Yorien's page

Can caster, using suggestion spell,

1) tell party member to "kill their friends, they are conspiring against you", GM said it is not harmful to himself to attack own party.

Maybe, but you should forge some proof, and the suggestion most certainly won't end in a frontline assault.

If you simply say that without proof, spell will most likely fail. But if you show the target some "proof" (or "examples") that his allies are conspiring, suggestion may work.

Still, be aware that the spell only suggests a course of action, not the way that action has to be done, and of course doesn't make the target stupid. Depending on the class, alignment, abilities... the course of action will be different for every character, and unless a character is sure that the best course of action is an "outnumbered 1 vs X frontal assault", that course of action will never be taken.

2) then he does not try to kill them directly but casts a suggestion spell of "go to sleep" to party member engaged in combat? GM said falling asleep is not harmful but then party member was hit with coup de grâce by engaged enemy.

Four words: NO WAY IN HELL.

Remember the rule: The suggestion must be worded in such a manner as to make the activity sound reasonable..

Does "go to sleep" in the middle of a fight sound reasonable? NO.

That would automatically negate the spell.

3) allowed to pass through friendly squares, while he is killing "Allies"? or would the parties enemies know be friendly squares and he is no longer able to pass through party squares since he is "killing" them?

Initially yes. Any creature decides whether other creatures are friends or foes, and thus allow them free pass or block them. If you somehow suggest that a former "foe" is now a friend, may change the target's way of thinking allowing the foe free pass.

But if the newly acquired "ally" starts behaving badly against other allies, then the suggestion's target may change her mind again.

4) Use suggestion on another member(summoner)to create pit under himself and Eidolon, when refused it would be hurt full then let spell caster change to "create pit under Eidolon and anther party member" Did not want to cast due to -2 penalty and likely to fall in, then told to move then cast spell.

I'd say no in both scenarios.

A suggestion is NOT a command the target is forced to follow. A suggestion is exactly that... a suggestion. It has to make some sense and be useful in the current scenario.

The first scenario will 99% of the time immediately fail because of basic self-preservation, same as a "kill yourself" suggestion. It "might" work in the rare case that where an ancient dragon is about to breathe, so it's either "hide on the pit" or get roasted... but for most other situations, it's a no-go.

The second scenatrrio is slightly more feasible, but in most situations placing a pit under two allies, probably dealing damage to them and removing them from a fight doesn't make much sense. Remember that the suggestion "must sound reasonable".

5) used suggestion spell to tell Eidolon " do not let archer attack me" went to attack and was told I could not still attack because I am not stopping anyone from attacking.

Don't quite understand the question here.

You would really beat your friend unconscious and risk their death, if you thought they were "acting weird"?

People can die from non-lethal damage, don't forget that. But sure, if that's how you'd react to one of the PCs "acting wierd" then I see no issue responding like this to NPCs that also do that.

Though I don't know why you could conclude that the caster is one acting wierd, rather than your party acting weird (perhaps the party is acting wierd, and it's up to you and your lamia buddy to render them unconscious).

The actions a charmed creature may take would depend on the exact scenario, the charmed creature's class, her alignment, and previous caster's actions. Charm person just makes the caster your "friend", doesn't make the charmed creature stupid or amnesic. Also, she may be your "friend", but so may be the rest of the party. Finally, take into account the OP essentially pointed that the group is already in combat, probably against her.

A couple scenarios with some possible outcomes.

Scenario 1:

Combat Round #4 in the middle of some random ruins: Lamia already attacked several times, another party member is downed, two orcs are attacking your mage and suddenly she asks you to fetch some water while she's holding your party's rogue under her paws. There's no need to roll CHA here, there's clearly something wrong with her and/or your party. No chance you'll leave battle to fetch water; stop everyone before more damage is done but try not to kill anyone except those orcs.

Scenario 2:

Combat round #4 near a city: Orcs are attacking your party but she's been acting passively (although why the hell she's not helping your group?). She suddenly asks you make a run to the city and call for reinforcements while the rest of the group keeps the orcs busy because your barbarian is the fastest runner. Hey that idea is actually not half-bad - specially if you think the party will manage against "only those orcs" - and she may perfectly get that CHA roll.

So, I disagree with my playgroup that denies that when you reenter an ally's circle that you get to make a new save against an effect that exerts control over them.

They do, in fact, get to make a reroll on their save if I am correct.

Can anyone confirm or provide an official link to the correct answer?

Thanks ahead of time!

Circles only provide the supression roll once, as long as the creature making the roll enters the circle for the first time, or the circle is cast catching the dominated creature on it's area. A creature that started "inside" the circle, leaves the circle and enters it again no longer gains the benefits.

Also be aware, if the circle or the protection spell is cast reactively (on a currently dominated creature), the creature doesn't get a roll to terminate the domination effect; she gets a roll to supress the domination effect as long as the protection spell lasts or she stays inside the circle. If the spell ends and the domination effect is still active, the domination resumes normally.

Well, I dunno about Common sense there. Magic already trumps skills too much. If we have a PC who has invested in a great deal of Perception and the Step up Feat, I think it simply makes sense to allow him this.

Invisibility doesn't have to involve spells or magic. There are ways for a creature to become invisible through other means, and even creatures that are constantly invisible per-se.

Against magical invisibility, it usually doesn't matter how much perception a creature has; the penalties to pinpointing are usually too high if the invisible creature actively stealths, so chances are 99% of the time the creature attempting the pinpoint will fail miserably. Against other means of invisibility pinpoint chances are better, but still dificult.

Usually, the most common action of getting a pinpoint is when the invisible creature makes an actions that forces her to give away her possition, at least to some of the creatures involved (for example, attacking others)

You can't just "allow" a player to use a feat because of a high stat or skill unless you houserule that. Many feats have requirements (as Matthew Downie stated, probably prerequisites is not the word to use) that must be fulfilled for the feat to "activate"

The Step Up feat requires for an opponent to behave in a very specific way (be adjacent to the feat user, take 5-foot step, move directly away); this behavior is done on the opponent's turn (not the character's) and, since the foe is invisible, his actions are hidden so the character does not know if the requirements are fulfilled or not.

The player may know the creature's actions (because the GM mistakenly plays the invisible monster actions "in the open", for example), but the character does not know that info. If the player then translates the info he got to his character then that player is metagaming.

But, looking at it another way, Step Up isn't automatic - you'd have to declare you want to step up. And you couldn't (or at least wouldn't) do that if you weren't aware that you your opponent had stepped away. So I guess that's a way to justify ruling this sensibly.

This is the main point. The character (not the player) must be aware that as specific action is being made, and when, so he can actually try to counter that action or react in a specific way. Unless the character can somehow get that information (and info granted by perception checks is nowhere close to granting that), foe's actions are directly hidden from the character.

There are two checks that can directly grant information:

A "flat" DC20 check allows a character to notice an invisible foe in a 30ft vicinity. This is the "reactive check" you're granted for free. You know there's something around you, but don't know exactly where

A creature can generally notice the presence of an active invisible creature within 30 feet with a DC 20 Perception check. The observer gains a hunch that "something's there" but can't see it or target it accurately with an attack

An active check may be attempted to pinpoint the foe's current location (square)... until the foe moves.

If the invisible creature moves, its location, obviously, is once again unknown.

Depending on the circumstances, the pinpoint can be a flat check (if the opponent doesn't actively attempt to hide) or an opposed check vs the opponent's stealth roll in case the invisible opponent actively acts stealthily. Depending on circumstances, a pinpoint check vs an invisible, actively stealthing foe may perfectly require a DC100+ check

RAW, you can Step Up in pursuit of an invisible opponent you can't perceive and are entirely unaware of. There's no rule saying you can't.

Common sense, you can't, but that's a house rule. It's a reasonable house rule that you can if you can make a high enough Perception check, but I have no idea what the DC would be, given that this question still hasn't been answered.

RAW, there are three things that state you can't: The fact that the feat has prerequisites.

Prerequisites

Some feats have prerequisites. Your character must have the... indicated ability score, class feature, feat, skill, base attack bonus, or other ...quality designated in order to select or use that feat. [...]

A character can't use a feat if he loses a prerequisite..

The Step Up feat has three prerequisites

Benefit: Whenever an adjacent foe attempts to take a 5-foot step away from you, you may also make a 5-foot step as an immediate action so long as you end up adjacent to the foe that triggered this ability.

a) Opponent must be adjacent to you. If you don't know where the opponent is, you can't simply assume he's always adjacent to you to qualify gfor the feat.

b) Opponent must take a 5-foot step movement. If you don't know the type of movement he used (for example, a 5ft move action), you can't simply assume that the 5ft move is always a 5-foot step to qualify for the feat

c) Opponent must move away from you. The moment an opponent moves you lose his track so you don't know if the foe moved away or is strafing you, you can't simply assume that the foe used the 5-foot step to move away to qualify for the feat.

You can't declare you use a feat only on assumption it's prerequisites are met. You can only declare when your character is 100% certain they've been met. Since you don't know the exact actions an invisible creature does, you will never be 100% sure of those actions unless you either houserule, or metagame as a player and not as a character.

2bz2p wrote:

blahpers wrote:

This is getting silly.

Foe takes a 5-foot step. Fighto the Fighter makes a reactive Perception check to notice. Success? Fighto can Step Up.

And would you further this to include a character using Opportune Parry and Riposte against an invisible opponent having to first make a reactive perception check to even use the ability?

Yes.

There are two things that prevent OP&R from working.

1-. OP&R takes the place of an AoO (and it counts towards your AoO limit), you cannot perform AoO's vs creatures in total concealment.

The swashbuckler makes an attack roll as if she were making an attack of opportunity

2-. OP&R requires you to make the check before the attack resolves...

The swashbuckler must declare the use of this ability after the creature’s attack is announced, but before its attack roll is made

... but you're not given the pinpoint of the creature until the attack is resolved and actually confirmed as a hit.

If an invisible creature strikes a character, the character struck knows the exact location of the creature that struck him

If you're not struck, you don't even get the pinpoint or general location of the creature.

blahpers wrote:

I meant the rods that reinforce longer scrolls (mentioned in the above scroll case description), not magical rods. ; )

Ah, my mistake.

Yeah, by "reinforcing rods" they mean aomething like this:

Reinforced Scrolls vs Normal scrolls

You sure can tightly roll up the right one, but no chance of cramming the left one anywhere.

Is there something more affordable for a low level character?

The cheapest is the scroll case, at just 1gp. Fits 4 scrolls retrieving any of them as move action (generates an AoO); or you can cram more scrolls inside retrieving any as a full action.

As said, scrolls are best left for utility spells that are not dependant on saving throws. Essentially, you want to scribe "cheap spells" (mostly lv1-2 spells) you don't want to memorize everyday since they're situational, but can save your party when the need arises.

Some ideas:

- Comprehend Languages (lv1)
- Endure elements (lv1)
- Protection from XXX (lv1) - pick your most common oppossed alignments.
- Align Weapon (lv2)
- Delay Poison (lv2)
- Gentle Repose (lv2) - critical if your campaign is prone to player deaths.
Lesser Rejuvenation (lv2) - Early on is not very important, later on you'll want several of these, trust me.
- Resist energy (lv2)
- Dispel Magic (lv3) - Keeping a couple of these becomes important later.
- Water Breathing (lv3) - Deopening on what modules you're allowed to play with, you can get earlier variations, like Abboleth's Lung or Air Bubble.

There are many others, think of situational spells you might be able to use in your specific campaign but that normally are dead weight to give you ideas.

Ok, let's see. Teleport states:

You must have some clear idea of the location and layout of the destination. The clearer your mental image, the more likely the teleportation works. Areas of strong physical or magical energy may make teleportation more hazardous or even impossible.

If the wizard has studied carefully the room as you said, he merely places the room on his mind to port to it, he does not have to scry the current room status.

The main point is that you have to play with both layout and location. You may be able to make severe changes to the layout, but the heavier the caster location awarenes the harder for the spell to be deceived, so think how well they know the location. They've been in the room? they know where it is "in the neighborhood/city/continent/world"? The more info they have, the harder for the spell to be deceived even in it was a kitchen and you turn the room into a brothel. Layout is important, but location may be even more

To give an idea, you know where your house is because you've been living there for XX years and essentially know the street, neighborhood,city, damn, even if you checked google maps, you know it's general location on planet Earth. Even if it gets totally bombed, if you teleport to the porch you would most probably port to the crater in the place where the porch was. The layout has been heavily changed... but your location knowledge is too strong, so you can still land on target.

So, illusions would do nothing because neither layout nor location are changed. Flooding, webbing... would also do nothing (again, layout and location unchanged). Players would just port and deal with the consequences (drowning, reflex saving throw, whatever)

Very severe changes to the layout might grant a chance for the spell to grant you an "Off target", but again, the more location knowledge caster has, the heavier the changes will have to be. 10 extra closets won't be enough.

Things that could actually work might be:

a) Physically prevent the destination to be a valid destination. For example, flood the room... with concrete. There's no physical way for the tp to succeed this way (unless you decide it works and they get fused at a molecular level with the concrete), so players WILL land elsewhere, most probably somewhere nearby (let's say th caster knows the localization well enough, to the point of knowing it's is in castle X, tower A. Chances are, if there's a similar room on tower B, they'll port there instead).

b) Magically prevent the destination to be a valid destination. An Antimagic Field the entire size of the room WILL generate a wrong teleport result because there's no way the spell can land on-target. Destination up to you (I'd go with "off-target" or "similar area")

Excellent :-)

Many thanks and extra points for great detail

There's the "small" issue that Wall of Fire does not use area aiming

First, check the spell description for the aiming descriptor the spell has:

Wall of Fire

Effect opaque sheet of flame up to 20 ft. long/level or a ring of fire with a radius of up to 5 ft./two levels; either form 20 ft. high

The bold word on the spell description states the descriptor the spell has. In the case of Wall of fire, it's aiming descriptor is Effect, so you abide by Effect rules, not by Area ones.

Second, use the aiming rules based on that spell descriptor:

Aiming a Spell

Under Effect rules, you see this:

Effect: Some spells create or summon things rather than affecting things that are already present.

You must designate the location where these things are to appear, either by seeing it or defining it. Range determines how far away an effect can appear, but if the effect is mobile, after it appears it can move regardless of the spell's range.

Wall of Fire has effect aiming since it creates something out of nowhere, same as many other spells like summons.

Essentially, you can place the spell anywhere you want as long as you can see the destination or can define it correctly, limited by the specific aiming rules a spell may have or the type of effect it generates, if any (for example, to aim a Summon monster spell you have to designate an empty square - or group of squares - that can "fit" the summon, because creatures are placed in squares). You're not forced to "latch" the spell to any grid intersection, since that's an area-aiming specific rule.

Also, you must abide by Line of Effect rules:

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.

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

A burst, cone, cylinder, or emanation spell affects only an area, creature, or object to which it has line of effect from its origin (a spherical burst's center point, a cone-shaped burst's starting point, a cylinder's circle, or an emanation's point of origin).

An otherwise solid barrier with a hole of at least 1 square foot through it does not block a spell's line of effect. Such an opening means that the 5-foot length of wall containing the hole is no longer considered a barrier for purposes of a spell's line of effect.

Emphasys the bolded words. You can perfectly define an effect inside of a fog cloud even if you don't see the destination location as long as you can define it correctly, but you can't define an effect behind the castle walls (unless there's a big enough gap that allows you to see the other side) since the walls are solid barriers

Yorien wrote:

It would also force creatures to roll ST's the next rounds for each square they navigate, since all would have a blade barrier (So a creature would always be considered as "crossing" a square)

You roll only once for the whole spell. Unless a spell expressly call for saving for every square you pass, the save and the damage happens only once/round.

Any creature passing through the wall takes 1d6 points of damage per caster level (maximum 15d6)

You roll once every time you pass through the wall, not just once per round.

If you're in the left side of the barrier and chose to cross to the right side you roll. If later this same round you change your mind and chose to cross it again to end on the side you started, you roll again. If in a single round you chose to run at x4 or x5 movement and zig-zag through the barrier to prove how macho your character is, you get chopped down everytime you cross it, not just once. Toll is paid every time you cross, there's no frequent flyer discount.

Same would happen if you zig-zag forward or backwards while staying inside the barrier line, for every square you move you're passing through a square the barrier is in.

You'd roll just once per round if you stand in the barrier and chose to take a picnic in that square, though.

Well damn. I never looked at that section that way, but rather as an explanation as to how to measure burst effects, rather than in the context of measuring all spells. That offers another way of looking at the intersecting rules... large creatures or diagonals. Aight, I'm convinced.

That sentence does not apply to a Blade Barrier. It only affects Area targeting spells.

Blade barrier has Effect targeting and does not have the spread subtype, so it doesn't mind about grid intersections unless you actually want to place a wall at one (and lose the initial damage it deals unless you catch a L+ sized creature in the middle).

While wall of force is often used as a bridge, doing so is incorrect. Wall means wall, as in a vertical object. Wall of force cannot actually be made horizontally by the rules.

Actually, disagree here... while the WoF's description states it must be a vertical plane...

The caster can form the wall into a flat, vertical plane whose area is up to one 10-foot square per level. The wall must be continuous and unbroken when formed. If its surface is broken by any object or creature, the spell fails.

...There's no minimum height requirement, and nowhere is stated that height must be the highest value of the wall. Since WoF must be a vertical plane you cannot flip height so it rests horizontally, but as long as you can declare a legit height value (commonly 1ft since you're working with square areas) you're good to go and can spend most of your area on width and length.

*edit* alfways effing thinking in meters.

I'd say your GM abused the spell in that scenario by allowing it to bend and turn. In case the baddie did actually cast two separate BB's (one on each square), then it'd clearly be a PK passageway, but at least legit.

Talk with him, if he considers he's right, start abusing similar spells and he'll soon reconsider once his game quickly derails because of the vast amount of power he granted to many eligible wall spells.

So the question is does Blade Barrier in its wall form take up 10ft or 5ft

If a BB it's placed in a square it's expected to affect the entire square it's in, will not extend to adjacent squares.

In other words you can't reshape the wall into double lines or boxes.

Per RAW, the spell only states is a vertical curtain or a ring, nothing says it can or can't be bent or turn although it is EXPECTED to be placed in a straight line.

In fact, a BB allowed to bend and turn would become an exceptionally damaging spell, also in open areas... just think of the Snake game with something in the middle. Maybe your cleric would be interested in this idea...

He cast blade barrier in a 10 by 10ft corridor and said that we the players didn't get a save because it took up the entire length of the corridor

In that scenario, I'd say he's actually right because of the following sentence.

If you evoke the barrier so that it appears where creatures are, each creature takes damage as if passing through the wall. Each such creature can avoid the wall (ending up on the side of its choice) and thus take no damage by making a successful Reflex save.

Your GM placed the wall in the middle of a square and actually bent the wall so it also occupied all available "safe" squares. In that scenario there's no safe square to jump since every square a character can move would be threatened by the BB.

It would also force creatures to roll ST's the next rounds for each square they navigate, since all would have a blade barrier (So a creature would always be considered as "crossing" a square)

Koi, the effect of Blade Barrier is "wall" not "line."

Walls, (such as wall of stone) are inches thick at most. They do not take up a full square's width, they exist on the gridlines.

The Blade Barrier targeting descriptor is EFFECT. You can perfectly place effect spells in the middle of a square if you want (in fact, in many cases you actually have to). Grid intersections and PoO are mainly required for spells with AREA targeting descriptors.

You can also place walls (not just "wall spells", but any wall) anywhere you please. The fact that you normally will place walls on grid intersections or grid lines for easines of use inside of tactical combat doesn't mean you are forced to always place them there.

But what of the masterwork shield? It costs less than 300gp extra and can still be enchanted as a weapon. However, it does not gain the masterwork enhancement bonus to attacks, because that is already going to armor check. The lute shouldn't behave any differently. It gives its enhancement bonus to skill checks, instead of to attack rolls, but it can still be enchanted as a weapon.

If an item can have several purposes, you aren't limited to make it masterwork for it's primary use only... but if you want to make it masterwork for other... "secondary" uses, then you should pay the MW cost for that use unless there's already some sinergy between both possible uses. I'd say that to have enough sinergy so specific masterwork crafting isn't required, same as you have to match the item to the "nearest" weapon counterpart, you should also be able to "match" that weapon to the item. If you can't then you must specifically "masterwork-weaponize" the item

Two examples:

Can you bang a head with a 50gp violin? Sure, but you'll end with a broken violin

Can you bang a head with a 5000gp "masterwork" Stradivarius? Sure, but you'll end with a broken Stradivarius.

If you want to repeatedly bang heads with a violin, you'll have to use other materials (for example darkwood), or reinforce it in specific ways so it doesn't break on the first hit. You may perfectly do it but you should pay the weapon masterwork cost for that "weaponization", separate from any other masterwork cost the item might have for it's primary use (let's say a +4 to performance checks). The primary and secondary uses are too different to have a "masterwork sinergy", since, if you consider that you can tie the violin as a "sap", there's no way a sap can be converted into a violin to make a performance at a tavern (unless you switch "stringed instument" to "percussion instrument"...)

In another scenario, you might use a blacksmith's hammer for combat (although at a -4 "improvised" weapon attack roll) same as you might be able to use a warhammer for smithing (although at a -4 penalty to craft checks, for example). In the case of a masterwork Warhammer/Smith's hammer, your could consider both uses have enough sinergy so you don't require a special MW craft for each item's secondary purpose. You won't entirely negate the secondary use penalty, but will at least lessen it a little (from -4 to -3 for example). In this case, you sould also be able to enchant the item for the secundary purpose without issues.

Glide 2nd level spell might be a better spell choice.

Yup, probably a better choice, but I'd say that gliding in a "catapult scenario" should be limited. Glide seems to be planned as a "safe landing" BASE jump of sorts, where you drop vertically with negligible horizontal momentum. When horizontal momentum is high, then Glide should only grant maneuverability.

Taking into account is a low level spell (SL1-2 depending on class), should not be able to completely counter a high sped launch. Still, I'd totally agree that a lauched character under a glide spell would be able to make small turns (10º per round?), some strafing (keeping general launch direction), being allowed to "brake" a little every turn, and maybe be allowed slight altitude control (gaining speed by dropping some altitude).

In game terms, I'd say that a character affected by feather fall would be at the engineers and indirect shot rules mercy. A character affected by Glide might try to adjust course in case the engineers screw up their attack roll to land where he expected (maybe a reflex save or flight check, DC depending on how much the engineers screwed the launch?))

Also, a gliding character could also be allowed a roll to "squeeze" into a thight space of enough size (through the castle portcullis, for example?)

No. To be enchanted as a weapon, an item must first be a MASTERWORK normal weapon, not simply a masterwork item.

While this alarm clock might be a masterwork mithral alarm clock, that does not make it enchantable as a weapon. It does make it really pretty and makes it keep very good time.

An improvised item is not a weapon. An improvised weapon is still a weapon.

If you pay, let's say, 10gp to make a masterwork pitchfork that grants a +2 circumstance bonus to moving hay, you have a masterwork item. But if you craft a true masterwork "war" pitchfork (not a trident, that could possibly be the closest match, but a pitchfork), paying the 300gp required for a masterwork weapon to a weaponsmith , then (apart from the weaponsmith scratching his head and asking himself why the hell would you want something like that), you'll have a pitchfork with a -3 penalty to attack rolls (+1 masterwork, -4 improvised) against cows, wolves and adventurers stepping on you turnip field.

Same goes for Masterwork Transformation. There's no rule that says that a normal item can only be enhanced as a masterwork item, it only requires the item to have a masterwork equivalent, and a pitchfork can perfectly have a masterwork equivalent. If you chose to magically enhance that pitchfork as a weapon and you do pay the M component cost for enhancing that pitchfork as a weapon (300gp), you'll have your masterwork pitchfork improvised weapon.

I just ran the calcs. 22 m/s is equivalent to falling for 2.24s, meaning it is reached after falling 24.7m, or 81 feet. 8d6.

Not a bad value... but there's still the issue that Pathfinder measures "fall damage" in rounds, not in seconds.

If you fall 400ft in a single round you take the max of 20d6 damage (there's no max fall distance in PF, but in DnD3, chara falls upt o 500ft the first round then up to 1200ft/rnd the next ones). If you splat! against a wall at 432ft/round, I really feel taking "just" 8d6 is too little.

Vertical falling and horizontal "crashing" damages should be equal.

Acceleration isn't what causes the damage when you impact a surface. It's the velocity you're going when you experience the sudden deceleration. Going 50 mph horizontally into a huge stone wall will do exactly the same amount of damage as going 50 mph vertically into a huge stone floor.

My point was that on a vertical fall, part of it (and the 20d6 damage cap) is due to reaching terminal velocity. Since on an horizontal impact there will be zero acceleration, unless the launcher is powerful enough to throw the character at terminal velocity (let's ignore slowdown due to friction), maybe part of those 20d6 could be no longer valid (crashing at 430ft/round is way past the 200ft fall required for receiving capped damage. Namely pointed that in case the "launcher" used threw the character at a smaller speed, like 150ft/round).

in that case part of the crash damage could be negated, or maybe converted to nonlethal.

A quick google search is showing about 50 miles per hour as the speed of a trebuchet rock. A human would probably be going slower, but either way thats still 22 meters per second, or roughly a 15 foot drop so.. 1d6 or 2d6 damage as you splat into the wall.

Actually... 22m/s are about 72 ft/s, not 15.

Also, a PF round has 6s, not 1, so a character would travel horizontally 430ft per round. That's some serious speed and some serious damage, not just a couple d6's.

True, there's no acceleration like in a vertical fall, so maybe halve or even divide by 3 the "falling distance", but I really think that 1s damage is too low.

SPLAT!!

Victoria Volt wrote:

One guy thrown by a catapult is considered ammunation, no?

Which of course means that there is a 50% chance that the guy is utterly destroyed on a miss, and a 100% chance that the guy is utterly destroyed on a hit. :P

Well, first of all, the "ammunition" can't do anything about targeting so the catapult engineers chose a square and make an indirect attack to that square. In case of a "hit", the "ammunition" will land in the expected square, and in case of a "miss" GM must check the deviation from the target square using the indirect shot rules to see where the "ammunition" actually ends.

In case there's a wall or vertical surface somewhere near a "MISS" landing zone (on a HIT the creature WILL land in the chosen square, automatically bypassing any obstacles), the GM must chose that happens depending on the angle the "ammunition" was thrown. The creature may end up as a stain if height is not enough, or may actually land on top of the vertical surface if it is.

Now, once the creature "correctly" lands somewhere (feather fall activates and the creature actually touches ground), what happens next would depend on horizontal momentum because if it's too high, any creature landing at such speed will probably lose control. I'd say that if horizontal momentum is greater than double the creature's default land speed, then she can't control the landing, immediately falls prone and starts tumbling for some distance (maybe a 5-10% of the total distance thrown, receiving some damage during the proccess). In case the creature's base speed is enough, then has the choice to somewhat control the landing (for example, by immediately using a full-round action to "brake" or something similar)

...
and using the FF spell would extend the range of the shot (IMHO). Throw the PCs a lot farther... After all, the "falling" part of the vector is slowed/reduced...

Now THIS is a good point. Absolutely right since FF only controls vertical landing speed.

Once FF "activates" the landing zone would completely change since the vertical speed becomes just 60ft/round. The more horizontal momentum the lauch has, the farther away the creature will end.

"Spatting" just became way more probable... XD

Care to show rules for a giant using a creature as a club?

I agree with Victoria here. If a big enough creature (let's say at least a two size difference) can grapple another and be allowed at least a Standard Action the same round (maintaining grapple is by default a standard action), I'd totally allow her to attack with the unfortunate as an Improvised Weapon, no matter the grappled creature is conscious or not. And not only that: first, the unfortunate would also receive damage from any hit "dealt"; and second, if the creature wears metal or heavy enough armor, instead of a club she'd behave as a heavy mace.

For me, something like THIS is totally doable in Pathfinder.

In my opinion:

• What can be classified as an improvised weapon?
  Anything that the GM considers can have a similar match in the weapons table. If there's no similarity then it can't be used as improvised weapon.

  A pitchfork may be a reasonable trident match; a mud jar may be a reasonable single-use knuckle or armored gauntlet; a wooden chair can become a single-use heavy mace, then one of it's legs can become a sap... but a sheet of paper or loaf of bread doesn't have a reasonable match.

• Do improvised weapons count as weapons for all purposes?
  Yes, but mainly for "armed vs unarmed" purposes. A character with an improvided weapon is considered armed.

• Do improvised weapons count as weapons for the purposes of spells which must target an individual weapon such as Magic Weapon or Greater Magic Weapon?
  Yes. An improvised weapon is still a weapon.

• Do improvised weapons count as weapons for class abilities which require a weapon such as Paladin's bond or Magus' spellstrike ability?
  Yes. An improvised weapon is still a weapon.

• Do improvised weapons count as weapons for purposes of enchanting them as weapons?
  Yes. An improvised weapon is still a weapon.

• Do improvised weapons count as weapons for purposes of Feats which require a weapon to use such as Arcane Strike?
  Yes. An improvised weapon is still a weapon.

I designed an encounter for my players very similar to this.

I ruled that Feather Fall when launched from a catapult would only activate the moment you began to descend. Thus a creature would fly upwards in an arc, but when they reached their peak they would begin to fall downwards at 60 ft. per the spell. For simplicity's sake I didn't include any calculations for deceleration, and ruled that Feather Falling halts all horizontal movement when it activates to avoid players abusing it for jumping long distance.

The encounter itself was designed to be a group of orcs that were pushing a huge catapult towards a town with the intent of besieging it. Their leader, described as a 'fat tub of lard, barking orders at his soldiers' from his seat in the basket of the catapult was a tempting target for the group to launch into the air, as it was clear to see the catapult was readied to fire.

Of course, the leader was an orcish Sorcerer wearing a ring of feather falling. Shooting him into the air would give him enough time to lob a few fireballs at long range back at the group as he floated to the ground.

Well, what you said is actually found in the feather fall spell description:

This spell has no special effect on ranged weapons unless they are falling quite a distance. If the spell is cast on a falling item, the object does half normal damage based on its weight, with no bonus for the height of the drop.

Something thrown off a catapult can perfectly be considered as a "ranged weapon", be either a rock or anything else, so either you activate feather fall once the weapon reaches maximum height and starts falling (it doesn't exactly follow the description), or after the weapon has fallen enough distance...

Main point is... how much distance is required for the "weapon" to fall for FF to activate since the description says it must fall "quite a distance"?.

Since making math calculations would take too much time, I'd say that you could just define the landing point, consider the "weapon" reaches maximum height at half the distance, then randomly chose a point between the "maximum height point" and the landing point where FF will activate (45% +1d10 x5% distance for example; per the description, Feather Fall WILL activate before the weapon reaches the ground).

Also, because of the description, seems the "weapon" doesn't lose horizontal momentum, only vertical one (anything thrown with speed still deals half damage based on weigth, with no height bonus - because of the feather fall), so seems you can still "squash" the character against a wall. Also, if thrown with enough horizontal speed, a character most probably will stumble a decent distance upon landing, probably falling prone in the preccess...

This is a "just for fun" rule question -

A character is the 'missile' for a catapult.
What would the effects of this spell: feather fall be on that person as he's launched from that catapult?

Well, based on the spell's wording, I'd say you should apply the following FF sentence:

This spell has no special effect on ranged weapons unless they are falling quite a distance. If the spell is cast on a falling item, the object does half normal damage based on its weight, with no bonus for the height of the drop.

I'd totally consider the character a "ranged weapon" for this purpose, so I'd apply the "falling quite a distance" sentence. I'd say feather fall would only activate once the character is falling AND a good amount of the horizontal momentum gained from the launch is lost. If horizontal momentum is still high enough... well, bring something to peel off the remnants off the wall.

Throw the character as a volley, and be aware that feather fall starts ticking on cast, not when the character starts falling. A very large throw might end with the spell ending mid flight.

What about casting Good Spells with the intent of alignment change, but to Evil?

Then, depending on how your GM rules it, you may perfectly become Evil.

Casting an aligned spell (good,/evil/lawful/chaotic) is an aligned act of that type, and will affect how the spell interacts with alignment (specially with heavily aligned creatures or forces, a neutral creature may not give a f*ck about an Animated Dead being cast on her presence, but a Solar may end up moping the floor with your remains immediately afterwards).

Also, this also means how the spell will interact with the casting character's alignment. A good spell cast by a good creature doesn't exactly have to make that creature "better", but an Evil spell cast by the same creature is something unexpected, and may have alignment consequences.

The point is, Alignment balance adjustment, by CRB, is ruled as "ultimately left at the GM's choice", so a GM may say that "Evil spell X" in situation Y WILL have an alignment balance adjustment but the same spell in situation Z will NOT have an alignment balance adjustment.

Unless you use "additional rules" like the ones from Horror Adventures, and aligned act doesn't have to enforce an alignment adjustment. If a GM wants to allow "rainbow popping" to counter evil spells (specially clearly evil spells like Animate Dead, even more it the spell desecrates sentient creatures), so be it; and if a GM doesn't, so be it, but there's no "good spell counters Evil spell" rule.

KingOfAnything wrote:

The spells are literally described as evil. It's kind of silly the clarification was needed in the first place.

No. They are tagged as evil, with often not the slightest bit of description what makes them evil. Which is my (and I believe many other's) main beef with the "five evil spells" 'rule'.

Evil spells are not just tagged as evil. They have the Evil Descriptor. A descriptor does not simply categorize the spell (as a "tag" would do), it "governs how the spell interacts with other spells, with special abilities, with unusual creatures, with alignment..."

A spell with an Evil descriptor is just not just "tagged" as evil so you can easily find it by searching "evil spells". The spell is described as evil (no matter what you want to do with it) and thus, will interact with anything susceptible to it (in this case, alignment).

I also, don't think that there should be a "X evil spells/Day = alignment shift" rule, it should be left at GM's choice depending on the spell "power" and what is used for. Still, non-evil creatures must be wary of "when" and "what for" they use those spells. Casting a single Infernal Healing to prevent a death won't shift a character alignment to evil, but using it as a main mean of healing "just because it's better than a cure light wounds for out of battle healing" will steadily shift the caster's alignment towards evil.

Also, heavily Good-aligned characters (including Paladins, Inquisitors and Clerics from Good aligned deities) should not happily commune with creatures and characters casting those spells in a frequent basis.

Is the "effect" not the entirety of the spell's manifestations?

The same word can have many different meanings.

For example:

"Effect" (in bold), located in the spell description, it's the spell's aiming descriptor type. An Effect, per ruling is something that is created or appears from nothingness. If you "create" a pit, you point at the 10x10 "hole" (or "entrance") of the pit, and the pit "appears" at that location (you don't require LoE to the entire depth of the pit since it's the spell's "effect" or "manifestation" itself what creates that depth). Same happens with Passwall (it essentially works the same way as Create Pit, but you can also aim it "vertically"), and with Spells like Summon Monster (aiming is: Effect: One (or more) summoned creature(s). You'll need LoE - and enough space - to fit those creatures based on their size)

"Effect" in any other location may mean a completely different thing. For example the Fireball has an aiming of Area 20-ft.-radius spread. You don't actually target the 20-ft radius spread, your aiming (for area spells) is a grid intersection, so you point at a grid intersection you have Line of Effect to, and then the Fireball explodes for a 20ft spread Area of "Effect" (non bold, not located on the spell description) from that grid intersection.

So, Effect (as a spell aiming descriptor) ≠ "Effect" (as everything else you want to use the word for)

As Untenril said before, "A 10x10 area is an area". And he is totally right (actually, it's not just a 2D "area"; once the pit is generated it becomes a 3D "area" since the pit also has depth), but that "area" he mentioned is not the spell's aiming descriptor. Same word, different meaning.

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

I think you're misreading the rules. LoE is required for ALL spells, no matter their descriptor.

The fact that you consider that the Create Pit effect is a 10x10ft "area" doesn't matter , you can call it "area", "square", "pond", "hole"... call it "X". It doesn't matter how you call it, what matters is the spell's aiming descriptor.

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

Thus, all three types of aiming require LoE. But, in most cases, you only require LoE for AIMING, you do not require LoE for most spells purposes themselves

Teleport can pass through solid objects, why?

Teleport can ignore walls of force, why?

What are both Teleport's and Dimension Door aiming descriptors?

Teleport: Target you and touched objects or other touched willing creatures

Dimension Door: Target you and touched objects or other touched willing creatures

Neither of those spells say you require to have LoE towards the destination. For both spells to work you "only" are required to have LoE to their aiming descriptor, which is "Target: yourself and any willing targets". So, if you have LoE towards you and other willing targets, you can Kumbaya out anywhere (up to the spell limits).

A solid barrier apparently blocks any 'effect' spell. except it doesn't, because passwall and teleport and a hundred divination & sonic spells totally ignore them or alter them or destroy them

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

Passwall aiming descriptor: Effect 5-ft.-by-8-ft. opening, 10 ft. deep plus 5 ft. deep per three additional levels

You have LoE towards the initial 5x8ft "opening"? if yes, the spell works.

Divination spells work exactly as any other spell (check most div spells aiming descriptors), except ones that have a "weird" descriptor, like for example, scrying.

Scrying: Effect Magical sensor

A magical sensor is treated as a separate, independent sensory organ of yours. You have LoE to yourself? Yes.

Burning Gaze (gaze spell example) aiming descriptor: Target you

You have LoE to yourself? Yes.

Hope you get the point. You "only " must have LoE towards the point you'll aim the spell at, and the aiming descriptor says where are you aiming the spell at, everything else does NOT require LoE unles splicitly stated by the spell.

If a spell has an aiming descriptor of 10x10 space, you must have LoE towards the 10x10 space. If a teleport spell has an aiming descriptor of "you and touched creatures", then you do not need to have LoE towards the destination... you will use the TP rules to get past that Wall of Force.

[...]

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

[...]

Otherwise, create pit has an area, no?

No, Create Pit has no area. Create pit has an effect

Let's compare an area spell and an effect spell: ye olde Fireball vs Create Pit.

Fireball has an area:

Area 20-ft.-radius spread

Area: Some spells affect an area. Sometimes a spell description specifies a specially defined area, but usually an area falls into one of the categories defined below.

The Fireball's area type is spread

Spread: Some effects, notably clouds and fogs, spread out from a point of origin, which must be a grid intersection.

So, you don't target several squares, you only require LoE to the grid intersection you want the spell to land on, if the grid intersection (hitting one next to a wall, for example) is legit, the spell is legit

Create Pit, on the other side, has an effect:

Effect 10-ft.-by-10-ft. hole, 10 ft. deep/2 levels

Effect: Some spells create or summon things rather than affecting things that are already present.

You must designate the location where these things are to appear, either by seeing it or defining it. Range determines how far away an effect can appear, but if the effect is mobile, after it appears it can move regardless of the spell's range.

So, the create pit doesn't "spread", "enlarge" or "grow" from a square or a grid intersection, it's created as a 10x10ft space directly from scratch and you must designate the 10x10 location you'll want the pit to appear.

Since you must designate a 10x10ft location: you must have a clear line of effect to [...] any space in which you wish to create an effect. Squares behind the door (a solid barrier that blocks LoE) are not legit spaces.

Can you create pit right in front of a locked door, climb down the pit, and then climb up on the other side of the door in the other room?

I'd say no because of the LoE rule:

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

...

An otherwise solid barrier with a hole of at least 1 square foot through it does not block a spell's line of effect. Such an opening means that the 5-foot length of wall containing the hole is no longer considered a barrier for purposes of a spell's line of effect.

Since most pits are 10"x10", if the door is 10" wide, then "maybe" you could. Problem is, you don't have full line of effect if you try to place half of the pit on the "other side" of the door, unless you can somehow see what's on the other side.

Saethori wrote:

But even that is hindered if the troll is physically restricted from eating.

For example, due to being unconscious with negative one septillion hp. He will die of starvation before his health becomes positive again.

No, he can't die. So he won't die of starvation, or of any other cause.

You say trolls don't starve. Paizo explicitly says Trols DO.

...

A troll who doesn't get enough to eat over the course of a few days loses its regeneration and becomes vulnerable, though a single adequate meal will bring it back into fighting trim, and starvation itself is a common cause of death for trolls. Drowning a troll is also effective.

Trolls WILL die from starvation and drowning (unless you houserule otherwise), because Starvation and Drowning conditions involve regeneration STOPPING as part of those conditions kicking in.

Regeneration always leaves that door open. You can make regeneration STOP as part of any special attack form... specially effects, conditions and forms that are NOT healed by regeneration.

Even forms that deal hp damage (like starvation) can STOP regeneration before so they can do their job, and since many conditions can be considered constant (for example poisoned or starved), regeneration ceases as long as they're active.