People are always messing this one up. That invisible Wizard on the battle field isn't nearly undetectable (without see invisibility) as most DMs play them.
Invisibility: ... Of course, the subject is not magically silenced, and certain other conditions can render the recipient detectable (such as swimming in water or stepping in a puddle). If a check is required, a stationary invisible creature has a +40 bonus on its Stealth checks. This bonus is reduced to +20 if the creature is moving. ...
A DC 20 + 1/10 feet away will spot that wizard running/flying around invisible during battle. It's higher if he stays still but that's negated if he's throwing fireballs and lightning bolts at you. You still can't see him but at least you know where he is.
Of course, this works in reverse too. Sneaking past those guards at the gate got harder. Your Stealth check only applies to your Move Silently while Hide is locked in at 20 if you pass within 10 feet.
I believe that this is a carry over from 3.x.
.
Not sure if it's been mentioned yet. Light and Darkness spells work differently than they used to. Darkvision also allows you to see through magical darkness now as well.
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Not sure if it's been mentioned yet. Light and Darkness spells work differently than they used to. Darkvision also allows you to see through magical darkness now as well.
But not Supernatural darkness.
But not Supernatural darkness.
Not sure if it's been mentioned yet. Light and Darkness spells work differently than they used to. Darkvision also allows you to see through magical darkness now as well.
Supernatural things are magical so darkness coming from an SU as opposed to a spell or SLA make no difference.
Supernatural things are magical so darkness coming from an SU as opposed to a spell or SLA make no difference.But not Supernatural darkness.
Not sure if it's been mentioned yet. Light and Darkness spells work differently than they used to. Darkvision also allows you to see through magical darkness now as well.
Supernaturally dark blocks darkvision.
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
Supernatural things are magical so darkness coming from an SU as opposed to a spell or SLA make no difference.But not Supernatural darkness.
Not sure if it's been mentioned yet. Light and Darkness spells work differently than they used to. Darkvision also allows you to see through magical darkness now as well.
Supernaturally dark blocks darkvision.
That is just bad fluff. Supernatual magic and spell magic does not work the same.
It would have been worded better if it just said "magic created by this spell can not be ignored by darvision".Supernatural abilities always have the SU descriptor and are not defined in any way by caster or spell levels.
PRD=Supernatural Abilities: These can't be disrupted in combat and generally don't provoke attacks of opportunity. They aren't subject to spell resistance, counterspells, or dispel magic, and don't function in antimagic areas.
There is nothing stating deeper darkness is an exclusion to the rules it can not be counterspelled or dispelled.
Mate, even ignoring what James Jacobs said in the image on that page, the spell itself clearly says that it's A) supernatural darkness and B) that means darkvision doesn't work in it.
I don't think "supernatural darkness" is refering to (Su), but rather just a name.
Mate, even ignoring what James Jacobs said in the image on that page, the spell itself clearly says that it's A) supernatural darkness and B) that means darkvision doesn't work in it.
I don't think "supernatural darkness" is refering to (Su), but rather just a name.
Supernatural darkness is not a game term then and has no real meaning. It is still just fluff. A spell is not going to define how an ability works. The ability would do that. The only thing the spell can do is tell how that particular spell works when it interacts with said ability.
That would be like if I had a spell called super invis, and I said super invis trumps blindsight because supernatural invis bypasses blindsight. It is really just another way of me saying this spell trumps blindsight because supernatural invis is not a game term, nor is it addressed in the ability itself.
Supernatural Darkness would have to be an official game term or be called out in the darkvision ability to be official.
Mate, even ignoring what James Jacobs said in the image on that page, the spell itself clearly says that it's A) supernatural darkness and B) that means darkvision doesn't work in it.
I don't think "supernatural darkness" is refering to (Su), but rather just a name.
Supernatural darkness is not a game term then and has no real meaning. It is still just fluff. A spell is not going to define how an ability works. The ability would do that. The only thing the spell can do is tell how that particular spell works when it interacts with said ability.
That would be like if I had a spell called super invis, and I said super invis trumps blindsight because supernatural invis bypasses blindsight. It is really just another way of me saying this spell trumps blindsight because supernatural invis is not a game term, nor is it addressed in the ability itself.
Supernatural Darkness would have to be an official game term or be called out in the darkvision ability to be official.
"Hey, guys what should we call the darkness that is magically darker than regular darkness?"
"How about supernatural darkness?"
"Ok, just make sure that you point out in the spell that that means it's magically darker than regular darkness and darkvision doesn't penetrate it."
"No problem."
So, what's the problem here? You realize they couldn't just say any darkness generated by the spell is impenetrable because only the darkest areas are supernaturally dark right? What would you have preferred?
The PFRPG vampire spawn no longer has its own monster entry; it's a slight variant on a wight.
UMD does not work with Ring of Revelations, or Sash of the War Champion.
UMD does not work with Ring of Revelations, or Sash of the War Champion.I don't know what the specific issue here is, nor if it is prevalent. However, rather than call out a specific magic item, how about restating this in terms of general principles?
If you emulate a class ability that is modified by an item, you gain no benefits from that item since you do not have the ability even if you successfully emulate the class feature. According to James Jacobs. Cant check the post, but it's on his Ask Anything post.
According to James Jacobs. Cant check the post, but it's on his Ask Anything post.
Who is not a designer and who has posted at least a hundred times that anything he says about the rules should be taken as "How I'd rule it in my game" and not "What the official rules are."
He's the creative stuff / setting / adventure path guy, not the rules guy. He's nice enough to offer you his opinion. Don't make headaches for him by trying to turn that opinion into a club to beat down people who disagree with you.
And yet as a Paizo employee who works with the rules, he's farmore legitimate than any forum poster here.
You seem to recall that I was arguing in the Ring of Revelations thread. You don't seem to recall that I was vehemently supporting the view that UMD would work with that.
Until there is a more official stance by a bona fide developer, I will acquiesce that I was wrong in that thread.
People are always messing this one up. That invisible Wizard on the battle field isn't nearly undetectable (without see invisibility) as most DMs play them.
Invisibility: ... Of course, the subject is not magically silenced, and certain other conditions can render the recipient detectable (such as swimming in water or stepping in a puddle). If a check is required, a stationary invisible creature has a +40 bonus on its Stealth checks. This bonus is reduced to +20 if the creature is moving. ...
A DC 20 + 1/10 feet away will spot that wizard running/flying around invisible during battle. It's higher if he stays still but that's negated if he's throwing fireballs and lightning bolts at you. You still can't see him but at least you know where he is.
Of course, this works in reverse too. Sneaking past those guards at the gate got harder. Your Stealth check only applies to your Move Silently while Hide is locked in at 20 if you pass within 10 feet.
I believe that this is a carry over from 3.x.
.
Not sure if it's been mentioned yet. Light and Darkness spells work differently than they used to. Darkvision also allows you to see through magical darkness now as well.
That's a +20/+40 Bonus to the Sealth check, Not a static DC:20. (i.e. roll your Stealth check and add +20/+40 to the roll to determine the result).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Create Water now has an additional sentence in it.
This water disappears after 1 day if not consumed.
Although the water likely "disappears" within 1 day even if consumed...
I removed a thinly veiled insult and a reply to it.
op: first thing on the list should of been undead and constructs can be sneak attacked. i came across that info accidentally and had just read this post. so i had no idea
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think most people don't know how to conduct mounted combat.
Want to cast a spell while your mount is moving? Concentration Check.
Want to make an attack while mounted on a NON-COMBAT TRAINED mount? it's a Ride Check as a MOVE ACTION.
Want to make an attack with a 2 handed weapon (or use a weapon and shield) while mounted? Ride Check.
Want to make a ranged attack while your mount is moving? -4 to your attack (or -8 if its running).
Took damage while mounted? Ride Check.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yo mama so fat, when she falls 150', she does 20d6 damage. Oh snap.
I'm sorry this was done wrong.
Ahem, Your mama so fat and dense when SHE falls 150' she does 21d6 of damage.
Didn't see this one in the list but it caught a couple of my groups by surprise and was a change from 3.5 to PFRPG.
Bardic performance Inspire Courage now stacks with moral effects like bless for the purpose of to hit and damage.
You are absolutely right.
Thank you very much, i saw that the saving throw bonus is morale and for some reason i read that the attack and damage bonus was morale also.
|
Didn't see this one in the list but it caught a couple of my groups by surprise and was a change from 3.5 to PFRPG.
Bardic performance Inspire Courage now stacks with moral effects like bless for the purpose of to hit and damage.
You are absolutely right.
Thank you very much, i saw that the saving throw bonus is morale and for some reason i read that the attack and damage bonus was morale also.
Inspire Courage + Good Hope is a killer combo...
I think don't there is a volley restriction on Sneak attack in Pathfinder.
In 3.5, when you used volleys (same action did multiple attacks) you only got sneak attack on first. Example scorching ray/3.5 manyshot.
So scorching ray + greater invisiblity makes a strong rogue.
That's a +20/+40 Bonus to the Sealth check, Not a static DC:20. (i.e. roll your Stealth check and add +20/+40 to the roll to determine the result).
If you are within 10ft of someone with nothing to hide behind, you don't get a stealth check. I assume that means 0 for your check. I don't see how your ability to hide could help you when there's nothing to hide behind. If you were visible, you wouldn't be able to make a check.
If you have hide in plain sight, sure, I'd give you your stealth check. Not many people have that.
I think don't there is a volley restriction on Sneak attack in Pathfinder.
In 3.5, when you used volleys (same action did multiple attacks) you only got sneak attack on first. Example scorching ray/3.5 manyshot.
So scorching ray + greater invisiblity makes a strong rogue.
No, it's the same as in 3.5, it's just a bit better explained in PF. You get sneak attack any time you qualify for sneak attack, in both systems. 3.5 FAQ spelled that out.
|
|
Alter Self changed a lot:
** spoiler omitted **
So it's a valible buff spell now, alter self into a dwarf and you get +2 str and darkvision for 1min/lvl
This is false assuming that you are medium size. You can turn small and get the +2 to Dex. I searched long and hard to find this one when my Urban Druid got this ability. It's under the description of Polymorph.
Polymorph: A polymorph spell transforms your physical body to take on the shape of another creature ...
If a polymorph spell causes you to change size, apply the size modifiers appropriately, changing your armor class, attack bonus, Combat Maneuver Bonus, and Stealth skill modifiers. Your ability scores are not modified by this change unless noted by the spell.
...
a) the size modifiers are +1 to AC and to Attack Bonus is small -1 to the same values if large and so on.
The ability score modifier that you don't apply is the standard increase/decrease from table 2-2 at page 296 of the bestiary or here, under: Table: Size Changes, in the PRD.b) the spell explicitly say that you gain a size bonus to dexterity or strength, depending on your size. So it respect this part of the rules you cited: "Your ability scores are not modified by this change unless noted by the spell".
Note that there are not caveat in the form of "if your size change".
That's a +20/+40 Bonus to the Sealth check, Not a static DC:20. (i.e. roll your Stealth check and add +20/+40 to the roll to determine the result).If you are within 10ft of someone with nothing to hide behind, you don't get a stealth check. I assume that means 0 for your check. I don't see how your ability to hide could help you when there's nothing to hide behind. If you were visible, you wouldn't be able to make a check.
If you have hide in plain sight, sure, I'd give you your stealth check. Not many people have that.
Yes, you wouldn't be able to make a stealth check if you were visible. But, (and I know this is a fine distinction) you're not visible. You have total concealment. So you can make a Stealth check. Just like you could if you were standing ten feet away, nothing to hide behind, but its so dark that the other person can't see more than 5 feet in front of them.
a) the size modifiers are +1 to AC and to Attack Bonus is small -1 to the same values if large and so on.
The ability score modifier that you don't apply is the standard increase/decrease from table 2-2 at page 296 of the bestiary or here, under: Table: Size Changes, in the PRD.b) the spell explicitly say that you gain a size bonus to dexterity or strength, depending on your size. So it respect this part of the rules you cited: "Your ability scores are not modified by this change unless noted by the spell".
Note that there are not caveat in the form of "if your size change".
The caveat is the part I bolded from the description of Polymorph spells. If a polymorph spell causes you to change size, apply the size modifiers appropriately. Polymorph spells list size modifier adjustments in them. You're right that you don't get the typical size modifiers when you polymorph but I disagree that you get the spells listed size modifier if you don't actually change size.
Yes, you wouldn't be able to make a stealth check if you were visible. But, (and I know this is a fine distinction) you're not visible. You have total concealment. So you can make a Stealth check. Just like you could if you were standing ten feet away, nothing to hide behind, but its so dark that the other person can't see more than 5 feet in front of them.
A creature can generally notice the presence of an active invisible creature within 30 feet with a DC 20 Perception check.
Upon further investigation, you are correct. You do get to make a stealth check ... but you do take a -20 if in combat. This check would be to pinpoint their exact location. DC 20 will let you know that an invisible creature is about. If they move while invisible (+20) while in combat (-20) you end up with a straight perception vs. stealth. The invisible creature still gets total concealment (50% miss chance) and anytime they move, you've got to beat their stealth to know which square they are in now.
No, it's the same as in 3.5, it's just a bit better explained in PF. You get sneak attack any time you qualify for sneak attack, in both systems. 3.5 FAQ spelled that out.I think don't there is a volley restriction on Sneak attack in Pathfinder.
In 3.5, when you used volleys (same action did multiple attacks) you only got sneak attack on first. Example scorching ray/3.5 manyshot.
So scorching ray + greater invisiblity makes a strong rogue.
Nope, not when volleys in 3.5.
Complete Arcane makes this clear.And Rules of the Game:
http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/rg/20040309a
Important message in link from WotC:
"Volley Type Attacks
Sometimes, you make multiple attacks with the same attack roll, such as when you use the Manyshot feat, or you make multiple attack rolls as part of the same attack, such as with the scorching ray spell. When you do so, only the first attack in the volley can be a sneak attack. "
So this a definite change.
Sometimes, you make multiple attacks with the same attack roll, such as when you use the Manyshot feat, or you make multiple attack rolls as part of the same attack, such as with the scorching ray spell. When you do so, only the first attack in the volley can be a sneak attack. "So this a definite change.
Nope,
You don't get sneak attack on Manyshot.
Manyshot (Combat)You can fire multiple arrows at a single target.
Prerequisites: Dex 17, Point-Blank Shot, Rapid Shot, base attack bonus +6.
Benefit: When making a full-attack action with a bow, your first attack fires two arrows. If the attack hits, both arrows hit. Apply precision-based damage (such as sneak attack) and critical hit damage only once for this attack. Damage bonuses from using a composite bow with a high Strength bonus apply to each arrow, as do other damage bonuses, such as a ranger's favored enemy bonus. Damage reduction and resistances apply separately to each arrow.
The basic rule of thumb is, if you make an attack roll, you can apply sneak attack damage once per attack roll, which I believe was the same in 3.5. So, using Manyshot, you get sneak attack once on it. You get it once per ray you fire and hit with. You don't get it on Magic Missile, because there is no attack roll.
The basic rule of thumb is, if you make an attack roll, you can apply sneak attack damage once per attack roll, which I believe was the same in 3.5. So, using Manyshot, you get sneak attack once on it. You get it once per ray you fire and hit with. You don't get it on Magic Missile, because there is no attack roll.
So, in other words, PF changed the volley rule for sneak attacks to something that makes a lot more sense. Got it!
So, in other words, PF changed the volley rule for sneak attacks to something that makes a lot more sense. Got it!
The basic rule of thumb is, if you make an attack roll, you can apply sneak attack damage once per attack roll, which I believe was the same in 3.5. So, using Manyshot, you get sneak attack once on it. You get it once per ray you fire and hit with. You don't get it on Magic Missile, because there is no attack roll.
I guess it depends on your definitions. If you look at the 3.5 FAQ, it's pretty much what PF has. If you make an attack roll, and you qualify for sneak attack, you get it, but only once per attack roll.
So if you go by fuzzy 3.0/initial 3.5 wording in the books, it's a change. If you go by the fleshed out FAQ/Errata'd 3.5, then it's not much of a change if at all.
Just as a point of reference from 3.5:
Sometimes, you make multiple attacks with the same attack roll, such as when you use the Manyshot feat, or you make multiple attack rolls as part of the same attack, such as with the scorching ray spell. When you do so, only the first attack in the volley can be a sneak attack.
What that means is 3.5 considers scorching ray one attack with many attack rolls. So while you still get sneak attack from your one attack, you don't necessarily get sneak attack from every attack roll made.
|
Homerule it and get over it ;)
I can't tell you how many times my players forget that you can withdraw up to twice your speed.
Question whose answer will apply if answered differently than I expect:
I heard last night that when entering a threatened square from more than 3 squares a way, the action provokes an attack of opportunity - and this was in the rule book. I thought they had lost their collective minds, but they insisted (we were discussing their Pathfinder game after a different game). Anyone seen anything about this?
Question whose answer will apply if answered differently than I expect:
I heard last night that when entering a threatened square from more than 3 squares a way, the action provokes an attack of opportunity - and this was in the rule book. I thought they had lost their collective minds, but they insisted (we were discussing their Pathfinder game after a different game). Anyone seen anything about this?
Never seen anything like this. Doesn't even make any sense to me, either.
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Never seen anything like this. Doesn't even make any sense to me, either.Question whose answer will apply if answered differently than I expect:
I heard last night that when entering a threatened square from more than 3 squares a way, the action provokes an attack of opportunity - and this was in the rule book. I thought they had lost their collective minds, but they insisted (we were discussing their Pathfinder game after a different game). Anyone seen anything about this?
Maybe they only meant a creature with 10' reach, and meant "adjacent" rather than "threatened"? So you start at least 15' feet away, and by the time you enter an adjacent square you're moving out of a threatened square, and provoke? That's the best rationale for your acquaintances not being completely off-base that I can think of.
I thought they had lost their collective minds, but they insisted (we were discussing their Pathfinder game after a different game).
They've lost their collective minds.
The basic rule of thumb is, if you make an attack roll, you can apply sneak attack damage once per attack roll, which I believe was the same in 3.5. So, using Manyshot, you get sneak attack once on it. You get it once per ray you fire and hit with. You don't get it on Magic Missile, because there is no attack roll.This is something up for debate, and as such isn't really the right thread for this.
PF has changed nothing in terms of volley attacks, so there's no reason for the 3.5 rules not to hold other than people want the poorly done out Arcane Trickster to have a viable attack.
If Volley rules aren't listed in Pathfinder than they don't exist. Pathfinder is it own game.
If Volley rules aren't listed in Pathfinder than they don't exist. Pathfinder is it own game.
It's not so much a question of volley rules. It's a question of what exactly constitutes an attack.
Does an attack roll always define an attack? No, casting a charm person spell on a creature while invisible counts as "an attack". The concept of attack is a bit ambiguous.
The 3.5 stance was that scorching ray is one attack with multiple attack rolls. Telekinesis to throw 20 weapons (with 20 attack rolls) is one attack.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Does an attack roll always define an attack? No, casting a charm person spell on a creature while invisible counts as "an attack". The concept of attack is a bit ambiguous.
Wrong.
For purposes of this spell, an attack includes any spell targeting a foe or whose area or effect includes a foe.
A very frequent error I see people make on these boards is the notion that if something counts as a certain thing "for purposes of [whatever]", that it IS that thing. This is an error both in rules interpretation and in understanding how english works.
"X counts as Y for the purposes of Z" is very different from "X = Y" or "X is an example of Y". In the former, X is assumed (by the rules of the english language) to NOT be the same as Y, but in instances wherein X interacts with Z, it interacts with Z in the same way that Y would - this is defined as an exception to X's typical nature, because X is not Y.
Invisibility's reference to treating save spells as attacks is strictly within the context of how attacks cause you to become visible again - the sentence only means that such spells interact with invisibility in the same way that attacks interact with invisibility. It is NOT some kind of reminder that save spells are already considered attacks.
So yes, attacks ARE things that have attack rolls. Invisibility does not suggest otherwise.