Untentril's page

A bit harsh :) Just because there's an apparent or obvious paradox doesn't mean it's stupid, it's a holy tradition of paladinhood that their ultralg-ness has to make their life difficult.

Every Paladin should have to take the Oppressive Expectations trait :)

The Paladin might well work to depose the CE Tyrant, but he'd likely be bound to do it in as non-disruptive way as possible, without condemning souls to Boneyard or ghostliness just b/c he lacked any patience. Depends on the pally an the deity, sure, but it's really not a pally if it has a simple life of slaughter.

A 10x10 area is an area. I'm not sure why I bothered writing that, possibly referring to another post, but eh. Promise I'll try to be less pointless in the rest of the post.

Secondly: "Either by seeing it or defining it," people like to rule that spells require line of effect + that pair, but then you lose half your spellbook, alarm stops working as soon as you go into the lab, etc.

The LoE rule is fit for purpose, and that purpose is to stop you firing melf's acid arrow around corners, not be a "close that window! somebody is trying to Scry us!"

Thirdly: Teleport can pass through solid objects, why?
Teleport can ignore walls of force, why?

http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/wallOfForce.htm

"Breath weapons and spells cannot pass through a wall of force in either direction, although dimension door, teleport, and similar effects can bypass the barrier."

What are "similar effects" and what might they have in common with an extra dimensional pit.

So, LoE is blocked by Wall of Force, and LoE is required for...effect spells...

A solid barrier apparently blocks any 'effect' spell. except it doesn't, because passwall and teleport and a hundred divination & sonic spells totally ignore them or alter them or destroy them, heck I can burrow(ex) & tremorsense(ex) through something that blocks magic & dimensional effects? awesome.

But a Wall of Force does not block gaze effect spells, nor does a glass window. So it doesn't block all spells.

Neither of those, nor a mundane & opaque solid barrier stop dimension door or extra-dimensional effects.

Fourthly..What else was there?

The assertion that 'effects' spring into being fully formed?

We Read Create Pit again? If effects, when cast, appear fully formed and entire, why is it they don't disappear in the same way? It specifically and absolutely takes an entire round to 'not spread, shrink, diminish"

If effects from spells appear exact and entire and instantaneous in the real sense, not in the usual d&d "single round or atleast before next action sense" there would be no such thing as a reflex save vs instantaneous spell effects, you don't reflex save against something that has already happened.

How do you rule that somebody can reflex save vs a hole in the ground that they're already standing above (and thus have no floor from which to leverage themselves away (etc) because it appeared instant & full?

You don't.

Cacophony
School: Evoc [sonic] Level: Bard 3
Casting Time: 1 Standard Round
Components: V, S, M (Bag of Lutes)

Ray: Do rays count as weapons for the purpose of spells and effects that affect weapons?

Yes. (See also this FAQ item for a similar question about rays and weapon feats.)

For example, a bard's inspire courage says it affects "weapon damage rolls," which is worded that way so don't try to add the bonus to a spell like fireball. However, rays are treated as weapons, whether they're from spells, a monster ability, a class ability, or some other source, so the inspire courage bonus applies to ray attack rolls and ray damage rolls.

The same rule applies to weapon-like spells such as flame blade, mage's sword, and spiritual weapon--effects that affect weapons work on these spells.

Do you see how they're referred to as "weapon-like?"

Idk if that helps, being as the crowd here seems to be impervious to reason and decades of consistent rule-logic, but eh, it's not like they can make reading the CRB have an INT 9 req :)

Attacks using Flame Blade are subject to a Spell Resistance check by the target. No justification for treating the spell as if it is not a spell once the spell has manifested.

Melee Touch attack? Check.
Immaterial? Check
Subject to SR? Check

When you say 'the user makes an attack roll' this is true of most magical attacks, like Rays, for instance. Which are explicitly treated like weapons for the purpose of feats etc.

'Rays aren't spells because you make an attack roll' lel.

Only time casting causes damage that I can think of is when somebody is already neg hp. Otherwise it's always a spell effect.

Like, burning hands is excluded? Why? Why not?
Coz it's more than instantaneous? Cause it...? What?

Sure, I wasn't disagreeing with you on the respect & the alchemist bit was a weak joke.

I have to disagree. A coup is an inherently unlawful act, both in terms of legality and in terms of alignment. Overthrowing a government or leadership structure is not an act of order.

Sorry what? An election overthrows a government, it just happens to be in an ordered and lawful fashion. It is, by any logical definition, an organized and legal coup d'etat.

I'm reading Bloodsounder's Arc at the moment in which a coup d'etat is the normal and accepted and legal form of change of imperial leadership. It's fantasy.

"a sudden and decisive action in politics, especially one resulting in a change of government illegally or by force."

Governments tend to make changes in government that make them incapable of regaining power illegal. Sensible of them. But that doesn't make the basic concept of a coup 'etat 'an illegal change of government.'

Blasphemy in a theocracy or a state with a protectionist state religion is an intrinsically illegal act, and it's definition would include it's illegality. But today in the US? No. Blasphemy when the church runs the state is an act of rebellion, when it doesn't it's not. If the culture was built/arranged around such coups, it would not of course be illegal. Fantasy Broess.

Absolutely yes.

If the spell does direct damage you get the bonus.

Flame Blade does direct damage, exactly as a fireball does or a ray of frost or a magic missile.

I don't see anybody ruling that a fireball or magic missile wouldn't get this bonus. Objects forged from magic.

Flame Blade does not conjure a sword, it conjures a magical fiery beam that takes the shape of a sword...just as fireball conjures a magical fiery mass in the shape of a ball that explodes when it hits something.

If the spell literally summoned a sword then no, you wouldn't get a bonus.

I don't see that as the difficulty, but rather things like reverse gravity, where it isn't obviously magic causing the damage, but changing the conditions and nature doing the rest.

http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/bestiary/creatureTypes.html#outsider

An Eidolon is not proficient in any weapon w/o Class levels (heh) or feats/evolutions that give them.

Eidolons ofc are eligible for monster feats.

// Err, to match your emphasis..No, not REQUIRED, if it can hold a weapon it can use a weapon as per the normal rules for anything using a weapon. A proficiency is not a requirement to use a weapon, just to use it well.

Bard/drunken master hybrid?

Does this paladin not have a church, order or deity they can look to for guidance?

A paladin would normally feel beholden (in epic fantasy) to unseat the new, cause that's the plot.

But are coups are part of that paladins culture? There's nothing inherent about a coup that is unlawful or evil, regardless of what alignment the original or usurper is.

Tribal challenges for leadership for instance are often/normally law-bound affairs, even in otherwise CN or CE cultures, having traditional trappings around them.

Paladin could very reasonably judge that it isn't her call to make, most tradcon paladin codes involve something like a vow of humility, and there's nothing humble about judging kings and queens.

Equally, she could decide that neither are now legitimate, one having lost power and the ability to govern through it's own failings and the other having gained power against the laws of the land.

There's nothing LG about perpetuating and repeating failures.
Something modern voters would do well to understand :)

When did Paladins start swearing allegiance to a government? They are aligned with a divine power, not temporal.

A paladin must be of lawful good alignment and loses all class features except proficiencies if she ever willingly commits an evil act. Additionally, a paladin’s code requires that she respect legitimate authority, act with honor (not lying, not cheating, not using poison, and so forth), help those in need (provided they do not use the help for evil or chaotic ends), and punish those who harm or threaten innocents.

There you have it, all alchemists are evil.

It does say respect..and not obey, fwiw.

There are rules for making custom weapons in the wmh.

Consider a flail with channels cut into the heads that make different noises swung at different speeds (these have actually existed and been used in war, apparently)

A shortsword forged around a tube that can be used as a flute

There are already existing ingame weapons that are similar, like the mace-censer that splashes out holywater when swung or jarred violently.

or daggers designed to secrete contact poisons along channels also.

idk if it's possible to make a custom lute out of metal? plausibly, i'd imagine it wouldn't sound the same as a generic lute, but eh, doesn't need to.

perhaps your lutes neck is constructed with a crossbow-like mechanism that you 'fire' (swift action) to slacken the strings so they don't break. heh, xbow-fingerboard-axe, think that might require an exotic proficiency :)

Maybe suggest a fingerboard instrument w/o the hollow chamber? much more wieldy and no hollow spaces to detract from the items sturdiness. like a gittler or stick guitar.

//Not rules, but..
You've no doubt seen guys on stage hitting things with guitars before now, right? It tends to be the guitar that breaks first.. normally on the first try.

Hit somebody on the head with a guitar and 99 times out a 100 it's a headache they've got and a broken guitar you've got.//

AC doesn't have a subcategory for weapons and the ability doesn't call out what (if any) subcategory the enhancement bonus is applied to, so the enhancement bonus goes straight to AC as with any other like magical item effect. Ergo it doesn't stack with other enhancement bonuses that go direct to the 'global' AC.

I suppose the question for GMs (and designers) if they don't think a thing is entirely clear..is, would anybody take a 'Pitfall weapon' as a +1 cost '+5 magical item enhancement bonus to Init' ability on a +5 weapon, given a choice?

It seems to me that every character should be going for Init bonuses, and an item that scales at a +1 cost is good.

Given that magic item bonuses don't normally stack the fact that it doesn't stack with other like items on the enhancement bonus interpretation doesn't detract from it's value as a reasonably priced and powered ability, making it anything other than an enhancement bonus makes it OP for a +1 ability.

It being 3 bonuses rolled into one, and scaling, makes it powerful for a +1 special. Compare to arrow deflection or something? Granted you get attacked by arrows on more rounds over a career, but initiative is effectively a bonus to every combat round ever, even if you never get hit.

The same special ability cannot be put onto a weapon multiple times.

A character can take weapon training multiple times.

"Mutually exclusive effects" includes.. typed stacking bonuses and untyped same bonuses. So admittedly that isn't exactly supportive of my case.

Still, the portion you quoted is not wrong(?) The WOTC ruling was the same for that purpose, different Banes are different abilities.

It's an enhancement bonus.. "apply the enhancement bonus" if you "apply as," "apply" or "use the weapons" an enhancement bonus it's always an enhancement bonus unless specifically converted.

But I'd probably ignore that and go with insight, heh. :)

So why, in your estimation, do different Banes not stack with either mg die or enhancement bonus? They explicitly aren't the same special ability, cuz u can't take the same special ability twice, right?

"The enhancement bonus provided by barkskin stacks with the target's natural armor bonus, but not with other enhancement bonuses to natural armor. A creature without natural armor has an effective natural armor bonus of +0."

AC=Constructed armor(+EBetc)+Dodge+Natural Armor(+EB)+Insight+Deflection+etc

Each are often called 'bonus' but that is as a bonus to total AC, this an example of what I meant earlier with "a positive change is a bonus" that's not disputable just ordinary english, fwiw.

Each of these categories have rules about how an when they apply.

Each of the above also have their own 'enhancement bonus' to which rules about enhancement bonuses apply.

Magical weapons have a singular "enhancement bonus" which is their "+1" in "+1 Magic Broomstick" for a bonus to be "untyped" it would have to say something like "this special ability gives +3 to hit and +3 damage " not "this ability changes the enhancement bonus"

For example:

Bane "A bane weapon is exceptionally effective against certain types of foe, during attacks against such foes it adds +2 to hit and to damage rolls and does an additional 2d6 damage."

Specifically referencing the enhancement bonus as the number changed = a bonus to enhancement bonus = cannot stack with others.

Earlier post claimed that "by this logic magic weapons can never be enhanced beyond +1" but you see, this logic (or at least, only this logic) doesn't always apply.. because there are specific rules for additive enhancements to magic weapons' enhancement bonus that provide for improvement. (even so, stacking requires two changes, a magical weapon created at +3 enhancement bonus is not "changed" to +3, it *is* +3.)

As there are specific rules for the math of totalling hp etc.

Ooops :)

Sure, and as a reflex save is required it implies an explosion and not a ..seepage. If the pressure of the molten gold inside is 'superheated' to the point that it explodes (out of) the steel frame, you'd probably be right to assume the temperature gets high enough to melt steel also, perhaps not all of it, but that's kinda academic.

If the rogue is thinking "I need to stop letting this artifact make me Chaaaarge, then he should already, as spell description, be getting a bonus to save. If he thinks it's suicidal, the suggestion should be entirely ineffective.

Personally tho I'd give the artifact 'animal cunning' in the sense that it's (the suggestion) more subtle than 'chaaaarge,' but consequently less reckless and more suited to the rogue, but fails are still fails and need to be acted upon.

But bear in mind that is is a mental suggestion, and circumstances changing changes minds also. If a "suggestion" to wait for two giantkin in ambush seems like a great idea and he fails will save b/c he hates giants anyway and thus suffers malus.. he waits in ambush. If he sees an army of giantkin come around the corner, the original suggestion is not entirely relevant anymore. Attacking an army solo for an 8th lvl rogue is generally not a gd idea.

"poop hit the fan and several members were nauseated" these giants are pretty gd engineers huh.

For Spell Immunity.. it's an sla from a magic item. it's an artifact, but at DC15 a weak effect and it seems to me that'd work fine.

A dog (wis12) fails its will save vs suggestion DC15 (-x malus for being exactly what the dog wants to do anyway) to chase b$#+# in heat over a busy road. Dog gets hit by car, has surgery.

Dog recovers and gets hit by suggestion DC15 again (-x malus for same reason) but dog hesitates before crossing road..waits till cars aren't there or have slowed..and goes for it.

I'm going to presume that your DM didn't allow the Rogue to take 2 Int.

You can sell or use troll blood but it isn't considered part of the treasure award. If u kill an entire tribe of kobolds you can sell their corpses to be boiled down to glue, animal 'extract' glue...or do it yourself, rather than leave them to rot and attract scavengers.

The steel isn't melted with the construct, or it would no longer be a statue, but an uh..idk the steel creates a frame that (most of) the gold is poured into. The melting points are separated by 300 degrees centigrade :)

Still..yeah..the statues are heavy...I don't recall seeing a rule about max weights that can be grappled.

"Falx made his grapple check but when mere moments later the statue went prone with him lying under it the fact he had it in a headlock didn't help much."

Get something custom crafted, don't add spikes. Is your weapon of choice smashy? You could have the bracers equip you for battle pretty smoothly, save yourself a few feats, don't need no skill pts in sleight of hand and you can ambush npc's wearing nothing more than bracers and a purse.

Sounds like fun.

Sure, or they're seen going back to town with what looks like 6000lbs of gold on carts and everybody starts trying to fleece them.

Or the market value of gold suddenly plummets when word gets out about how much they recovered. Jewellers everywhere start using their names as a curse.

Or taxes.

Or some of the gold has residual magical energy and one of the traders they exchange it with casts "detect magic" on it. Thinking it's transmuted she calls the city watch.

Or their accountant steals some.

Or their DM does...yep, prolly for the best.

Naw.

It's not splitting hairs, it's grammar...and rules.

In the case of your Natural AC example..explicitly stated ability to stack (with itself) taking up half of the published description.

Furious:

the weapon’s enhancement bonus is +2 better than normal.

Bane:

the weapon’s enhancement bonus is +2 better than its actual bonus.

"You can apply multiple bane special abilities to the same weapon. For example, you can have a +1 dragon- and fey-bane longsword, which has an increased enhancement bonus and damage against dragons and against fey.

If you have multiple bane effects on a weapon and attack a creature against which more than one bane applies (such as a chaotic- and evil-outsider bane weapon used against a demon), the effects do not stack: the weapon's enhancement bonus is only +2 higher than its actual enhancement bonus, and it only deals +2d6 points of damage against that opponent.

(Compare to fighter weapon training or ranger favored enemy bonuses, both of which say you use the highest bonus if more than one bonus applies.)"

A +1 magical weapon is normally a +1 magical weapon. There's no avoiding that. The Bane is a ..yes..you got it "special" ability.

I know right? It sucks that 1 more path to stacking two +1 specials on a magical weapon to deal more dmg than a +5 ability...actually has been against the rules all along.

Well..

That seems a bit cheaty?

You're casting a 2nd-level spell to get a 500ft teleport object at will effect.

There's no issue with putting the 'large sack'(the large sack isn't extra/non/dimensional, it isn't a portable hole, etc etc) inside the BoH, but the 'large sack' will be useless.

Firstly and most reliably because Bag of Holding (UE)

"Magic items placed inside the bag do not offer any benefit to
the character carrying the bag."

Secondly because teleport cannot extra or non-dimension aporter. It's strictly unidimensional & uniplanar and the description of your panoply specifically says ..teleport..

How is changing the value of one bonus twice in any way equivalent to two separate bonuses of the same type? AFAIK there is literally no textual support for changes to an existing bonus being treated as bonuses to that bonus which are the same type as the bonus they are changing.

You're a real joker!

A bonus is a favorable change.
A penalty is a negative change.

That needs to be defined?

A +2 change is a +2 bonus.

"A bane weapon excels against certain foes. Against a
designated foe, the weapon’s enhancement bonus is +2 better
than its actual bonus."

Pathfinder: Core Dictionary (Revision 4)

In this case it's the simplest kind of stacking, because each bonus is trying to change (explicitly) the original(normal) number by +2.
1+2 is always 3.

Depends how they deal with them. If you batter a construct into pieces with a hammer you're not destroying any matter, just..rearranging the molecules a bit.

So you have ~16k of raw mundane materials, but what they actually mean by raw is refined. Coz if it aint refined it aint gold.

Given the difference in bp I imagine separating out the metals would be pretty easy (as these things go.)

Sell it to somebody who can separate the metals and you're as good as selling refined gold to them, as the steel and gold aren't truly admixed. Hell, they could just pay orphans to scrape the gold off the steel frame with a knife.

Or, shortly: It's 60kgp you're giving them right there, what value they can get on sale or use depends on them.

(if they're silly enough to oblitterate the constructs or knock them into a lavaflow or somesuch..well.. that's their own damn fault.)

Have fun :)

*btw

Systems with standards for the weight of gold/element depend on that weight and purity, not the stamp on the coin. It's a relatively modern invention that only coins with certain stamps are legal coinage, just another tool that modern governments and banking systems have adopted to control economies an the citizens that operate within them.. but even so gold is gold and is tender.

That is to say that if you can prove the gold is of x purity(if somebody disbelieves you) it's literally worth it's weight in gold.

The entry provides that weight, so there's little really to be answered :)

They're not unnamed/untyped, both apply changes explicitly to the enhancement bonus of the weapon. Not a trait bonus to att/dam or..anything else.

There's absolutely no justification for saying it's an untyped bonus.

::
The existing bonus to a magical weapon is an enhancement bonus by definition and by default.

The changes are both explicitly to the existing bonus. Not creating a new bonus, not applying a trait or untyped bonus.. it's all to the existing bonus..the enhancement bonus. Idk how it could possibly be any clearer, it's textbook stacking.

Yeah..you did say that...and I did go on entirely unnecessarily :)

If I recall correctly...the author of the system said that no, you couldn't have multiple farms in a single hex. The asterisk on farm got added in during editing..intended by editor, not by author, so..heh.

On the Kingdom scale, a farm isn't..well a farm.. it's enough farmland to produce an effective 2 BP, that is to say.. feed 2 whole districts of people. So..that's a lot of farming. like, 2 million chickens a year if everyone eats kfc every day.

At the same time, I've seen 2 different 'official' takes on whether farmland can be inside the same hex as a city. In reality of course, the land immediately around any medieval/renaissance city would be the most intensively farmed.

You could go either way on that imo, like "it's already counted as being the most intensively farmed, that's why your city district doesnt cost you another 10BP in consumption every turn."

If you don't like rules, by all means don't use them, but enhancement bonuses to weapons don't stack. You guys nee some help on what stacking is?

Stacking on a bonus is when you apply two separate effects to a single bonus. It doesn't matter if the bonus is "+2" or "double" or any such thing, you don't get to stack multiple effects onto a single type of bonus.

Keep it simple?

1: A Weapon's enhancement bonus is the number that precedes it.
2: Enhancement bonus' do not stack
3: +1 Weapon becomes +3 Weapon (change to enhancement bonus by +2)
4: Proposal that +3 Weapon becomes +5 Weapon.(change to enhancement bonus by +2)

4 Just doesn't fly. It is absolutely and unavoidably the stacking of enhancement bonuses.

Enhancement bonuses from different sources or effects simply do not stack, it doesn't matter how you word it.

"I wish..I wish..I wish for a +2 untyped bonus to my ability to lawyer rules.

Firstly the Hand affects a wielders mind. If your characters mind is affected...you are roleplaying you shouldn't be going "well, i don't want my pc to attack this guy!" or "but wait, isn't this giant going to later become my ally? I read that when I sneaked a peek at the book."

The effect of the artifact is continuous..the wording is fairly clear.
"Whenever you are within line of sight of a..." If you succeed..and you know what the Hand does.. get out of los. (But..after the first few times it happens PC's should be getting a bonus to resist, should they wish.)

So that should be every round until it works. It doesn't say "when you first see" or "when you encounter."

"a creature of the giant subtype" if there are multiple giants, rather than rolling twenty dice you'd reasonably use a modifier to the will save.

"As suggestion" Suggestions can't force subjects to do things they think will likely result in their death or that are very obviously a ba idea...but remember that's the PC, not the player, eh?

"one attack" misses the point, doesn't it? an attack..and an attack action are not the same thing. The artifact doesn't suggest "hehe, I should slap that giant with my the back of my hand" nor does it say "the pc must suicidally charge the giant" a suggestion must be something that can seem like a good idea to the subject of the suggestion, so a sorcerer is unlikely to be swayed by a suggestion to use a charge maneuver on an ettin...or even to get within reach.

So this artifact implants a thought in the mind of the wielder. It's trying to get the wielder to attack giants, not use an attack action..but be the tool for the expression of it's animosity. If it doesn't get what it wants it will keep trying and trying until it does.

Allowing PC's to get away with "one attack (action)" if they fail the save seems to be deliberately missing the point....to the extent that you may as well just roll for treasure at the end.

9 cents.

I have a few wonderments I was hoping people might have input on. I looked about for answers but either it wasn't there or it was buried under pages and pages of content.

2. page 73 of the mythic handbook has a monk deflecting arrows into targets. The mythic snatch arrows only lets me catch a ranged weapon and use it as a melee weapon. Is there a way to make this image an in game option or does anyone have an idea on how to do something similar. Lastly do you think this feat does match the image using the arrows as a melee improvised weapon.

I appreciate the time guys,
Kechara

Ranged Tactics Toolbox offers the Throw Back Arrows Feat, Dex 17, IUS/Deflect/Snatch.

Allows a Thrown attack as an (essentially) immediate action w/ the caught ammunition.
//
Chances are one of the 15 trillion archetypes offers something similar as a class ability :)

My own take would be that..

Lunge (bonus to) attacks clearly do not apply to AoO's, being as they are out-of-turn.

But a Readied & triggered action makes the triggered action 'your turn' so Lunge can be used w/ readied.

The malus only takes effect once Lunge is triggered, as with any triggered ready action it's effects do not occur..until they occur.

Otherwise a turn might have to be reran n times to incorporate effects of readied actions that have multi-party effects on characters whose place in the turn order was between ready: & trigger: (see: readied mass debuff spells (lol))

Which would be frustrating, not to mention illogical as readying explicitly is NOT doing that action.

FGL~S
......|O

There's no reason why the (G)oblin would get any bonus to hit the (L)unger, being as he doesn't lunge until after (F)ighter kills the goblin anyway. (S)trike Backer readies, (O)pener opens the door infront of (S.) L triggers, S triggers.

European Order: L,G,F,S,O
New World Order: F,S,L,O

S gets 'use of' the -2 Malus during Strikeback..
Nxt round cycle...
Then O does also.
The S does again.
Then Lunge consequences end at L's new turn.

No?

Searching #includes shared item slots might help, there was quite a bit of discussion (and some official clarification) on that topic iirc, the distantly clanging bells of misty memory.

Asmodeus is silly, one day somebody will get around to telling him that soulbinding contracts are only valid if written on parchment made from the skin of the signatory and in ink made from the blood of said signatory and he'll spontaneously 'combust.' Same thing happened to my first wife, honest.

You should go for the Eidolon - 'Large Crossbow' Base Form :)
Still, your crossbow only has 5hp, watch out!

If old dude keeps 'Perfect Forms' of items in the First Vault, it stands to reason that lesser 'perfect' forms (eidolons) of them also exist, no? :)

/Party: Resurrects BBEG for bonus xp

No mechanical help, but..

In Kingmaker Adv Path 'War of the River Kings' Irovetti uses Charm to get what are definitely more than 'friendly' efforts on the part of the charmed Spirit Naga. (If using the mechanic here we could infer post-charm charming) Nonetheless she wants to murder Irovetti on being released from the charm's effect.

With his charmed Remorhaz, pretty sure all he does is feed and home it, but likewise it hates him enough to lose it's life in the pursuit of his death. (Turning on him when he's ~7 lvls higher and in his own castle w/ guards and allies etc)

Scenario 1:
Chemist walks into the Dragon's Den & fills the air with drugs that make the Investors predisposed to liking the wannabe entrepreneur..

Investors make money, investors still sue chemist into bankruptcy once they find out they were drugged.
//

Scenario 2:

Dude spikes girls drink in bar to make her like him, 'shows her real good time' she wakes up and calls her mates asking them to dismember guy.
//

Scenario 3:

Dude walks into Dragon nest, casts charm on it then is really nice to it once it wakes up.
Charm expires..Dragon, famed for being wilful, solitary and supremely egotistical doesn't care that it just had it's will stripped from it, cause it was by this nice little guy with dimples from Rostland.
//

Spot the odd one out.

Untentril wrote:

A line of effect is only relevant to the point of effect. I don't need to see an npc's brain to effect it with a mind-affecting spell, merely the generality of 'the character.'

Spells with a target, like another creature, indeed need only a line of effect to that creature. Spells with an area usually need a line of effect only to the point of origin, then they can burst, spread or emanate to the points the caster doesn't have a line of effect to. But spells with an effect like create pit, require a line of effect to any space in which the effect is to be created. I've cited this few posts up:

Core Rulebook, p.215 wrote:

You must have a clear line of effect to any target that you cast a spell on or to any space in which you wish to create an effect.

You get that line of sight and line of effect are absolutely and explicitly not the same thing, right? Aside from many other objections to that citation, namely that there are dozens of such 'effect' spells which do not require any line of sight or line of effect or any other kind of line to the subject/object of the spell concerned.

Transmutations passwall for instance , does not require knowledge of how thick the passage is going to be before beginning.

Particularly, one could view the operation of these spells as follows.

Spellcaster targets origin point of 'effect,' spell manifests, extra-dimensional space or passage begins to form at the 'point of effect' and spreads from there, as such creating line of sight and/or effect during the substantiation of the spell.(I cannot see behind the surface of the wall on which I cast passwall, but as the spell begins to take effect the surface is no longer the surface, that is now a 'dent' in the wall, allowing my line of effect to penetrate further..and further...until the spell affects a larger area.

If the wall-passage rather appears entirely and totally, one is transumating things one has no line of effect to, an according to your (apparent) logic cannot in fact cast spells upon, not being able to see them.

Still I don't see that any of this is particularly relevant again.. an extra-dimensional 'split/portal/plane' does not 'care' in the least about what it 'covers' or passes through in the material world except insofar as the casting provides relative coordinates or said material has some non-mundane property explicitly affecting spellcasting or extradimensional effects.

Otherwise, create pit has an area, no?

A line of effect is only relevant to the point of effect. I don't need to see an npc's brain to effect it with a mind-affecting spell, merely the generality of 'the character.'

Likewise a spellcaster does not need to constantly monitor the pitch and roll of the ship to designate 'deck' as a contiguous & horizontal plane.

A floor is a corporation, it does not stop when a door is placed across it anymore than it stops(and starts again the other side) when a table or rug or wall is placed atop it.

Still, I do agree that the DM could rule it such, and that's the only rule that's relevant in this thread :)

//Though, two extra-dimensional spaces touching cancel eachother out iirc, so if the door turns out to be a covering guise for an e-d portal/permanent phase door or w/e, the spellcaster might be accidentally collapsing her chance of advancing/escaping.

First to let the analists know they win..

As written, the rule only allows for creatures to be damaged by falling, one cannot deliberately, as written, climb or otherwise self-motivate into the extra-dimensional space manifested by 'create pit.'

But it seems to me that if you have a lot of stonework and a door amidst that stonework..and one lays out an extra dimensional pit that temporarily 'slides under' that stonework..what the stonework normally rests on is effectively no longer there.

You hear a cracking grumble as your buddies awesome spell manifests. Shocked by the noise, but knowing the plan you jump down quickly into the (pretty freaky) hole and, using your quarterstaff's leverage, gradually make your way up the other side.

Nethys chuckles to himself. "Neutral Stupid rocks dude, RAW."

On the plus side, the doorway is now just a few tiles of difficult terrain.

Hybrid of Superhero/Person:

A class that can learn from what they see others doing.

Well...

Robin Hood didn't really steal anything in the truest sense, being as what he was taking from Prince John & the Sheriff had been gained illegally.

Robin Hood was LN edging towards LG as he didn't cause any more harm or destruction to the Usurper and his cronies (and thus lawfully subjects, also, of his King) than was necessary..

Crucially.. he was acting to uphold the King and People's lawful rights, not to 'do good' or 'prevent harm' in any more sense than that was what the laws were meant to do in the first place.

The talk about Tricksters versus LE characters.. Asmodeus is a trickster.

You have to wonder at Ao's judgment when 'Xer' came up with such a flawed alignment system. I mean, the dude must delight in conflict.

Taking the holistic view it's hard for killing an Asmodeus worshiper to be a good thing, 'cause generally speaking Asmodeus then gets that soul by default.

Now, we might say it's a special case for Cleric's cause their job as evangelists and maintainers of faith means that every day they're not alive is another day they can't gather souls for their deity. But unless that's the AIM..you're at best talking neutral.

In this case Gnome was:

If I was your Gnome, I'd be more concerned that I had within my reach the contracts for all the souls that Cleric had bartered for..and only cared about my own. Some soul-searching is in order..it looks like an overwhelmingly NE thing, especially given that it hasn't occurred to you since.

On balance I think Asmodeus will be happy with you, he must be embarrassed that he had a CE barbarian masquerading as one of his priests.