish and I agree with Diego. I also agree with Matt. You know this makes me crazy.

Let me try to square the circle here, because the debate has gotten a little heated. In my most recent post, I was fronting Alice's argument. Not mine. That's important to note.

I think we're all kind of on the same page here, in terms of letting Bob have an "out." He can step aside and let Alice pass through his square. Alice still has a chance of finding him but it's not a mortal lock. Both sides have a chance of success and failure; this seems fair to me.

The problem is that Bob's "step-aside" action is not covered in the CRB. There's nothing in there that specifically allows one to let an opponent pass through one's square, there's nothing that says it is an immediate action (to be taken when it's not your turn), and there's nothing on how attacks of opportunity might work in that situation. There's nothing. Going strictly by the RAW, Alice has a case. I want to disrupt that case with a ruling from Paizo declaring her to be nuts. Pretty much everyone else is on board with this, except for Paizo and Alice.

'Sall I'm sayin'.

The Boomtown Rats answered all the questions.

Moment of silence.

No, we need a second one.

...

Ok, we're done.

We now have a guy named Matt dissing mat tactics. I know that extra "t" and the capital "M" makes a difference, but come on. M(m)at(t)? Don't discuss mat tactics, it makes you look shallow.

Ok, kidding. I'm actually in perfect agreement with you.

Here's the problem. Alice believes that letting Bob step aside is morally reprehensible. I'm not kidding. The core book says that players can make their own choices for themselves (which I concede), and Alice believes that letting Bob step aside is abrogating her choice to try to find him with a move action. That is, she did not choose an overrun action, so the step-aside rule given in the overrun section should not apply. Only the movement rules should apply (i.e., you hit an illegal square, you stop.) If you do it any other way, you've broken one of the core rules.

Just typing that makes me feel ridiculous. But that is his (Alice's) argument more or less. I disagree with it, and if you do too, please bear in mind that it is my version of an argument I disagree with, so give it as much benefit of the doubt as you can.

I know there are other ways to deal with invisibility, and so does he. It's more about the principle of the thing.

Edit on my above post ('cause I can't find a way to actually edit it), the second-to-last sentence should read, "...would probably not have heard of before." Sheesh :)

I think the rule is as floppy as it is because what counts as "rare" depends on the campaign you're running. For example, if you're running a Dark Sun campaign, water elementals would be rare, while other elementals would not.

It's up to the GM to decide whether a creature is rare or not, based on the nature of his campaign and the environment he's running in.

I actually find this to be a little bit of a weird rule, in the sense that some exotic creatures have stories written about them, so people ought to know about them, so the knowledge DC should maybe be lower, or just common knowledge that needs no roll. That is, it shouldn't take a high DC knowledge check to know that red dragons breathe fire, because as a kid you heard stories around the campfire about the fire-breathing red dragon that laid waste to the town back in the day. You did not hear any stories about armadillos being carriers of leprosy (true). So in some circumstances, you should know more about the exotic creature than the mundane one.

On the other hand, if you did hear about armadillos being carriers of leprosy, you probably also heard that bats are carriers of rabies (false). So the low-level knowledge you get just by living in the world is kind of a wash, I guess.

But I do think that the rules for monster knowledge checks are heavy-handed, un-nuanced, and not well planned. All that means is that it's open season for the GM - he has to choose what information to give out, and the roll rules are just a guideline for how much to provide.

In this case, (knowing nothing about it, but there you go) I would probably treat this as a rare creature and use the higher DC. It's a construct, created by at least a 7th level caster. How many 7th level casters are around, and how many choose to create one of these? Probably not many. How many times have the PCs or anyone they know run into one? Probably never. Regardless of campaign setting, this is a type of creature the characters would probably heard of before. I'd count this as a rare creature, and use the higher DC.

Thanks, Anguish, I appreciate you taking the time to respond, and I think I can do something with the info you brought.

Also thank you Lifat for bringing in some more focus to the debate. I think we're more or less in agreement on this issue, and I appreciate you going to bat against some of the counter-arguments here.

We are kind of getting off in the weeds here regarding tactics vs. invisibility and stealth, and alternative ways to deal with those things. Let me formulate a corollary question to the Paizo staff, should they choose to answer it. The rules stipulate that you cannot go through an opponent's square, with exceptions for acrobatics and overrun. The question is: can you allow an opponent through your space, as an immediate action? You can do it when they've declared an overrun attempt. Ok. Can you do it at all times? My answer is yes. I'd like Paizo's answer, because this dude I'm fighting with is immune to cogent argument.

That sounds right to me, Gilarius, thanks for spelling it out though. I think you're right that it may have worked in 3.X games, but your analysis looks right to me.

What about a ghost touch weapon? I know ethereal <> incorporeal exactly, but etherealness does make you incorporeal, and perhaps such a weapon would work...any takers?

Depending on how your GM spreads out the encounters, a wand of mage armor can be a good idea. That is, if encounters follow each other relatively quickly (ten or twenty in-game minutes between fights), each one-hour-duration casting could see you through two or three of them. That's pretty good value.

On the other hand, if the encounters are spread out - one fight, then wander around for a couple hours, then fight again, it's less useful. Still might be a good choice, as it opens up a spell slot for a more effective offensive or utility spell.

Any creature can decide who to treat as an ally.

Anguish, could you point me to where this is stated in the rules? I could not find it in the various sections I looked at. If the Paizo staff does not address my question, this would help me make my case to the player.

Thanks!

Here's the tactic: Alice is fighting Bob, who is invisible. Alice uses her movement to run through as many squares as she can, because if she encounters an enemy square, she must stop - because you cannot run through an enemy square. This allows her to identify the square Bob is in, and if she happened to do it on her first move action, she can now attack Bob as a standard action.

My thinking is, Alice's movement is tantamount to an overrun. Bob is entitled to step aside, as per the overrun rules, and let her through. I think she should be allowed a perception check, perhaps with a bonus, to notice that she passed through an enemy square, and alter her action accordingly (i.e., if she makes the perception check, she can stop and attack Bob's square).

One player in my group has a real problem with this. His argument is that since Alice did not declare an overrun, she is not doing an overrun, and none of those rules should apply - Bob should not be able to step aside and let her through. She moves, encounters an illegal space (Bob's square), and stops, thus identifying his square.

My thinking is that Bob does not know that Alice has not declared an overrun. All he knows is that she's trying to move through his space. He should be allowed to let her move through his space as if it were an overrun, even though she didn't intend one.

I've looked at a number of Pathfinder forums and this question comes up every so often, but I have not seen a clear, rules-based answer to this question.

There is a rule in the core book that outlines how you go about finding an invisible creature: it takes a standard action, it only checks two squares at a time, and there's a 50% chance of failure each time. This says to me that it's supposed to be really hard to find invisible creatures. The "run around until you bump into something" tactic seems to circumvent that difficulty, which I don't like. My view is you're not supposed to be able to thwart a spell with a move action.

I'd like to allow the tactic, but treat it as an overrun and give Bob the option of letting Alice pass through his square. I'd consider giving Alice a free perception check to notice that she did so (although I'm not sure what bonus to give to the check). I'd also consider that "overrun" a move action rather than a standard, because from Alice's perspective, that's exactly what it was.

Is there a clear answer on this?