Velkyn's page

The only iffy part is whether throat slicer is allowed by a participant in a grapple as opposed to someone outside it - as written it is its own standard action, and grapple only allows a restricted list. Thematically that's when it's supposed to work, inside a grapple, but I dunno.

You might expect the big bad to do something about the grapple on their action between those two of course.

So the Sorcerer "threw" (Telekinetic Charge) the Brawler at the Big Bad and the Brawler had Grab. So this all actually happened in one round. But could've happened as I described and, then, yeah, the Big Bad would've had one round to break the grapple. I guess Spellcasters can take out enemies in a single round, too... maybe this is fair/equitable.

Round 1: Grapple succeeds
Round 2: Maintain Grapple, Pin, and Coup De Grace

Does this only require two successful Grapple checks, one in each round? The Large-sized Brawler in our group appears to have single-handedly defeated the Colossal "big bad" of the Campaign (Great Storm, Book 6, Jade Regent) in a rather unclimactic fashion with only a handful of average rolls and a stupid high (save on nat20) Fort save to not die.

We ruled it wouldn't work so the other party members could do something at the end of the campaign, but curious about the RAW and RAI. Is this just "Rocket Tag" for Martial?

I started snipping them out of my PDF with Procreate on my iPad Pro and I'm done with Book 1 now. But if you have the other books, I'd happily take them -- it'd save me at least an hour, if not two, per book.

Thankfully, pulling the maps is pretty easy from the interactive map PDF, and the import easily into Roll20.

As for the play through on Youtube, I'll have to find that. I've got some ideas on how I want Book 1 to go, but I haven't read anything past that and it'd be good to understand how the rest of story arc plays out.

I bought the PDF through Paizo's store and was hoping I could export the images . However, the PDF is protected with a password and I cannot do this.

Are the NPC images (e.g., Cimri, Boggart, Archbaron Darellus, etc.) available for download and printing? I could snip them out of the PDF with Windows Snipping Tool, but I then have to blur the surrounding text. I was hoping for a clean copy to share with my players.

Is there official word on how the semi-automatic property interacts with iterative attacks? My understanding of the RAW is that a firearm with the property (text below) would provide two attacks at -2 normally, three attacks at -6 if you have Rapid Shot, and potentially a fourth attack at -6 with a Haste effect.

However, when I equipped a Rifle with the automatic property (which also supports semi-automatic mode) on my character in Hero Lab, it shows the standard iterative attack progression.

Is Hero Lab right? Am I misunderstanding the RAW? Or is there FAQ or other developer commentary on this topic?

Semi-Automatic: A semi-automatic weapon normally fires one shot as an attack. However, the user can take a full-attack action to fire twice, as if using the Rapid Shot feat (including taking a -2 penalty on all attacks). If the wielder has the Rapid Shot feat, she can use the additional shot from that as well, but the penalty for all shots fired in that round increases to -6.

With Improved Spell Sharing (or even without), Divine Vessel can be applied to a Lunar Oracle's Animal Companion. This grants the Celestial template which comes with 2 slam attacks.

My questions:

1) Can the Tiger use these slam attacks in addition to its other attacks for a full attack of Bite, Claw, Claw, Slam, Slam?

2) What about when it is grappled/ing? Can it Bite, Claw, Claw, Rake, Rake, Slam, Slam?

3) Or does it have to forego attacks in these two scenarios to use the Slams? If so which? Is it my choice?

4) Or does it simply not have an ability to use Slam?

Edit: I'm blind and didn't read the spell entry properly.

I'm not sure if the Form spells qualify for Share Spell, as they are range personal not target "you".

Regardless, the Form spells (polymorph affects) cause you to loose the special qualities that are dependent on your form.

In the case of pounce, I would rule that since it's gained from the base form and not granted from level up (as an animal companion) it is lost when they transform.

Makes sense, so the AC with Form of the Exotic Dragon would retain multi-attack, improved evasion, and the base stats, but lose things like trample, rake, grab, and pounce.

Thanks!

Do Animal Companions retain their special qualities (e.g., pounce) when under the effects of polymorph spells? Specifically Form of the Exotic Dragon (I,II,III). If a Druid used Share Spells to cast that on their Big Cat do they lose any special qualities that dragons don't have?

Anyone playing South Park Phone Destroyer? If so, and you're looking for a Team of like-minded people (i.e., tabletop gamers), join our team: “We 'Member”! We need one more person to compete in Team Wars.

Howard County Roleplaying Group (Meetup)

We're currently playing through both Pathfinder Jade Regent and Starfinder Dead Suns adventure campaigns. We will be starting Dead Suns Book 4 in the next few weeks. We alternate campaigns and GMs at the end of each book. Our weekly group is 5 members, ages range from early 20s to late 30s. We are looking for one or two more members.

Also, if you play South Park Phone Destroyer, we recently started playing and would love to have you on our Team: We 'Member! We need one more person (10 minimum) to participate in team wars.

Contact as us through the Meetup Group, or reply here, to join us!

Resurrecting this as it recently came up and I'm not quite convinced. How do we know a metamagicked spontaneous spell takes effect at the end of the player's round? All the Metamagic Feat rules tell us is that it isn't the same as a 1-round casting time. However, it doesn't tell us how it is different, does it?

The full-round action rules tell us "a spell that takes one round to cast is a full-round action." In other words, 1-round casting time = full round action. Doesn't that mean that full round action = 1-round casting time? This seems like fundamental logic.

It could be a high tech extendo-spear. It shortens and balances better when you go to throw it (in one hand), but extends to length when wielded in melee to give you the reach advantage.

I mean, it's not archaic anyways, there's got to be a reason for it.

It seems this debate has occurred frequently for OGL d20-based iterations of spears.

The Starfinder spear is very similar to the Pathfinder spear, although the damage code differs. The same rules for handedness when throwing both spears should apply.

Didn't people used to weild shields and spears at the same time? When we used to use spears because people were chucking spears.

Yes, but that's not the type of spear described in the Starfinder rules. That type of spear isn't typically (ever?) wielded in two-hands, and the spears in Starfinder are definitely two-handed weapons.

This page provides some interesting context on the use of single and double-handed spears.

The Starfinder spear is pretty confusing, really. I don't think a spear wielded in two-hands and designed for melee combat would be well-suited for throwing. I believe the listed spear should deal 1d8 P and not have the thrown keyword.

Maybe we'll get additional weapons soon, as the existing list is extremely limited and missing a lot of "cool" weapons (e.g., where are axes?).

Spears and javelins have a long history of being thrown with one had while a shield is wielded in the other. This is true of cultures all over the world that have used spears. So in my OPINION you should be able to throw a spear with one hand. That being said RAW the weapon required two hands to wield and to I believe RAW you can't throw spears without two hands. Kinda dumb, but hey it's a game.

In Pathfinder you could have a buckler strapped to one arm and wield a two-handed weapon. Granted, you took penalties on attacks with the two-handed weapon and lost the benefit of the buckler for the turn if you attacked with the weapon.

I think a similar rule in Starfinder specific to throwing a spear would make sense -- you can hold an item in your other hand but cannot use it or benefit from it on the turn you throw the spear.

Ravingdork wrote:

I'm inclined to say it is a part of movement. You move, and wherever you stop, you are considered anchored, provided there is a surface to anchor to (and that you want to be anchored). Seems like the easiest way to handle it.

That's probably what was intended. They probably want armored people, e.g. PCs, to be able to walk around on surfaces in zero-g-- climb walls, walk on ceilings, etc. and always have that +4 bonus vs. becoming off-kilter.

I don't think the boots were intended to allow you to walk on any solid surface. That's quite powerful since it largely negates the impact of zero-gravity.

I am leaning towards a free action to toggle the anchor function, but limited to twice per round. This prevents "walking" on a solid surface, but allows a character to use a move action to push off one solid surface as a move action and, a couple turns later, anchor to another solid surface as a free action, assuming they made their Acrobatic/Athletics DC 20 check. If they fail that check, then the character must spend a move action to right themselves first, followed by a free action to anchor.

I would say they have no impact on forced movement, because they don't say they do.

The boots say they anchor the wearer to the ground. The verb anchor means movement is prevented, or at least limited. The rules definitely imply there is an impact on movement, forced or otherwise.

Just saw this:

If a creature runs into another creature during its movement, both creatures must each attempt a DC 20 Acrobatics or Athletics check to avoid gaining the off-kilter condition. A creature anchored to a solid object (such as by the boot clamps available with most armor) receives a +4 bonus to this check.

Seems like the attacker should need to beat the defender's KAC + 8 + 4 if they're anchored to the floor. At least for Trip. The rules don't discuss how bull rush or collisions effect momentum or positioning in zero-gravity.

If a creature is adjacent to or in the same square as an object (including a wall, floor, or ceiling) or another creature[/b] one size category smaller than itself or larger, it can take a move action to push off that object or creature, moving at half its land speed in a direction of its choosing (as appropriate); [/b]if that object or creature is movable[/b], it begins moving in the opposite direction at that same speed.

The verb 'anchor' in the boots' description would suggest the wearer is much more difficult to move. How much more difficult, if at all, is I guess up to the GM?

"Most suits of armor consist of a helmet, gloves, boots, and a bodysuit that offers head-to-toe protection. Unless otherwise specified, the boots include a functionality that can anchor your feet to a solid surface in a zero-gravity environment, allowing you to orient yourself or return to normal footing when needed" (p. 196).

Does this effect forced movement attempts such as bull rush or trip? Do the boots provide immunity to these effects?

Further, if the boots operate in zero-g, what logically is preventing them from working when gravity exists? Obviously this would be a departure from RAW, but I'd like RAW to be defensible.

I hadn't thought about this before, but it does make sense that you'd start spinning (go off-kilter) when hit with a projectile (not energy weapon) or melee attack if you aren't anchored to something (e.g., hand-hold, boots, etc.).

Velkyn wrote:

Gary Bush wrote:

No they are not.

We don't agree.

I am hopeful for clarification from a "higher authority".

If I am wrong in my reading I will accept that but only if it comes from an official source.

Delay says "After any creature takes its turn in the initiative order, you can

come out of delay and take your turn. This changes your initiative
count to the current initiative count for the remainder of the
combat." on page 249.

The delaying character acts immediately after another. No roll off is required. Their position is set. It would be a roll off if two creatures chose to act after the same character.

Your count is changed to the current count. Multiple characters on the current count must roll off. There is no defined set position as you are suggesting.

You take your turn after them and then use the rules for Initiative to determine the rest.

It states you come out of delay and take your turn. Seems pretty clear it is immediately to me. The character is already primed for action. They get dropped into order directly after the creature they selected to act after.

No they are not.

We don't agree.

I am hopeful for clarification from a "higher authority".

If I am wrong in my reading I will accept that but only if it comes from an official source.

Delay says "After any creature takes its turn in the initiative order, you can

The delaying character acts immediately after another. No roll off is required. Their position is set. It would be a roll off if two creatures chose to act after the same character.

They're smelling the suit.

Why would the suit be giving off particles? That would imply its disintegrating, albeit very slowly. Even today, plastics, textiles, and metals of decent quality don't give off a scent. It seems unlikely (to me) that a futuristic space suit would be degrading in this way. Even if the suit were slowly, but constantly, falling part, I wouldn't expect those particles to be traveling very fast or very far.

Their smell would be the picking up of particles on some receptor that are either floating or settled on a surface. The akata most likely have smell receptors not attached to respiratory organs. Maybe it’s on their feet? Maybe that is what their tentacle mane is for?

And in a vacuum there would still be particles to smell with floating around. The akata would be able to pick up on those particles that the players disturb as they flail about, bumping into walls and deck plates. Even if there was gravity, but no atmosphere you could see how dust and similarly sized particles could be bounced and jostled about to let them use scent when they can’t see their prey.

I can get behind the idea of Akata having smell receptors that aren't related to breathing, but what particles are they sensing? Are space suits not a closed system with filtration? Aren't current suits closed systems?

I'm preparing to run the Dead Suns adventure path. I've been reading the core rule book and listening to Roll for Combat, an Actual Play podcast. My players are very familiar with Golarion and other fantasy worlds, but haven't played in a futuristic setting.

What things have your groups discovered while playing Starfinder that weren't necessarily obvious? Here's a list of what I've thought of so far to get the conversation started. I intend to put together a list and pass it on to my players before we begin so they're as prepared as possible.

I like BigNorseWolf's idea that the UPBs are just used along with spare parts and scrap to make repairs, hence the low cost.

Right, I think BigNorseWolf has the right interpretation of RAW. The hull isn't comprised of 100% nano-bots. To repair it requires a handful of nano-bots and a bunch of inert metal. Where that metal comes from could be an issue, but I doubt the cost is high, which is why the rules more or less ignore it and only note the cost of the UPBs.

Area effects (effects that say Area, or refer to a cone, line, cloud, burst, or spread) usually affect all creatures and objects in the area, unless they explicitly say you can exclude certain targets or that some things are unaffected (like holy smite, which has no effect on good creatures). Targeted effects require you to select a certain number of targets to affect, and regardless of sloppy language (creature/enemy/ally/opponent/foe) should affect the creatures you target.

Most of the spells that are ambiguous to me are the Area spells that use words like "enemies," "foes," or "opponents." These spells appear to require a caster to select individuals, but earlier you seem to imply that Area spells should affect both hidden assassins and innocent bystanders. If I understand your position, it sounds like casters get to do an inverse selection with these spells -- meaning they identify their "not-enemies" (or "not-allies") and the spell then affects everyone else. Is this accurate?

Meaning Bless, Bane, Fool's Forbiddance, Blistering Invective, and Prayer, just to name a few, can indeed affect creatures you, the caster, are unaware of?

Or is it just too nuanced/spell-specific to make a blanket call like this? I'm beginning to think spells need to considered individually, as what's right for Bane might not be right for Fool's Forbiddance.

And thanks for your responses, Sean! It's always nice to hear the perspective of someone who writes rules when pondering these questions.

A halfling ninja is hidden inside the king throne room. No one knows he is in there.

Then a dragon breaks the ceiling breath fire on the guards, eats the king and start roaring around the room.
There is really no chance of the halfling become a bit shaken about the situation ? Even if he don't run away imediatelly, or be affected by the dragon aura of fear, he might make some mistakes because the great risk involved that he is totally unprepared.

I think you're referencing the Frightful Presence aura.

Previously I used the word "objective," but I should have used the word "omniscient." I think three possibilities exist: (1) the rules use the word foe/opponent/enemy in an omniscient manner, or (2) the authors switch perspectives without warning/indication, or (3) creatures can identify opponents/foes in a generalized manner (e.g., every creature, detected or not, in this clearing).

If said Barbarian is in a clearing surrounded by trees and bushes, and some cut-purses are hidden from the Barb's sight in the trees/bushes, but they can see him clearly...is one to think if Conan starts waving his giant two-handed sword around very adeptly (Dazzling Display)...even though he can't see them, you don't think they will be/could be intimidated?

I fully agree Dazzling Display could be used to intimidate undetected enemies. However, I got the impression you believed Demoralize (Intimidate) could be used on undetected enemies. Am I mistaken? Must you detect an opponent in order to Demoralize them?

It seems various aspects of the rules use "enemies" both objectively and subjectively. How do we determine which is correct? I agree with your position on Blistering Invective and Dazzling Display, but many others do not. Which of Cobalt's versions of how Bane/Bless works do you agree with? How does Fool's Forbiddance work?

Intimidate/demoralize states: "You can only threaten an opponent this way if it is within 30 feet and can clearly see and hear you."

No where I see does it state you must see something to intimidate/demoralize it.

So RANDOM BARBARIAN is wandering about town and decides to use Demoralize (Intimidate). What's the DC? Does he roll for every creature that can see/hear him? If so, what's the point of Dazzling Display?

The bestiary states that "All fear attacks are mind-affecting fear effects."

Ah, I see it now -- it is under the sub-heading "Fear Cone (Sp) and Ray (Su)."

Our group will have to discuss this and possibly reverse our current position on the matter. There's a good chance we will continue with our house rule, since this reduces the efficacy of some characters in the party in a manner that reduces (IMO) game enjoyment.

This particular rule has no bearing on whether the mimic (or other undetected creatures) would be affected, however.

I'd say that being immune to "morale effects" is quite clearly the rule as intended.

Could be, but the original d20 designers felt it was not clear and wrote the following rules:

Edit: The first sentence quoted from the Fear section was moved under the sub-heading "Fear Cone (Sp) and Ray (Su)" in the PRD, not deleted.

It is great that you are certain of the designer's intent. I am not so certain. If that was their intent, it'd have been clearer to retain those sentences and replace "morale effects" with "fear effects" since, as you noted, there is no such thing as a morale "effect." Changing one word (morale -> fear) would've resolved any ambiguity -- instead, sentences were deleted and words that require interpretation were retained.

Those with Undead Traits have "Immunity to all mind-affecting effects (charms, compulsions, morale effects, patterns, and phantasms)." As such, how could you demoralize something immune to morale effects?

Mind-affecting is a keyword, or descriptor, in Pathfinder. Things that are mind-affecting should be marked as such; many spells and effects are marked that way. You are free to infer whatever markings you choose on abilities and powers, but that is a house rule. I do not disagree with your logic, but not all rules are predicated on logic. Game balance is also a factor.

Other threads already exist to debate this topic.

Off topic some, but aren't mummies (and most undead via their undead traits), immune from being intimidated/demoralized?

Undead are immune to mind-affecting effects, like morale effects, but Blistering Invective is not listed as a morale effect, or any other mind-affecting effect. It is tagged as fire and language dependent. Intimidate/Demoralize is likewise not listed as a mind-affecting effect. If the caster and the Mummy share a language, it is affected.

There are several threads about this topic in the Rules forum, like this one and this other one.

If you are absolutely devoid of an opinion about a creature, then they cannot be YOUR enemy, as you have no knowledge of them whatsoever.

But they can. The definition does not state your enemies are only those you hate (other contingencies removed for brevity). Your enemies also include those who hate you.

John Wilkes Booth was Lincoln's enemy. He hated Lincoln, therefore, he was Lincoln's enemy. They were adversaries, even though Lincoln did not know it.

The word can be used objectively. We do have evidence from one designer, however, that the word was not used in that way in spell descriptions.

Cobalt has described clearly how Bane/Bless would work when the words enemy and ally are applied objectively and subjectively.

Bane harms enemies, so it would work against characters who are Hostile and Unfriendly.

Bless helps allies, so it would work on characters who are Friendly and Helpful.

I'd propose that these spells have no effect on those who are indifferent.

Alternatively, we could say that the spells effect it based on how the caster feels. Thus, someone could be trying to be Helpful, but the cleric is having a bad day and sees them as Unfriendly. Bane would then work against them and bless would not help.

_Cobalt_ wrote:

Enemy.

That wasn't so hard, was it?

Correct, and...

when the player "feels hatred for, fosters harmful designs against, or engages in antagonistic activities against another; an adversary or opponent." then it is the player's enemy.

When the person in question "feels hatred for, fosters harmful designs against, or engages in antagonistic activities against another; an adversary or opponent." directed at the player, then the player is the person in question's enemy

Enemy/ally are ownership terms, they are an opinion held by the aggressor. You must meet the definition towards the other for them to be YOUR enemy.

I suppose it could flipped around that way. I do not agree that a person must be aware of another for them to be their enemy. I think everyone would agree that Mark David Chapman was John Lennon's enemy, even though John Lennon did not harbor hatred, possess harmful designs, nor behave antagonistically toward Chapman. Further, Lennon did not view Chapman as an adversary or opponent.

I think both uses of the word are consonant with the definition.

Enemy.

That wasn't so hard, was it?

Retracted.

Hidden Enemy: " For the love of Norgorber ! That Half-orc barbarian is a tough one. If i leave my cover he will surelly smash me into bits ! I would sneak attack him, but it don't appear a very good idea now."

vs.

"For the love of Norgorber! That Half-orc barbarian is a tough one. Since he doesn't even realize I'm here I can sneak attack him while he fights the others. It's best that I do it right after my allies have worn him down."

Yes, both scenarios are plausible. Isn't that why we roll dice when we play these games? :) To randomly determine which scenario occurs? Otherwise we're just listening to the story the DM wants to tell, no?

I think Dazzling Display should possibly affect the Hidden Enemy -- the character performing the display rolls the d20, and the DM compares it against the DC, and that determines whether the Hidden Enemy is affected. The DD'er may never know the result, but the action should affect the Hidden Enemy if the DC was exceeded.

(eg, area effect intimidate check meant for others)

Like, say, Dazzling Display? :)

Velkyn wrote:

Sean K Reynolds wrote:

The game uses the term "enemy" and "opponent" almost interchangeably (personally, I prefer "opponent," as it doesn't imply weird connotations of "we have to fight the city guards, so I guess they are our 'enemies' even though they're just regular people doing a job").

Thanks, Sean! A follow-up question, if you have time: Does a creature need to be aware (e.g., sight, touch, blindsense) of a creature for it to be classified as an opponent? Or can creatures you do not know exist be opponoents for the purposes of spells that target enemies?

What spells say "Target: 1 enemy"?

Marks of Forbiddance does.

There are a host of Area spells (some listed above) which use the word enemies to describe targets in their description. Area spells do not require sight or touch, but line of effect. So it is important to know if a creature you are unaware of is an enemy.

I agree that, if enemies are subjectively defined by individuals, casters in the case of magic, creatures casters are unaware of cannot be enemies.

However, pretty much everyone who has read Blistering Invective spell description believes the mimic should be affected, even though the caster does not know he exists. If enemies work as described above, why is that?

The game uses the term "enemy" and "opponent" almost interchangeably (personally, I prefer "opponent," as it doesn't imply weird connotations of "we have to fight the city guards, so I guess they are our 'enemies' even though they're just regular people doing a job").

Thanks, Sean! A follow-up question, if you have time: Does a creature need to be aware (e.g., sight, touch, blindsense) of a creature for it to be classified as an opponent? Or can creatures you do not know exist be opponoents for the purposes of spells that target enemies?

Given the specific wording of this specific spell ...

Okay, how about this spell:

For each question, why or why not? It seems clear to me one must have a definition of enemy to answer these questions. What is the definition you use?

I would consider you reread the rules on area of effect spells. No where in there does it say anything about unobserved creatures (or enemies or allies for that matter) being unaffected just b/c you don't know they are there. Discuss it w/ the GM and see what he thinks. You may just have to live w/ it though, if so, stealth/stay invisible as much as possible to prevent similar spells from effecting you and go about your game. :)

The rules don't say a lot of things. Many spells do say they effect enemies. Who, or what, determines whether a creature is an enemy? Why did the authors write "enemies" when some believe they meant "not allies?" Is that simply a mistake on the authors' part? Or are "enemies" actually a sub-set of "not allies?"

I don't have the rule books in front of me, so I refer to d20pfsrd.com. Maybe it is the formatting the site has chosen to display spell information, but I don't see a target entry for any spell, unlike range, area, duration, etc... You have to read through the description to find what is affected by the spell. It is not as clear cut as say 4e's power templates.

Use Paizo's PRD for the most "official" Pathfinder rules, aside from referencing the books of course. The PRD is here: http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/. It identifies Target metadata when available. Not all spells contain this metadata. I do not know if this is intentional, meaning the caster does not need to specify targets (e.g., Blistering Invective does not have Target metadata), or if the designers felt adding "Target: enemies within 30'" was redundant, since the description included that information.

I think there is sufficient evidence to suggest the designers did not spend enough time editing the rules, therefore asserting one view (e.g., Area spells have no Target(s)) over the other (Area spells do have Target(s)) as "the rule" is questionable.

Can you clarify what spells use the word 'enemy' in the target entry?

• Bane
  
• Blaze of Glory
  
• Blistering Invective
  
• Burning Arc
  
• Fool's Forbiddance
  
• Frightful Aspect
  

As for AoO's, yes your buddy moving through your threatened square provokes from you, but AoO's aren't automatic, you have to choose to use them. Who's gonna choose to AoO an ally?

I think Frytz is referring to a sentence (emphasized) in the PRD:

Threatened Squares: You threaten all squares into which you can make a melee attack, even when it is not your turn. Generally, that means everything in all squares adjacent to your space (including diagonally). An enemy that takes certain actions while in a threatened square provokes an attack of opportunity from you. If you're unarmed, you don't normally threaten any squares and thus can't make attacks of opportunity.

Based on that sentence, can one PC make an AOO against another [allied] PC? For example, two allies are standing next to a helpless opponent and one of them chooses to coup de grace. Can the other ally intervene with an AOO (e.g., Disarm)?

Cross-posting this in general discussion as I don't think RAW weighs in:

During play, our group could not agree on whether Blistering Invective would affect undetected opponents in the area. I believe the two sides of our debate were:

• No: The caster chooses who their enemies are when casting spells that affect "enemies" (and likewise for allies). Because the caster was unaware of these creatures when casting Blistering Invective, they could not be harmed.

• Yes: The laws of magic determine enemies and allies, thereby making the distinction objective. Any creature wishing you harm is an enemy, while all others are allies.
  

How do other groups handle these situations?

During play, our group could not agree on whether Blistering Invective would affect undetected enemies in the area. The two sides of the debate are, I believe,

No: The caster chooses who their enemies are when casting spells that affect "enemies" (and likewise for allies). Because the caster was unaware of these creatures when casting Blistering Invective, they could not be harmed.

Yes: The laws of magic determine enemies and allies, thereby making the distinction objective. Any creature wishing you harm is an enemy, while all others are allies.

Perhaps this is already answered in the rules and we've just missed it? If not, how do other groups handle these situations?

thejeff wrote:

I assumed the stealth check bonus had something to do with them not being able to see me. You know, because I'm invisible. And that therefore, if they could see me, like with See invisible, then it shouldn't apply.

So you can't come up with a single example in which the bonus would be applied and have any effect on the outcome?

Can you rephrase? I don't understand your question in relation to his statement.

The spell Invisibility grants a +20/+40 Stealth Bonus.

The spell See Invisibility would seem like it should entirely counteract the effects of Invisibility for a single person. However, See Invisibility only allows you to see the target. If they have concealment (say they're in dim light), they would still gain a +20/+40 bonus to a Stealth check for no discernible reason. I would expect an Invisible creature being observed by a creature under the effects of See Invisible, or True Seeing, to gain no benefit from Invisibility.

Don't you think it odd that a Sorc/Wiz 6 spell (True Seeing) does not eliminate the Stealth bonus of a Sorc/Wiz 2 spell (Invisibility)? I would think that the phrase "If a check is required, a stationary invisible creature has a +40 bonus on its Stealth checks" ceases to apply if the observer is able to see them.

I think that's a pretty solid argument for the other side.

Silly me. I assumed the stealth check bonus had something to do with them not being able to see me. You know, because I'm invisible. And that therefore, if they could see me, like with See invisible, then it shouldn't apply. So the Invisibility spell actually makes me quieter or better at hiding behind things or something?

The first convincing argument I've seen indicating the +20/+40 bonuses described in the Stealth skill and Invisibility spell sections are erroneous. It still means the authors made a mistake not once, but twice. And possibly three times -- I still think the Glossary entry is far too confusing to know what it states, and in general needs to be rewritten regardless of the outcome of this debate.

And the basis for your interpretation is that the RAW must be taken literally and interpreted completely strictly, paying careful attention to distinguishing the type of a particular modifier. Except when it's inconvenient.

And your interpretation is a loose reading of the RAW, requiring even more exceptions than my "strict reading".

Note: You say "common sense", but there is no such thing as "common sense" -- if this were "common sense", everyone would be in agreement. We are not. To argue otherwise is to claim that everyone on the other side of the argument is without "common sense". That is incredibly offensive, and I do not think that is your intent.

It's not "The DC is too high!". It's "If you're saying these two particular modifiers must combine, why don't you extend that argument to all the other +20s from invisibility, because I can't see the difference." And along the way to point out other little absurdities, like invisible creatures being harder to spot on the other side of a wall when you couldn't see them anyway.

I could just say I'm applying "common sense", but as noted, that's offensive and disingenuous. This is not "common sense".

I hold to my interpretation because I believe the Perception & Stealth sections are consistent and correct. And I agree that an invisible creature should not be harder to hear when on the other side of a solid object than a visible one. I suspect we agree on everything except this one point:

"Creature or object is invisible +20" is not a duplication of "Special: If you are invisible, you gain a +40 bonus on Stealth checks if you are immobile, or a +20 bonus on Stealth checks if you're moving." or "Of course, the subject is not magically silenced, and certain other conditions can render the recipient detectable (such as swimming in water or stepping in a puddle). If a check is required, a stationary invisible creature has a +40 bonus on its Stealth checks. This bonus is reduced to +20 if the creature is moving".

As I said, I acknowledge "the subject is not magically silenced" statement, and do not claim that Perception DC modifiers that are clearly related to sound would apply to invisible creatures differently than visible ones. What statement can you point to that would support the authors mistakenly granted a Stealth Bonus of +20/+40 twice, and never noted, in either the Perception Skill description, or Glossary, Invisibility section, that this bonus is reflected in these sections as Perception DC modifier?

For your interpretation to be correct, the authors would've had to make this mistake not once, but twice: once in the Stealth Skill description, and then again in the Invisibility spell description. The authors almost never admit they have made a mistake -- they go to (IMO) great lengths to justify the things written in the rule books. I don't think we'll ever know their intent -- I think we might get a FAQ explaining how the Stealth +20/+40 bonus is not a duplication of "Creature or object is invisible +20".