Some call me Tim's page

Hmm. Well, you're not making a melee attack, so I'd say no for grapple because it isn't a melee attack.

You may not be making an 'attack' but the rules say you get the bonus.

"When you attempt to perform a combat maneuver, make an attack roll and add your CMB in place of your normal attack bonus. Add any bonuses you currently have on attack rolls due to spells, feats, and other effects."

Compare my suggestion to the 3.5 sunder rules for things that are not weapons. Was sundering armor broken in that edition? Because what I proposed is harder than that.

Really? Because in 3.5 it was impossible. The last line of the sunder rules said, "You can’t sunder armor worn by another character."

But in this thread, just because I am on a battlemap, I would have to make a DC20 Ride check (a stupidly-high DC for a low-level caster) to control the spell effect. If I don't, it means that the spell effect is no longer serving me willingly and well (spell text) and no longer obeying my command (sub-school text). But I still only want to move from point A to point B, which exactly is in the scope of the spell.

It's not because you are on a battlemap, rather you are in a battle.

If we follow your train of thought then summoned creatures could not be the subject of fear because they would no longer obey your command.

Reductio ad absurdum.

Have you considered tiny polearms?

Rules-as-written tiny creatures with polearms still have zero reach.

I don't know of feat or anything like that but if you can convince your DM to roll back the clock so to speak. I've always used the rules from the 3.5 DMG (page 29 for those playing along at home) for dealing with very small creatures.

Basically, a creature two or more size categories smaller can occupy the same square as a larger creature. When it does, it provides flanking for other very small creatures in the same space and to those outside the creatures space.

One example given is two tiny-sized stirges in the same square as a medium-sized creature provide each other with flanking.

This makes very small creatures potential very dangerous mitigating some of the disadvantages of their size.

I'm not sure why this section was never included in the d20 OGL. Then Pathfinder compounded the problem by explicitly making it impossible for the little guys to flank.

This raises a few interesting questions:

a) Summon Monster is also Conjuration(Summoning) but it specifically says it summons extraplanar creatures. So the CRB is contradicting itself. When this happens (unless there's errata somewhere?) each DM needs to resolve the contradiction. In this case, I assume there was a typo in the spell type and Summon Monster should be Conjuration(calling), an easy mistake, whereas adding extra words to the spell text "an extraplanar creature (typically an outsider, elemental, or magical beast native to another plane)" is much less likely to be an oversight.

There is no contradiction. The difference is calling brings the actual creature from another plane. If it was from the same plane it would teleportation.

Summoning brings a manifestation of the creature regardless of plane of existence. Summon Monster makes an infernal or celestial horse appear therefore it is extraplanar. Mount makes a normal horse appear hence from the prime material plane.

Summoned creatures return home when they are killed. Called creatures die when they are killed.

To answer the original questions.

1. The horses are not extraplanar.
2. The horse that appears is a manifestation of a real horse.
3. If the manifestation dies the horse reforms 24 hours later unharmed.

Thus far we've been operating with them both being effectively the mount's spacing. It works to an extent, but something about it also kind of bugs me, particularly as the mage isn't guiding the mount and therefore seems to have all of his actions intact for the low-low price of having to make a nigh impossible to fail concentration check.

What circumstance penalties are you applying to the concentration check for crowding on the back of the cleric's horse? How does the extra rider affect the cleric (and his mount)?

This is also one of the cases where logic, yes two people can ride the same horse, becomes problematic in game terms because the in-game benefit outweighs any cost and the pair gain an advantage.

Ask yourself why, if this works so well in the game world, it isn't seen in the real world. Very seldom did two riders fight from the same horseback.

I think your first thought of sized-based damage secondary attack is reasonable. The universal monster rules cover what natural attacks typically do. Large creatures typically get 1d6 damage.

I could see some argument that a bear should be able to use is natural claw attack. The difference is only a few damage points. But since it is damage from trample, essentially stepping on the intended target, versus taking a good swipe as if it was fighting normally the reduced to-hit and damage make sense. Plus it avoids someone finding some rideable beast with a massive claw attack and exploiting this trick.

Pathfinder GRD wrote:

Combat Reflexes and Additional Attacks of Opportunity: If you have the Combat Reflexes feat, you can add your Dexterity modifier to the number of attacks of opportunity you can make in a round. This feat does not let you make more than one attack for a given opportunity, but if the same opponent provokes two attacks of opportunity from you, you could make two separate attacks of opportunity (since each one represents a different opportunity). Moving out of more than one square threatened by the same opponent in the same round doesn't count as more than one opportunity for that opponent. All these attacks are at your full normal attack bonus.

Only the first square counts, if he chooses not to take his AoO then, he cannot take one for any subsequent squares.

The line in bold is there to prevent a character from making multiple attacks of opportunity (using combat reflexes) to a single enemy that leaves multiple threatened squares, not to limit you to only attacking when they first provoke. Otherwise, why is this under the Combat Reflexes section rather than in the section on moving?

DM_Blake wrote:

So the point that it provokes again only applies if he didn't take the first AoO (chose not to, or couldn't because of Withdraw, etc.).

I disagree. Movement provokes for leaving the first square. If the Orc chooses not to take that swing, leaving the 2nd square does not provoke.

You provoke for moving out of any square not just the first one.

"Moving out of a threatened square usually provokes attacks of opportunity from threatening opponents."

If the orc doesn't take his AoO when you leave the first square, he can change is mind and attack when you leave the second square.

would it take 5 ft of movement to move from the ground to the wall(both in the A cube?

You didn't leave the square (cube). On the surface (pardon the pun) it seems you had to walk the same distance as it would take to move to a another square. However, while the distance between the center of two squares on the floor is 5 feet, the distance between the center of a square on the floor to one on the wall is only about 3.5 feet.

Since you wouldn't make a creature spend 5 feet of movement for a creature that can fly to hover in the same square, I don't think I would make a climbing creature spend any movement either.

and to clarify there isn't ever an Aoo provoked by moving from ground to wall?

Changing movement types do not trigger attacks of opportunity.

An argument could be made that it is a distracting act. However, I don't think I would want to set a precedent that changing movement types provokes attacks of opportunity.

Of course I think if I was another DM's table and he ruled the opposite of either or both of the above rulings I wouldn't get too upset.

Well, I for one wouldn't allow darkwood barding. Just what type of armor is "wooden or mostly wooden?"

Angelskin is the same as the AC and armor check penalty for masterwork leather, hide, or studded leather armor.

Darkleaf Cloth has the same AC normal for the type of armor be it padded, leather, studded leather, or hide armor. The armor check penalty is 3 less than normal and the maximum dexterity bonus is 2 higher.

I remember that scenario well. That's right up there with bungie-jumping rogue pirates from another campaign.

You fell victim to one of the classic blunders. The most famous of which is "never get involved in a land war in Asia," but only slightly less well-known is this: never allow a rogue to get all of his sneak attacks.

My favorite anti-rogue tactic--obscuring mist. A rogue can't sneak attack an opponent with concealment.

If it was my table I would probably go with #3.

There is some rules support for this: "In addition, each polymorph spell can grant you a number of other benefits, including movement types, resistances, and senses. If the form you choose grants these benefits, or a greater ability of the same type, you gain the listed benefit. If the form grants a lesser ability of the same type, you gain the lesser ability instead. (PFRPG 211)"

I would consider blindsight to be a greater ability of the same type as blindsense. Since it also states if it is lesser ability (such as the range in this case) you take the lesser. So, you get the lesser of the ability, blindsense, because of the limits of the spell and you get the lesser of the range, 40', because of limits of the form.

Maybe not strict rules-as-written but it fits my concept of rules as a framework.

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.

Here's an alternative. Clubs are found wooden bludgeoning weapons that many be thrown. A rock is simply a club made of stone.

Here's what we know from this:

A 3-lb medium-sized club does 1d6 damage. A small-sized club does 1d4 damage and weighs 1-1/2 pounds.

From this we can extrapolate that a large-sized club does 1d8 damage and weighs 6-lbs.

The weights might be a bit off but I would say that covers is one way to cover rocks.

"small rock" as a light weapon 1d4 damage.
"average rock" as a one-handed weapon 1d6 damage.
"large rock" as a two-handed weapon 1d8 damage.

The bestiary actually covers the extraordinary ability to throw rocks. In which case "Damage from a thrown rock is generally twice the creature’s base slam damage plus 1-1/2 times its Strength bonus."

So for chucking a two-handed rock. The damage would be 2d4 for a medium creature. That seems to fit nicely with the above.

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.

This where a DM should use some common sense and adjudicate rules-as-intended instead of rules-as-written. If it was to function so differently why not change the name to "sneaky goggles" or some such. To me not changing the name, says volumes about the intent.

If we are going with the strict rules-as-written (ALL HAIL THE RULES-AS-WRITTEN) make sure you only add +2 TOTAL for the entire attack. You see the writer (or editor) also left off the bit about "each damage dice."

Note: The sarcastic tone is intentional for humorous effect not directed at any person/group/role-play philosophy.

Is everyone having fun? If yes, then you are playing correctly.

However, is sounds if you are getting bored with the player choices.

Players always tend to gravitate towards characters that match their tactics and temperament. Nothing inherently wrong with that.

My only suggestion would be to try and find out what the player really likes about playing the fighter, the mage, or the rogue. If a player likes fighters because they do massive damage show them a build using a monk or archer ranger that can do massive damage. Same with the mage, why do they like to play a mage, is it fun to have so many spells to choose from? Show them a viable alternative that fits the way they want to play. Does the rogue like to be sneaky? Show him another stealthy build.

One possible way would (if the players agree, don't railroad them) is to set up a one-off or short adventure path using pre-gen characters that while they match the players temperament use unfamiliar classes to fill those roles.

In regards to character death, ofttimes a player will select the same type of characters based on the assumption they need to 'replace' the fallen characters role in the party.

I tend towards melee characters often fighters myself. But I also know that fighters because of their bonus feats can be so many different styles from the archetypal dwarven tank to a lithe lightly armored duelist. I still get my fix for up close and personal fighting but keep it fresh at the same time.

Would this mean that a Tiny creature wielding a reach weapon would still have a reach of 0? Would it need the Lunge feat to be able to use a melee weapon on an opponent 5' away?

By the rules-as-written a tiny creature has a reach of 0 regardless of weapon. Doubling a reach of 0 is still 0.

Personally, I would rule that since typically reach is the same size as your space (5'x5' medium creatures have 5' reach and 15'x15' huge creatures have 15' reach) it would be reasonable to allow a 2.5'x2.5' tiny creature to have 5' of reach.

Might be fun to fight a pole arm wielding imp. Doubt it would be game breaking. Diminutive and fine creatures are still out of luck.

Supposing a monk is fighting a natural flying creature

1) If the monk succeed a grapple check woulds that make the flying monster (and the monk) to fall?

It wouldn't necessarily make a flier fall.

The grappled condition means it can't move. Just as a biped walking doesn't fall if grappled neither should a flying creature. That said, at the end of the flying creature's turn it must either escape the grapple or make the requisite Fly skill check of DC15.

2)IF the flying monster can not fly while grappled would that means the monster losses his immunities to being tripped?

If the flying creature fails the Fly skill check to hover then it must land. The now landed creature is no longer flying and would therefore be a legitimate target for a trip attempt.

Do you use your weapon for the CM roll? If so, true strike helps.

"Your next single attack roll gains a +20 insight bonus."

"When you attempt to perform a combat maneuver, make an attack roll[.]"

The spell is personal not on your weapon. I don't see anything that requires the use of a weapon.

So, I expect to see some True Striking sorcerers out there Bull Rushing those enemies off of cliffs.

I don't know of any rules that actually apply a penalty for lack of sleep (if you don't "rest" you do not regain spells or healing naturally). So, I interpret "rest" as sleeping for those creatures that do sleep.

I usually impose the rules for forced march if you don't sleep for eight hours/day. I'm also fairly liberal with that figure. Occasionally only getting seven hours because of a watch schedule shouldn't have our heroes behaving like a bunch of narcoleptics.

I allow them to stay up for 24 hours but when the start any strenuous activity (walking, exploring, fighting) they need to make a Constitution check (DC 10, +2 per extra hour).

Hmm...What if the caster cast defensively? The definition states

CRB wrote:

Casting Defensively: If you want to cast a spell without provoking any attacks of opportunity, you must make a concentration check (DC 15 + double the level of the spell you're casting) to succeed. You lose the spell if you fail.

It seems to me that Casting Defensively to avoid an AoO might be interpreted as "keeping it on the down low", "hush-hush","On the QT", etc.

I never thought about it that way. I've always interpreted casting defensively as casting in manner that doesn't let your guard down thus provoking an AoO. i.e. it's not that anyone doesn't notice you're speaking in loud voice, but rather you cast in manner that is not reckless.

I would be a little hesitant to allow it, because I can image the slippery slope of "casting defensively" while invisible or while talking with an NPC to keep him from noticing your trying to put a spell on him. It also steps on Silent Spell a bit.

A large-sized creature has a normal 10-foot reach.

The Lunge feat adds 5 feet to the reach.

A reach weapon doesn't simply add 5 feet to reach. Most reach weapons double the wielder's natural reach. So, a Large character wielding a reach weapon of the appropriate size can attack a creature 15 or 20 feet away.

So, your Kusarigama wielding large Ninja friend can lunge and hit targets up to 25 feet away.

How loud is a cleric when he is presenting his holy symbol and casting a bless spell?

How loud is a wizard when he is casting a bull strength spell?

I've always ruled that it is the same as talking. The rules say: "A verbal component is a spoken incantation. To provide a verbal component, you must be able to speak in a strong voice."

How loud is a Bard when he is using his Inspire courage ability (assuming oratory or an instrument)?

An ally must be able to see or hear (as chosen by the bard) the performance. Nothing says a bard can't perform softly, but that also reduces the range that an ally can benefit. For convenience, I typically just assume it is as loud as casting a spell and I haven't heard any complaints yet.

Can they be heard on the other side of a wooden door?

Yes. To hear talking (such as casting a spell) is a DC0 perception check. A closed door increases the DC by 5.

Can they be heard down a hall?

Yes. The DC increases with distance +1 per 10'.

I am curious because people often ask if their characters can "buff" before kicking in the door.

What do you all think?

I give the monsters/NPC a chance to hear. So, typically a DC5 perception check to hear a spell cast on the other side of closed door. I'll usually impose the 'distracted' circumstance modifier as most monsters or NPCs will not be waiting and listening quietly, so that makes it a mere DC10. If they do it at the end of a 50' hall, the difficulty is still only DC15, quite likely. PC need to buff a distance from the door to be safe. And don't forget that time is ticking away as they move forward.

Of course this doesn't give the monster/NPC telepathic powers. They enemy will only know someone is outside casting a spell. They still don't know how many or any other details.

Also when the enemy moves behind the closed the door in reaction the PCs deserve a check to hear them move (or talk/cast spells) too.

I would allow it, under the premise that you can use a higher-level spell slot to cast a lower-level spell.

"A spellcaster always has the option to fill a higher-level spell slot with a lower-level spell. (PFRPG 218)"

Gotta have salamanders. Definitely, salamanders.

Burning skeletons of Giants. They might not be expecting undead. A few Fire Giant Skeletons, ought to do the trick.

I know it's possible to lower Spell Resistance, but is it possible to lower or remove an immunity to a particular effect? For instance, a 20th level Sorcerer with the Protean bloodline gains immunity to Polymorph effects. Can that Sorcerer elect to remove that immunity if she wanted to cast a Polymorph spell on herself?

The special ability explicitly says when cast on yourself you are not immune.

"Avatar of Chaos (Ex): At 20th level, you are infused with the essence of raw chaos. You gain immunity to acid, petrification, and polymorph effects (except when cast on self), as well as a +2 bonus to save DCs and on checks to overcome spell penetration against creatures with the lawful subtype."

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."

"An extract is “cast” by drinking it, as if imbibing a potion[.]"

So, can you drink a potion while grappled? I've never seen any DM rule that you need two hands to drink a potion. So, it should be fair game.

Why would they not state you get an extra turn for spending a hero point? :)

Actually, while you can't spend a hero point for an extra turn you can spend one to get an extra action on your turn. I'm curious as to why they have get an "extra action on your turn" if "act out of turn" gives you an extra action that can also interrupt another characters turn. The later seems more powerful than the former.

Let's see if you've already acted in this round you get an extra action but your initiative decreases.

If you hadn't acted this round, your initiative would increase, but you only get one action.

After looking at it, "an extra action on your turn" would generally be better unless you really need to interrupt. So giving an extra action doesn't seem out of whack.

Should I keep the CR 4 or is it a CR 3?

CR is pretty course measure anyway, more art than science.

I'm with Darth, if you give them Weapon Finesse I would definitely keep them at CR4 too. The AC loss is moot since they have actually will have a better AC because while they lose +2 natural AC, they gain +2 DEX bonus to AC, and a +1 size bonus to AC.

Another way to handle to no CON score dilemma: you could simply follow the quick rebuild rules and give -2hp/HD. Or as Darth said, since undead use their charisma score in place of CON score you could apply -4 to CHA. Either of these (without adding Weapon Finesse) would make CR3 seem reasonable.

Better to full attack and kill the grappler or inflict a status condition with a feat or spell. Why are these ways of breaking up he grapple fine but not a bullrush or a drag? Is it because it moves them? There are plenty of ways to break a grapple better than Aid Another.

Anyway, Stream wanted an opinion and I gave one. Meh.

The rules were changed when Pathfinder came out and defined how to deal with multiple grapplers, they use the aid another action. While all the ways you mention are effective with eliminating the threat to your buddy, they don't involve multiple grapplers.

In general, if the rules give a way to deal with a specific situation, I tend not to allow other methods to handle the same situation. That seems to lead to endless arguments about which set of rules to apply in a particular situation. Better to have one rule.

You want to break the grapple, use aid another per the rules.
You want to kill the enemy, use the rules for melee attacks.
You want to cast a spell, use the rules for magic.

My player has a +2 fey bane sword. She swings at +16 for 1d8+8 damage. Thus vs fey its +18 for 1d8+8+2d6 damage.

The +2 to damage is already counted in.

Huh? That doesn't match what you wrote above.

When used against an orc it is merely a +2 sword; so, you state +16 to-hit with 1d8+8 damage. I'll assume this is correct.

Used against a dryad it is treated as a +4 sword; hence, +18 to-hit and should be 1d8+10 plus 2d6.

Well, don't take this personally, but to put it bluntly, it's kinda meta-gamish. Doing so is playing the rules rather than the game. In the end, you are still attemting to help an ally escape a grapple.

The rules cover helping your friend escape a grapple. You make an aid another check, a melee attack vs AC 10. So, if you really want to do a bull rush to aid another, I suppose I would let you use your CMB vs a CMD of 10.

As I said above, I think if you allow a bull rush to break up a grapple, it is the better option. You break the grapple now as oppossed to on your friends turn, your friend doesn't need to spend an action either, its your CMD, not your weak little friends CMD. If it is a better option then why didn't they just write the rules that to say that you could use a CMD to free your buddy (to be honest I wish they had).

There are rules for bullrushing multiple enemies. "If there is another creature in the way of your bull rush, you must immediately make a combat maneuver check to bull rush that creature. You take a –4 penalty on this check for each creature being pushed beyond the first. If you are successful, you can continue to push the creatures a distance equal to the lesser result. (PFRPG 199)" Not really suprised you haven't heard of it because it very seldom comes up unless you are fighting large and small creatures often.

The ally would be forced to go along for the ride because the enemy controls the grapple (I'm assuming this is the case). Just as the enemy pulls the opponent adjacent on the initial grapple, the ally must move adjacent to the enemy.

Now, if that were not the case and the ally was grappling the enemy I would allow the ally to end the grapple and you could push the enemy as far as you wanted without bring along your friend.

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.

Let's face it this one isn't exactly covered by the rules.

The rules do cover you trying to help break a grapple. +2 with an aid another check, which is weak at best. I'd very hesitant to allow the use of another combat manuever to break a grapple that would likely have a better chance of success than aid another.

I'd rule that if you tried to bull rush either I would treat them as one target and resolve it as if you tried to bull rush both of them. Bull rush vs enemy's CMD with a -4 penalty.

This tactic would only really be useful if you push the pair into a postion where the enemy would be hurt but you friend would not, such pushing them into lava if your friend was fire resistant.

Probably lost ten minutes of our session last night arguing over this.

First, never waste ten minutes of your session arguing--that's what this forum is for.

This is a simple one. I agree with Arkwright.

The rider is not flying, the mount is.

Let's break it down. The fly skill says "You are skilled at flying, either through the use of wings or magic." Nothing there about a flying mount. The ride skill says "You are skilled at riding mounts, usually a horse, but possibly something more exotic, like a griffon or pegasus." Flying mounts are explicitly called out in the skill description.

By the way, you don't need either skill to try and ride a flying mount. You simply much more likely to fall off if you don't have the ride skill, in which case having the fly skill (and the ability to fly) might prove useful in your survivability.

Also, what would be the rule if someone was holding something flammable or explosive and you throw an alchemist bomb or alchemist fire at it?

According to the rules on catching on fire:

Characters at risk of catching fire are allowed a DC 15 Reflex save to avoid this fate. If a character's clothes or hair catch fire, he takes 1d6 points of damage immediately. In each subsequent round, the burning character must make another Reflex saving throw. Failure means he takes another 1d6 points of damage that round. Success means that the fire has gone out—that is, once he succeeds on his saving throw, he's no longer on fire.

A character on fire may automatically extinguish the flames by jumping into enough water to douse himself. If no body of water is at hand, rolling on the ground or smothering the fire with cloaks or the like permits the character another save with a +4 bonus.

Those whose clothes or equipment catch fire must make DC 15 Reflex saves for each item. Flammable items that fail take the same amount of damage as the character."

The one skill check to keep an eye on for natural 1's is Use Magic Device. If you ever roll a natural 1 when using UMD and fail the check you can't retry for 24 hours. Note that if you roll a natural 1 and succeed there is no penalty.

Unconscious characters are automicatically considered willing.

Say I'm a 5th level Cleric with a tiny-sized Familiar.

A) Move adjacent to my ally, touch him as a free action, and move back to me?

...or does it...

B) Move adjacent to my ally and touch him as a standard action?

Neither.

A tiny creature has 0' reach. He would have to enter your ally's square.

For what it's worth, Skip Williams' old Rules of Game (3.5) article said the familiar used an action to deliver a touch spell. The wording hasn't changed since then.

Overrun attempt vs. an invisible opponent?

This is the way I've always handled it in the past. One thing I don't like about this is you are dictating the characters action. The second is it messy when the character has already taken a standard action.

I'm thinking of playing like this:
Invisible defender can elect to simply let you pass (per the rules on overrun).
Invisible defender gets AoO for you leaving your square (per normal AoO rules).
You return to your last legal square (per the rules on ending movement in an illegal square) and you may elect to go around, overrun, bull rush, attack, as you desire and your remaining actions allow (per normal combat rules).

EDIT: added rules reasoning.

So, I get partial credit. It isn't really using Grab(Ex) it's using Tongue(Ex).

It is as Jim said, this little bugger has a special ability that lets him ignore that -20 penalty.

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.

Will the frog provoke if it elects to gain the grappled condition?

No. You do not provoke if you have the Grab ability.

Assume the frog attacked its enemy from 15 feet away.

It doesn't matter how far away he is or whether he elects to use just the tongue or grapple normally, the opponent is moved adjacent to the frog (if no space is available the grapple fails).

The -20 penalty is if the frog doesn't want to gain the grappled condition itself. It can still do it without a penalty but the frog (and the opponent) are both considered grappled.

If a had a strict rules-as-written GM that tried this line of reasoning on me I'd use the same reasoning about "Threatened Squares: You threaten all squares into which you can make a melee attack, even when it is not your turn." A dazed character cannot make a melee attack on his turn because he doesn't get a standard action, therefore he doesn't threaten and thus cannot make an attack of opportunity. Quod erat demonstrandum

If that doesn't convince them the rules-as-written don't explicitly say that dead characters don't get actions and can't cast spells or attack either. Reductio ad absurdum.

I honestly feel like this is a bit exaggerated. I have yet to see a post around here that was answered "Not in the rules so you can't do it." Seriously has anyone seen that even once? The common answer is "Not in the rules so it is Houserule/Homebrew territory."

Yeap. I have honestly seen it here in the rules forum and seen it played at tables at conventions. I will say I don't think it would be classified as the 'majority' of GMs I've gamed with.

Also as Stome points out, there are a significant number of responses in the rules forum that say you can't do something using the rules-as-written but don't explicitly say therefore you can't do it. Many posters limit themselves strictly to the rules-as-written in the discussion and don't add how they would handle it at their table.

For some reason a post I made yesterday never made it to this thread so I'll repeat it here:

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 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.