|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Wrath, the GM shouldn't have to make up encounters that cater to the party, IMO. That's why some GMs don't like wizards because monks, fighters, rangers and rogues can all interact with the world a little like people and have to find ways of dealing with whatever happens. The wizards just carts around a bunch of instant win buttons that work for this or that and I think that makes it suck.
Wizards should play in the same field as other characters: helping the party directly with power ups, blasting bad guys, crap like that, not just putting all the bad guys to sleep or casting hold monster so someone can chop its head off.
You see, that's were our philosophies are going to differ. What people are missing is the fact that this is a magic world, nothing like our own. Its easy for GM's to think in terms of things the non casters can do, because that's like our world. Since we have that as a context, designing encounters is easy for that.
You have to actually think about magic and the way it works to design encounters for this game. Even if you don't have a caster in your world, the creatures living in it have evolved with magic and its effects and may still react accordingly.
Some things to note about the two spells people are toting around for early level end game.
Sleep is a full round spell - baddies shoot people in the head or charge and hit when you are casting for prolonged periods. Getting off an effective sleep spell is not as easy as everyone keeps saying. Baddies also spread out when long casting is happening, because that's how survival instinct works in a world of magic.
Colour spray is up close and personal (15feet) and an area effect. When the baddies save (and they do), you're going to die. Of course, this is because you've pulled out a spell that affects your friends as well as your enemies, so obviously your friends aren't within that 15ft cone which means they aren't defending you against that attack. It's also a rare situation when that kind of spell "ends a combat".
Telling people they shouldn't have to design the encounters around magic is basically saying don't play in a magical world. I disagree with that completely.
GMing for magic is harder because there is no real world analogy for it. It requires far more imagination and often leads to folk complaining that you're "ripping off" the caster. That's why so many people don't like casters when they DM.
I've heard people discuss how they deal with the issue of certain spells, only to have players say "That's just being a dick!". If you can justify it in terms of a world where magic is pervasive enough that casters are taking Teleport and Sleep, and colour spray and all the other save or suck spells, then all the other things living in the world will know all about them as well. They survived as a species up until this point in a world of magic, they know how to respond to them. It's the GM's role and responsibility to cater to that world, and sometimes the players also need to understand that the magic world isn't going to respond the same way our world does.
cheers
How so? Remember you won't realistically be able to counterspell every spell. That means you are wasting actions when the other caster is not. Losing actions is not the way to success.You did notice that part where I said "the assassin cohort death attacks the wizard" right? Do you think a BBEG is going to go into an encounter unprepared on his own?
The very point here is to force the PC wizard on the defensive/reactionary by throwing encounter enders out, forcing them to respond in turn. After that, back off and start counterspelling. If the wizard falters or gives an opening, punish with another encounter ender.
At that point, cue death attack. PC wizard is in a lose-lose situation: forego normal spell defenses to dispel or react to incoming encounter-ending spells, or let the encounter-enders fly to raise his own defenses to the detriment of his own party. Either way, it's going to be very difficult with a counterspeller breathing down his neck, which inherently forces the PC wizard to carefully select what spells to use when out of fear they may get countered and leave them shrugging and saying "sorry guys, I got nothing". A wizard cannot realistically react to everything at once with absolute precision.
That's what you exploit. Force the wizard to choose between venues of defense, then apply the constraint they are not guaranteed success on spellcasting. That serves a dual purpose, limiting the spellcaster's defense and providing a ready source of frustration which will cloud the PC's judgment. Then, you strike where the wizard is least defended.
I did not see that part to be honest. I focused in on the part I quoted. Death attack assumes the assassin is not spotted. That is not a given. Even if the wizard dumps perception for some strange reason there is normally one walking radar(high perception character) in the group*.
*I will admit that I am using my group as the standard here. It may very well be possible that not everyone has this character in their group.
If the death attack does fail then the caster just cast defensively and waits for one of the other party members to finish the would be attacker off. They would probably assume it was a rogue and figure it will go down fairly quickly.
There is also the issue of dispel magic requiring an opposed check assuming the spell is even opposable.
PS:I am also assuming you don't just hand out dispel magics to the counterspeller on the spot instead of giving them a set amount, and I am also assuming you are not fudging rolls to ensure the enemy caster is rolling high enough to counter the party's caster.
Nooooo~ but it does mean that your scenario straight up fails. You've essentially created a scenario to beat the wizard. That's it. That's all. All you've done is kill the wizard. Which mildly annoys the cleric.Well see that begs the question: Are wizards in fact the god-characters many on these boards portray them?
I don't think anyone thinks they are god-characters, but then again that depends on your definition of the term.
How so? Remember you won't realistically be able to counterspell every spell. That means you are wasting actions when the other caster is not. Losing actions is not the way to success.
All this blather about action economy and "if you start counterspelling you auto-lose the encounter!" is nonsense.
An optimized wizard's spell list isn't just a random assortment of spells. It is a set of tactics made possible by selecting the right spells which are meant to work in cooperation with each other.
But these tactics can be broken by the enemy making a save at the right time or counterspelling the right spell or whatever. Counterspelling a fly spell, for example, can force the wizard to use a completely different set of tactics then what he's been setting himself up to use. Every time the wizard is forced to change his tactics like this, he's knocked off balance and is weakened. In some cases, he can recover in a round or less. In some cases, it'll take him longer. The more the enemy has forced him to change his tactics, the longer it takes him to recover the next time (or worse, not recover at all).This is a basic Tactics 101 principle - formlessness beats form. The wizard's list of prepared spells imposes form on him (quite a lot of form, actually). Spamming Dispel Magic counterspells is comparatively formless.
That sounds good in theory, but no good wizard is that dependent on a certain set of spells, and you are also assuming "the correct" spell theory is in operation here. Many times a caster will have several choices he can make in a situation. If one is not working then do something else.
The fly spell is just a one of many layered defenses as an example. The wizard is better with it, but that does not mean he has to have it.
Wrath, the GM shouldn't have to make up encounters that cater to the party, IMO. That's why some GMs don't like wizards because monks, fighters, rangers and rogues can all interact with the world a little like people and have to find ways of dealing with whatever happens. The wizards just carts around a bunch of instant win buttons that work for this or that and I think that makes it suck.
Wizards should play in the same field as other characters: helping the party directly with power ups, blasting bad guys, crap like that, not just putting all the bad guys to sleep or casting hold monster so someone can chop its head off.
Other characters can make the GM plan around them also. Paladins and their smite, sorcerers well heck all full casters can. Archers in general. A really good two hander. An optimized social character. In short it seems almost any character or combination of characters can give a GM a headache if he does not want to prepare for them specifically.
It seems like wizards are hated around here.
I see threads about sneaky ways to target the Wizard's Spell book.
I see DMs talking about "limiting" the Wizard's spells to control them...
Do you really think Wizards are that game breakingly powerful?
Come on, vent all your frustrations here.
I know why they were hated in 3.5, at least...
Teleport. Why bother planning at all, when the wizard is going to teleport? I had one player in my group who enjoyed frustrating the GM, and would teleport the group in certain routes just to avoid all the planning the GM had done.
When paired with something like the Ring of Sustenance that negates eating and drastically reduces sleeping, the wizard basically destroys lengthy plots in a matter of hours.
I actually had a GM running a homebrew version of a module look at the wizard, sigh, close the book, and say, "Alright, just say what you're gonna do."
Of course, things can be done to counter this. The problem that I've seen, as noted previously, is that the Wizard tends to draw sadistic over-thinkers like a magnet. It may only be 1% of wizards played this way, but it's significant enough for some people to get a bad taste in their mouth. I've had my share of people looking to use wizards to railroad the party, or control and break the story just for fun.
That being said, I love playing alongside wizards. When played by a person with a healthy respect for the GM, the story, and the fellow players, a wizard is an awesome companion. They make for great roleplay, and nothing has the versatility to back you up like a wizard.
To sum up, it's not wizards that need to be avoided, but people who play wizards as a means of gaining control over the story.
It seems like wizards are hated around here.
I see threads about sneaky ways to target the Wizard's Spell book.
I see DMs talking about "limiting" the Wizard's spells to control them...
Do you really think Wizards are that game breakingly powerful?
Come on, vent all your frustrations here.
I know why they were hated in 3.5, at least...
Teleport. Why bother planning at all, when the wizard is going to teleport? I had one player in my group who enjoyed frustrating the GM, and would teleport the group in certain routes just to avoid all the planning the GM had done.
When paired with something like the Ring of Sustenance that negates eating and drastically reduces sleeping, the wizard basically destroys lengthy plots in a matter of hours.
I actually had a GM running a homebrew version of a module look at the wizard, sigh, close the book, and say, "Alright, just say what you're gonna do."
Of course, things can be done to counter this. The problem that I've seen, as noted previously, is that the Wizard tends to draw sadistic over-thinkers like a magnet. It may only be 1% of wizards played this way, but it's significant enough for some people to get a bad taste in their mouth. I've had my share of people looking to use wizards to railroad the party, or control and break the story just for fun.
That being said, I love playing alongside wizards. When played by a person with a healthy respect for the GM, the story, and the fellow players, a wizard is an awesome companion. They make for great roleplay, and nothing has the versatility to back you up like a wizard.
To sum up, it's not wizards that need to be avoided, but people who play wizards as a means of gaining control over the story.
If the wizard does not have to go to X(the path) to get to Y(the destination) then why not just plan for Y? Once a wizard starts to use teleport I don't even plan road encounters. If they take the road they might get jumped, but unless the combat is plot specific, and they have to face it I see no point is statting it out.
PS:As for people looking to break the story for fun I would just bounce them from the table. They will probably find a way to be a jerk no matter what class they play.
|
Teleport: No more travel/journey stories.
Fly: no more obstacles, no more interesting terrain.
These are the statements of an unimaginative DM. Teleport has limits to the number of people it can carry and knowledge of the location traveled too. Also its simplicity itself to declare that the plot object fails to teleport (it's an anti-theft feature!).
When flying the key is to remember that hazardus and difficult terrain can also be 3D. If you don't want a chasm flown across fill the air with frequent and unpredictable gysers of lava. Forest canopies are difficult to fly through. And a cascade of acid will send wizards around the long way.
|
|
Regarding the mention of the "ring of Sustenance":
As a DM, I find items like this to be completely unsexy, and I will never include something like this in a treasure hoard, nor will I encourage the players to make their own. I've never really dealt too much with food and sleep unless it was important to the narrative, and there are other magical means for the party to avoid starvation at higher levels.
I am reading it in tidbits, as I take breaks at work. It is a very interesting read, but I will refrain from commenting on it too much until I have read it in its entirety. Thanks for the link!
Glad you like it, there is all sorts of good stuff on that site.
Obviously it is also a cultural perspective as well. I live in Hawaii, where walking 3 miles to breakfast is something I choose to do instead of driving. The weather is nice, the air is clean, it is a generally pleasant experience. In the case of driving v. walking, I weigh the benefits from each and have decided that walking is more beneficial and less wasteful. In that case it is not showing off. I see your case of using the best tool that you have for the job.
This is true, but I think there is a difference between 'going for a walk' or 'going for a drive', and walking/driving to the store. I live in new york, where quite literally time is money, so I can certainly see a cultural difference there in terms of urgency vs enjoying the trip. I think you might want to see if the players in your group share your cultural views. For instance, one member of my group has been known to take 150 block walks because he enjoys the work, and he too now that I think about it gets hung up on 'shortcut' magic. Where as I see a teleport spell in the same vein as knowing which is the fastest train to take uptown.
So what is your opinion of the knock spell, when you have a rogue there to open the lock? In my opinion THAT is showing off. But there are all kinds of factors that go into which is the more viable option.
I like that they made it a check against a relatively high dc instead of the 3.5 automatic success. Its not impossible but its not a done deal, and a rogue with a good set of tools and a good disable device (which one would assume the rogue would have) would actually have a better chance of success. So I am ok with the spell as it is in pathfinder because a rogue who wants to be good at picking locks wont be out shone, but the spell is still there when the party doesn't have a character with the ability to pick locks. I like overlap of niches because i dont like the idea of NEEDING any particular class.
As for the fighter, you are using extremes. In my scenario, it is a high level fighter, using regular weapons, or no weapons, fighting lower level fighters/soldiers/guard... he comes across the lieutenant, who is obviously a bigger threat. They fight to what seems to be a stand-still, but he spies his chosen style of weapon (i.e. - Specialization, first weapon training group, etc.) and makes for the weapon. After defeating the opponent soundly, he gives a nod of respect for making his have to "pull out all the stops."
My example was extreme but it was in response to what I consider an extreme view from you. It was in response to the idea that a wizard not using spells to solve a problem but instead roleplaying through it makes for a better story and better roleplaying, and keeping things that are trivialized by higher level utility spells as viable challenges later on in the game.
My point is that asking the wizard to not use his fly spell so a cliff face is still a difficult challenge is like asking the fighter to fight with a salami instead of his longsword because it measn the warrior 1 goblin is still a difficult challenge.
I also think there is a play stlye difference between you and I, which is fine ofcourse. A fighter using less then his best options in one of our games is likely to get himself or party members killed. Our dms design encounters to challenge the party, and combat encounters always have the fighter in mind especially (its kind of their thing). It the fighter intentionally underperforms he is taking a very real risk with everyones lives. And while I do agree with you that it could make for some great moments, it is impractical with the kind of game that I play.
Yeah, I agree. I mean, if one of your players has a skill like that, he's gonna use it; or his teammates are going to make him use it. That's one of his jobs, after all. Comes with the whole "Utility Caster" territory.
If the wizard does not have to go to X(the path) to get to Y(the destination) then why not just plan for Y? Once a wizard starts to use teleport I don't even plan road encounters. If they take the road they might get jumped, but...
This is kind of what I am talking about with the fighter, the goblin and the salami. At level 1, a couple warrior 1 goblins are a challenge. However at level 11 we dont expect those same 3 goblins to threaten the fighter. They are no longer placed in the adventure (or at least not intended to be a challenge). The fighter's damage and many attacks and other forms of combat prowess (AC, HP, Combat manuevers) trivialize it.
So I wonder why many dms cant or wont make the same adjustment when a wizard learns fly or teleport.
Teleport: No more travel/journey stories.
Fly: no more obstacles, no more interesting terrain.
These are the statements of an unimaginative DM.
This is horribly rude and insulting. Worse its not backed by anything you have to add below.
Teleport has limits to the number of people it can carry
A limit completely irrelevant to an adventuring party, unless you want to saddle the PC's with freed slaves EVERY day. Even IF You start doing that the PC's are going to start cranking out teleport scrolls like Gutenberg bibles.
and knowledge of the location traveled too.
Mirror mirror on the wall...
Also its simplicity itself to declare that the plot object fails to teleport (it's an anti-theft feature!).
You call it simplicity, i call it trite hackneyed DM railroading.
When flying the key is to remember that hazardus and difficult terrain can also be 3D. If you don't want a chasm flown across fill the air with frequent and unpredictable gysers of lava.
They get boring after the third one, especially since they all need to be indoors or the wizard just asks "whats the height of the highest lava spurt?" and flies higher than that.
Forest canopies are difficult to fly through.
No, they're not.
And a cascade of acid will send wizards around the long way.
*yawn, energy immunity*
Wall of stoneexactly where do you get an unlimited supply of acid?
Where does an unlimited supply of acid go?
Why hasn't said acid dissolved whatever its cascading over?
Why does the journey have to be a physical one such as walking. Normally while on a physical journey it allows the story to grow in other ways, but I don't think it is needed. Even gathering information about the bad guys as you teleport from town to town can be a journey, without the potential daily ambushes. Going through the lair of the bad guy can be a journey. I don't see how teleport and flight ruin anything.
The game assumes that things like goblin becomes little more than fleas you can swat away.
Don't change the game. Change with the game.
edit:Not directed at any specific person.
Sounds like every game needs to turn Extraplanar once Teleport gets involved.
"I'm sorry the BBEG's fortress is on the demiplane of itchy sweaters."
|
@Kolokotroni - That was a lot of good stuff. True I like to exaggerate, especially when making a point, but some of those instances were closer than I would like to admit... >.<
I do understand New York and Hawaii are very very different. And your explanation really makes it easy to see how that would make the mindset very different in everything, even gaming!
I really don't care for the campaigns that are 100% go, all the time, but I can see how a New York culture would cultivate that kind of campaign though...
I've been DM/GM/Ref'ing for 34 years, and I don't dislike wizards.
Every group that I DM has one in it.
What is to hate?
Magic using types are often harder to play. So, I would recommend having a starting player have a magic using PC for most games, but that is different than not liking MUs in a party.
in service,
Rich
www.drgames.org
I've been DM/GM/Ref'ing for 34 years, and I don't dislike wizards.
Every group that I DM has one in it.
What is to hate?
Magic using types are often harder to play. So, I would recommend having a starting player have a magic using PC for most games, but that is different than not liking MUs in a party.
in service,
Rich
www.drgames.org
That reminds me. A lot of it has to do with learning curve. If you read the class section on barbarians plus any stuff on barbarians in the APG, UC, etc, you will have a really good idea of what a barbarians is capable of.
To understand the wizard's capabilities, you have to not only read everything about wizards from the various boods, but you also have to look at every spell on the wizard list(which is the biggest list) in all those books. Until you have done that as a DM, wizards are going to be able to throw a lot of curve balls at you.
Once you understand what wizards are capable of, the wizard isn't that much harder to DM for than other classes.
@Kolokotroni - That was a lot of good stuff. True I like to exaggerate, especially when making a point, but some of those instances were closer than I would like to admit... >.<
I do understand New York and Hawaii are very very different. And your explanation really makes it easy to see how that would make the mindset very different in everything, even gaming!
I really don't care for the campaigns that are 100% go, all the time, but I can see how a New York culture would cultivate that kind of campaign though...
It may not just be a matter of culture but of personality. Which is why I think you may want to consider the player(s) in your group carefully before you think they are showing off or trying to one up people. They may just be the kind of people who value urgency over a nice walk. And that kind of consideration of personality is important if you are trying to resolve issues of play style.
|
|
It may not just be a matter of culture but of personality. Which is why I think you may want to consider the player(s) in your group carefully before you think they are showing off or trying to one up people. They may just be the kind of people who value urgency over a nice walk. And that kind of consideration of personality is important if you are trying to resolve issues of play style.
Oh, I know my players, I have known those guys for about 10 years. Though, since moving to another island, I have not played with that group for some time.
I have a couple of my new group that show a little of that, but they are still young enough that a lot of that is youthful exuberance... I try to evaluate my players carefully, before jumping to conclusions. Thanks for the advice though... good advice to be sure!
I did not see that part to be honest. I focused in on the part I quoted. Death attack assumes the assassin is not spotted. That is not a given. Even if the wizard dumps perception for some strange reason there is normally one walking radar(high perception character) in the group*.Okay, let's assume for a BBEG fight for an APL 13 typical party (tank, divine caster, arcane caster, sneaky). Let's figure...oh, the two meat shields are level 11, the assassin is 13, and the abjurer himself is 15 (making for an encounter level 16, APL+3).
Let's assume the assassin is, as I suggested, a wizard 5/assassin 3/trickster 5 (CL 10, ECL between 12-13 if they have knack or practiced spellcaster). At that level we're talking, buffed, 18 dex and 24 int. He has access to HiPS, nondetection, (greater) invisibility, (some) counterspells of his own, flight and for kicks let's assume a dark room with strewn cover. Let's also assume silent spell, focus in stealth and the stealthy feat: at max ranks, with a cloak of elvenkind, we're talking a total stealth modifier of +75 to stand still, +55 to move. Good luck, especially when the party's going to see the two meat shields straight away and go into fight mode before the room can be searched. The death attack save DC is going to be 20, not great odds for a wizard.
Now also keep in mind he's studying first, then moving in to attack. For kicks let's figure the wizard doesn't have eschew materials and our assassin uses ranged legerdemain to pick-pocket the spell component pouch while moving in (which doesn't break stealth or invisibility). Assuming max ranks, that's +20 to steal the pouch, which a wizard doesn't stand a great chance to notice (and stealing the pouch is trivial). Now the wizard loses actions to fish out a replacement pouch, or is limited to spells that don't have material components (on top of being counterspelled).
In regards to the abjurer's counterspells, of course not. I figure, building his spell list specifically for "encounter...
If you are going that high of a level why are the PC's not entering rooms with spells up that can detect invisible creatures. See invis would last for a long time. I can't suggest extend spell because I never use it, and I don't want to do the "I am always prepared" thing.
A 20 DC is not hard to beat at level 11 for a wizard. He has better than a 50% change, unless the player ignores character weaknesses and does not try to shore them up. My group does not let weaknesses lie though.
I don't know how many of my post you have seen, but I always suggest carrying two spell component pouches and holy symbols. I will sunder them as a GM so I see no reason to not have more than one. I will admit that the average player would be in trouble in that situation though.
It is true that the wizard just lost an action, but it is only a move action. The party should be going after the trickster dude next, assuming the he got the pouch anyway. For simplicity's sake we can assume the pouch was stolen. The trickster will die in round 2.
I never knew about the +4 from greater dispel when used for counterspelling. I am just seeing it at the bottom of the spell.
Here is what I see the BBEG is wasting his actions playing with the party caster. The party can still take on the assassin, and the two melee guys without the wizard. Yeah I know the goal of the GM is not to really win the fight, but just to make it a tough fight. I don't think the fight is any harder though. The party wizard/sorcerer may have just been shutdown.
It looks like to me the encounter is still on autoloss. Even going back to your spy network post we don't talk to NPC's that don't matter, and we don't tell them which spells we use. Getting that list of spells would require GM Fiat, assuming we had a list of certain spells, other than things like haste. By the time my group gets to level 3 we have anti invis options at the ready. Any high level party getting trumped by invis gets no pity from me.
I think the plan works against casual players though. I just don't know how well other people in general know the game.
In short casual gamers may be in trouble, more experienced gamers, not so much.
PS:In the original version the opposing caster was the backup, but I do think it makes more sense to let him be in charge.
|
About that...redundant component pouches is fine, they can just keep getting pick pocketed. Ranged legerdemain is not a limited ability.
About going after him, as I said sleight of hand does not break stealth or invisibility. With the stacked, redundant effects I've mentioned previously...as I said, good luck finding him. Unless you want to start slinging around AE's willy-nilly hoping to get a lucky shot and potentially wasting more rounds than you already are.
1) Ranged legerdemain break invisibility, as far as the spell go. You are negatively affecting a target. It will not break stealth, but that is a different matter from the spell.
It will not break greater invisibility.2)Your Sleight of hand check is opposed by the perception check of the wizard to notice the attempted theft. Another skill to maximize if you want to beat the wizard perception.
3) Your "total stealth modifier of +75 to stand still, +55 to move." include the invisibility bonus. Remove that and it become a way more manageable +35. The wizard will probably not make it, but other party members can.
4)
Let's assume the assassin is, as I suggested, a wizard 5/assassin 3/trickster 5
He has access to HiPS, nondetection, (greater) invisibility,
Hide in Plain Sight (Su): At 8th level, an assassin can use the Stealth skill even while being observed.
Your assassin is using a ability 5 levels above the level you stated. Maybe your trick don't work so well if you follow the rules.
5)
Hide in Plain Sight (Su): .... As long as he is within 10 feet of some sort of shadow, an assassin can hide himself from view in the open without having anything to actually hide behind. He cannot, however, hide in his own shadow.
A good reason to bring a item that give off daylight.
It work against most forms of stealth.In an area of bright light, all characters can see clearly. Some creatures, such as those with light sensitivity and light blindness, take penalties while in areas of bright light.A creature can't use Stealth in an area of bright light unless it is invisible or has cover. Areas of bright light include outside in direct sunshine and inside the area of a daylight spell.
I hate to say it but you're saying that as if PC's talking to NPC's was the only way to gather intel. It's not.
It is not the only way but gathering intel on the spell cast by someone isn't easy.
How many witnesses (dead or alive) have spellcraft?
Under the current rules you can get very few information doing a spellcraft check on the site of a battle. To be precise Pathfinder don't give any chance to identify a already cast spell. It was something possible in 3.5, but now it is not possible.
Some form of divination? I don't recall any spell that would gather that kind of information. Commune will work, but at 1 spell for each question you will annoy your divinity very fast.
So you are left with very unreliable sources of information. Sure, you can get if a spellcaster know teleport, fly, fireball, lighting bolt, raise dead and so on.
But knowing what kind of buffing he is using? You need to have someone trained in spellcasting spying on him when he is casting the spells.
The BEEG knowing his not signature spells smack of GM fiat.
I hate to say it but you're saying that as if PC's talking to NPC's was the only way to gather intel. It's not.
A 13th level party can handle scrying. The divination(such as contact other plane) spells only give so much info as does legend lore. They won't get you a spell list unless you have a lot of free time, and even then they don't always have the answer, and even then the accuracy depends on what risk the caster is willing to take. Unless you just fudge the rolls, which I am not saying is a bad thing, all the information won't be there.
1) Ranged legerdemain break invisibility, as far as the spell go. You are negatively affecting a target. It will not break stealth, but that is a different matter from the spell.
It will not break greater invisibility.2)Your Sleight of hand check is opposed by the perception check of the wizard to notice the attempted theft. Another skill to maximize if you want to beat the wizard perception.
Actually that is untrue.
For purposes of this spell, an attack includes any spell targeting a foe or whose area or effect includes a foe. Exactly who is a foe depends on the invisible character's perceptions. Actions directed at unattended objects do not break the spell. Causing harm indirectly is not an attack. Thus, an invisible being can open doors, talk, eat, climb stairs, summon monsters and have them attack, cut the ropes holding a rope bridge while enemies are on the bridge, remotely trigger traps, open a portcullis to release attack dogs, and so forth.
Ranged Legerdemain (Su)
Ranged Legerdemain is a supernatural ability, and by RAW does not break invis. I admit, this may look like rules lawyering, however this would make something like a creature with a fascinating voice intended as a tempter and conflict-sower appear upon using their abilities, when they are clearly built to do this and remain invisible.
An attack can be more clearly defined by adding the caveat of making an attack roll. If I had someone walk up and pick my pocket, I wouldn't point at him and scream "Help! I'm being attacked!", I would scream "Help! I'm being robbed!" While it may be a hostile action, you are on a slippery slope as to defining it as an attack. What other actions would defining that as an attack make into attacks that would break invisibility?
Ranged Legerdemain is a supernatural ability, and by RAW does not break invis. I admit, this may look like rules lawyering
Because it is. Whether something is a spell or a spell like ability or a physical action is irrelevant to it being an attack or not.
Spell pouches are attended, not unattended, objects.
|
|
1) Ranged legerdemain break invisibility, as far as the spell go. You are negatively affecting a target. It will not break stealth, but that is a different matter from the spell.
It will not break greater invisibility.2)Your Sleight of hand check is opposed by the perception check of the wizard to notice the attempted theft. Another skill to maximize if you want to beat the wizard perception.
Actually that is untrue.
For purposes of this spell, an attack includes any spell targeting a foe or whose area or effect includes a foe. Exactly who is a foe depends on the invisible character's perceptions. Actions directed at unattended objects do not break the spell. Causing harm indirectly is not an attack. Thus, an invisible being can open doors, talk, eat, climb stairs, summon monsters and have them attack, cut the ropes holding a rope bridge while enemies are on the bridge, remotely trigger traps, open a portcullis to release attack dogs, and so forth.Ranged Legerdemain (Su)Ranged Legerdemain is a supernatural ability, and by RAW does not break invis. I admit, this may look like rules lawyering, however this would make something like a creature with a fascinating voice intended as a tempter and conflict-sower appear upon using their abilities, when they are clearly built to do this and remain invisible.
An attack can be more clearly defined by adding the caveat of making an attack roll. If I had someone walk up and pick my pocket, I wouldn't point at him and scream "Help! I'm being attacked!", I would scream "Help! I'm being robbed!" While it may be a hostile action, you are on a slippery slope as to defining it as an attack. What other actions would defining that as an attack make into attacks that would break invisibility?
A spell component pouch is not a "unattended object" unless the wizard has left it on the table and gone away.
So you are targeting a guy and doing harm (in the broad meaning of the world) to him directly.You can argue that it is not a "spell" but a power, but the RAI of invisibility is pretty clear: it is broken if you somewhat directly damage a target.
Stealing from him is causing harm to him.
Taking something from him is not a form of indirect harm.
"something like a creature with a fascinating voice intended as a tempter and conflict-sower appear upon using their abilities, when they are clearly built to do this and remain invisible."
Can give an example creature with those capabilities? Invisibility and targeted tempting voice meant to work in unison?
The cleric can just see invisibility purge. The stolen object is not invisible just because the "thief" is.
Items dropped or put down by an invisible creature become visible; items picked up disappear if tucked into the clothing or pouches worn by the creature. Light, however, never becomes invisible, although a source of light can become so (thus, the effect is that of a light with no visible source). Any part of an item that the subject carries but that extends more than 10 feet from it becomes visible.
It takes a standard action to use the ranged "steal item". It takes a move action to put the item away. Targeting the approximate area the item was last seen in is possible with glitterdust. Bypassing invis is not that hard. 3rd level characters do it. If the party has a druid then faerie fire does it. True Seeing also works.
Ranged Legerdemain is a supernatural ability, and by RAW does not break invis. I admit, this may look like rules lawyeringBecause it is. Whether something is a spell or a spell like ability or a physical action is irrelevant to it being an attack or not.
Spell pouches are attended, not unattended, objects.
It is neither a spell nor a spell-like ability.
If that was the intention, let's say for a moment we have a harpy with extended invisibilty cast on it.
The harpy's singing causes creatures to come near it. Hardly sounds like an attack, more like a setup, such as webbing an area to prevent creatures from running away.
The effect would appear to break invis the moment anything comes near to the creature because it's defined as an attack. HOWEVER:
Profane gift is defined as an attack as well. One that must target a willing creature. It can DEFINITELY be used to kill someone, however, the target must be willing. Does a willing target accepting an effect break invisibility? If so, does casting something such as rage on a party member also break it? I think the answer is that no, it doesn't.
My wizzies always have permanent see invis by 13th level. He still probably won't spot the assassin, but the assassin isn't getting bonuses for it, either.
The trickster can use sleight of hand at a distance, but it requires a check at -5. It's a supernatural ability.
My wizzies always have permanent see invis by 13th level. He still probably won't spot the assassin, but the assassin isn't getting bonuses for it, either.
The trickster can use sleight of hand at a distance, but it requires a check at -5. It's a supernatural ability.
After he steals your pouch you can just light up any darkened areas. Now he is not hiding from you anymore. At this level a rod of lesser quicken should be on you. You still have your standard action to light him up with glitterdust or just try to outright kill him. You also have a free action to tell the other magic user his general location in case he decides to go after one of them next.
|
|
Ranged Legerdemain is a supernatural ability, and by RAW does not break invis. I admit, this may look like rules lawyeringBecause it is. Whether something is a spell or a spell like ability or a physical action is irrelevant to it being an attack or not.
Spell pouches are attended, not unattended, objects.
It is neither a spell nor a spell-like ability.
If that was the intention, let's say for a moment we have a harpy with extended invisibilty cast on it.
The harpy's singing causes creatures to come near it. Hardly sounds like an attack, more like a setup, such as webbing an area to prevent creatures from running away.
The effect would appear to break invis the moment anything comes near to the creature because it's defined as an attack. HOWEVER:
Profane gift is defined as an attack as well. One that must target a willing creature. It can DEFINITELY be used to kill someone, however, the target must be willing. Does a willing target accepting an effect break invisibility? If so, does casting something such as rage on a party member also break it? I think the answer is that no, it doesn't.
The spell ends if the subject attacks any creature. For purposes of this spell, an attack includes any spell targeting a foe or whose area or effect includes a foe.
Again, your only argument for the Harpy is that it is a spell but a supernatural ability.
RAI I think they should be treated the same way.Fascinating someone is not a form of indirect harm, it is direct harm with an area of effect.
The succubus example is even less pertinent. Bestowing the profane gift is not an attack, removing it and causing the charisma drains is an attack.
When the succubus is bestowing it the target is not a foe.
It is neither a spell nor a spell-like ability.
Which is completely irrelevant.
You can cast spells without breaking invisibility. Spell/not spell is not an important distinction. The only distinction that matters is whether something is an ATTACK or is it not an attack. If a spell that targets a foe is an attack then anything else that has to target a foe is also an attack, yes, including harpy songs.
If that was the intention, let's say for a moment we have a harpy with extended invisibilty cast on it.
Besides your circular arguments that these are allowed so they're allowed, do you have any arguments for them being allowed?
1) Ranged legerdemain break invisibility, as far as the spell go. You are negatively affecting a target. It will not break stealth, but that is a different matter from the spell.
It will not break greater invisibility.2)Your Sleight of hand check is opposed by the perception check of the wizard to notice the attempted theft. Another skill to maximize if you want to beat the wizard perception.
Actually that is untrue.
For purposes of this spell, an attack includes any spell targeting a foe or whose area or effect includes a foe. Exactly who is a foe depends on the invisible character's perceptions. Actions directed at unattended objects do not break the spell. Causing harm indirectly is not an attack. Thus, an invisible being can open doors, talk, eat, climb stairs, summon monsters and have them attack, cut the ropes holding a rope bridge while enemies are on the bridge, remotely trigger traps, open a portcullis to release attack dogs, and so forth.Ranged Legerdemain (Su)Ranged Legerdemain is a supernatural ability, and by RAW does not break invis. I admit, this may look like rules lawyering, however this would make something like a creature with a fascinating voice intended as a tempter and conflict-sower appear upon using their abilities, when they are clearly built to do this and remain invisible.
An attack can be more clearly defined by adding the caveat of making an attack roll. If I had someone walk up and pick my pocket, I wouldn't point at him and scream "Help! I'm being attacked!", I would scream "Help! I'm being robbed!" While it may be a hostile action, you are on a slippery slope as to defining it as an attack. What other actions would defining that as an attack make into attacks that would break invisibility?
A spell component pouch is not a "unattended object" unless the wizard has left it on the table and gone away.
So you are targeting a...
This creature has a boatload of mechanical problems, but it specifically mentions using its abilities to turn allies against one another. In this case, while invisible it should be able to use suggestion on a creature, which is RAW impossible. Suppose that's why it has stealth despite being gargantuan.
The most damning evidence in this case is Redirect spell. If ANY effect targeting a foe causes invisibility to cease functioning then this creature should not have invisibility. The moment it enters within 30 ft of any creature, its effect now includes them, even if it does not actually use its ability. And it's listed under attacks as well.
But, since I pick nits I'll let you grab some as well. That's not exactly what I was talking about. And you're right!
Here's (almost) exactly what I was thinking of.
So, yes, it can't turn invisible by itself. However, it has a number of abilities that can't exactly be called attacks that are all- you guess it- supernatural. This creature is also intended to be used when hiding and is an ambusher.
It's steal voice ability can be used to imitate other creatures. Being a supernatural effect, it is a supernatural effect that can have a directly negative effect on creatures. It occupies a weird place, as do many of these abilities, that being revealed from invisibility for using doesn't make a lot of sense while doing.
It is neither a spell nor a spell-like ability.Which is completely irrelevant.
You can cast spells without breaking invisibility. Spell/not spell is not an important distinction. The only distinction that matters is whether something is an ATTACK or is it not an attack. If a spell that targets a foe is an attack then anything else that has to target a foe is also an attack, yes, including harpy songs.
If that was the intention, let's say for a moment we have a harpy with extended invisibilty cast on it.Besides your circular arguments that these are allowed so they're allowed, do you have any arguments for them being allowed?
I don't know. Do you have any reason for being needlessly abusive with your posts, or is the only reason because I'm a dirty rules lawyer who's trying to justify monsters being able to do interesting and fun things without dying in 6 seconds?
. The spell ends if the subject attacks any creature. For purposes of this spell, an attack includes any spell targeting a foe or whose area or effect includes a foe. Exactly who is a foe depends on the invisible character's perceptions. Actions directed at unattended objects do not break the spell. Causing harm indirectly is not an attack. Thus, an invisible being can open doors, talk, eat, climb stairs, summon monsters and have them attack, cut the ropes holding a rope bridge while enemies are on the bridge, remotely trigger traps, open a portcullis to release attack dogs, and so forth. If the subject attacks directly, however, it immediately becomes visible along with all its gear. Spells such as bless that specifically affect allies but not foes are not attacks for this purpose, even when they include foes in their area.
That is not all inclusive. An attack with a weapon is not a spell. The fact that there is at least one attack not listed means that should be other attacks that qualify also. Being supernatural or EX is not a condition to stay invisible. If it were greater invis would not be needed.
PS:I do admit it should have said "effect" and not spell, but really saying a sleep spell is an attack but a supernatural sleep affect is not is really just trying to game the system.
Again, your only argument for the Harpy is that it is a spell but a supernatural ability.
RAI I think they should be treated the same way.
Fascinating someone is not a form of indirect harm, it is direct harm with an area of effect.
In that case, you could define using bluff as direct harm, and thus an attack. You could be invisible and Bluff "Oh, I'm over here across this totally stable bridge!" If that attempt broke invisibilty, anyone knowing the spell's effects could determine that it was an attack without rolling sense motive.
The succubus example is even less pertinent. Bestowing the profane gift is not an attack, removing it and causing the charisma drains is an attack.
The target is willing, yes. But if they are already charmed, they can be a willing foe. Or even if you talked with the monster and convinced it that you would be alright with it touching you in order to tell where it was, it being invisible. In that case invisibility would go away when it's clear that the effect is an attack, it is put there with the intent to use suggestion on the target or damage their charisma if they don't do what you say. Except that it isn't. It's an area of the rules that isn't classified under that spell for a reason, its true intent is to allow for monsters (And the witch I guess) to provide effects that are not necessarilies without breaking invis.
. The spell ends if the subject attacks any creature. For purposes of this spell, an attack includes any spell targeting a foe or whose area or effect includes a foe. Exactly who is a foe depends on the invisible character's perceptions. Actions directed at unattended objects do not break the spell. Causing harm indirectly is not an attack. Thus, an invisible being can open doors, talk, eat, climb stairs, summon monsters and have them attack, cut the ropes holding a rope bridge while enemies are on the bridge, remotely trigger traps, open a portcullis to release attack dogs, and so forth. If the subject attacks directly, however, it immediately becomes visible along with all its gear. Spells such as bless that specifically affect allies but not foes are not attacks for this purpose, even when they include foes in their area.That is not all inclusive. An attack with a weapon is not a spell. The fact that there is at least one attack not listed means that should be other attacks that qualify also. Being supernatural or EX is not a condition to stay invisible. If it were greater invis would not be needed.
PS:I do admit it should have said "effect" and not spell, but really saying a sleep spell is an attack but a supernatural sleep affect is not is really just trying to game the system.
The additional caveat was added to avoid having people game the system, I agree. However, the question here is whether something like a suggestion, bluffing now I suppose or stealing from someone is an attack.
My main reason for stating that supernatural attacks are exempt for a reason is that a ton of them can't be considered attacks, and wouldn't break invisibility if they were ex. In addition treating other su abilities as spells introduces a ton of other problems that I'd rather not have to illuminate, not the least of which being its effect on spell turning.
I don't know. Do you have any reason for being needlessly abusive with your posts, or is the only reason because I'm a dirty rules lawyer who's trying to justify monsters being able to do interesting and fun things without dying in 6 seconds?
I don't know how to deal with bold faced malarkey except to point out that it is in fact bold faced malarkey. If I had more tact i might find another way to put it that both fully pointed out exactly what logical fallacy you were using and spared your feelings but i don't.
I questioned your reasoning, which even you admitted was rules lawyering. Instead of answering for your reasoning, you instead assumed that said reasoning was ok, used it by the standard by which conclusions were to be reached, and then used it by the standard by which conclusions should be judged. I'm rather insulted that you didn't think I'd notice.
I don't know. Do you have any reason for being needlessly abusive with your posts, or is the only reason because I'm a dirty rules lawyer who's trying to justify monsters being able to do interesting and fun things without dying in 6 seconds?I don't know how to deal with bold faced malarkey except to point out that it is in fact bold faced malarkey. If I had more tact i might find another way to put it that both fully pointed out exactly what logical fallacy you were using and spared your feelings but i don't.
I questioned your reasoning, which even you admitted was rules lawyering. Instead of answering for your reasoning, you instead assumed that said reasoning was ok, used it by the standard by which conclusions were to be reached, and then used it by the standard by which conclusions should be judged. I'm rather insulted that you didn't think I'd notice.
Because, unlike some people, I have to make an argument for a preconceived notion to be overturned. I am placing different things in this situation, not all of which may be right, to determine exactly what your argument entails, because you are guilty of exactly what you accuse me of. Simply because I don't prostrate myself and admit that I'm wrong in every post doesn't mean that I am assuming I'm right.
That is the point of an argument and you are being overly confrontational for no reason other than... Well, an assumption of facts, really. A stipulation that I fed you that seems to be fueling some kind of barely-contained homicidal rage.
I'm arguing that what seems to be an oversight is intentional, because I have looked over the bestiary. I know things that you clearly don't about monster abilities. There are a ton of them that can be considered attacks, including:
Any supernatural aura effects.
Any mind-affecting supernatural effect, including beneficial ones such as the succubus' touch because it has to be treated as a spell now.
Any effect that has the supernatural descriptor that is definitely not an attack, but has it anyway, like the attic whisperer's ability.
While yes, you can view it as unfair that the harpy can remain invisible and make you walk off of a cliff, disallowing this means a lot of monsters get left out in the cold as to a way to be introduced into a situation and do something tricky, as well as low-level witches attempting to fill a support role. While it is very loosely defined, at present assuming the thing I was originally objecting to can prevent a lot of cool encounters from playing out, and leads to weird circumstances that I doubt were intentional, like an attic whisperer bluffing and then dropping invisibility because it's using a supernatural effect to mimic a voice, then targeting a creature with bluff.
Instead of steadfastly refuting this, you could try and see my point of view, or you could continue to be an ass and accuse me of circular logic when I've phrased a number of circumstances as being situational, asking what happens in them, and generally tried to practice good arguing principles.
There's a phrase for what you're doing that I can call out right now. Ad homonym.
. The spell ends if the subject attacks any creature. For purposes of this spell, an attack includes any spell targeting a foe or whose area or effect includes a foe. Exactly who is a foe depends on the invisible character's perceptions. Actions directed at unattended objects do not break the spell. Causing harm indirectly is not an attack. Thus, an invisible being can open doors, talk, eat, climb stairs, summon monsters and have them attack, cut the ropes holding a rope bridge while enemies are on the bridge, remotely trigger traps, open a portcullis to release attack dogs, and so forth. If the subject attacks directly, however, it immediately becomes visible along with all its gear. Spells such as bless that specifically affect allies but not foes are not attacks for this purpose, even when they include foes in their area.That is not all inclusive. An attack with a weapon is not a spell. The fact that there is at least one attack not listed means that should be other attacks that qualify also. Being supernatural or EX is not a condition to stay invisible. If it were greater invis would not be needed.
PS:I do admit it should have said "effect" and not spell, but really saying a sleep spell is an attack but a supernatural sleep affect is not is really just trying to game the system.
The additional caveat was added to avoid having people game the system, I agree. However, the question here is whether something like a suggestion, bluffing now I suppose or stealing from someone is an attack.
My main reason for stating that supernatural attacks are exempt for a reason is that a ton of them can't be considered attacks, and wouldn't break invisibility if they were ex. In addition treating other su abilities as spells introduces a ton of other problems that I'd rather not have to illuminate, not the least of which being its effect on spell turning.
...but I would not say supernatural effects are not attacks. Some would be, and some would not be. I don't think stealing something counts as an attack. I do think that the object gives the stealer's position away though, which I discussed in an earlier post.
Some SU's do act like spells though.Back to SU's, a dragon breath weapon is an attack. An SU's that acted like dominate person is an attack, and so on. An SU that summon a monster is not an attack.
PS: Treating them like spells is not the issue. SU's can never be treated like spells even if they reference a spell. They don't have casters levels or spell levels. For the purpose of invis they only need to meet the targeting parameters to be an attack, and/or reasonably count as an attack such as a breath weapon.
Any supernatural aura effects.
Any mind-affecting supernatural effect, including beneficial ones such as the succubus' touch because it has to be treated as a spell now.
This is the issue, and it is not true. You only have to look at the SU's abilities to see if it falls within invis's guidelines for an attack if it does not do physical damage like a dragon's breath would, as an example. That does not mean you assign it a spell or caster level which is impossible by the rules anyway.
Because, unlike some people, I have to make an argument for a preconceived notion to be overturned.
The CONCLUSION, not assumption, from the rules is that you cannot attack and stay invisible, and even though a spell like ability or supernatural power may not be a spell it is still an attack.
I am placing different things in this situation, not all of which may be right, to determine exactly what your argument entails, because you are guilty of exactly what you accuse me of.
If a spell that targets a foe is an attack then anything else that has to target a foe is also an attack, yes, including harpy songs. <--- Harpy songs target foes, they force a will save, they change someone else's actions. They have all of the hallmarks of an attack.
This is a sonic mind-affecting charm effect.<--- affecting your opponents mind is an attack.
That is the point of an argument and you are being overly confrontational for no reason other than... Well, an assumption of facts, really. A stipulation that I fed you that seems to be fueling some kind of barely-contained homicidal rage.
Run! He has... a logical fallacy?
I'm arguing that what seems to be an oversight is intentional, because I have looked over the bestiary. I know things that you clearly don't about monster abilities.
You toss up backhanded insults and a facade of arrogance and wonder why people aren't bending over backwards to phrase things less succinctly.
There are a ton of them that can be considered attacks, including:
Any supernatural aura effects.
Any mind-affecting supernatural effect, including beneficial ones such as the succubus' touch because it has to be treated as a spell now.
Any effect that has the supernatural descriptor...
Ok, and besides the fact that this doesn't agree with you what exactly is the argument here?
like an attic whisperer bluffing and then dropping invisibility because it's using a supernatural effect to mimic a voice, then targeting a creature with bluff.
Any creature hit by an attic whisperer's touch must make a DC 16 Will save or lose its ability to speak for 1 hour.
basically what you're complaining about is the monsters having to play by the same rules as the PC's.
you could try and see my point of view
You're presenting a false dichotomy in that either the Monsters are allowed to be invisible or they'll die in a round.
You're using rules lawyering cheese to say that anything that isn't a spell isn't an attack even if it does the exact same thing as a spell.
I don't have to either "be an ass" or agree with you. Its possible that i both understand and reject your argument. It is not impossible, or even that hard, to judge supernatural abilities by the same criteria as spells.
There's a phrase for what you're doing that I can call out right now. Ad homonym.
You do realize that that's NOT Latin for "something i disagree with" right? Everything i've refuted has been directed at your argument. Your argument is circular is a problem with your argument, NOT with you.