Some call me Tim's page

There are enough stealth gripe/complaint threads that we don't need another. That being said, how would one target or attack a target that is both flying and invisible?

The rules don't have an exact answer for this one, I expect some will agree with, some will think I don't know what I'm talking about, but this is how I would adjudicate it and why.

First off when this becomes an issue. I remove the miniature from the table. I then keep track of the invisible creatures position relative to the last know spot. If a player wants to guess at a square and give me an altitude they can simply do that. Given the limitations of the 5-foot step, this hardly makes the tactic as good as Greater Invisibility.

Nothing in the rules suggest that different forms of movement are inherently more stealthy than another. Remember, stealth and perception also rely on hearing, such as the jingling of equipment, or even smell. Since I don't typically apply circumstance bonuses to perception (too many variables to argue over) I would just leave it as it is. You get the +20 bonus while walking or flying.

I'd base my ruling on the phrase: "If you are invisible, you gain a +40 bonus on Stealth checks if you are immobile." One definition of 'immobile' is "motionless." If you need to use motion to stay airborne then you don't count as immobile. Since your flight is a Supernatural ability it doesn't involve flapping. So, you get the +40 while hovering. An alchemist with wings (extraordinary ability) would only get +20.

The DM and you weren't the only players.

Walking out on a DM who is a tool, meh.

Walking out on your fellow players, not cool.

From the book,
Profession: "You are skilled at a specific job."
Knowledge: "You are educated in a field of study and can answer both simple and complex questions."

I see it as Profession deals with the practical and Knowledge deals with the theoretical.

A professor of engineering would have a high Knowledge(engineering) skill. A general contractor would have a high Profession(engineer) skill.

I would allow the skill to be interchanged but with a penalty. For example if the question was to identify dangerous construction normally a DC10 task, I would allow someone with Profession(engineer) to make the check but with a -5 penalty, so DC15.

Someone with knowledge of a bridge would be able to calculate the loads on it. While someone who built bridges would be able to note deficiencies in the construction.

If you were trying to build a bridge while an engineer would know how to design one he wouldn't necessarily know about "how to use the tools of [the] trade, how to perform the profession's daily tasks, how to supervise helpers, and how to handle common problems."

I'd say the bane would apply as non-lethal damage.

The extra damage is the same type as the weapon is. For example, used normally the sword would do an extra 2d6 of slashing damage. Used non-lethally, the improved enhancement bonus and extra damage should apply.

BTW, since the sword is treated as having an enhancement bonus +2 better than normal, in your above example it shouuld +18 to hit for 1d8+10+2d6. Enhancement bonus applies to hit and to damage.

L. A. Paladin wrote:

In general, the same spell cast multiple times that has the exact same effect does not stack.

I rarely see people indicate where that "rule" comes from. Have a source? Or is it an only an urban legend? Typically where I do see it cited, it is only applied to numeric typed bonuses. I do not believe I have ever seen anyone in authority apply it to this situation. Does not mean it is not out there.

There is a section in Chapter 9 that deals with multiple effects on a single target.

I believe this is applicable here: "Same Effect More than Once in Different Strengths: In cases when two or more identical spells are operating in the same area or on the same target, but at different strengths, only the one with the highest strength applies. (PFRPG 209)"

Essentially the mirror image with the most images applies and you ignore all others. For example if a mage had mirror image up and only one image remaining. He could cast mirror image again his single image is replaced with the normal 1d4+1 per three caster levels.

I ask as of late i've read a lot of threads where a majorty of answers seem to be its not in the rules so you cant do it

There are a large number of GM's that rule if it ain't in the book you can't do it. If I wanted that mentality I would go play a computer RPG.

The great thing about playing with a human GM is that you can give a nice analog description of what you are doing. The GM then breaks it down into actions and assigns the appropriate rolls.

Why limit yourself to what the developers could imagine or thought would occur frequently enough to warrant detailing in the rulebook. If movies or books were limited to just the actions covered in the rules they would be very boring.

The rules-as-written should be viewed as a framework to adjudicate your game not as a prison cage to limit your imagination.

The rules state if you attempt and succeed a trip attempt against a flying NPC the NPC loses 15 ft of altitude.

Where? Page 201 says "Some creatures—such as oozes, creatures without legs, and flying creatures—cannot be tripped."

See the combat section. Most GM's will rule that you need to declare who are attacking with the iterative attacks before you roll to attack.

And they would be wrong.

Climbs upon a soapbox while patriotic music swells.

This has always puzzled me. This is one case in the rules where I don't think they could have stated it any more clearly.

The rules explicitly state you don't need to specify your attack prior to making it. Yet, I've seen countless GM's invent a "declaration" phase where you have to specify all your attacks.

Where does this come from? I've been playing the various flavors of D&D for over thirty years and don't remember a declaration phase in any one of them.

I've seen campaign coordinators that don't know this rule. I've even bookmarked the page because this has come up so often.

Most GMs seem shocked when they read the passage, like I've somehow inserted a new page into their copy of the Core Rulebook.

I just don't know how this house rule has become so pervasive that a lot of rules-knowledgeable people don't even realize that it is a house rule.

Climbs down off of soapbox.

First have a talk with your brother. Explain that while he may have fun playing soccer, if everyone else is trying to play basketball it's just not gonna work out. He isn't playing the same game as everyone else wants to play.

Second, stop having the other players meta-game your brother's character. If they saw an NPC pull that crap what would they do?

Essentially, when both are surprised they end up just standing there. So they guy who is light on his feet doesn't dodge out of the way. The clumsy oaf just stands there--he doesn't suddenly get clumsier and throw himself on the enemy's weapons.

Stream has it right, as long as you have a listed speed for that type of movement you can do it.

One caveat with a flying (and I suppose swimming) creature, there are some cases where they may need to (or want to) make a fly check. For example if an eagle charges only 20' while flying it needs to make a fly check at the end of the round to remain flying because it did not move at least half its speed. (It's trivial but it still needs to roll).

Well this all depends on what the GM considers to be 'interact.' Specifically, the spell says "interacts with the glamer" gets a Will save.

Here's how I look at it. Walking down the street no one gets a will save. You're not interacting with them. Useful if someone comes looking for that skinny pointy-eared elf with the blue hair that just robbed the corner liquor store.

Under the saving throws and illusions section it say that you don't get a saving throw to recognize it as illusory until they "study it carefully or interact with it some fashion.

To me that would mean they touch your face, pat your head, shake your hand, etc. Study carefully would be have a prolonged conversation or the like.

It's legal, it's RAW, if you don't like it then house-rule it. Just as long as you understand it is a house-rule.

Looks to page 181 of the Core Rulebook regarding free actions. "However, there are reasonable limits on what you can really do for free, as decided by the GM." It's legal, it's RAW, no need to house-rule it.

In 3.5E, a charge attack had to be made "directly toward the designated opponent". But in Pathfinder, there's no such requirement.

Huh?

"You must move at least 10 feet (2 squares) and may move up to double your speed directly toward the designated opponent. (Core Rulebook 198)"

Or are you arguing that 'may' modifies the clause 'directly towards the designated opponent'? That sure doesn't seem the intent considering the next paragraph states: "You must move to the closest space from which you can attack the opponent."

It sounds like what you're attempting could fall under the rules of a called shot. In some sense I totally agree that you *should* be able to sunder natural weapons, but in another sense it's not just a "weapon" you would end up sundering, but a part of the creature's body itself, thus incapacitating it to a larger degree than you would someone who can pull another weapon and continue fighting. Hence I think it would be better handled as a called shot, but it's not my adventure. ;-)

This reminded me of a game I played in where the DM said, "Fine. You can sunder his paw." The player said, "Great. How many hit points does his paw have?" The DM replied, "The same number as the monster has."

"You can attempt to sunder an item held or worn by your opponent as part of an attack action in place of a melee attack. (PFRPG 201)"

Sunder is off the table against natural weapons.

Face it, D&D wrks with turns, and like any turn based game, have some "intelligent exploits" tath can be used thanks to his turn based combat.

Yes, but the advantage that Pathfinder has over most turn-based games in an intelligent judge that doesn't have to slavishly follow the rules to absurdity.

As for the killing blow analogy, I'm willing to give that initiative has some advantage, besides such a rule would affect the characters much more than the monsters.

Interesting. What does the author mean by "in my turnover?"

It a small pastry usually filled with fruit. :-P

I believe what he is talking about: "I gave the editors this beautiful work of art, representing my heart and soul, sweat and tears, and they ripped it from my bosom, stomped on it, sliced it up, removed any semblance of what I wrote and printed the final copy."

In other words, he wrote it to give a bonus when firing from prone. Logical if you ever fired a gun from a prone position. Somewhere in the editing process they removed the bonus and any reason for taking the feat.

Gay people range from super nelly to really butch. Our group had some of all. Including a dance major playing a pixie sorcerer with "rainbow lazers."

Forgive me, but all I can think of some lamer saying "That is so gay."

It is, but that is what makes it so wonderful. Sounds like a character (and player) I'd love to game with.

It's really hard to give specific advice since we don't know what the story arc of campaign is supposed to be. If the party is to restore the land of rainbows, puppy dogs, and ponies, he might be in for a rough time.

I'm not sure what is in his backstory to make him join this particular group. Also, he either has to behave himself or risk alienating his 'friends.' Neutral Evil is going to be tough. Lawful Evil can be convinced to do Good in order to preserve the Greater Evil.

In the past when I've dealt with this make sure the player knows that if his character tries to derail the party, it may very well result in his character's death or at the least his salvation (conversion to non-evil).

You have two powerful story elements to drive the story--betrayal and/or salvation. If you use them your story will be stronger for it.

Just make sure his character doesn't become the asshat PC, which everyone knows is off limits because he's a PC and the party just has to live with. Don't let his fun ruin the party's fun.

My advice, when it comes to Pathfinder Society or any other similar organized games, is not to rely on builds that may be legal. It only leads to frustration and/or confrontation. Neither conducive to good group play.

Speaking Monkey Race, err, um, I thought that was Humans.

It does not say if you can make a jump check to overcome _____ you can get by. Now maybe they assumed common sense would kick in, but adding an "unless..." would not have hurt anything.

Well, actually the core rulebook would swell to 15,000 pages as explicit exceptions are written for every rule in the book.

Besides then what would have to argue about?

Eventually at some point the DM has to make the decision. Even if they are wrong-headed half the time. ;-)

I've seen this ruled both ways. Personally I allow it, as jumping is part of normal movement. If you jump over it, it doesn't affect your movement rate any more than a creature with fly passing through the same square.

I think this comes down to applying the Rule of Cool. You can't charge over that pit--boring. You'll have to make a heroic leap to clear the gorge and attack--cinematic.

7. I know this will draw a lot of ire, but I HONESTLY believe it would be a good idea for PFS in general to give a negative penalty to a GM who kills a player, and give huge penalties to GMS who have Total Party Wipes. I don't know what the penalties would be, but I have seen too many gm's in public venues who seem to take pleasure in killing players (sometimes even adding little flags to their GM screens as trophies for player deaths), and even celebrate it and boast about their player deaths to other GMs. I've even seen official Paizo employees do it at PaizoCon. They should be sad when a player dies, because the players put a LOT of real-world time into their characters and are there to have fun. Gm's should be trying to encourage players to have fun, not trying to kill them.

Not really ire, because I see you're trying to make sure people are having fun, but I see too many problems with such an arrangement. DM's soft-balling missions. Maybe even a DM refusing to run a table because all he's got is four underpowered characters for a combat heavy module. Bad dice happen all the time, should the DM be penalized for a player that should invest in a new bag of dice?

A little trash talk probably isn't something to get too excited about. I do worry about GM's if they truly seem glad they had a TPK or 'beat' the players. If you really think a particular GM is going out of there way to kill PCs then this should be something to talk to the coordinator about. Believe me, it will get around if a particular GM is a tool.

Any spell you can't cast you can hire an NPC for. If you can't pay in gold you could take on a quest.

I'd like to see that conversation.

"Hey, Sir Centaur. We have an idea. We'll just teleport you out," says the mage.

"Outstanding. Get me out of here," says the centaur.

"Well. You see I can't cast teleport," the mage explains.

"Don't fret, my lord, we will simply go back to town and get someone to help," the cleric chimes in.

"That might be a problem," says the rogue. "We've spent nearly all of our gold," she continues as she feels the lightness of her purse.

The mage says, "Worry not my fleet-hoofed friend. I know a mage who will do it. All he will ask is that we complete some quest."

"A quest?" queries the cleric.

"Verily, it shan't take but a fortnight to complete," assures the mage.

"Quickly, my friends, it is two days journey to town," responds the rogue.

"Guys?"

"Hello...."

"Anyone there?"

The player is correct. All craft skills are class skills not just one. So if he wants both he can put one point in Craft(Bows) and one point and Craft(Weapons) and they both get +3 class skill bonus.

Also, cross class skills don't cost double in Pathfinder. You simply don't get the +3 class skill bonus.

Yes, it might be real world, please remind said player about such real world solutions to such exploitive behavior as the French Revolution and Russian Revolution, you know when one class felt they were being exploited by another. I recall it didn't end to well for King Louis or Tsar Nicholas. But hey these players want real world.

New plot: New players find themselves and an entire town being exploited by a self-proclaimed financial ruler who extorts money from the poor to give wealth and power to his friends. The new players must struggle to end his tyrannical rule. Get the torches and pitchforks!

I don't know of any rule sets but I would create a set of skill checks that would mimic certain actions you might want to try. Each would get a DC and would grant a certain bonus on success.

For example:

Jump DC 20 would allow you to jump on Dragon's Back.
or
Climb DC 20 would allow you to climb on the Dragon's back
--+2 circumstance bonus to hit
--dragon can't wing buffet, DC 20 balance check each round.

Acrobatics DC 25 to roll under dragon to get to soft underbelly
--+2 circumstance bonus to hit, sneak attack or auto crit
--dragon gets free slam attack.

Perception DC 30 to spot 'chink in the armor.'
--one carefully aimed shot as full round action which is an automatic critical if it hits.

Ride DC 30 ride a dragon by grabbing its neck.
--dragon can't bite or claw you, one handed weapon only.
--successful attack prevents breath weapon for 1d4 rounds.

Add more and balance DCs to skill levels and dragon.

You start to tread on called shots and combat maneuvers but since this is a seldom encountered beastie and you want it to seem epic you need to spice it up some.

InsaneFox wrote:

My interpretation is no more or less right/wrong than anybody elses in lieu of evidence that it's inaccurate.

We must now put our faith in the hallowed FAQ button. Surely, if we pray, it shall deliver us.

EDIT: It's effects last until the next turn. Which could imply that any restriction imposed by the feat is an effect that lasts until the next turn.

Garbage. Your personal interpretation doesn't have equal validity just because you declare it so, doubly so when your interpretation is simply inconsistent with the express RAW.

An AOO is a melee attack. You make an attack roll.

The words used are clear. The designers could have used different words. They chose not to.

Every time someone calls for a FAQ for something this silly you decrease the prospect of designers providing input on things that do need clarification.

You might want to make a ride check to dismount that high horse.

Insane Fox's interpretation IS valid. The wording CAN be interpreted either way.

Many people in these forums claim the rules-as-written are clear when they are not. In most cases they are not explicitly clear. I may or may not agree with Fox's interpretation, but that doesn't make his opinion any less valuable to the discussion at hand. If you disagree with his interpretation, fine, counter it with logical rebuttal, not a dismissive hand-wave.

I read the title and thought: "Damn, those must be some pretty big diapers."

Traps and the finding of traps are kind of strange and kludgy to me. Would anyone like to take some time to explain to me exactly how you handle traps at the table? Who rolls, what is secret, how do you handle trapfinding abilities, the consequences of success, failure, etc. I'm looking for a plain-english, no-nonsense treatment of the encounter type. Thanks for any discussion!

OK, here's the scenario, the characters entire a 10' x 10' room. There is a pie on a table in the middle of the room. Let's assume the pie is the trigger for a simple arrow trap.

Arrow Trap CR 1
Type mechanical; Perception DC 20; Disable Device DC 20
Effects
Trigger touch; Reset none
Effect Atk +15 ranged (1d8+1/×3)

The rogue's player says he is looking for traps on the floor. rogue's player rolls a perception check. (this roll can also be made by the GM in secret if you think the player's may metagame a low roll) The player may also elect to take 10 or take 20 on this roll.

You know there is no trap on the floor so you merely tell the player that the floor does not appear to be trapped.

The rogue advances to the table and pie. He again calls for a trap check on the pie. rogue's player rolls a perception check. You compare the the result with the DC listed in the traps description, it this case 20.

If the roll beats the DC you reveal that a trap is present. If the succeed by 5 or more, you reveal that nature of the trap, an arrow trap in this case.

If they fail you say there is no trap. Regardless of success or failure, just looking for a trap will trigger it.

Assuming that a trap is revealed, the player will attempt to disable it. rogue's player rolls a disable device check.

If the player beats the DC, again 20 in this case. The trap is disable and you award the entire party XP for a CR1 encounter.

If the player fails to beat the DC by less than 5 (rolls 16-19), nothing happens. The character knows that the effort was not successful and can simply try again.

If the player fails by 5 or more (rolls 15 or less) the trap triggers and the poor rogue ends up triggering the trap instead. For this trap, you make an attack roll at +15 vs. the rogue (don't forget to apply trapsense to the rogue's AC, if the rogue is high enough level). Even though the trap was triggered award the entire party XP for a CR1 encounter (they still overcame the challenge).

The rogue and his party may now enjoy the pie. Mmmm, Pie.

That's about all there is to it.

I see that in the strictest sense summoning any intelligent creature is an evil act. As forcing a sentient being to appear then enslaving them to do your bidding hardly exhibits respect for the dignity of another, but I digress.

The usual in-game argument is that good-aligned creatures willing do it to further the cause of good. While evil-aligned creatures are compelled to render service.

Now by rules, when used to summon an evil outsider it is an [Evil] spell, but that doesn't mean it is inherently Evil.

Anyway, it more a matter of intent. You can summon a good creature to Evil just as easily as you can summon an evil creature to do Good. Summoning any creature to fight Evil should not be viewed as an evil act.

As for the paladin, he is stereotyping the summoner based on numerous accounts of evil wizards dealing with devils. It would seem logical for the paladin to mistrust such a wizard and to not trust the devils with which he deals, afraid that the wizard will eventually become corrupted.

Ultimately, it's up to the GM where the faint gray line between Good and Evil lies. Even the difference between what is [Evil] and Evil is a matter for the GM.

Hopefully the players can role-play this conflict to a resolution where either the paladin convinces the wizard not to do [Evil] spells, the wizard convinces the paladin that the spells are not that evil, or they elect to go their separate ways.

To clarify: [Evil] means has [Evil] descriptor, Evil means Evil-with-a-capital-E, Evil in the grand scheme of things (alignment), while evil means generally not a nice thing to do.

Gruuuu wrote:

DreamAtelier wrote:

Were I your GM, I'd probably handle it as none of the above:

You hit the maximum damage (d6 per caster level) then maintain that for the extended rounds, is how I'd approach it.

I would agree, based on the fluff of the spell, saying it grows to cover the target's body.

Yes, but then the potential dammage is greatly increased. As it is the spells would deal an average of 60 dammage at level 10 (10+20+30). But extending it this way the average becomes 150 (10+20+30+30+30+30).

True, but causing the onset to take longer because you extended the spell doesn't seem like a good option as it makes it worse at the beginning. One option would run it like heat metal:

x, xd4, xd6, xd6, xd4, x

+ rember rule 0. the Dm is right, if you say the spell was dispelled, it was dispelled. pediod, no debating the dm is right your guiding the story and you wanted to dispell the spell, it was dispelled. the PCs should say aww crap that didnt work... whats next ??

I hate rules lawers, Players who tell the dm " your cheating cause the book says..." just pisses me off.

I hate dictatorial DMs, DMs who tell the players "I can never cheat because the book says rule zero...." just cheeses me off. *trying to be sarcastically humorous not trying to be a total jerk.

It's not about rule zero and can you or can't you it's about fairness. If you rule that the NPC doesn't need line-of-sight that's fine, that is what rule zero is about. Just remember this works both ways, in the future the players will rightly expect to be able to spellcraft a spell that can't see being cast.

As for "it works because I say it works, it's my story," I suggest you gather up all the dice and books and put them in a pile in the corner. Then have your friends sit back and enjoy the story you are going to tell them. You essentially just said the rules don't matter and the dice don't matter. That's fine, dice-less role-playing and interactive storying telling can be a blast. It just not Pathfinder anymore.

Don't get me wrong, there are times when you may need to invoke rule zero, but to use that power over such a relatively minor issue will just alienate the players. When your players trust that you're fair and even-handed and you would only apply GM fiat when absolutely necessary they will be satisfied when you wink and say, "this is a special case."

Just my opinion, your mileage my vary.

if I am tripped or knocked prone and the bad guy is standing over me what options do I have? get up and be stabbed? if i have HIPS can I hide? what else are my options for all class types?

The options are nearly endless.

Use magic device has no clause saying that on a fail the charge is used. In order to use a charge you must use the item. If you fail your UMD, the item doesn't work to begin with. Your waving a stick around for 6 seconds.

So no charge used on a fail. However, on a roll of a 1, you can not use the wand for 24 hours.

Just wanted to point out there is a odd clause with that one. It only applies when you roll "a natural 1 while attempting to activate an item and you fail. (emphasis added)" If your UMD is high enough, you can roll natural ones all day long provided you still succeed on activating the device.

While I understand that attempting to initiate a grapple with an invisible opponent would have a 50% miss chance due to total concealment, what about subsequent checks to maintain the grapple?

"If a grappled creature becomes invisible, through a spell or other ability, it gains a +2 circumstance bonus on its CMD to avoid being grappled, but receives no other benefit. (Pathfinder Core Rulebook, p. 567)

Also, more generally, after a successful grapple check do you need a separate attack roll to inflict damage?

No. The damage action, if chosen, is part of the standard action required to maintain a grapple and requires no separate roll.

Would that have the total concealment penalty?

As above the invisible creature gains a +2 circumstance bonus on its CMD vs. maintaining the grapple, but nothing else.

So, my doubt is... an attack of opportunity against the potion container, is against the character's AC or the potion container's AC?

Neither.

You make a sunder attempt in place of the normal melee attack granted by the attack of opportunity. The attack is against the drinker's CMD. This provokes as normal unless you have improved sunder feat. On a successful attack that deals at least two points of damage you destroy the vial.

You may also make a disarm attempt in place of the normal melee attack granted by the attack of opportunity. This provokes as normal unless you have improved disarm feat. On a successful attack the target drops the vial. If you successfully disarm the target without using a weapon you now hold the vial.

BTW, the AC 13 is when the vial is unattended. The odd wording of directing the attack the attack of opportunity against the vial is a carry over from 3.5. Now all special attacks are combat maneuvers that are directed against the drinker.

Trying to keep the thread alive. Please move arguments to different threads.

"Mithral weapons count as silver for the purpose of overcoming damage reduction."

"Ranged touch attacks provoke an attack of opportunity, even if the spell that causes the attacks was cast defensively."

Sneak attack requires very little. You need a target, who must be vulnerable to the ability (not immune), who is flanked or flatfooted. Note that I'm paraphrasing here.

Technically, it is anytime the "target would be denied a Dexterity bonus to AC, or is flanked." When you are flat-footed you do lose your Dexterity bonus to AC (as well as the ability to make attacks of opportunity) but there are many other conditions that cause one to lose their Dexterity bonus to AC.

So, what causes one to be denied a Dexterity bonus to AC:

• flat-footed
  
• immobilized
  
• climbing
  
• being attacked by an invisible opponent
  
• running
  
• stunned
  
• lifting double your maximum load
  
• blinded
  
• squeezing through a narrow space
  
• entangled
  
• pinning an opponent
  
• opponent successfully feints
  
• opponent uses Impromptu Sneak Attack