Does Alchemist's Fire actually go boom? Not sure that just if you strap 24 flasks of it together (so to speak) you get 24D6 of boom-age either...<shrug>My character had to design a fuse for the bomb. I forgot to mention that.
Like I said, it was several years ago.
No, I mean, is Alchemist Fire actually explosive? I thought it just started burning on contact with air when the flask gets broken. At least that's what the 3.5 description says ("Sticky, adhesive substance that ignites when exposed to air").
Now if you added an explosive so that it went off mid-air, that'd probably do some damage, though I'd probably limit it to 4-5D6 over a decently large area (with a reflex save, natch), because you can only get covered by so much of the stuff. It'd be like being hit by several flasks at once.
|
Show me the proof.
Sure.
Half-elf Wizard 5 (enchanter)
Str 7
Dex 14
Con 12
Int 18
Wis 10
Cha 15
Init: 6 (Perception 10)
HP 5d6 + 5
AC 12 (16 w Mage Armor) +1 from Ring of Protection
F(2)/R(3)/W(4) +1 from Cloak of Resistance
Speed: 30’
Feats
Scribe Scroll
Skill Focus (Bluff)
Craft Wand
Skill Focus (UMD)
Extend Spell
Improved Initiative
Spells
1st
Identify
Silent Image
Charm Person
Grease
Obscuring Mist
2nd
Hideous Laughter
Invisibility
Eagle's Splendor
Web
3rd
Hold Person
Fly
Extended Invisibility
Familiar: Viper
Skills (6)
Bluff 5 ranks + 3 fam + 3 SF + 3 school + 2 Cha = +16
Intimidate 5 ranks + 2 school + 2 Cha = +9
UMD 5 ranks + 3 SF + 2 Cha = +10
Linguistics 5 ranks + 4 Int + 3 Class = 12
Perception 5 ranks + 2 fam = +7
Sense Motive 5 ranks + 2 fam = +7
Gear 10500
Wand of Mage Armor 375
Wand of C Light 750
Wand of Sanctuary 750
Wand of Entangle 750
Wand of Longstrider 750
Random bunch of scrolls as necessary for the day.
Cloak of Resistance +1 1,000 gp
Hat of Disguise 1,800 gp
Rod of Metamagic, Silent, Lesser 3,000 gp
My Bluff > your Bluff, Your UMD > my UMD but hey, that's what Eagle's Splendor is for, right ?
Suggestion to Gorbacz & LilithsThrall about the wands.
750 gp means you have 50 charges on that wand. You might try buying more wands with fewer charges to increase your diversity. (Not to mention giving you character that "lived in" look. ;)
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
No, I would say you have a DM who plays it very loose with the rules, and lets you get away with a whole lot more than I let my players get away with.1. Bluff isn't a god mode skill in my campaigns. Generally, the benefits of Bluff are short term(they last until the person figures out they have been duped), while the benefits of Diplomacy are long term(You are building a working relationship with the person).
A. A +15 bonus with a +5 situational modifier for having proof gets you a +0 net modifier for an impossible lie. Does every NPC in you campaign have 0 sense motive? A level 5 cleric with 5 ranks in sense motive will have around a +10...I'd say you are playing it very loose with the rules. As per the SRD, impossible lies take a -20 to the roll. And there is no rule that I know of which says that the benefits of Bluff are short term.
If you can point out the rules which contradict either of these points, do so. Else, admit that you aren't playing by the rules.
"Does every NPC in your campaign have a 0 sense motive?" Did I say that the character will be able to easily tell an impossible lie to everyone? No. So, what is your point?
Actually, per the rules...
"Note that some
lies are so improbable that it is impossible to convince
anyone that they are true (subject to GM discretion)."
Plus it's at least a full round action. "I am a powerful wizard, don't shoot!" is still a full round action of taking arrows, clubs, swords, breath weapons etc. If you want to have 'proof' through illusions, there's a full round + a standard action.
Just pointing out that RAW, bluff isn't the end all of skillsets.
I'd also point out your comment elsewhere "He's a fifth level arcane full caster. Realistically, swords are as great, and far more likely, a threat than any of the things you list."
Ray of enfeeblement, first level spell.
Drider CR 7 (good for a BBEG)
Giant Frog, CR 1 (grapple)
Giant Scorpion, CR 3
Shadow, CR 3 (really nasty, since your AC is only 13, flat footed it's 11. thing rises out of the floor, and is smart enough to target the weak guy.)
Giant spider/spider swarm (both are CR 1, so you could see a lot of these)
Violet Fungus, CR 3
All of these, execpt the frog, can do strength damage and are low level threats.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
I know of no sixth sense in the game which let's someone know a spell is being cast if they don't see it, hear it, or are being targetted by it. I'd be interested in you showing me such a rule as it would apply when the caster is invis or stealthed as well.
Casting a spell is a standard action that draws an attack of oportunity. stilled, silenced spells don't change that.
LT I prefer playing a sorcerer to playing a wizard, but with that being said I realize that a really skilled full arcane player (not me) can get more out of a wizard than a sorcerer. I do think Sorcerers are more fun though.
I think it probably depends on what kind of campaign you play. In the campaign I've played in most often, the GM is, in real life, a reasonably high level intelligence officer in the US Army (and a military strategy geek) and the players almost all have been playing RPGs for a couple of decades, at least.
So, subterfuge/intelligence gathering/etc. tends to win battles, not how many rays can be shot in a combat. Also, nation building is emphasized, so politics is crucial.
Our attitude is that, if we have to draw swords, we've already made our first mistake. But, when we do have to draw swords, we strive to do so with the advantage already on our side. Of course, the enemy typically does the same thing. So, if our party didn't plan the encounter, chances are, the enemy did (which makes running away important to party survival).
To give you an example of the kinds of battles we aim for, we sneak attacked an enemy encampment with a catapaulted barrel of alchemy fire (greek oil) on their command tent - we spent weeks of game time scouting and moving to set this up. Compared to that, rays are a nuissance which, if you're lucky, takes out one target.
I think this is the real issue. Under these conditions I think the sorcerer would be better than a wizard.
All you've done is trade out the silent spell feat for a rod of metamagic so that you could add skill focus. If I had done that in my build, my sorcerer would still have a higher bluff score. The reason I didn't is that, as I said earlier, the ability to cast a still, silent illusion to back up a bluff is significant. Grabbing a metamagic rod while doing that is more than a little conspicuous.
Your build doesn't have Still spell, so the casting would be just as obvious as pulling out a rod, Maybe more so. Also silent and stilling a spell would make it a 3rd level spell. Which you dont have access to yet.
I cant find the post you commented about the use of a heal scroll, but even with the DC 31 you will need a wisdom of 16 to cast this spell. At level 11 when the cleric would get it, it would cost you almost half you characters money to have a headband to achieve this (according to table 12-4 wealth by level).
I do think you have a really interesting and fun build. But for better comparison you should look at how well it would fair in published material. You have Grease, Obscuring Mist, and Blindness/Deafness for the times that you are forced into combat. I have found Obscuring Mist to be much harder to use on offense. Great for defense, but you would need to be invisible running around strategical points on the field to use it safely. This requires casting of invisible first then movement, blah blah. Its possible but harder to use that way. Also, with some of this published material I have found a lot of enemies have decent fort saves, so Blindness/Deafness while great for the enemy caster wouldnt work on a hard hitting bad guy. I would look into adding a Will Save or a No Save spell soon to your list.
Other than that I like the build.
I know of no sixth sense in the game which let's someone know a spell is being cast if they don't see it, hear it, or are being targetted by it. I'd be interested in you showing me such a rule as it would apply when the caster is invis or stealthed as well.I don't think that you are understanding him.
If a caster casts a spell, even silent & stilled, it still provokes an AOO and also spellcraft checks can still determine what the spell is going to be should the caster be visible to the observer with spellcraft.
If the caster were also invisible, then unless a potential observer could see invisible then you would be able to cast unknown, pop visible and the effect would occur. Such as an invisible sorcerer casting a silent charm person would neither be seen nor heard casting the spell, would become visible and the target would make a save.
Mind you the sorcerer is using up two of his top tier spells for this, so c'est la vie. I'm not sure what you hope for this to accomplish. The victim will know that something is up when his newly found friend appeared out of nowhere just before his outlook on things changed..
So I'm concerned with your spell selection, skill selection, and item selection and now we're adding to this your perception of what the PC can do. I haven't really looked at the feats, but glancing at the hps the PC is also fragile to boot here.
-James
I have to agree with LT here. I note that he was speaking about readied actions, not attacks of opportunity, but I would apply the same ruling to both. I think a silent still spell is a great way to avoid both. You have to have a trigger for the readied action or the attack of opportunity, and that trigger has to be something that is observable to the character taking that action or AoO. Unless the character can detect thoughts, he has nothing to react to when a silent, still spell is cast.
Of course, you can say that you are going to ready an action to attack on the caster's initiative to hope to disrupt, but 1) that is kind of metagaming, and 2) it is easily avoidable by the caster just randomly holding action a bit to change his initiative.
I also think, based on the build and LT's description of his group's playstyle, that he was probably thinking more of using this more in non-combat situations than combat situations.
All that said, this is a very specific build designed for a very specific role/purpose in a party. Certainly wouldn't be strong in all situations, and the 7 Strength could prove a significant liability against some tactics/opponents, as other posters have said. In role-playing heavy campaigns, however, that have a lot of social interaction, this character could be scary effective. If the playstyle is more about kicking in doors and kicking in teeth, not so much.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
I'd say you are playing it very loose with the rules. As per the SRD, impossible lies take a -20 to the roll.
If you can point out the rules which contradict either of these points, do so. Else, admit that you aren't playing by the rules.
Funny, I specifically pointed out rules that contradict your statement.
You seem to be contesting several points that were never argued.
You, on the other hand, seem to be unable to read what you yourself wrote.
I've tried to be civil, ignoring your attacks on others. The simple fact of the matter is, you've succeeded in ignoring not only what other posters have written, but what you yourself have wrote.
As others have pointed out, you have detect magic, yet can't perform the basic function of identifying types of auras, nor item properties.
You have Identify which gives you a +10 on the roll... your character can't make.
Your build includes a feat not in the PRD and clearly marked as fan content in the pfd20srd. Assuming you replace the Cosmopolitan feat with Still Spell, you can now throw a silent/stilled first level spell, with a first level DC.
You downplay the possibility of ability damage, saying "Realistically, swords are as great, and far more likely, a threat than any of the things you list."
So you assume urban adventuring, with nothing from the list of critters that will ruin his day by hitting his lowest attribute.
I like Sorcerers, actually prefer them over wizards (but psions over both). But I do not see you have the ability to defend your point.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
Attacks of Opportunity are drawn when you let your guard down. There's a big difference between knowing that your opponent let their guard down and knowing that the reason they let their guard down is that they cast a spell.Casting a spell is a standard action that draws an attack of oportunity. stilled, silenced spells don't change that.
I know of no sixth sense in the game which let's someone know a spell is being cast if they don't see it, hear it, or are being targetted by it. I'd be interested in you showing me such a rule as it would apply when the caster is invis or stealthed as well.
"Sometimes a combatant in a melee lets her guard down or takes a reckless action. In this case, combatants near her can take advantage of her lapse in defense to attack her for free. These free attacks are called attacks of opportunity.
Emphasis mine. Casting a spell in melee is option number 2.
"You can ready a standard action,
a move action, a swift action, or a free action. To do so, specify the action you will take and the conditions under which you will take it. Then, anytime before your next action, you may take the readied action in response to that condition."
Declaring "If he starts to cast a spell, I smite." is valid. Silent/stilled/tapdancing/bluffing doesn't change that. In fact, you can't find a rule that says it does.
I have to agree with LT here. I note that he was speaking about readied actions, not attacks of opportunity, but I would apply the same ruling to both. I think a silent still spell is a great way to avoid both. You have to have a trigger for the readied action or the attack of opportunity, and that trigger has to be something that is observable to the character taking that action or AoO. Unless the character can detect thoughts, he has nothing to react to when a silent, still spell is cast.
Of course, you can say that you are going to ready an action to attack...
I don't think it matters, Spell like abilities don't have Verbal or somatic components and they still draw AoO. I think James is right, with a spellcraft check they can realize whats going on and act accordingly
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
Of course, you can say that you are going to ready an action to attack on the caster's initiative to hope to disrupt, but 1) that is kind of metagaming, and 2) it is easily avoidable by the caster just randomly holding action a bit to change his initiative.
I also think, based on the build and LT's description of his group's playstyle, that he was probably thinking more of using this more in non-combat situations than combat situations.
Devil's advocate, Brian.
Isn't "I'm going to randomly change my initiative, to play havok with AoO" also metagaming? Even if you allow it, as long as the initative is before the attacker's normal action, he's still readied.
Metacombat, every count I get the wizard to delay, is a count my party members don't get blasted.
I don't think it matters, Spell like abilities don't have Verbal or somatic components and they still draw AoO. I think James is right, with a spellcraft check they can realize whats going on and act accordinglyI have to agree with LT here. I note that he was speaking about readied actions, not attacks of opportunity, but I would apply the same ruling to both. I think a silent still spell is a great way to avoid both. You have to have a trigger for the readied action or the attack of opportunity, and that trigger has to be something that is observable to the character taking that action or AoO. Unless the character can detect thoughts, he has nothing to react to when a silent, still spell is cast.
Of course, you can say that you are going to ready an action to attack...
Interesting point on spell-like abilities. I sort of assume that there must be some visible or audible or other sign that an ability is being used in order to provoke that AoO. I could agree with a spellcraft check to detect something fishy is going on and attack, although the DC would be fairly challenging. And of course, not every character/creature has the spellcraft skill.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
Assuming you replace the Cosmopolitan feat with Still Spell, you can now throw a silent/stilled first level spell, with a first level DC.
A minor quibble- from the sorcerer arcane bloodline it would be as a 2nd level spell.
-James
Thank you, missed that. I don't use the arcane bloodline often, I prefer the outsider based ones.
Of course, you can say that you are going to ready an action to attack on the caster's initiative to hope to disrupt, but 1) that is kind of metagaming, and 2) it is easily avoidable by the caster just randomly holding action a bit to change his initiative.
I also think, based on the build and LT's description of his group's playstyle, that he was probably thinking more of using this more in non-combat situations than combat situations.
Devil's advocate, Brian.
Isn't "I'm going to randomly change my initiative, to play havok with AoO" also metagaming? Even if you allow it, as long as the initative is before the attacker's normal action, he's still readied.
Metacombat, every count I get the wizard to delay, is a count my party members don't get blasted.
Good points. And I would only suggest a sorcerer or wizard do it in response to someone saying: "I'm going to ready an action to attack the caster on his initiative." Good for the goose, etc.
Does bring to mind an interesting tactic for a caster who is out of spells, however. If he is aware that someone (the ranger standing across the room with bow nocked and pointed as he peers intently at the caster, e.g.) is readying an action to attack when a spell is begun, he can essentially take that opponent out of the fight by always seeming to be about to cast a spell, but never doing it.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
Worse yet you'll find a sorcerer trying to bring 'face' skills to the table will have to skimp on skills. You'll notice that LT's sorcerer has neither diplomacy nor spellcraft. The later is telling as you mention, while the former is distressing if that PC is the sole face for the party. If they're not then you are really trading out a first rate set of knowledges for a second face for the party.
-James
Thank you for bringing this up. As a 'four man band' the sorcerer is going to be treading on typical rogue territory, playing face. He's also requiring the cleric/druid type to spend some of their precious few skill points on spellcraft, knowlege arcana, and maybe other skills. He's also an ineffective counterspeller, since he can't determine what he's countering, and at higher levels, an ineffective binder since he doesn't know what's coming for dinner. "Hmm, I've the name Pazzuzu, I'll use it, sounds like an imp!"
The prototype sorcerer LT has given works in a 'five man band' lineup where the skills can crosstrain, and there's a dedicated arcanist to cover for him.
Edit: you hit my points while I was typing them.
Interesting point on spell-like abilities. I sort of assume that there must be some visible or audible or other sign that an ability is being used in order to provoke that AoO. I could agree with a spellcraft check to detect something fishy is going on and attack, although the DC would be fairly challenging. And of course, not every character/creature has the spellcraft skill.I don't think it matters, Spell like abilities don't have Verbal or somatic components and they still draw AoO. I think James is right, with a spellcraft check they can realize whats going on and act accordinglyI have to agree with LT here. I note that he was speaking about readied actions, not attacks of opportunity, but I would apply the same ruling to both. I think a silent still spell is a great way to avoid both. You have to have a trigger for the readied action or the attack of opportunity, and that trigger has to be something that is observable to the character taking that action or AoO. Unless the character can detect thoughts, he has nothing to react to when a silent, still spell is cast.
Of course, you can say that you are going to ready an action to attack...
Casting a spell causes a lapse in concentration and will provoke an AoO whether or not the attacker realizes exactly what you are doing.
Using spellcraft to identify a still/silent spell falls into a grey area. There is no spellcasting actions to observe with a still/silent, quickened, or spell-like ability, so depending on how your DM chooses to interpret the perception modifier clause, the spellcraft check can go anywhere from impossible to no penalty.
Interesting point on spell-like abilities. I sort of assume that there must be some visible or audible or other sign that an ability is being used in order to provoke that AoO. I could agree with a spellcraft check to detect something fishy is going on and attack, although the DC would be fairly challenging. And of course, not every character/creature has the spellcraft skill.I don't think it matters, Spell like abilities don't have Verbal or somatic components and they still draw AoO. I think James is right, with a spellcraft check they can realize whats going on and act accordinglyI have to agree with LT here. I note that he was speaking about readied actions, not attacks of opportunity, but I would apply the same ruling to both. I think a silent still spell is a great way to avoid both. You have to have a trigger for the readied action or the attack of opportunity, and that trigger has to be something that is observable to the character taking that action or AoO. Unless the character can detect thoughts, he has nothing to react to when a silent, still spell is cast.
Of course, you can say that you are going to ready an action to attack...
Casting a spell causes a lapse in concentration and will provoke an AoO whether or not the attacker realizes exactly what you are doing.
Using spellcraft to identify a still/silent spell falls into a grey area. There is no spellcasting actions to observe with a still/silent, quickened, or spell-like ability, so depending on how your DM chooses to interpret the perception modifier clause, the spellcraft check can go anywhere from impossible to no penalty.
I see where you and James are coming from, and I'll have to put some more thought into it. I'm not certain I agree that the lack of concentration caused by the casting of a silent, still spell would be easily noticeable.
In addition to the logic argument, some of my thought is on game balance lines. Something involving the use of two feats, a considerable investment on the player's part, should give some tangible benefits and not be easily overcome.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
I see where you and James are coming from, and I'll have to put some more thought into it. I'm not certain I agree that the lack of concentration caused by the casting of a silent, still spell would be easily noticeable.
In addition to the logic argument, some of my thought is on game balance lines. Something involving the use of two feats, a considerable investment on the player's part, should give some tangible benefits and not be easily overcome.
Closest 3.x precident I can find is psionics, which were by default stlled/slienced. They still drew AoO normally, but couldn't be counterspelled, as there was no way of knowing which power was being manifested. (The displays were maifested when the power went off, so no good guessing from those.)
It does give tangible benefits though, 1) they can cast while bound/gagged and 2) They can cast almost as well as a psion ;-)
I see where you and James are coming from, and I'll have to put some more thought into it. I'm not certain I agree that the lack of concentration caused by the casting of a silent, still spell would be easily noticeable.
In addition to the logic argument, some of my thought is on game balance lines. Something involving the use of two feats, a considerable investment on the player's part, should give some tangible benefits and not be easily overcome.
Spell like abilities provoke AoOs in pathfinder. Spell-like abilities have no verbal or somatic component, and thus there is nothing to tell you what the person is doing, but SLAs still provoke AoOs.
Spellcasting provokes AoOs. Quickened spells on the other hand specifically state that they do not provoke AoOs. Still/Silent spells say nothing about provoking, thus Still/Silent spells still provoke just like a normal spell would.
Knowing what the person is doing has nothing to do with being able to take advantage of their lapse in concentration. If I am trying to stab a wizard with my sword, I don't care why he is distracted. I am going to stab him anyway.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
Funny, I specifically pointed out rules that contradict your statement.
Are you asserting that the modifier table listed under the skill assigns a -20 penalty to impossible lies? Because that table is what I'm referencing.
Nope, I am pointing out the rules that contradict what you're saying, book and page. That you refuse (again) to admit that just highlights the futility of trying to argue the point on the merits with you. It appears by citing the table in the reference document is the crux of your defense. However not citing the rules in the RPG that disagree with you is no defense.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
And the fact is that some lies may be too impossible, subject to the DM.
Three times now you've refused to accept that, twice now you've put words in my mouth. Now I understand if you are admitting you can't prove your 'point' and have to try to argue both sides of the argument, but, please, try harder.
Given you first post started with the high minded term 'retarded' (which apparently means "something I agree with"), then went on and insulting other posters, making a challenge that ignores basic assumptions and is full of your own rules. Heck, even under your own rules, the wizard can still craft, but you didn't accept that.
Even your argument that the "the Sorcerer will excel in over a Wizard - binding spells." falls flat on your example. Your Sorcerer can't bind anything. He doesn't have any knowleges that allow him to know what he's binding. Devil? Demon? Angel? what's the difference. Don't ask LilithsThrall's Sorcerer.
Now, if you'd like to familiarize yourself with the rules of the RPG, and be civil, maybe you'd find an answer to your question. Maybe even accept it's not one you want to hear.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
Again, it is not casting a spell, in and of itself, that provokes an attack of opportunity, but the fact that the spell caster must drop their guard to do so.
In other words, the fact that you have an attack of opportunity is not a "detect spell casting" power.
Find the rule, please, that states that a stilled silence spell will not trigger the readied action, "If he starts to cast a spell, I'm hitting him."
I'll be waiting.
I see where you and James are coming from, and I'll have to put some more thought into it. I'm not certain I agree that the lack of concentration caused by the casting of a silent, still spell would be easily noticeable.
In addition to the logic argument, some of my thought is on game balance lines. Something involving the use of two feats, a considerable investment on the player's part, should give some tangible benefits and not be easily overcome.
Spell like abilities provoke AoOs in pathfinder. Spell-like abilities have no verbal or somatic component, and thus there is nothing to tell you what the person is doing, but SLAs still provoke AoOs.
Spellcasting provokes AoOs. Quickened spells on the other hand specifically state that they do not provoke AoOs. Still/Silent spells say nothing about provoking, thus Still/Silent spells still provoke just like a normal spell would.
Knowing what the person is doing has nothing to do with being able to take advantage of their lapse in concentration. If I am trying to stab a wizard with my sword, I don't care why he is distracted. I am going to stab him anyway.
Logic still not completely convincing me. Just because the Still Spell and Silent Spell feats individually provoke AoO, doesn't mean they do when combined. When you cast a still spell, it can still be heard. When you cast a silent spell, it can still be seen. When you combine them, what clue do you have that a spell is being cast and the caster's concentration is down? Is the combination addressed specifically in the rules, or just the individual feats? Again, we're talking about a two-feat combination, which should be pretty potent.
And we're not talking about not being able to attack the wizard with a sword, just about whether the fighter gets an extra attack based on the perception of an opening, which is how I understand AoO. Can the opening, in this situation, realistically be perceived? In final analysis, I would say yes, it could, but it wouldn't be automatic. I'd call for a Perception skill check in order to get off the AoO, perhaps with a target somewhere between 15-20.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
Logic still not completely convincing me. Just because the Still Spell and Silent Spell feats individually provoke AoO, doesn't mean they do when combined. When you cast a still spell, it can still be heard. When you cast a silent spell, it can still be seen. When you combine them, what clue do you have that a spell is being cast and the caster's concentration is down? Is the combination addressed specifically in the rules, or just the individual feats? Again, we're talking about a two-feat combination, which should be pretty potent.
And we're not talking about not being able to attack the wizard with a sword, just about whether the fighter gets an extra attack based on the perception of an opening, which is how I understand AoO. Can the opening, in this situation, realistically be perceived? In final analysis, I would say yes, it could, but it wouldn't be automatic. I'd call for a Perception skill check in order to get off the AoO, perhaps with a target somewhere between 15-20.
I understand where you're coming from, and that would make a good house rule. The rules are silent (ha!) on if they would allow you to get around readied actions, but I can see where it would make sense. Maybe make it use bluff to set a DC for the perception. Kind of a 'how well am I hiding that constepated look' thing?
The closest I can find to it being specifically called out is, again, psionics. Per the d20SRD.org
The interrupting event strikes during manifestation if it occurs between when you start and when you complete manifesting a power (for a power with a manifesting time of 1 round or longer) or if it comes in response to your manifesting the power (such as an attack of opportunity provoked by the manifesting of the power or a contingent attack from a readied action).
Again, emphasis mine.
And the fact is that some lies may be too impossible, subject to the DM.This is why I think you aren't arguing in good faith. At no point did I say that Bluff overrules rule zero. If the DM believes a lie is too impossible to be believed, then a lie is too impossible to be believed. You refuse to acknowledge that I have never said that bluff is a god skill.
Now, the simple fact that you refuse to respond to points I actually do make and, instead, continue to fabricate straw men for you to respond to drives the point home that it is simply pointless for me to continue to try to discuss this issue with you.
I called it a god mode skill not him.
My point is simply that the power of the bluff skill varies greatly based on the DM. Some DM won't let you do more than feint in combat with it. Other DMs will let you use it to convince an entire village to jump off a cliff.
Based on your attitude earlier in the thread that it can do the impossible and that it is an acceptable replacement for diplomacy, you have a DM who is very lenient on what you can do with bluff. this makes the skill more powerful for you that is would be for most other players.
I removed a couple posts. Altering someone's name to make thiny veiled insults does not get around the personal attacks policy.
Logic still not completely convincing me. Just because the Still Spell and Silent Spell feats individually provoke AoO, doesn't mean they do when combined. When you cast a still spell, it can still be heard. When you cast a silent spell, it can still be seen. When you combine them, what clue do you have that a spell is being cast and the caster's concentration is down? Is the combination addressed specifically in the rules, or just the individual feats? Again, we're talking about a two-feat combination, which should be pretty potent.And we're not talking about not being able to attack the wizard with a sword, just about whether the fighter gets an extra attack based on the perception of an opening, which is how I understand AoO. Can the opening, in this situation, realistically be perceived? In final analysis, I would say yes, it could, but it wouldn't be automatic. I'd call for a Perception skill check in order to get off the AoO, perhaps with a target somewhere between 15-20.
Spell-like abilities have no verbal, somatic, or material components. In fact, a demon casting a silent, stilled fireball with eschew materials would look identical to that demon using a fireball spell-like ability. If anything, a sorcerer would be MORE likely to provoke because their silent, stilled fireball would be a full round action where a wizard or spell-like ability would only be a standard action.
From the Table: Special Ability Types
Spell-Like Ability, Attack of Opportunity, Yes
Spell-like abilities do provoke AoOs, period. Nowhere in the rules does is state that you need a perception check to make that AoO.