YIDM's page

The only other spell I can find that clearly states it adds to enhancement and hardness/hit points is the rags to riches spell. Which begs the question, was rags to riches meant to increase hardness by 7 (5 listed +2 hardness for +1 enhancement), and increase hp by 10 + CL (+10 for +1 enhancement, and +CL for spell)???

This spell not only mentions enhancement, but also specifically mentions adding hardness and hit points. Effects like greater magic weapon, magic vestment, and Divine Bond, only mention adding enhancement.

Currently, the RAW is to add hardness and hit points, is inferring that because the +1 sword is a "magic" weapon, when it is temporarily enhanced beyond it +1, it gains more hit points and hardness because of how the black and white rules were written. So rules by inference...which can be a slippery slope if that is not what was intended.

Thoughts? What seems RAI, what seems RAW, and how would you view this topic?

YIDM

Does anyone else care to chime in on this? Has this come up in anyone else game? Does the answer seem intuitive one way or another, or how did "you" think it works? (or was it considered).

Thanks.

YIDM

I would probably just 'ready an action' to perform the "Reposition" maneuver, and the other guy allow himself to be moved. Then the other guy base his 'ready action' on being moved with reposition.

The result is virtually the same, and I don't see a problem with either interpretation.

YIDM

For what it's worth, this very similar instance occurs in a PFS Scenario, and you cannot locate the invisible spellcaster (casting silent spells).

See final combat scenario in: Pathfinder Society Scenario #6–98: Serpents Rise

Spellcasting only creates visible effects when the spell itself has a visible effect (burning hands, bead from a fireball, etc.). A spellcaster casting a silent, stilled, confusion (or a spell-like ability of confusion) creates no such effect. The caster, would, however be looking intently at the target, and a Sense Motive check should be able to determine the intent, and that he's using magic (as the target feels the tingle or hair stand up on the back of his neck - associated with making a saving throw (per PF Core Rules).

As the rules stand, I'm not aware of a visible effect from an invisible spellcaster from just any old spell. It would largely defeat the purpose of greater invisibility.

YIDM

I concur. heroism is a spell, and is the same spell for all intents and purposes, counterspell being the biggest justification, regardless of what level a particular class prepares it at.

I would rule in favor of the ring of spell knowledge, and allow it to function per RAW. So, congrats, to the sorcerer with magic item and ring slot used - - and gets his 2nd level heroism.

I can find no official rules to contract this viewpoint.

YIDM

So, if I read your interpretation correctly - are you saying:

1) If you Divine Bond a normal weapon, giving it +5 enhancement, it can be sundered and broken as easily as a normal sword would be.

2) If you Divine Bond a magical +1 sword, giving it +5 enhancement, it becomes as hard to sunder and break (both hp and hardness), as a holy avenger? (or any other +5 sword)

Is this correct?

You will note the text of the PF Core Rules:
Magic Armor, Shields, and Weapons: Each +1 of enhancement bonus adds 2 to the hardness of armor, a weapon, or a shield, and +10 to the item's hit points.

It says "magic" armor, shields, and weapons.

YIDM

Okay, so what happens when a paladin uses Divine Bond on a normal weapon? (not masterwork).
It's not a magic weapon by any definition, it's not even masterwork (which all magic weapons are), and wouldn't follow the magic weapon rules for dispel magic making it temporary non-magical for 1d4 rounds, but it does gain an enhancement bonus (depending on the paladin's level), per the ability text of Divine Bond.

So, I don't see your interpretation making sense in all instances. The rules should be consistent.

YIDM

So what happens when the Divine Bond wears off (if the item has been damaged)? Does the item sudden break?
Also, stacking enhancement is fine and supported by the paladin ability. But it doesn't say that it increases hit points or hardness (in the description of the paladin ability). Just going by RAW here.

YIDM

The only forum threads I have found similar is the following:

http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2mz4v?Enhancement-bonuses-to-weapons-shields-an d

http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2nz16?Magical-weapons-hardness-calculation

http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2l5fc?Weapon-hardness-and-breaking-items

http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2mjgg?Sunder-dispel-magic-item-natural-attack

However, none of these address my question.

Anyone else know of similar posts about temporary item enhancement and game effects?

YIDM

Question: Do temporary item enhancements to a weapon or armor increase an objects hardness and hit points? …such as those from a greater magic weapon or magic vestment spell, or a paladin’s Divine Bond (Su) ability?

Magic Armor, Shields, and Weapons: Each +1 of enhancement bonus adds 2 to the hardness of armor, a weapon, or a shield, and +10 to the item's hit points.

And per the small legend at the end of table:

1 Add +2 for each +1 enhancement bonus of magic items.

2 The hp value given is for Medium armor, weapons, and shields. Divide by 2 for each size category of the item smaller than Medium, or multiply it by 2 for each size category larger than Medium.
3 Add 10 hp for each +1 enhancement bonus of magic items.
4 Varies by material; see Table: Substance Hardness and Hit Points.

I think the answer hinges on what defines a “magic item”. If we take the literal stance, that a “magic item” is something created with one of the [Item Creation] crafting feats, then it is 'somewhat' clear (or an argument could be made) that a spell would not increase hp or hardness, since the item in question could just be a masterwork item with a spell effect on it.

There is already some precedent that temporary effects do not work the same as the real thing (see greater magic weapon and its inability to penetrate material and alignment DR like a real magic weapon of +5 enhancement, it only bypasses magic, regardless of bonus granted by the spell).

Lastly, if we just apply the RAW (Rules As Written), the temporary effects listed, i.e. greater magic weapon or magic vestment spells, or paladin’s Divine Bond (Su); don’t say they increase the hp or hardness of the items they are on. They only say they give bonuses to enhancement. And if we go directly by RAW, it only does, what the rules say it does…so it doesn’t add hardness or hp, since that’s not listed as one of the benefits that the spells/ability grants.

Thoughts? Or does anyone have a official answer to this?

YIDM

What about the 'Ray Shield' combat trick. It has different language.

Ray Shield (combat)
"You can spend 2 stamina points to gain the effect of this feat while preventing the spell or effect from affecting your shield."

It seems as if you can use this trick without actually having the feat.

YIDM

Tyler Beck wrote:

Kevin Willis wrote:

Cao Phen wrote:

So if you really want, you can buy that 6th level Bard Scroll for 2400gp.

Assuming it doesn't appear on the cleric, wizard, or druid spell list as well.

It's an 8th level Cleric spell.

I think I had sent out a misconception. I was using the bard class spell list as an example. Clarification of that sentence would be this:

"So if you really want, you can buy that 6th level Bard Scroll of Brilliant Inspiration for 2400g, since it is underneath 7th level scrolls and does not show up on a Cleric, Wizard, or Druid spell list."

As for the Angelic Aspect, the Lesser, Standard, and Greater are at Spell Level 2/5/8 respectively. All three cases given Protection against Evil. Only the Greater gives out a Magic Circle against Evil. At the Player's level, if they did fail the save, the cloudkill would be 1d4 CON damage, with the cloud rolling past the party.

The cloudkill was empowered per the scenario, and maximized via a metamagic rod effect, and the PC was stuck in it a few rounds due to a black tentacles effect. The character in question only had a 10 Con to begin with, so, yeah...we would have died had it not been for the +4 racial bonus vs. poison and +4 resistance bonus to saves.

YIDM

Well, that lets me know what I thought was correct. The player had previously purchased that scroll (in someone else’s game) and it was the only reason he lived during the #4-26 Waking Rune scenario at our local convention.

At the time of the battle I thought it was one of the lesser versions of angelic aspect , but I didn't realize he meant the greater version until he said he had a racial save bonus vs. poison and the cloudkill spell effect that he was attacked with. Additionally, an evil summoned monster was kept at bay due to the protection from evil effect from his scroll. I was too busy running the scenario to go thru and check everything as it was running late.

At the end of the day, I figured this out, confirmed what I thought was correct, and after a quorum of the VC's, we ruled that he had actually died, since he couldn't legally have had the item that saved him. And, now that one of the Dev’s (Mike Brock) also confirmed it, there is no question.

YIDM

http://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic/all-spells/a/angelic-aspect
This is an 8th level cleric spell (CL 15), or a 4th level paladin spell (CL 13).

Question: So can one legally purchase this scroll in PFS play below seeker levels? (i.e. 11th level or less)

YIDM

It would still call a creature. They just wouldn't be trapped.

That seems like a reasonable interpretation, based on the language of both spells. Just concerned me when it said you "must" use a magic circle spell.

Question: Does limited wish duplicating planar binding actually do anything without the magic circle spells? The relevant text that concerns me is in the planar binding series of spells (see link):
http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/spells/planarBinding.html#planar-binding

“Casting this spell attempts a dangerous act: to lure a creature from another plane to a specifically prepared trap… To create the trap, you must use a magic circle spell, focused inward.”

This leads me to question, if you don’t have a magic circle spell, and cast planar binding, if the spell effectively fails because you don’t have the ‘trap’, and nothing actually happens.

YIDM

What are the RAW on the following situations and rules:

Question 1: Your party is in a 5 ft. wide corridor, you enter combat, and go to charge an enemy down the corridor… but don’t realize (or can’t see that) your invisible wizard friend has moved in front of you (earlier in the initiative order). What happens by RAW?
My take on RAW: You can’t charge thru a friendly square, so, it appears your charge would suddenly stop, your action would end, and you’d be moved back to the last legal square.

Interestingly, if this is so, seems like just moving around as fast as you can is one of the easier ways to find an invisible opponent (as soon as the GM stops you from entering a square, you know what square he’s at, and your party can hit it with glitterdust or faerie fire; until the invisible opponent moves anyway)

I’d I had to rule it in a homebrew game - - I’d convert the charge into an unintentional “overrun” attempt, possibly knocking over the invisible opponent, and giving it a 50% miss chance (since overrun is an attack).

Question 2: you are fighting an enemy, and your invisible wizard ally wielding a staff sneaks up (using Stealth), and positions himself directly behind and opposite the enemy; do you and the wizard get the +2 flanking bonus if the wizard remains hidden and doesn’t actually attack?
My take on RAW: It appears you would get a flanking bonus against the enemy, as the conditions for flanking have been satisfied (even thou, logically, you shouldn’t as the enemy doesn’t know the wizard is there and shouldn’t be concerned / distracted)

If I had to rule it in a homebrew game - - I’d probably rule it not give the flanking bonus, unless the enemy had reason to be concerned with an invisible opponent behind him.

YIDM

Also please look in the magic section of the core rule book:

Quote:

Saving Throw

Usually a harmful spell allows a target to make a saving throw to avoid some or all of the effect. The saving throw entry in a spell description defines which type of saving throw the spell allows and describes how saving throws against the spell work.

Negates: The spell has no effect on a subject that makes a successful saving throw.

Partial: The spell has an effect on its subject. A successful saving throw means that some lesser effect occurs.

Half: The spell deals damage, and a successful saving throw halves the damage taken (round down).

None: No saving throw is allowed.

Disbelief: A successful save lets the subject ignore the spell's effect.

It doesn't get more clear than that. It has no effect if the subject makes a successful saving throw.

If it did it would say partial, or see text. But it doesn't. So that second paragraph doesn't happen.

Unless they are still under the effects of the rage spell, but the rage spell effect itself is "automatically suppressed"...

I agree that #1 can work, but I also see how #2 isn't out of the question either. Both seem valid.

YIDM

If they save, the whole thing is negated. Otherwise the save line would say Will negates (partial, see text). Or something to that effect.

Since it doesn't say partial or see text it indicates the whole thing is negated by a successful save.

Take a look at Shout as an example for how negate versus partial effects are described within spells.

shout is a very very different effect as it can apply to a creature or an object (and reacts differently to each).

YIDM

I’m trying to figure out if there has been any official clairification regarding calm emotions by a Dev, FAQ, errata, etc. and it’s interaction with rage.
http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/spells/calmEmotions.html

Calm Emotions

School enchantment (compulsion) [mind-affecting]; Level bard 2, cleric 2
Casting Time 1 standard action
Components V, S, DF
Range medium (100 ft. + 10 ft./level)
Area creatures in a 20-ft.-radius spread
Duration concentration, up to 1 round/level (D)
Saving Throw Will negates; Spell Resistance yes

This spell calms agitated creatures. You have no control over the affected creatures, but calm emotions can stop raging creatures from fighting or joyous ones from reveling. Creatures so affected cannot take violent actions (although they can defend themselves) or do anything destructive. Any aggressive action against or damage dealt to a calmed creature immediately breaks the spell on all calmed creatures.

This spell automatically suppresses (but does not dispel) any morale bonuses granted by spells such as bless, good hope, and rage, and also negates a bard's ability to inspire courage or a barbarian's rage ability. It also suppresses any fear effects and removes the confused condition from all targets. While the spell lasts, a suppressed spell, condition, or effect has no effect. When the calm emotions spell ends, the original spell or effect takes hold of the creature again, provided that its duration has not expired in the meantime.

Emphasis mine.

Based on the limited use, the spells concentration requirement, and the “automatically suppresses” text of the second paragraph, I’m inclined to go with interpretation #2.

I found these other two forum posts regarding this subject:
http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2lm1m?Calm-Emotions-Rage-Killer
http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2n2cm?Calm-Emotions-attacks

Has anyone else got anything more definitive about this subject?

YIDM

Can anyone GM the Eyes of the Ten series? Or is it considered an exclusive only run by 4-star GM's and VO's? I'm a 2-star GM myself and was thinking of running this at some point.
One of my VO's said something about "you have to play it first, before you're allowed to run it". But I couldn't find anything like that in the PFS organized play guidelines or anything in the module summary that says that.

Thanks.

YIDM

Summoned creatures 'wink out' when inside an AMF, and summoned creatures' spell effects end when the summoned creature disappears so I'd let the AMF stay for one round, which will hurt the hiding guy, then it goes down and the deva reappears.

What would the rest of you do? I'm not claiming to have the definitive answer.

Actually that is sort of the right answer. summoned creatures normally get an SR check against an antimagic field spell, however, since the creature had to voluntarily lower it’s SR to cast the spell-like ability on itself in the first place, it gets no SR check and as soon as the antimagic field effect is on, it suppresses the summoned creature that it’s attached to and it disappears (effectively it dispels itself; the AMF effect will last longer than the summon monster VIII spell that brought it there).

Now, sadly, I didn’t realize that at the time as I was sick with the flu, but my buddies got me to GM anyhow. Not realizing that fact, I let the summoned creature remain, and the half of the incorporeal spellcaster that was exposed outside the wall became physical, with no magic functioning on him. The AMF emanation couldn’t penetrate the stone wall, so the lower half of the wizard remained incorporeal and inside the wall (per the description of the AMF spell, last line: “Should a creature be larger than the area enclosed by the barrier, any part of it that lies outside the barrier is unaffected by the field.”)

YIDM

I recently had a very messed up encounter due to a antimagic field spell.

A player summoned a Movanic Deva via summon monster VIII (and the arcane school prestige award “summoning specialization”).
He then proceeded to have the summoned Movanic Deva fly up to an enemy incorporeal spellcaster, who was half submerged in a wall (partial cover), and then have the angel use it’s antimagic field spell-like ability.

What do you think should happen in THAT scenario? Lol.

I had a specific question related to detect evil.
http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/spells/detectEvil.html

Question 1) Could someone use detect evil to sense an ambush? (provided he looked / put his cone in the right direction); This based on the text “Creatures with actively evil intents count as evil creatures for the purpose of this spell.”

Question 2) What classifies as an aligned magic item? Is there a formal definition somewhere? Examples would include a Sihedron medallion? (also known as a star medallion), what about a +1 unholy longsword? Now, how about a black robe of the archmagi? Are any of these items really “evil” and as such, detectable by the detect evil spell as an aligned magic item?

My question is if magic items produce spells and spell-like effects can they be used in conjunction with the Shadow Gambit feat (similarly to Augment Summoning and the summoners summon monster spell-like ability).
1) Scrolls? (spell completion item)
2) Wands & Staffs? (spell trigger items)
3) Deck of illusions? (use activated item creating spell-like major image spell-like effect)
4) Ring of decoy? (use activated item creating a mislead [and by reference a major image] spell-like effect)

My question is regarding the Shadow Gambit feat
http://www.d20pfsrd.com/feats/general-feats/shadow-gambit

Shadow Gambit

Benefit: As a standard action, you can draw upon energies from the Plane of Shadow to cause an ongoing figment spell you cast to damage a foe as if the illusion were real. The illusion must be one you retain ongoing control of, such as minor image, and the target must be both visible to you and within or adjacent to the area of your illusion. Using this feat immediately ends the figment’s duration.

And spells and spell-like effects created by magic items (see Saving Throws paragraph)

Saving Throws Against Magic Item Powers

Magic items produce spells or spell-like effects. For a saving throw against a spell or spell-like effect from a magic item, the DC is 10 + the level of the spell or effect + the ability modifier of the minimum ability score needed to cast that level of spell.

So, what is the consensus here? Has a developer spoken to something about this sort of topic?

I'm pretty sure #1 thru #3 are valid as scrolls, wands, and staffs create spells, which are cast by the creature using the item. (and could be counterspelled)

YIDM

Okay, so what happens if you have two spellcasting opponents (A and B) who go in a surprise round, and ignore others party members / enemies that don’t. Both spellcasters ready an action with the clause “If the other spellcaster does anything other than stand there, I cast magic missile at them”?

The spellcaster character A has higher initiative, and on the first round of combat continues his ready action (taking a standard to do so), but then goes to move to get closer to spellcaster character B.
Character B has a readied action, and now goes to attack and cast his magic missile spell, but Character A also has a readied action for the same thing (against character B). Now, who goes first? Is it simultaneous?

YIDM

I just asked that question in the PFS Rules Forum and they said the result was based on some old comments the Developers said back when the Bestiary II first came out.

http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2pj2q?Summon-Monster-Bestiary-2-additional-reso urces

Since then (2011) there has not beeen any offical Dev word on the matter. It seems by RAW you could, even by PFS Additional Resource page you could (since the text on Bestiary and Bestiary II is identical). The "core assumption" for PFS only lists Pathfinder RPG Core Rulebook, and the Guide to Pathfinder Society Organized Play.

I don't see why not based on RAW, and that the elementals are the same CR and category and sizes. This topic seems to need some FAQ love.

YIDM

I don't know, maybe because is had been dead since may...

Anyway the only elemental you can summon are air, earth, fire, and water. See here for the latest discussion and a link on the second post to the actual ruling that hasn't changed in 3 years.

Also Ascension is not PFS legal ** spoiler omitted **

The Bestiary, Bestiary 2,3,4 are all listed in the Additional Resources page, with the same exact text.

I am curious, how then, by the RAW are air, earth, fire, water elementals allowed, but mud elementals not allowed? It's not that I don't necessarily believe you, just trying to figure how they came to that conclusion because it doesn't seem obvious with both books listed on the additional resource page (and same text for both).

Also, per the summary text of the Addtional Resource page, it seems to apply only to PFS legal player character options, and says nothing that it would indicate it also restricts GM's running encounters.

Additional Resources
Last Updated Monday, December 15, 2014

Below is a specific list of Paizo Publishing products and the equipment, traits, deities, spells, feats, and classes contained within that are legal for play in Pathfinder Society Organized Play. While most of the Pathfinder RPG Core Rulebook is legal for play (with some feat and spell exceptions), these additional resources give you new character options. If a product does not appear on this list, then it is not considered legal for play. This list will be updated frequently as new products are released.

In order to utilize content from an Additional Resource, a player must have a physical copy of the Additional Resource in question, a name-watermarked Paizo PDF of it, or a printout of the relevant pages from it, as well as a copy of the current version of the Additional Resources list. (If you're bringing a printout of the pages, it must be from the Paizo PDF and not text copied and pasted into a blank word processing document). Since the core assumption for Pathfinder Society Organized Play is the Pathfinder RPG Core Rulebook and Guide to Pathfinder Society Organized Play, we cannot assume that every Game Master will have the products listed below. As such, it's up to players to bring these items in order to familiarize their Game Masters with the rules.

Emphasis mine.

YIDM

In hard mode, couldn't he use

Are you interrupting games with minor issues?
Are you keeping a moderate tone of voice?
Is your face turning red?
Are you poking the table with the "down-point of declaration" when making your claims?
Are you making commentary on the strength of the other party's intellect or moral fiber?
Are you giving the other person time to speak, without interrupting them, and then paraphrasing their own stance back to them to ensure understanding, all before making a reply?

No (but Yes on one occasion)

I'm not perfect, but I do try and be respectful. As I am here on the forums...but do make it clear, that at times, I feel strongly on the matter.

YIDM

PS - I try not to interrupt the game unless the rules mistake is going to serious mess something up (like get a PC killed, blinded permanently, etc.; when it wouldn't otherwise)

"Should" does not define rules and until they get to be PF devs they don't get to change them. The illusion school is shutdown by spellcraft(a skill) if the spell is cast in front of you, and it has no special protection against detect magic or any other detection spell. I would report them if that was the best answer they gave me.

I'm attempting not be any more jerk-like than I'm already perceived as, being the resident "rules lawyer" of our PFS group in my area.

The real question I have for the OP is, other than the principle of the thing, does this actually matter? We all agree that it's a poor tactic and very difficult to pull off. If the trick is so weak does it truly matter that the GMs ruled it would not work?

Don't get me wrong, I agree that it should work. I'm just trying to figure out whether it's worth arguing about. Just carry around a bag of flour to scatter and you have a mundane anti-invisibility measure that's far more effective.

Yes, I have an arcanist with the see magic arcane exploit, and I've advised others to use arcane sight to do what detect magic can do (especially in home games where you can make it permanent)...and I thought I knew what I was talking about.

These two GM's whole-heartedly disagreed with me on this topic, when I suggested this tactic for someone who played in their game and they over heard me telling them. Then the out of game debate commenced.

Mythic Evil Lincoln wrote:

SO MUCH DAMAGE can happen in three rounds, it's preposterous.

With Detect Magic, can't you walk around dungeons concentrating constantly on the spell? And then you've permanently got the benefits of the third round information? (Not that this would make it as good as See Invisibility.)

Not really, you'd have to go 3 rounds at at time, then move. Otherwise you'd miss stuff in the area you just walked past.

@ the OP.

1. Unless I misread something those high star GM's are incorrect. Invite them to the boards.

2. Asking for dev intervention is not liked by the devs, but if you hit the FAQ button they may answer it since this is a common topic.

PS: Did they give an actual reason as to why you were incorrect?

You read correctly, both are 4-star GM's running Bonekeep in our next convention.

YIDM

Would not work.

You can't use a positive return from a 60' cone of detect evil as a substitute for being able directly target a creature.

Where does it say I have to be able to target them (need line of sight) within the cone to "concentrate on a single individual"? (or did I miss a FAQ)

YIDM

YIDM wrote:

Jeff Merola wrote:

As a four star PFS GM let me tell you that the number of stars we have has very little to do with rules mastery or how good of a GM we are.

Part of the GM's that argued the point used their "stars" as evidence they (both of them) knew the rules better than I did; and I didn't know what I was talking about.

Trying to end an argument by citing one's GM stars (rather than actually engaging the topic at hand) is pretty inappropriate, and such behavior should probably be reported to your local VC (or to Mike Brock if the GMs in question are themselves VOs).

They are both VO's and the VC has been included on the conversation and chain of e-mails as of late.

On the other side of the coin, if this topic was coming up in the middle of a game, then hopefully how you handled it was (unless serious consequences were on the line) to just accept the GM's ruling and move on, and this thread is just your post-game follow up. :)

No no no...it took place outside of the session, but got heated. It continued to a long chain of e-mails including all VO's and primary society GM's for our area (of which I am one of the GM's).

As for the rules question at hand:
The fact that detect magic is explicitly capable of penetrating opaque barriers proves that it does not require seeing the subject.
Detect magic says you can identify the school of magic, and neither the spell description nor the rules for illusions (or for invisibility) provides any exception to that blanket rule.
Detect magic works how it says it works.

Thanks...we'll see what good it does me.

YIDM

Would not work.

Paladin Ability: A paladin can, as a move action, concentrate on
a single item or individual within 60 feet and determine
if it is evil, learning the strength of its aura as if having
studied it for 3 rounds.

As a move action concentrate on a single item or individual. The first part where you used a standard action of detect evil does not give you a single item. It only gives you wether there is the presence of evil in that 60' cone.

How so? I use a standard to cast detect evil spell-like ability, then as a move action, to "concentrate" on a single individual as if studied for 3 rounds. Or even, the following round, use a move action to "concentrate" on the individual whose evil presence I detected the round before...

(?)

What am I missing here?

YIDM

You misunderstand. Even if you pinpoint a creature's square using detect magic, they still have 50% concealment from attacks you make. This is what Ozy is referring to.

Ahhhhh...I understand his statement now. Sorry, lost that one in translation.

YIDM

I was not part of your discussion with those GMs so of course I have no way of knowing for sure.... But I can certainly imagine why they are refusing to see things your way. You may well be completely within the right, but the reality of things is that's essentially not the point. What I suspect, what it sounds like, is you're failing to not be a jerk about it to them.

Again, I'm not accusing and I wasn't there so I don't know and only have guesses. But, I do know that there's far more to convincing someone skeptical of your claims than "proving it to them". Once the window for reasonable discussion is closed, it's a psychological truism that they'll dig their heels in and no evidence will force them to do otherwise.

I completely agree with everything you wrote there. I can definitely come off like a jerk when I feel I'm "right" and I believe someone isn't listening to sound reasoning. That is very likely the case here...I came off to strong, and they mentally shut down and said "cause we said so" (effectively).

YIDM

The paladin's instant detect evil is certainly more problematic.

I actually used a paladin's detect evil ability to great use to find an enemy with total concealment attacking our party. I first used detect evil as a standard action to sense the cone area (and picked the correct area for my cone). I sensed the presence of evil within the cone, then spent a move action (per the paladin ability) to locate the square the evil creature was in...then proceeded to yell out a quick location "behind you, to the left" as a free action.

My party then made short work of the enemy after doing this for a few rounds.

YIDM

Let's put it this way:

We're making a spell that works like see invisibility, but it has a three-round casting time, a very low DC to identify, a 60 foot cone area, and the target retains full concealment, and the spell fails outright if the target leaves the declared area (or you redirect the cone). What level should that spell be?

I know, which is why I can't believe they where arguing the point, or refused to accept the evidence of the RAW text I presented...not one, but both GM's.

Let's put it this way:

I do have a house rule saying invisibility extends to the magic auras unless countered. But I rarely need to use it, because honestly detect magic is a waste of time in 95% of cases.

You don't need a houserule, that's what the spell nondetection is for...or magic aura in the case of unattended objects.

YIDM

PS - oh yeah, and add on that our "proposed" lower level see invisibility--like spell requires concentration to keep working or is over.

I certainly wouldn't allow detect magic to detect invisibility on a creature without that creature being exceptionally stupid; and any smart creature who is invisible would notice a magic user staring while concentrating in a 60' cone and move out of the cone or behind something solid if they were that worried about being "seen" with detect magic.

If a caster were using something along the lines of Arcane Sight or Greater Arcane Sight I might give them that they can see a "blurry blob of illusion magic" in the space with the invisible creature.

Detect Magic vs invisibility is weak at best, because in order for you to find the invisible creature, it would have to stand still for 3+ rounds while you find it and then act on that information.

But yes, it does work.

I'm not evaluating it's tactical application, I'm saying it's how the spells detect magic and invisibility function per RAW and RAI. It's particularly more of use against immobile invisibility spell objects and the like.

YIDM

See invisibility bypasses concealment.

Detect magic does not, and takes three rounds of concentration, which is almost impossible to do in combat (and certainly inadvisable) to identify the right square.

Your GMs are wrong and are being unreasonable.

Good luck waiting for a Dev to comment.

I think you mean detect magic does bypass concealment, heck it can see thru solid objects (which would be total cover in fact). Detect magic states it's limits thou - - up to 1 foot of stone, 1 inch of metal, etc.

YIDM

As a four star PFS GM let me tell you that the number of stars we have has very little to do with rules mastery or how good of a GM we are.

Part of the GM's that argued the point used their "stars" as evidence they (both of them) knew the rules better than I did; and I didn't know what I was talking about.

That said, while you will not be getting a dev ruling on something this trivial, you are correct in that Detect Magic can, under certain circumstances, be used to find invisible things. It just usually doesn't work too well beyond "He's somewhere in this 60' cone."

I totally agree, it's near useless in combat as it requires concentration and takes 3 rounds to work (with the cone and the target in the same relative area; which is unlikely unless it’s a immobile invisible object).

I have TWO different PFS 4-star GM’s arguing with me about an issue that seems clear by RAW and yet they insist that I am misinterpreting the rules. I have presented my arguments to the contrary but they just tell me that we’ll “agree to disagree” and they’re going to run it the way its “supposed to work” by their viewpoint.

The topic: detect magic vs. invisibility

I interpret the RAW to be the following:

Item #1) detect magic can sense the presence of the magic aura of the invisibility spell within its cone (round 1); determine the number of auras within the cone, if there were multiple auras present (round 2); determine the strength of the aura (faint aura, as invisibility is a 2nd level spell, according to the chart referenced in the spell), determine its school of magic with a successful Knowledge arcana check, and pinpoint which square the aura was in (round 3). The invisible creature or object would still have total concealment (50% miss chance vs. any attacks however)

Item #2) detect magic could sense this faint aura even in total darkness, with a blind spellcaster, or if the invisibility spell had total cover from the detect magic user, up to the limits of the spell (up to 1 foot of solid stone, 1 inch of metal, etc., according to the text of the spell)

Item #3) After determining the strength and location of the aura (3rd round); successfully identifying the school of magic with an Knowledge (arcana) check (and identifying it as illusion), the detect magic spellcaster could then also make a follow up Knowledge (arcana) check, and if successful, identify the illusion spell detected (with the faint aura [3rd level or less]) as the named "invisibility" spell.

I presented the RAW text on all of the following:
detect magic -
http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/spells/detectMagic.html#detect-magic
invisibility -
http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/spells/invisibility.html#invisibility
the “invisible” condition –
http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/glossary.html#invisibility
(namely at the bottom where it says invisibility doesn’t thwart divination spells)
mythic invisibility -
http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/mythicAdventures/mythicSpells/invisibili ty.html#invisibility-mythic
(which specifically states that it thwarts detection by detect magic)

All of the above as evidence, but they have disregarded it saying that’s what the see invisibility spell was created for and a simple 0-level cantrip cannot trump a 2nd level spell (citing RAI for justification). They are stating they will not rule it as I have presented, and detect magic will not (or should not) detect a creature or object under the influence of the invisibility spell. I debated that it’s very situational, taking 3 rounds to do (unless you have arcane sight spell on, or the see magic arcane exploit). They have also said unless a Dev comments on it (or it gets added to the FAQ or errata), their ruling is final. I strongly believe their ruling is not correct by either RAW or RAI.

Can we get a Dev to comment on this topic - - please???

When did this happen? I just saw the Additional Resources page and noticed it...as was the "darkvision" replacement trait.

They let Aasimar and Tieflings be grandfathered in, and other core races (like Dwarves) have darkvision, so - - what put everyone's panties in a wad about dusk elves?

YIDM

YIDM wrote:

1. Where does it say, per RAW, that the unseen servant must possess the crossbow to reload it?

1a. dropping the crossbow after attacking is a free action, so even if it does require you to drop the crossbow, it is still valid as it can bring the crossbow to you when it’s done reloading it
2. Where does it say reloading a firearm isn’t a simple action? Per RAW, reloading a firearm has no required check that’s DC 10 or higher, and requires no trained skill to perform, and a non-proficient person can perform the action. (It sounds to me you are making a interpretation which isn’t allowed in PFS; we are talking RAW here)
**mending clothes with thread and needle is at least as complex from a “mindless creature” standpoint if we’re arguing semantics.

3. I agree.

4. Cover is **any** object you hide behind; be it tower shields, flipped over tables, planks of wood (like a diving board), even other characters. So how, per RAW, would a character hiding behind a held up tower shield not give some measure of Cover, as defined in the rules (like +4 AC for "cover" as defined in combat section of RAW?)

1)You can't perform any type of action with a weapon you don't possess. Reloading a crossbow is a move or full round (depending on the type of crossbow) action performed with that weapon. So you can't load crossbow you don't posses.

2)where does it say that reloading a firearm IS a simple action. That is up to GM discretion

3)Still up to the GM on how complex loading a weapon with a paper alchemical cartridge is. What qualifies as a "simple task" for purposes of the spell is left up to the GM.

4)A tower shield specifies that with a standard action you can use it to grant YOU cover not someone else. Therefore, your unseen servant could prop it up to grant itself cover but not you.

1. I can agree with that per RAW.

OldSkoolRPG - on a personal note, I appreciate your logic and objective attitude; that's what I was looking for with my original statement. I was wanting (or hoping) that it could be debated from strictly a RAW standpoint and I appreicate the way in which you've responded thus far.

YIDM

PS - any chance we could flag this for a Dev response?

YIDM wrote:

ryric wrote:

Yeah, I'd say the complexity of loading an early black powder weapon properly might be beyond the nonexistent mental capacity of the servant. If you were in a setting with revolver and other advanced firearms I might see it, but muzzle loading quickly is not an easy process. I've fired a black powder rifle exactly twice, so as a nonproficient user I can state it took me about 1-2 minutes to load the dang thing.

Even if you do allow an unseen servant to load a firearm, it is not proficient and therefore ups the misfire value by 4.

1) We aren't talking real world here, we're talking RAW.

2) I also added Item #3 - a paper alchemical cartridge in case someone argued "complexity". So as to give the option to allow Items #1,3,4 while excluding Item #2.

So...per RAW, what restricts the unseen servant to performing actions #1 thru #4?

YIDM

I think the closest ur gonna get with firearms is what i pointed out. Crossbows are located under "SIMPLE" weapons while firearms are under "EXOTIC". Since U.S. can ONLY do simple tasks and simple is even right there to describe the type of weapon of the crossbow.

Also remember U.S. can ONLY do simple tasks. Do not confuse what rights a pc has (aka the ability to attempt anything we desire weither we can acconplish or not or even profencient or not) is not the same thimgs that U.S. can do. Remember we take penalties because its not being done correctly which can imply the task is not simple.

But alas the firearms debate, crossbows are under "SIMPLE" weapons which means they are simple to use (aka falls under simple tasks U.S. can perform) whereas firearms are under exotic meaning they are foreign and not simple to the average person and dont even have simple anywhere unlike crossbows does.

Your logic is flawed here. “Simple” weapon category weapons are not necessarily less complex than “Exotic” weapons (crossbow vs. hand crossbow for example).

By your logic, the unseen servant could reload a crossbow (since it's simple), but not a hand crossbow (since it's exotic)?
--that makes no sense whatsoever, and isn't supported by RAW at all, sorry.

YIDM

YIDM wrote:

So...per RAW, what restricts the unseen servant to performing actions #1 thru #4?

YIDM

Ok, here's my RAW response:

1.Reloading a crossbow: Yes, but the servant has to have the crossbow, so action economy makes this less worthwhile. Either you spend a move action handing over the crossbow, or you drop it for free, and the servant spends a move picking it up. Now the servant spends whatever action loading, and can either drop it, requiring amove action from you to pick up, or can hand it to you for its own move if it has one left. Either way you spend a move to get your crossbow loaded(if light) each round, or every other round if heavy. Not sure I see the advantage.

2.Reload a firearm: No, this is not a simple action.

3.Reload a firearm with a cartridge: Sure. The servant is nonproficient so your misfire value goes up by 4, in addition to the increase for the cartridge. Enjoy your 1-8 misfire or whatever.

4.Tower shield: The servant can prop up the shield, but that doesn't give you the cover benefits listed in the tower shield description. The shield has to be wielded to get those benefits, and the servant can't wield the shield due to insufficient Str score.

1. Where does it say, per RAW, that the unseen servant must possess the crossbow to reload it?

2. Where does it say reloading a firearm isn’t a simple action? Per RAW, reloading a firearm has no required check that’s DC 10 or higher, and requires no trained skill to perform, and a non-proficient person can perform the action. (It sounds to me you are making a interpretation which isn’t allowed in PFS; we are talking RAW here)
**mending clothes with thread and needle is at least as complex from a “mindless creature” standpoint if we’re arguing semantics.

3. I agree.

4. Cover is **any** object you hide behind; be it tower shields, flipped over tables, planks of wood (like a diving board), even other characters. So how, per RAW, would a character hiding behind a held up tower shield not give some measure of Cover, as defined in the rules (like +4 AC for "cover" as defined in combat section of RAW?)

YIDM

Yeah, I'd say the complexity of loading an early black powder weapon properly might be beyond the nonexistent mental capacity of the servant. If you were in a setting with revolver and other advanced firearms I might see it, but muzzle loading quickly is not an easy process. I've fired a black powder rifle exactly twice, so as a nonproficient user I can state it took me about 1-2 minutes to load the dang thing.

Even if you do allow an unseen servant to load a firearm, it is not proficient and therefore ups the misfire value by 4.

1) We aren't talking real world here, we're talking RAW.

So...per RAW, what restricts the unseen servant to performing actions #1 thru #4?

YIDM