Droogami

With Club Sauce's page

39 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists.


RSS


I'm unclear as to how to manage a level 1 Druid's horse animal companion.

Is it automatically trained for riding? Do you have to spend 3 in-game weeks teaching it to be ridden? Does it get the 3 tricks listed under riding in Handle Animal for free if it can automatically be ridden? What is the literal, non-extrapolated consequence of riding an animal that isn't trained to be ridden? Instead of making a DC 20 Ride check to control a non-combat trained mount in battle, can you make a DC 10 Handle Animal check to have it perform a trick instead?


I want to know what campaigns you guys are playing that your character can sit down with an in-game medieval Excel sheet and crunch numbers regarding the specific AC values of armor from the heavens versus armor from the elves...

And for that matter how dry does a campaign have to be to make players complain about the fact that their item will be outdated in 8 levels? Does losing 2 AC in the future really destroy your character concept? Leave metagaming where it belongs, in 4th edition and Warhammer : p

Celestial Armor sounds like an awesome item, and most characters would be really excited to find it.


Remco, you're absolutely right. After reading it again, Invisibility turns out to be very different than Stealth. But the DC to find the sorcerer is still 24 + 1d20.

You can't take 10 in combat. Not unless you're a level 10+ rogue with the advanced talent Skill Mastery.

So without crunching the numbers too hard, each 17 Perception guard has roughly a 30% chance to find the sorcerer on any given turn. Make 2 checks per turn and that number goes up. Account for both guards and that number goes up even higher. Don't forget that shouting a few terse words is considered a free action. 1 bad roll and all hell breaks loose.

If the +1 distance bonus becomes an issue, block line of effect. It's not hard to force casters to get close. Posting the guards in a small stone building seems like the easiest solution.


Oh and I forgot to add that without Hide in Plain Sight, you can't Stealth while being directly observed. So unless the character wants to take assassin or shadowdancer levels, a successful Perception check is relatively permanent.


Name Violation wrote:
it should be able to "rest" for 8 hours and heal like a living creature, otherwise max out UMD and use scrolls, or buy a few ghost touch bottles and get potions of inflict

Good ideas Name Violation, I've actually been on the lookout for scrolls and wands.

Are you sure that he can "rest?" I talked to my DM about it yesterday, and neither of us are sure how that should be ruled. I would love a reference to the RAW :D


I'm playing a Shadowdancer in one campaign, and my natural Stealth is 28. I can hide, even while being observed, in shadows and dim light (aka anywhere). It's really not overpowered, and hopefully I can help you see why not.

1 - The character doesn't get +40 Stealth. They get +20. I believe that you're adding the +20 from invisibility twice. And I'm not sure where you read that noticing and pinpointing are different DCs, because as far as I know they aren't. You either see something or you don't. So to begin with, his total modifier while invisible is +24. It only takes a move action to actively search the area. You can even do it twice per turn using a double move. The trained guards with 17 Perception will eventually find him. 17 - 24 is not even close to impossible and believe me, rolling stealth checks every round can be your undoing.

2 - The guards can't (per RAW) hear the character any more easily than they can see him. Spot and Listen are 3.5 skills. Perception is a 3.75 skill. But finding the character is altogether irrelevant because of...

3 - Readied Actions. Ready some crossbow bolts or better yet a trip attack on the condition that the guards see a fireball forming. They will be 100% sure where to attack, although they will still suffer a 50% miss chance from total concealment.

4 - Carried items become invisible while Stealthing, but attached creatures do not. No joke, use weasels. They have scent which automatically alerts them to the presence of a Stealthed creature, and they know the exact location when they're within 5 feet. How expensive are rodents? Even guards can afford several. Swarm the place. Once they find the target, they can either scream or attach themselves, thereby revealing the target's location.

5 - Use smart terrain. Water and doors will reveal the sorcerer's location to anyone on the lookout for an invisible character. In my opinion you should use immobilizing traps, nothing magical, just to pick on his Reflex save and remind him that he's not a rogue.

If you need more suggestions, let me know. Invisibility is not as powerful as it may seem. Just like any other feature, you have to use it intelligently to be successful, and it's pretty clear that your sorcerer isn't getting into any thieves' guilds yet :D


1 person marked this as FAQ candidate.

Does a Shadowdancer's Shadow Companion ever heal on its own?

It is undead.

An undead creature "cannot heal damage on its own if it has no Intelligence score." Shadows have an intelligence score of 6, so this shouldn't be a problem. But...

"Undead do not breathe, eat, or sleep." As far as I can tell, the only 'natural' healing that occurs in the game stems from sleep. But since the Shadow doesn't sleep, does that mean he is incapable of recovering hitpoints on his own?

I'm asking because my pet needs health, and I don't have a way to feed him negative energy. I am strongly averse to taking cleric levels. I don't think I should have to dip into another class to use the features from the one I want to be.


Ramarren wrote:

Let me throw in a monkey wrench, however.

As a 3rd level wizard, I use Summon Monster II to summon a Giant Centipede.
On round 2 of its 3 round duration, the Centipede successfully bites, applying Poison with a frequency of 1/round for 6 rounds. At the end of round 3, does the poison disappear along with the Centipede, saving the victim from further effects?

If the poison stays, then the consistent position is that anything you can wolf down during the duration is nutritious (it continues affecting the body after the disappearance of the creature).

If the poison disappears, then the consistent position is that Summoned monsters can not be used as food, but the utility of Summoned monsters with venom is reduced.

That's a really good point Ramarren. I myself am one of those OCD people who needs consistency, particularly when the enforcement of a rule is involved.

It seems that, assuming conjuration[summoning] spells function as cited by Sigurd, any lingering effects would disappear when the summon expires. A la your poison example. If nutrients leave the digestive track, then poison would leave the bloodstream.

I'm anxious to see if anyone can cite rules to legitimize or disprove that logic.


Sigurd wrote:

p.209-210 in the Core Rulebook.

"A summoned creature also goes away if it is killed or if its hit points drop to 0 or lower, but it is not really dead." p.210

I would go so far as to say that if you broach the terms of the summoning - ie choose to attack it with knife and fork - you will also end the spell and the creature will vanish.

That's why you'd need a special spell that creates or calls a sacrificial creature. You basically need a death to have a body.

Thanks for the citation Sigurd.

Also, my previous point about nutrients being extracted from your system is irrelevant I think, because the food created by Create Food and Water doesn't disappear, it just spoils.

So [creation] you can eat, [conjuration] you can't, because [conjuration]s leave the plane at the expiration of the spell or breach of summoning conditions. Got it.

Thanks for the info, everyone.


wraithstrike wrote:
The water and feast spells were intended to nourish you so they do. The intent of the summoning spells was not to be food so they should not. By RAW there might be a way to make it work. Are you asking about RAW or RAI?

RAW.


Fatespinner wrote:

Also, most of those spells have durations of 24 hours or Permanent. 24 hours is more than enough time for food to be eaten, digested, and... erm... expelled from the body.

Not all of the food is expelled. That would make eating perfunctory. The materials of interest are deconstructed and distributed throughout the body.

If the whole of summoned materials disappeared after 24 hours, it wouldn't matter whether you had digested it or not. The materials would still disappear, right out from your cells.

In fact, that could be deadly. As in DC 99 Fort Save deadly, depending on what nutrients were instantaneously extracted from your body at the expiration of the summon.


Abraham spalding wrote:
Please note that while Heroes feats, Create water and Create food and drink are all conjuration spells they are not conjuration[summoning] spells -- they are conjuration[creation] spells -- which is a completely different category with completely different rules.

That's a solid argument Abraham, and I'm pleased to see this going in a technical direction. But where did you find that, "Summoning magic specifically states that everything of the summoned creature goes away when the creature does -- no matter how it goes away." I want to believe this because it sounds legitimate, but could you cite the page number or passage you pulled this from?


Sigurd wrote:

According to the Prose Edda, when Thor is hungry he can roast the goats for a meal. When he wants to continue his travels, Thor only needs to bless the remains of the goats with his hammer Mjöllnir, and they will be instantly restored to full health to resume their duties, assuming that the bones have not been broken.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thor

I'd absolutely allow my players to research a summons they could eat. I don't know if its not a little evil but then maybe that's not a problem.

I don't think you could do it with the standard spell though. Summoning certainly exists in varied forms. I think they'd have restrictions similar to Thor never breaking or loosing a bone. Or some sort of contract with a more senior entity.

Wow, awesome reference Sigurd! And that is a really cool suggestion pending a definitive "no" on the RAW.


Name Violation wrote:

on a related note, i don't get how trolls can die of starvation. they could cut a piece of their leg off and regenerate the piece back

Name Violation, at the risk of being a huge biology dork, the metabolic process of regeneration is far more taxing than could be accounted for by the caloric intake of the appendage to be replaced.

But I suppose that the troll could still fight starvation like ****, gradually growing smaller as he consistently fell short of the calories necessary to finish the regenerative process of any given limb.

In other words, pending the nutrients involved with regeneration (probably a lot more calcium than he could glean from the severed limb), he could just keep getting smaller and smaller as he kept regrowing limbs to a fraction of their previous length.

Fear the starving mini-trolls.


Ravingdork wrote:

There is a precedent for summoned food NOT disappearing, provided you can get it in your stomach before the spell's duration runs out.

Just take a look at create water, create food and water, heroes' feast and similar spells. If I am not mistaken, they are all conjuration spells in their own right too.

Ravingdork, that's an excellent point. Create Food and Water has a duration of 24 hours, but the nourishing effects of the conjured material are pretty strongly implied to be permanent.

Is there anything in the rules to specify why the effects are permanent, or suggest that eating a summoned creature would or would not provide permanent nutrition?


Kryptik wrote:

Mildly irritating?

Try to imagine being awake and fully aware of someone carving your thighs off every day for...however long it takes.

Yeesh.

Kryptik I agree that it's a bit... rudimentary, but after a month or so you would imagine that the creature would get used to it. The anticipation would be extinguished via conditioning, at any rate; and given that length of time, the incisions would become clean. Most adventurers would get pretty handy with a cleaver after a few weeks :D


Fatespinner wrote:

Well, my take on it is this:

Duration 1 round/level (D)

When the duration ends, the summoned creature, including all of its meat, blood, teeth, etc. disappears with it. So, even if you could cut a chunk out of a monster and fry it up in the space of a minute or two, the meat would vanish from your stomach long before it was digested. So no, you can't eat them. Or, rather, you CAN, but it won't nourish you.

Thanks for the input Fatespinner. That's my take on the situation, too, but I was wondering if there were any specific rules that could inform the situation.

Edit: You allude to another interesting point - the roleplaying elements of the rushed preparation / consumption involved with the ordeal could be a lot of fun.


It is my understanding that, according to D&D fiction, summoned creatures return to their original plane upon taking lethal amounts of damage (effectively making them immortal). I have to assume that the creature's indigenous plane provides some sort of sustenance, or the creature couldn't survive there. So, if you're a starving wizard, could you potentially summon a creature, cut off a chunk of its flesh, cook it and eat it? This process seems infinitely repeatable, and at worst mildly irritating to the creature, since it never dies.

Most summoned creatures should be able to withstand a few blows before returning to their home plane. In the case of a creature like an auroch, two blows could feed the summoner's entire party.

Are there any rules to support / contradict this logic? Would the severed chunks of flesh be transported back to the home plane when the creature was transported, thereby nullifying any nutritional value it might have had?

I know this seems bizarre, but I am asking this question in earnest.


The Shadow Demon, a level 6 summon, can cast Magic Jar 1/day. However, he is an incorporeal.

A large part of Magic Jar deals with the caster's body. But incorporeals have no body. So how, according to the rules, do incorporeals deal with mechanics related to the caster's body when they cast Magic Jar? Does it mean that no matter how far the jar / host is from where the incorporeal initially cast the spell, he doesn't die of failure to return to his own "body?" When the spell ends, would he materialize just outside the former host or the jar itself? Does it mean that when the spell ends, the incorporeal is automatically slain because he is closest to the clause, "or die if your body is... destroyed?"


Donato, I love your idea, but I think your implementation is a bit perfunctory.

The purpose of using cards is to introduce an element of randomization. If I were playing blackjack, and I got to choose which cards to draw, I would hit 21 every time. Similarly, if I were reading fortunes with tarot cards and I got to choose which cards to draw, why would I even bother with the cards? The way that you have this class setup right now, the PC is basically a wizard who announces flavor text upon casting spells (magic missile - I combine Mars with Athena).

The class would simulate the use of cards much better if each card represented an individual spell and the PC had to select a card from his deck at random, then cast the spell depicted on the card he drew. Then, the card drawn would lose its power until the deck was shuffled again (many full round actions), or until the caster slept. Three ways to do this:

1. (My favorite idea) Bring an actual deck of cards, shuffle, and draw the top card. You don't even have to be a good artist to make this work, just hop on photoshop (or paint), make a cool fireball image and give it a unique number in roman numerals, then print it on cardstock.

2. Give your DM a list of your cards, and let him choose which card you draw. This would simulate the "divine will" of the cards, a la the belief in a functional tarot deck.

3. Use dice (this would lead to some very messy bookkeeping). Assign a number to each card, and roll to see what you draw.

Obviously, casting spells at random is a huge drawback. In order to counteract this and bring the class into its own, I would institute one of a number of counter measures - things that help the class break even on the power curve and also help it feel unique. For example, the class could gain access to a new level of spells every 3rd level (instead of 2nd), but if the PC spends 10 full minutes (100 full round actions) shuffling the deck, it works again. So, per battle, you have an array of low level spells that you can cast randomly a number of times equal to the size of your deck, but infinite times a day. You could also give the class normal spell progression, but give them +1 to saving throw DCs, or extend the duration of their spells by 1.5x the normal duration, but I think those are a bit boring.

If you don't like giving the class their spells back after reshuffling, another thing you could do, that also adds some flavor, is give the class some cool features. For example, every 3 levels they get to draw up a class feature card from another class. So at level 3, you can make a channel positive energy card, or a favored enemy card. Could be positively amazing when you draw it, could be positively worthless - that is the beauty of randomly drawing cards. Your risk is higher, but your reward can be as well. You could also give them features like, once a day, you may search your deck for a specific card and cast it; however, the rest of your deck will cease to function until reshuffled.

Hope you work out something cool, I want to read what you come up with in the end.


Tanis wrote:


As per Core p.187: "If you are using two weapons, you can strike with either weapon first".

I see where you are coming from, but the rules don't state that you have to strike with one weapon first. They simply state that you can. That excerpt does not change my point of view.

I don't want to get entirely off topic here, but I believe that the mechanics support the hypothesis that a TWF character can use both weapons in one thrust. He incurs a -2 penalty to attack rolls for fighting with a weapon in each hand. Wielding a heavy shield does not incur any such penalties, yet a heavy shield weighs far more than a dagger. The initial -2 doesn't seem to be a matter of weight or balance. It seems to be a matter of divided attention. And as the mechanics here suggest that the character is thinking about both weapons at once, I don't see why he can't attack with both weapons at once.

This could be logistically impossible against a single target when using certain double weapons, but I am referring to the use of two individual weapons. Realistically, in light of RAW anomalies like rope climbing horses, I think this is a very minor point of contention lol.


Great thank you very much for the clarification!


According to a strict interpretation of the rules, a TWF rogue gets to deal sneak attack damage with the first attack of each hand when taking a full attack action from stealth.

As far as the rules are concerned, you become visible after your first attack.

However there is nothing in the rules to state that you can't attack with both hands at exactly the same time. So you would be invisible for the initial roll of each hand, because neither attack happens after the other, thus the invisibility remains intact until both attacks have resolved.


A. Do the rules mean character level or class level when they say, "Her level?"

B. Do they mean character level or class level when they say, "The class's level?"

Example A: "A paladin uses her level as her effective cleric level when channeling positive energy." By RAW, I would assume this to mean that it used character level, because the 'paladin's level' literally refers to the total level of the paladin, but is that what's intended? It seems silly, because a 4 level dip in paladin could grant a more powerful channel energy ability than an 8 level dip in cleric...

Example B: "This ability functions as silent image, using the shadowdancer's level as the caster level." Does this mean it uses the character's shadowdancer level, or the shadowdancer's character level? Again I would assume the character level by RAW, because the literal 'shadowdancer's level' means the total level of the shadowdancer, but again it's counter intuitive that a 3 level dip in shadowdancer should yield a better silent image than a 6 level dip in wizard...

I wish that every reference to level in the class descriptions specifically stated "X's character level" or "X's class level".


I am currently loving my Rogue, but the class is far from overpowered in combat (even with the Pathfinder enhancements).

Might I suggest that, instead of resorting directly to house rules, you first experiment with a single encounter? A party-sized band of 2H Barbarians and composite bow Rangers ought to shed some light on the food chain of D&D combat.


Good to know, thanks for the swift replies. I used line of effect as a keyword from your post James and found the following.

"Line of Effect: A line of effect is a straight, unblocked path that indicates what a spell can affect. A line of effect is canceled by a solid barrier. It's like line of sight for ranged weapons, except that it's not blocked by fog, darkness, and other factors that limit normal sight."

azhrei_fje wrote:

A more interesting question is whether the aura from a magic item can be seen through the cracks in a door (for instance) using detect magic.

Does the aura radiate (or in game terms, emanate) from the magic item so the glow could be seen around a corner, or is line of sight required to the magic item itself?

The RAW are silent on this AFAIK.

"A burst spell affects whatever it catches in its area, including creatures that you can't see. It can't affect creatures with total cover from its point of origin (in other words, its effects don't extend around corners). The default shape for a burst effect is a sphere, but some burst spells are specifically described as cone-shaped. A burst's area defines how far from the point of origin the spell's effect extends.

An emanation spell functions like a burst spell, except that the effect continues to radiate from the point of origin for the duration of the spell. Most emanations are cones or spheres."

Emanations do not go around corners, but as Tanis said, the Detect spell might go through the object granting total cover, provided it is thin enough. So even though you can't see an aura behind a thin wall, you could sense it with a Detect spell.


Do area of effect spells go through walls or ceilings?

If Player A is on the 1st floor of a 2-story house, and he does not have line of sight of Player B who is on the 2nd floor, but Player B is technically within range of Player A's Prayer (assuming that spell radii are spherical and not circular), does the Prayer spell affect Player B?

This has come up two games in a row for our group. We decided to allow the spell to go through ceilings, especially since it was Prayer (lol?), but I want to know if there are any rules that address this before it happens again.


Uncanny Dodge states that: "[a creature] still loses her Dexterity bonus to Armor Class if immobilized."

The grappled condition states that: "A grappled creature is restrained... Grappled creatures *cannot move* and take a –4 penalty to Dexterity."

The issue of whether or not one could sneak attack a grappled creature that had Uncanny Dodge came up today. I just want to make sure I'm clear on the rules. "Cannot move" is *not* the same thing as "immobilized", correct? I can't find immobilized listed among any of the conditions. Does it no longer exist in Pathfinder? If that is true, then a creature with Uncanny Dodge never loses their Dex bonus to AC (aside from feinting) and can only be sneak attacked via feint or the Helpless condition? By RAW, it seems as if the Cowering condition would not negate the Dex bonus of an Uncanny Dodge character, either.


Cool, thanks for all the clarification : D


Chris Mortika wrote:
Put another way, if someone's 9th Level, and has devoted all their Feats and tactics towards one fighting style, they ought to be pretty good at it.

And she will be, with her non-magical Guisarme. (Although Barbarians / Fighters have more than 3 feats by level 9, and this combo hardly represents all of their feats)

But in order to attain that level of perfection when it comes to crowd control, Sonja sacrifices some of her damage during a single turn. Instead of making her opportunity attacks with a +3 Glaive, she has to make them with a non-magical Guisarme. -3 attack and -3 damage. It's really not the end of the world.

If Sonja wants to deal more damage, she can drop or sheathe the Guisarme and pull out a +3 weapon. But unless it's a trip weapon, she can't trip with it, which means that she can't trip with reach and have an enhancement bonus on the same turn.

If you really can't afford the free action and move action that the exchange requires, try to acquire a magical Guisarme. That takes you right back to letting your DM decide whether you should be able to trip with a reach weapon and make opportunity attacks with a nice enhancement bonus during the same turn. If he doesn't mind, he'll probably let you buy one. If he does mind, you'll probably never find anyone that makes magical Guisarmes.

The bottom line is that nowhere in the text is there any direct mention of whether or not you can make a trip attack with a weapon that does not include the trip keyword. So it is a matter of opinion. Is the presence of the trip keyword on some weapons supposed to indicate that you can't trip with weapons that lack said keyword, or is the fact that you can make a trip attack in place of a melee attack supposed to indicate that you can trip with any melee attack? There is no official ruling, and in that sense, your DM can make whatever decision he wants without breaking any rules.

Because Greater Trip is so abusively powerful when combined with a reach weapon, my opinion is that you should not trip with a non-trip weapon, simply because you can reduce a monster to no effective action 88% of the time, and you're still taking 2 OAs (which is better than a full-round attack); you should at least give up your enhancement bonus so that other, non-powergaming roleplayers at the table whose characters are 1/3 as effective as yours can be effective in combat.

Everybody loses nuclear war. That's not how roleplaying games were meant to be played in my mind. If you're going to enable a powergaming douchebag by letting him use some combo like this, at least give the people who are actually trying to play D&D / Pathfinder, not Find the Loophole, a way to keep pace.


Quandary wrote:
Well, as they say, maybe Fighter-types can have nice stuff SOMETIMES :-)

This isn't nice, it's absurd. If a wizard wants to take a monster out of a fight, the monster has to pass 1 save. It also eats up player resources. If the Reaching Tripper wants to do it, the monster effectively has to make 3 consecutive saves in 1 turn, each with a 50% chance. Oh and they still have an attack saved for anything that runs past them. And it doesn't eat any resources.

Do math. That's broken.

Quandary wrote:

And if you're Dire Carebear, options like Sundering/Disarming the Reach Weapon that's tripping you,

or just Grappling your Trip-Tormenter can be pretty effective in this case. Or using Spring Attack. Etc.

Remember, you automatically trip something once per rage. So the monster is on its back to start the fight. It has to use its move action to stand up, and its standard action just to get Sonja within its reach.

The Carebear can't grapple because it doesn't have an action left to ready. It can ready a sunder or disarm attempt on the weapon, but that's not only going to provoke another OA, but the ridiculous Reaching Tripper is going to have a massive CMD.


Rake wrote:
With Club Sauce wrote:
Official rulings aside, I wouldn't allow characters to trip with a non-trip weapon.
Fortunately, that IS the official ruling.

Actually, there is no official ruling :D There are now 2 threads unsuccessfully disambiguating the rules. It can't be done, you can make an argument for either side right now. Fortunately, a good DM can settle matters of opinion very quickly.

Mynameisjake wrote:
I'm not sure you can use trip during the AoO for someone standing up.

That's a good point, I hadn't considered that. Since Sonja only gets 1 OA to trip the bear, it will stand next to her at the end of 50% of her turns. It still never gets to attack her, and she gets to attack it twice.

This really doesn't matter though, since Sonja still gets 2-5 trip attempts. OA when it moves next to you, Full-Attack to trip twice on your turn, and possibly up to twice more (Haste effects or monster movement).

I think you guys nitpicking my scenario are missing the forrest for the trees. There is still an 88% chance that the monster does absolutely nothing on its turn. All the while it is taking at least 2 damaging attacks per turn. Trip + Reach is still insanely powerful, and if you restrict it to a Guisarme only combination, you prevent the DM from having to modify the campaign in ways that would be detrimental to players who aren't being power-gaming douchebags.


erian_7 wrote:


For this off-topic, can you be more specific? I'm not sure what rule you mean, and in general objects do interact with spells (thus the rules for objects (see below). A fireball will ignite combustible material, a gust of wind can move objects, etc.

Earlier you said that, "Rocks can't interact with a spell, and thus never get this save." It's not relevant to the discussion anymore, but just to clarify this in my head, objects can interact with spells, correct?


Official rulings aside, I wouldn't allow characters to trip with a non-trip weapon.

Here's the thing: Greater Trip is insanely powerful with reach weapons. Allow me to elaborate.

Our level 9 Barbarian, Sonja, has 20 Strength, 16 Dexterity, Combat Reflexes, Improved Trip and Greater Trip. She wields a Guisarme, so she positively can trip with a reach weapon.

Her CMB to trip is 9 (BAB) + 5 (strength) + 2 (rage strength) + 4 (feat bonuses), TOTAL = 20. She also has Strength Surge, which adds her strength value to her CMB yet again, for an additional + 7 CMB on one attack per rage. So her total CMB on the trip can be as high as 27.

She moves 10 feet away from a Dire Carebear and trips it. Our Dire Carebear has an average CMD at that level, we'll say 28. So, while raging, there is absolutely no chance that Sonja is knocked prone or forced to drop her weapon on a failed Trip attempt. If she rolls a 1 with a bonus of 20, her failure margin is still only 8. While Surging, she automatically succeeds on any roll higher than 1.

Sonja blows Strength Surge to auto-succeed on her first attempt. The Carebear falls prone; because she used Greater Trip, the Carebear triggers Opportunity Attack #1 (from Sonja and every other melee character that threatens him).

On his turn, the Dire Carebear stands up. Trigger OA #2. But don't actually attack him, just trip him again, since you can use it in place of a melee attack. By some uncanny stroke of misfortune, Sonja fails.

Now that he's upright, the Carebear wants to move next to Sonja. He's already used a move action to stand, so he can't shift. He has to move, which triggers OA #3. Trip him again, and this time Sonja succeeds. Trigger OA #4 as he is falling. This time, deal damage.

The entire monster's turn was useless. All he did was provoke 4 OAs. Sonja has to fail two consecutive trips (which will happen approximately once in four turns) just so that the Carebear can move next to her. Worst case scenario, all she has to do is shift and repeat the process on her next turn. Best case scenario, Sonja just stands there and attacks a prone target twice.

This cycle is never going to end. A Greater Trip polearm user takes 1 monster entirely out of the fight, while still making OAs against other approaching enemies if she feels so inclined. You might say, give the Dire Carebear some ranged attacks. But Sonja is still tripping him right back down as he tries to stand up, and again as he tries to cast / shoot. You might also say that a non-reach character could do this, but at least in that scenario the Dire Carebear could just attack her while prone (or right after standing if he wants to risk the free attack). I also understand that the feat Lunge would enable a non-reach trip weapon to do this, but at least then you're taxing the character another feat and some AC. In the end, that's still a small price to pay for the ability to completely remove a monster from the fight.

By ruling that the Guisarme is the only reach / trip weapon in the game, the DM retains some degree of control. If Sonja never gets a magical Guisarme, she will have to choose between damage dealing mode and ultra control mode, by virtue of which weapon she is wielding. In all likelihood, Sonja will be the only one taking OAs against her trip-buddy (unless your party is full of reach weapon wielders), so at least you give the trip buddy a little more durability.

This seems like a much more amenable solution than giving every monster in your campaign 4 extra legs, or boosting every monster's CMD by 5. Those actions would penalize the rest of the players who weren't being total douchebags.


I had overloooked something.

The last line of Shadow Evocation states that, "Objects automatically succeed on their Will saves against this spell."

So this overrides the fact that unattended non-magical objects automatically fail saving throws. You guys are right and I was wrong, the object saves.

So let me recap SE Darkness so far. Correct me if anything here is wrong.

1. Effective darkness level: Since Shadow Evocation boosts the spellpower of its emulated spells to level 5 by boosting the saving throw DC to that of a level 5 spell, it is reasonable to assume that the effective darkness level of the spell is 5. A caster would need a metamagic Daylight spell, or any other metamagic light-shedding spell, to dispel it, cast at or above level 5.

2. Target: The spell targets a touched object, which automatically makes its save. I assume this means that if you pick an unwilling creature as an effective target, you must succeed on a touch attack to put the spell on one of their items.

::Off topic:: Can someone reference the rule that states that objects cannot interact with spells? It seems like objects must be able to interact with spells, or spells like Mending and Obscure Object would be moot ::End off topic::

3. Effects: So long as you successfully touched the object, illusory Darkness is still cast. The sword you cast it on disbelieves the spell and is unaffected, but it still radiates illusory Darkness in a 20 foot radius. Creatures that interact with the SE Darkness make a saving throw. On a failed throw, the Darkness is simply a level 5 Darkness spell; on a passed throw, the creature is entirely unaffected.

4. Defining interaction: Skip Williams covers this in All About Illusions (Part Three). To summarize - attacking and actively observing something with a move action are considered interaction. You receive your Will Save immediately after completing the interactive action. Speaking may or may not be interaction; it is only interaction if there is an exchange, simply speaking at something does not constitute interaction. Skills that could affect the illusion are interaction. I would assume this to mean Intimidate or Sleight of Hand constitute interaction. Skills that could not affect the illusion are not interaction. It is clearly stated that stealthing past something does not constitute interaction.

5. Extrapolating interaction into our SE Darkness scenario: Using a move action to find something hidden in SE Darkness is interaction. Peering into the Darkness and deciding that you can't see anything, without at least making a perception check as a move action, is not. Trying to attack a creature through the Darkness is interaction - the first attack would grant concealment, but the attacker would receive a Will Save immediately after the attack resolves. Basically, unless the Darkness would react to your action somehow, it is not interaction.

::Off topic again:: What if a Silent Image tried to Sleight of Hand something away from you, and intentionally failed as per your design? Because it failed, you would notice the attempt, but you wouldn't react to it, at least until your turn. It also wouldn't really affect you, because nothing was taken. Does this constitute interaction? ::End off topic again::

Does this summarize Shadow Evocation Darkness correctly?


erian_7 wrote:

The effect description for damaging and non-damaging spells are distinct and should not be mixed:

Damaging Spells

Quote:
Spells that deal damage have normal effects unless an affected creature succeeds on a Will save. Each disbelieving creature takes only one-fifth damage from the attack. If the disbelieved attack has a special effect other than damage, that effect is one-fifth as strong (if applicable) or only 20% likely to occur. If recognized as a shadow evocation, a damaging spell deals only one-fifth (20%) damage. Regardless of the result of the save to disbelieve, an affected creature is also allowed any save (or spell resistance) that the spell being simulated allows, but the save DC is set according to shadow evocation's level (5th) rather than the spell's normal level.

The sentence "If the disbelieved attack has a special effect other than damage, that effect is one-fifth as strong (if applicable) or only 20% likely to occur." specifically applies to effects that both deal damage and do something else. So a shadow ice storm when disbelieved would deal 20% of the 3d6 points of bludgeoning damage and 2d6 points of cold damage to every creature in the area. Creatures inside the area would then take 20% of the –4 penalty (0.8, with the "always round down" rule leading to a -0 penalty) on Perception skill checks and the entire area is treated as difficult terrain (20% effect means that every square of difficult terrain counts as 1.2 squares of movement. Each diagonal move into a difficult terrain square counts as 1.8 squares.).

Non-Damaging Spells

Quote:
Nondamaging effects have normal effects except against those who disbelieve them. Against disbelievers, they have no effect.
Reading anything more into this due to connections with the Shadow plane is not necessary. The spell type/descriptor--Illusion (shadow)--only states "Shadow: A shadow spell creates something that is partially real from extradimensional energy. Such illusions can have real effects. Damage dealt by a...

Thanks Erian. That's a clear explanation that confirms what I thought, but it's still ridiculous... This spell shouldn't have components, it should just require the Leadership feat with at least 3 accountants in your entourage... Thank god the object is the only thing making a save on Darkness. That's nice and neat :D

I still have 2 questions pertaining to Shadow Evocation:

Who or what makes a save against a shadow evocated spell that targets an area?

Are evocation spells that don't necessarily deal damage, but have the potential to (Wall of Ice, Wall of Fire, etc) classified as damaging spells or non-damaging spells?

Does Wall of Ice fall under non-damaging until it deals damage? At that point, what happens to the non-believer standing inside a wall space when the wall becomes 20% real and he rolls that it does affect him. Is he pushed as per a teleporting wizard that lands inside of a solid object? If the wall is thick enough, could it potentially kill him this way? By the way I am beginning to think that this spell is altogether ridiculous.


Thanks for the replies everyone, it's nice to read your thoughtful insights on this. It's a very tricky issue that I don't feel comfortable deciding on my own.

Greg Wasson wrote:

Interesting arguements all. I believe this can be answered on PFRPG Core page 340. Under the spell desciption Shadow Evocation

It states;
"Non damaging effects have normal effects except against those who disbelieve them. Against disbelievers, they have no effect."

So in the case above darkness has no effect as it does no damage.

Thank you,
Wasgreg

Greg I noticed this too, but before that it says, "If the disbelieved attack has a special effect other than damage, that effect is one-fifth as strong (if applicable) or only 20% likely to occur." These two things directly contradict themselves, and they're both official, right in the spell description... Is it supposed to mean that a non-damaging evocation effect originating from a spell that also deals damage retains a 20% chance to work against disbelievers, whereas non-damage effects from spells that do not also deal damage never work? This is the only conclusion I can draw while adhering to both rules... but that's just plain ridiculous...

meabolex wrote:

Darkness doesn't target creatures. You cast the spell on an object. Objects automatically pass the disbelief check. There is an 80% chance that the spell *will not work* on the object. If the spell *does* work, then it's like someone cast darkness on the object. If the spell *doesn't* work, then nothing happens.

The effect from the darkness spell is to lower the illumination level in the area. Creature's don't disbelieve if the illumination is lower -- it is literally lower if the spell takes effect. Creatures never get a disbelief check from darkness.

I can't argue with your logic, and I love how binary this makes the illusion - either it worked and everyone sees it, or it isn't there at all. It's concise, practical, and above all technically correct. Thanks for pointing out that bit about objects, it really clarified this dilemma for me. One small thing I have to add is that objects don't actually pass their saving throws by default, they fail them.

"Nonmagical, unattended items never make saving throws. They are considered to have failed their saving throws, so they are always fully affected by spells and other attacks that allow saving throws to resist or negate. An item attended by a character (being grasped, touched, or worn) makes saving throws as the character (that is, using the character's saving throw bonus)."

Attended nonmagical items use the wielder's saves, unattended magical items have saves of 2 + CL/2, and attended magical items can use the higher of the 2 (2 + CL/2 or wielder's).

So the opposite is true. If you cast the spell on an unattended object, it automatically works, and the darkness affects everyone, even a creature whose base save is so high that he would have exceeded the DC on a roll of 2. So all you have to do is drop something as a free action, cast the spell as a standard action, and pick the object up as a move action. Viola, Shadow Evocated Darkness never fails.

I have to ask though, does an area automatically fail/pass its save as well? Or does every character that interacts with the illusion in that area receive an individual save. If the area itself made a save, this would clear that magic hut nonsense right up.

hogarth wrote:

At any rate, Shadow Conjuration is clear what happens if you succeed on your save:

"A creature that succeeds on its save sees the shadow conjurations as transparent images superimposed on vague, shadowy forms."

Now it doesn't explicitly say that works for Shadow Evocation, but it seems reasonable to assume so.

This goes back to my original point. You have transparent, illusory Darkness cast on vague, shadowy forms. The forms themselves are not transparent, only the illusion of Darkness is. Aren't shadowy forms themselves dark enough to lower the light level in an area by 1 step? Again, the rules say one thing, but my common sense says another. I guess I just have to ignore it and accept that this isn't supposed to be fiction, it's supposed to be a system of rules.

I still have questions pertaining to the Shadow subschool, but they don't specifically address Shadow Evocation and Darkness, so I'll save them for another topic.


I'm still not entirely convinced that disbelieving a Shadow Evocated Darkness spell would enable someone to see through it 80% of the time.

Perhaps I did not voice my reasoning very clearly. I'm going to state 3 logical steps to explain why I think it would never be possible to see through a Shadow Evocated Darkness spell.

1. Illusions are physical manifestations that cannot be seen through upon disbelief.

Shadow Evocation creates an illusion. Disbelieving an illusion does not inherently grant the ability to see through that illusion. In real life, you can recognize that the image reflected off of a convex mirror is an illusion, but that doesn't somehow force the mirror to reveal your true dimensions. If you notice the lines on a man's bald-cap, you still have no idea what the top of the man's head looks like underneath the cap. If a moviegoer recognizes CGI, he doesn't actually see the green screen that was filmed behind the image. Disbelief =/= X-ray vision.

2. Darkness has to have a physical manifestation.

If the illusion attempted to manipulate a creature's thoughts directly, somewhat like a dream, then there would be no physical manifestation. But Darkness is not a targeted spell, it is an area spell. An area illusion spell would require some physical manifestation, however unbelievable, in order to affect space. So physically, there has to be some material from the Shadow Plane occupying the 20-foot region of the simulated Darkness spell.

3. The material comprising this manifestation cannot be transparent.

The only way a creature would possibly be able to see through this material is if the material was transparent. Clearly, since it blocks the vision of creatures who fail their will saves via some physical manifestation, it is not transparent. Believing that something is fake does not make it any less opaque.

Does anyone disagree? Do people even have opinion on this? I am open to alternate interpretations, but I need a way to logically cope with them.


If a character uses Shadow Evocation to cast Darkness, do creatures receive a Will Save against the Darkness? A strict interpretation of the rules leads me to believe that the answer is yes, but common sense leads me to believe that the answer is no. Disbelieve a shadowy illusion of Darkness all you want, it's still dark because it's made out of shadow...

Also, does the effective spell level become 5, so that Daylight or Continual Flame can no longer dispel the Darkness spell, as per the spell level of Shadow Evocation? Or does the spell level of Darkness supercede the spell level of Shadow Evocation, keeping it at "light level" 2? I am confused because Shadow Evocation raises a spell's DC to that of Shadow Evocation (5), in essence making the mimiced spell's spell level 5, but Darkness is a bit of a unique case, as light spells have varying degrees of power with relation to each other based on their spell level. For that matter, would a Heightened level 6 Darkness spell dispel Daylight?