|
Does entering a threatened square via teleport provoke an attack of opportunity?No, because the attack is when you proceed through a threatened square and you aren't going through a threatened square.
But a 5 foot step doesn't provoke either, and no one would reasonably argue that isn't movement.
Yes, but a 5' step is clearly defined as movement, and is a caveat to movement provoking.
I actually agree, that a person should get some kind of a check if someone, invisible or no, just pops in. Not because of movement or displacement, but hairs raising on your neck kind of awareness.
That is all I'm saying. I didn't ask for a pop or anything, just for the players to get what the rules say they are entitled to, the ability to detect something invisible is nearby if it is active within 30 feet.
I think noticing those subtle environmental changes like footprints in water or the sound of breathing or whatever, that's exactly what the perception check represents. I mean it's definitely not a perception check to see the invisible creature right? I mean, it's invisible.
Does entering a threatened square via teleport provoke an attack of opportunity?
Nope. That is another point I was making upthread. To be more precise though the AoO is for "moving out of a threatened square". This once again refers to speed based movement, not just vanishing.
That is all I'm saying. I didn't ask for a pop or anything, just for the players to get what the rules say they are entitled to, the ability to detect something invisible is nearby if it is active within 30 feet.Does entering a threatened square via teleport provoke an attack of opportunity?No, because the attack is when you proceed through a threatened square and you aren't going through a threatened square.
But a 5 foot step doesn't provoke either, and no one would reasonably argue that isn't movement.
Yes, but a 5' step is clearly defined as movement, and is a caveat to movement provoking.
I actually agree, that a person should get some kind of a check if someone, invisible or no, just pops in. Not because of movement or displacement, but hairs raising on your neck kind of awareness.
I think the key here is our disagreement on the word "active."
|
|
I think noticing those subtle environmental changes like footprints in water or the sound of breathing or whatever, that's exactly what the perception check represents. I mean it's definitely not a perception check to see the invisible creature right? I mean, it's invisible.
The rule says:
"A creature can generally notice the presence of an active invisible creature within 30 feet with a DC 20 Perception check. The observer gains a hunch that “something's there” but can't see it or target it accurately with an attack. It's practically impossible (+20 DC) to pinpoint an invisible creature's location with a Perception check. Even once a character has pinpointed the square that contains an invisible creature, the creature still benefits from total concealment (50% miss chance). There are a number of modifiers that can be applied to this DC if the invisible creature is moving or engaged in a noisy activity."
It also says "The ability to move about unseen is not foolproof. While they can't be seen, invisible creatures can be heard, smelled, or felt."
So if something is within 30 feet of you, you kind of know it even if you can't see it with a 20 perception check.
Keep in mind that is a fairly high check for a normal, non-hero type person. And it doesn't mean you know where they are. It just means "Hey, I think something invisible is fairly close to me"
Can somebody quoute or link this "active" issue i can not find it, it is not in the desciption of invisiblity nor in perception.
It is logical if you only look at what the rules tell you. The rules say the creature must be active. Appearing is not being active.You and I will have to agree to disagree if you are saying casting a spell and appearing in a location where nothing but air was prior is not active.
(edited)
The word is not defined. It falls into GM territory for the time being.
Ciretose see it as "you" doing something if you arrive by teleport.
I see the casting of the spell as being active. From that point the magic places you where you want to be, so you are not doing anything, therefore you are not active.
Another way to look at it.
I see it as this.
1.Cast spell to put me at A23 on the map...<--I am active.
2.Once the spell is complete the magic moves me to A23...<--I am not doing anything at this point so I am not active.
I just looked at perception again and it says DC 0 to notice a visible creature, +20 if the creature is invisible, + opposed stealth check if the creature is using stealth, so if you grant the passive perception check to notice the invisible creature when it teleports in, it just seems like it will be pretty hard to succeed, and you end up with some clunky math and extra dice rolls for the same outcome, no?
I think noticing those subtle environmental changes like footprints in water or the sound of breathing or whatever, that's exactly what the perception check represents. I mean it's definitely not a perception check to see the invisible creature right? I mean, it's invisible.The rule says:
"A creature can generally notice the presence of an active invisible creature within 30 feet with a DC 20 Perception check. The observer gains a hunch that “something's there” but can't see it or target it accurately with an attack. It's practically impossible (+20 DC) to pinpoint an invisible creature's location with a Perception check. Even once a character has pinpointed the square that contains an invisible creature, the creature still benefits from total concealment (50% miss chance). There are a number of modifiers that can be applied to this DC if the invisible creature is moving or engaged in a noisy activity."
It also says "The ability to move about unseen is not foolproof. While they can't be seen, invisible creatures can be heard, smelled, or felt."
So if something is within 30 feet of you, you kind of know it even if you can't see it with a 20 perception check.
Keep in mind that is a fairly high check for a normal, non-hero type person. And it doesn't mean you know where they are. It just means "Hey, I think something invisible is fairly close to me"
That is something I can agree with, but it does not mean you get a perception check. It just means you can locate them by other means. A creature with scent as an example would notice that someone just popped in. A GM could then rule that they got perception check and it would make sense.
ScentThis extraordinary ability lets a creature detect approaching enemies, sniff out hidden foes, and track by sense of smell.
A creature with the scent ability can detect opponents by sense of smell, generally within 30 feet. If the opponent is upwind, the range is 60 feet. If it is downwind, the range is 15 feet. Strong scents, such as smoke or rotting garbage, can be detected at twice the ranges noted above. Overpowering scents, such as skunk musk or troglodyte stench, can be detected at three times these ranges.
|
|
I just looked at perception again and it says DC 0 to notice a visible creature, +20 if the creature is invisible, + opposed stealth check if the creature is using stealth, so if you grant the passive perception check to notice the invisible creature when it teleports in, it just seems like it will be pretty hard to succeed, and you end up with some clunky math and extra dice rolls for the same outcome, no?
Which is where the 2nd question comes in, specifically can you use stealth as part of teleportation.
I say no. I say you can teleport in, at which point you are detectable as being in the area with a DC 20 perception check. If you use your move action to move and take stealth, you will get the bonuses from that point forward, but you can't be hiding as part of the teleportation.
So in the scenario, the invisible creature teleports to within 30 feat of the party and the party gets a passive check because there is now something within 30 feet of them that is invisible and active that wasn't there before.
Allowing stealth to be used as part of casting a spell makes no sense to me and opens up a pandora's box of potential problems.
I agree you can't use stealth as part of the spell, or even as part of the "movement" through extra dimensional space. But once you arrive, when the perception check is being made to notice those subtle signs that you are there, what about then? Just like you would be allowed a stealth check if you had moved into concealment, I would say you are granted an opposed stealth check, to hold very still, breathe softly, etc.
|
|
I agree you can't use stealth as part of the spell, or even as part of the "movement" through extra dimensional space. But once you arrive, when the perception check is being made to notice those subtle signs that you are there, what about then? Just like you would be allowed a stealth check if you had moved into concealment, I would say you are granted an opposed stealth check, to hold very still, breathe softly, etc.
You can absolutely use your move action to try to hide. They won't be able to find you, and if you move you won't be where you were when they sensed something invisible is nearby. But they should at least be able to sense you arrived within 30 feet of you if they make the check.
EDIT: To be clear, to sense you arrived when you arrived, what you do with your move actions is later.
As a DM if you made the 20 perception but not high enough for the stealh after I would say "For a moment you thought something was invisible nearby, but you no longer sense it"
I would think the stealth check would be added to the dc of 20 and the passive perception would have to beat that to notice the arrival. Situational modifiers would apply, like if the floor was wet, maybe -4 to the DC because of footprints. I don't think you would need a move action to attempt stealth though, you are already concealed.
I don't know it's not exactly clear.
With your last edit we are on about the same page.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
@Ashiel - I believe you are a "he" thanks to Google. I refer to you as a she because you picked a female icon and a female name, and haven't corrected anyone. Much in the same way you post complicated rules interpretations and don't explain them because you seem to be more interested in making people try to figure out what you are saying than adding to the dialog.
I think it is a really good metaphor.
I picked the icon because I thought the picture was awesome, and Seoni is awesome. Shall I assume that you are a boozer because your icon depicts someone with an overly large tankard? Or believe that Wraithstrike actually looks remarkably similar to Suma Gorath in reality? Should I assume that their icon makes their discussions, arguments, or ideas any more or less relevant? Should I care about their gender?
Barring that, I think the googling thing is getting a little close to an unhealthy level. It actually seems a little bit creepy. Why do you care so much? I mean, I know that folks on the board have laughed and chided about my "internet stalker", but googling me to discover my identity so that you can attack me on the boards again? That just feels messed up somehow. Since I'm not afraid of you, I'm not sure it's a problem. Just really weird. In a "this makes us nerds look bad" kind of weird.
The thing that actually does bother me, and I do consider a problem is that you accuse me "post[ing] complicated rules interpretations and don't explain them because you seem to be more interested in making people try to figure out what you are saying than adding to the dialog", when I actually go out of my way to not only post and cite the relevant rules, but break down the explanations into step by step details explaining not only the interpretation of the rule but the logic path that leads there.
I openly ask people other than Ciretose to correct me if I'm wrong about the details thing.
EDIT: PS: "Ashiel" is a gender neutral name. "iel" roughly means "of god", and Ash comes from the name Asher which means Joy. So taken for an actual meaning would be "Joy of God"; similar to how Ariel means "Lion of God".
Not to spoil our moment, but speculating about someone's gender when they have said they'd rather not disclose it is pretty harsh don't you think? Never mind probing with search engines and publicly posting your findings...
Booooo!
Edit: Ninja'd
You guys should really bury the hatchet.
You guys should really bury the hatchet.
"I think it is time to bury the hatchet...but let's wait until it turns its back." - Native Brave archtype, Deadlands RPG.
|
|
I like beer (but prefer Vodka) and I am a male with brown hair if you want to know.
Sorry if it made you feel weird, but as a piece of advice from someone who does background checks for a living, don't put your name on anything on the internet you don't want to be looked up.
If you google ciretose you'll find a lot of stuff about me, and you can actually get a lot of personal information about me if you really dig. But not my name or profession because it could negatively effect my job. I am a probation officer and I am sure the people I work with try to google me all the time. It would be awkward if they knew I was a gamer (doesn't fit the job), so I keep the two separate.
I honestly didn't know you were a he until someone in this thread mentioned you had something published (which I commend you for by the way, regardless of what anyone says about it, making the effort and putting yourself out there is something) and given all the "mystery" around your gender I googled your name.
Up to a few days ago I thought you were a she and posted under that assumption as I thought you had said you were in a thread way back. When I saw your name and the discussion went back and forth with no answer I googled to find out.
This was supposed to be such a nice thread.......
I think noticing those subtle environmental changes like footprints in water or the sound of breathing or whatever, that's exactly what the perception check represents. I mean it's definitely not a perception check to see the invisible creature right? I mean, it's invisible.The rule says:
"A creature can generally notice the presence of an active invisible creature within 30 feet with a DC 20 Perception check. The observer gains a hunch that “something's there” but can't see it or target it accurately with an attack. It's practically impossible (+20 DC) to pinpoint an invisible creature's location with a Perception check. Even once a character has pinpointed the square that contains an invisible creature, the creature still benefits from total concealment (50% miss chance). There are a number of modifiers that can be applied to this DC if the invisible creature is moving or engaged in a noisy activity."
It also says "The ability to move about unseen is not foolproof. While they can't be seen, invisible creatures can be heard, smelled, or felt."
So if something is within 30 feet of you, you kind of know it even if you can't see it with a 20 perception check.
Keep in mind that is a fairly high check for a normal, non-hero type person. And it doesn't mean you know where they are. It just means "Hey, I think something invisible is fairly close to me"
That is something I can agree with, but it does not mean you get a perception check. It just means you can locate them by other means. A creature with scent as an example would notice that someone just popped in. A GM could then rule that they got perception check and it would make sense.
But wraith you have to admit, they did roll different senses from 3.5 into one perception check in PF
But wraith you have to admit, they did roll different senses from 3.5 into one perception check in PFI think noticing those subtle environmental changes like footprints in water or the sound of breathing or whatever, that's exactly what the perception check represents. I mean it's definitely not a perception check to see the invisible creature right? I mean, it's invisible.The rule says:
"A creature can generally notice the presence of an active invisible creature within 30 feet with a DC 20 Perception check. The observer gains a hunch that “something's there” but can't see it or target it accurately with an attack. It's practically impossible (+20 DC) to pinpoint an invisible creature's location with a Perception check. Even once a character has pinpointed the square that contains an invisible creature, the creature still benefits from total concealment (50% miss chance). There are a number of modifiers that can be applied to this DC if the invisible creature is moving or engaged in a noisy activity."
It also says "The ability to move about unseen is not foolproof. While they can't be seen, invisible creatures can be heard, smelled, or felt."
So if something is within 30 feet of you, you kind of know it even if you can't see it with a 20 perception check.
Keep in mind that is a fairly high check for a normal, non-hero type person. And it doesn't mean you know where they are. It just means "Hey, I think something invisible is fairly close to me"
That is something I can agree with, but it does not mean you get a perception check. It just means you can locate them by other means. A creature with scent as an example would notice that someone just popped in. A GM could then rule that they got perception check and it would make sense.
That is why I would allow them to get the perception check if they had the senses needed. :)
PS:I am assuming that no noise is made upon teleporting. You are not moving(not active).
I do wish hide and move silent were still separate, or they should have given an official bonus for the "silence" spell.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Logically, on this stealth argument:
How is the teleporter making a Stealth check for an environment it isn't even in?
The Stealth check by rote has to happen AFTER arrival.
Arriving IN the square is definitely an action and an activity...your environment has changed, something is not there that was before, and you are not where you were before. Furthermore, you're going to instantaneously get the Perception check as it arrives, before it can adjust to its new environment and make the Stealth check.
So, the ghaele would teleport in, the characters would instantly get the DC 20 check to notice an invisible creature, and then they'd roll initiative against the Ghaele to see if it gets to make a Stealth Check before they make a dedicated Perception check to see exactly what square it is in.
Letting it make a Stealth check before teleporting is the equivalent of saying "I'm going to roll to hide myself in a shadow I'm not even in yet." The ghaele has no control over the true environment it appears in. It could step on a pebble, dust could fall from overhead, a fly bounce off it, displaced air stir up the dust around it.
Actually, arriving as a teleport, because it's effectively the end of a spell, probably constitutes spellcasting, with a penalty to the stealth roll! After all, you've less control arriving suddenly in a different place/position then if you moved to that location while interacting with your environment.
==Aelryinth
It's interesting that different people see this so differently, to me it seemed so obvious that the creature would not be "active" because it was performing no "action". But many of you seem to see it otherwise. I don't mind either way since the DC is still very high, and the wording of the rule even talks about a "hunch".
I definitely wouldn't say you are still casting when you arrive, I've always understood spell effects to occur when the act of casting is complete.
Makes no sense you would still be saying magic words and making arcane gestures after your fireball already went off for example.
From the PRD:
"Stealth
...
Action: Usually none.
..."
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Quoting Ashiel:
It would likely go down like this.
Villain: "Ab'dul mizzerick santci silovoru mektok..."
Ghaele: *appears inside of a circle of protection from good* "W-what? How did I get here!?"
Villain: "Silence. You are mine now, and you shall do as I say. I desire the destruction of the city of Deepkelp..."
Ghaele: "WHAT!?" *attempts to punch the villainous fool senseless, but her hand crashes against the magical barrier* "Argh, sorcerer you tempt powers you do not yet know!"
Villain: "Pfft, if I didn't know the extent of your power, do you think I would have called you here? Now, you will submit to my will, or you shall suffer...indignities."
Ghaele: "Like hell I will!" *tries to smash the barrier with her sword to no avail.* "You can't hold me here!" she shouts.
Villain: "Oh but I can my dear. And I will. And you will submit." he says. "Oh, and fetch this feather for me." the villain says pulling a feather from the last angel he enslaved. His voice ripples through the air and his eyes glow ominously. "Retrieve the feather." he demands, placing it on the other side of the room.
Ghaele: "W-what have you done?" the ghaele asks, feeling some sort of dark magic come over her as the geas takes effect.
Villain: "Oh nothing so terrible. Just a little incentive for you to see things my way."
Ghaele: "I swear I'll have your head!" *attempts to tear her away out of the prison with no means to do so*
Villain: "You'll need to get in line. Perhaps you will be more respectful in a few days." the villain says before walking out of the summoning chamber and locking it behind him.
A few days pass. The effects of the geas wearing the ghaele down. Now, with a -12 to all her ability scores, she sits in the magical prison a shell of her former self. The door opens, and the villain enters yet again.
Ghaele: "You...you're wasting your time. I'm not going to negotiate with you. Release me, and mercy shall be shown..."
Villain: "Oh how your tune has changed, my dear. But I'm not here to negotiate. I'm here to make sure you understand exactly who you are dealing with." he says as he casts false life followed by spectral hand. Suddenly the hand appears inside the barrier and grasps the Ghaele's throat. "Ab abib mektok shelo..." the wizard speaks bitterly. The bestow curse spell taking hold of the already severely weakened celestial. The ghaele's eyes seem to dim, and her coloration seems to dull. Her mind is clouded. Her body is weakened (-4 to all attacks, saves, skills, and ability checks). She can scarcely remember what it felt like to be powerful.
Villain: "Now again! Haha..." he says, cursing her, and cursing her, until she can barely move (another -6 to her Charisma and anything else he feels like cursing).
Villain: "So...let us begin the negotiations..." he says with a voice that would make a snake's blood curdle.
Ghaele: The ghaele gasps in pain and misery within the circle, barely able to reason what is happening, let alone resist it (all her ability scores at this point that matter are at -18, giving her the following ability scores after everything: Str 7, Dex 1, Con 2, Int 1, Wis 1, Cha 1). She struggles defiantly. "I...I'll not submit!" she screams.
Villain: "Oh you will though..." he says, casting eagle's splendor upon himself to heighten his own spiritual energy. "Now here is my offer. You shall serve me, without question, and do all you can possibly do to see my desires made manifest, and in return I won't kill you". (Rolls opposed Charisma check at 1d20+5 and gets a 15).
Ghaele: "Nnnggghhhuuuh..." (Rolls opposed Charisma check at 1d20-5 and gets a 6). "I....agree..." she mutters against her will. Suddenly the contract is made. The villain smirks, feeling his grasp over the ghaele lock in place. He waves his hand, dispelling the field and begins dismissing the spells he cast on her over the course of the week. Almost as readily as they afflicted her, her tribulations are lifted.
Villain: "I'm sure the good folk of Deepkelp will be so thrilled to meet with you." the villain says with a smirk that would make a devil angry. He walks to the door of the summoning chamber, bids it upon, and then leaves the ghaele behind him. The ghaele begins crying, curled up in a small ball, repeating "What have I done?" over and over and over again...
=======================================
This is so wrong on so many levels.
Let's start with the beginning:
1) Summoning a Good outsider is a Good spell. Can an evil character even cast one successfully? I couldn't find support either way, although it was a NO in 3.5.
So, let's say for argument's sake, they can.
2) The mage waves the feather of the last angel it 'enslaved' at an angel of chaos and good.
Instant -4 to the mage's charisma check for mocking the principles upon which it stands. Now, if it waved the horns of a Pit Fiend at it, that shows power and dominance. That might get a boost for anathema.
3) The Angel, wrenched from its home by corrupted magic, and hundred of years older then the wizard, coolly looks around. First, it notes the wizard, makes the Knowledge (Arcana) check to identify him, and inspects the circle, all in an instant.
Let's say the mage was industrious and put the second magic circle inside the first with Dimensional Anchor, and it can't teleport out.
It rools the Charisma Check and the Will save...two things it gets to do EVERY DAY.
And remember, a nat 20 is ALWAYS A SAVE.
It's stuck.
It addresses the wizard by name coldly asking his business. If he actually managed to geas an angel before, the ghaele likely knows ALL ABOUT this rat who thinks he can bind celestials.
4) Serving an evil spellcaster is akin to voluntary slavery, and violates every precept of being a celestial, let alone an aspect of Chaotic Good. NO MATTER WHAT THE EVIL MAGE THINKS, HE CANNOT BIND THE CELESTIAL TO SERVICE. It will die first.
Service is refused coldly, and the celestial notes that it is contacting its kin to let them know it has imprisoned and by whom, with Commune, contact other plane, sending, or some other such thing. regardless, it is not where it should be, and its fellows are looking for it even now.
5) The mage casts a geas on it.
Wide-eyed, the angel defies the geas and takes the penalty...and steps out of the circle the mage just violated, because casting a spell on the celestial that is not specifically geared to work with a binding ritual violates the boundary of the circle as surely as tossing a rock into it.
Ditto the Spectral Hand/Curse combo.
Nevermind that a sufficently strong Celestial can Limited Wish/Remove Curse away the debuffs instantly.
If this stricture is not in place, then Binding becomes a euphemism for Summon and Murder, because a spellcaster would simply summon outsiders of the opposite alignment who oppose them, and while they are Bound, simply destroy them from perfect safety. You CANNOT cast spells on the bound beings that are not specifically set aside to work within the binding parameters.
And does not Protection From Evil, which they all radiate/can cast, suppress the compulsion completely?
6) The wizard, realizing he's about to be very stupid, leaves the angel to stew, since he can't do anything more then an opposed Charisma Check backed by power items. Secure in the belief he'll eventually win it, and ignorant of the fact that he absolutely CANNOT GAIN the service of a celestial for his schemes as an 'unreasonable request', he stalks out to get a few more icons of evil to buff his charisma check.
7) The ghaele sits patiently down, and once a day for the next few days, makes a spiritual check and a Will save to get out of the circle. The wizard, festooning himself in icons of power, is outraged when the angel keeps ignoring his requests.
On the fifth day, on average, the wizard comes in, and his jaw drops to find his completely unreasonable summoned angel gone from the circle, as a result of rolling high on the opposed check, with a nat 20 on the Will save automatically winning against even the most unfavorable circumstances. If you want to contain a celestial permanently, you will have to Trap the Soul on it...it even references it in the Binding spell for long term containment.
8) The wizard resolves to summon up some devils or demons that won't find his demands unreasonable, and he's already got an angel feather to give him +2 on the check. The fact a very angry Ghaele celestial is out there spreading word of him to all and sundry, and what he wanted it to do, is a niggling worry at the back of his head that he shoves down in his irritation and arrogance.
And that's why evil spellcasters don't try to Planar Bind celestials...it's a complete exercise in frustration. 'unreasonable requests are never agreed to' is an ABSOLUTE lock on the service of a celestial.
And I don't even want to think how badly a celestial would loop the orders of an evil boss.
==Aelryinth
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I definitely wouldn't say you are still casting when you arrive, I've always understood spell effects to occur when the act of casting is complete.
Makes no sense you would still be saying magic words and making arcane gestures after your fireball already went off for example.
It falls under the 'magic working' aspect.
You may have stopped casting, but then the magic DID SOMETHING. In the same way that someone casting a Still Silent spell can still be noticed and his actions with a deciphered action, standing still while your Teleport moves you from here to there is no different from an observation standpoint then standing still and TK'ing something from here to there, or remaining motionless and casting a fireball....there is still magic going off, there is still an action, and so there's a chance to be noticed.
Note that someone casting a Still Silent QUickened fireball, which means doing NOTHING AT ALL and casting with a thought, can still be spellcrafted, deciphered what he is doing, and COunterspelled before the spell actually goes off. Yes, the observation rules are THAT intense.
Trying to say that those kind of speed/action results don't apply to Teleporting while invisible is just kind of silly. Motionless spellcasting while stealthing STILL gets you a stealth penalty, and that's BEFORE the spell does anything showy. Once the spell takes effect? THere's no possible WAY to avoid it.
==Aelryinth
SKR ruled that casting a spell with an evil descriptor is an evil act, but can be done by a good caster, albeit causing a shift in alignment. People brought up the question of how this would work for evil casters summoning and binding good outsiders and he was silent on the matter last I checked. Despite the asymmetry, in my home game they could try it and it would be a particularly heinous act. As for whether they could pull it off, I don't have the chops to say, so I won't try to refute what you've said here as I haven't done my homework. I will say this, I can't say waving the feather would penalize him, it seems like an intimidating and demoralizing act. I would however hope that it would be a VERY difficult thing to bind a good outsider, it's definitely not something I would like to see trivialized by the mechanics, just as I was frantically looking for rule support discouraging a non-evil summoner PC from summoning evil outsiders in a game I ran.
ID'ing a Stilled Silent Spell being cast, I visualize as flickering magic energies coalescing. Whether or not traces of this would be evident at the destination site of a teleport seems entirely dependent on the way you skin it, I'm sure it's not as clear-cut from a rules point of view as you are making it out to be. It could seem very obvious one way or the other and actually all boil down to what fantasy novels you had read or what anime you had watched or something else entirely in your minds-eye.
|
|
ID'ing a Stilled Silent Spell being cast, I visualize as flickering magic energies coalescing. Whether or not traces of this would be evident at the destination site of a teleport seems entirely dependent on the way you skin it, I'm sure it's not as clear-cut from a rules point of view as you are making it out to be. It could seem very obvious one way or the other and actually all boil down to what fantasy novels you had read or what anime you had watched or something else entirely in your minds-eye.
Let us say it was a grey area. I don't think it is, but I am more than willing to concede many rules are, so for the sake of this argument lets say that it is. In the discussed thread it was being said how broken and overpowered the creature was for CR 13 because it could teleport in unseen and full attack and kill the caster before it was noticed.
Yet it was overpowered specifically because the rule was being interpreted that way. Otherwise it wasn't a problem for the party at all, as if it closed to melee it would be in serious danger.
So why would you interpret a "grey" rule into a problem (not allowing a check) when it can just as easily (and it this case in my opinion more logically) be interpreted in a way that it isn't broken and a problem?
Well I didn't read much of that thread at all, just enough posts to make my fart joke, which was fun for a minute until you guys came in and started being sensible :p
But I can still see how teleporting in invisible could mess someone up, because best case we're talking about DC 20, to get a hunch something might be around, DC 40 + stealth roll to pinpoint a square, and 50% miss chance even if you do. That could still ruin your day.
And I wouldn't say anyone was being difficult on purpose suggesting there wouldn't be a check, because it's not obvious to me at all, or wraith strike for that matter, because of that funny little word, "active". I am still having a hard time thinking of the ghaele who is standing there completely still, as "active".
|
|
Well I didn't read much of that thread at all, just enough posts to make my fart joke, which was fun for a minute until you guys came in and started being sensible :p
But I can still see how teleporting in invisible could mess someone up, because best case we're talking about DC 20, to get a hunch something might be around, DC 40 + stealth roll to pinpoint a square, and 50% miss chance even if you do. That could still ruin your day.
But at 13th level it is likely you perception is up near (or in the case of both builds) over 20. So you are likely to be aware if something invisible is nearby.
Then if you are in a 13th level party, it is unlikely you can't deal with invisibility, so suddenly that invisible creature is visible. Then everything hits it lots and it dies quickly.
Which is what is supposed to happen in an equal CR encounter.
The problem comes in when people try to look at classes outside of the context of a party, or not taking into consideration the resources available at the level of the encounter.
If you read the rules one way it works and if you read it the other it doesn't, why run it the way it doesn't work?
|
|
And I wouldn't say anyone was being difficult on purpose suggesting there wouldn't be a check, because it's not obvious to me at all, or wraith strike for that matter, because of that funny little word, "active". I am still having a hard time thinking of the ghaele who is standing there completely still, as "active".
The difficult on purpose was when someone deciding having the creature close to melee with a Barbarian with DR/6 when it has a ranged attack that ignores damage reduction while giving it concealment and allowing it to stay invisible made sense.
Well until I heard your side of it, I could only think of one way to read it. So I wasn't asking myself, should I read this so it works, or should I read it so it doesn't work. I was just reading what I thought was right there on the page in front of me. Now I know two ways to read it, I have to decide, which was intended, which makes more problems, which solves more problems.
To be honest, unless there's a ruling, I might just go with whatever requires the least math and dice rolls.
I'll have to give it some thought as to how serious the problems are that might be raised if I ran it the way I originally read it ( creature arriving from teleport is inactive, invisible and immobile, so passive perception granted only to creatures with scent, tremor sense or the like)
And I wouldn't say anyone was being difficult on purpose suggesting there wouldn't be a check, because it's not obvious to me at all, or wraith strike for that matter, because of that funny little word, "active". I am still having a hard time thinking of the ghaele who is standing there completely still, as "active".The difficult on purpose was when someone deciding having the creature close to melee with a Barbarian with DR/6 when it has a ranged attack that ignores damage reduction while giving it concealment and allowing it to stay invisible made sense.
I don't know anything about that, I didnt see that part at all. But do you really think it was intended to piss you off? Maybe, I don't know, you two seem to have some weird chemistry, but I don't get how giving an imaginary monster bad tactics could be a personal attack.
For sure.
|
|
I don't know anything about that, I didnt see that part at all. But do you really think it was intended to piss you off? Maybe, I don't know, you two seem to have some weird chemistry, but I don't get how giving an imaginary monster bad tactics could be a personal attack.And I wouldn't say anyone was being difficult on purpose suggesting there wouldn't be a check, because it's not obvious to me at all, or wraith strike for that matter, because of that funny little word, "active". I am still having a hard time thinking of the ghaele who is standing there completely still, as "active".The difficult on purpose was when someone deciding having the creature close to melee with a Barbarian with DR/6 when it has a ranged attack that ignores damage reduction while giving it concealment and allowing it to stay invisible made sense.
I don't think it was intended to piss me off at all. I don't think Ashiel is malicious or anything like that.
I think it was trying to set up a scenario to prove a point he believes to be true rather than setting up a scenario to test if what he believes is true. And given that Ashiel does know the rules very well, I don't think it was an accident that the scenario proposed so clearly ignored exploiting the Barbarians weaknesses while trying to showcase the Monks.
As I said in the thread, what frustrates me about Ashiel is that someone who has so much rules knowledge who could be so helpful in analyzing scenarios and rules instead pours so much attention to finding loopholes and exploits. Discussions with him tend to stop being about testing ideas and more about finding ways to show he is right and how many rules he knows.
He could be a great poster if he used his knowledge to test theories rather than prove his beliefs. But it is kind of like arguing with a creationist at times. The theory comes before the evidence, and then he works to make them fit.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Just think of it like this.. Every loophole or exploit that is found can be patched, even if it's just staying one step ahead of munchkin players with the house rules. I know it takes forever for faq and errata. But you can tell your GM about an exploit so they can ban it.
Otherwise we don't know about the exploit until someone comes to the table with AM barbarian, or a gunslinger with a siege weapon in each hand or whatever that munchkin cheese was.
|
|
Just think of it like this.. Every loophole or exploit that is found can be patched, even if it's just staying one step ahead of munchkin players with the house rules. I know it takes forever for faq and errata. But you can tell your GM about an exploit so they can ban it.
But he then argues they aren't exploits or loopholes. This is why I don't have a problem with Ravingdork. When he figures out something is broken he goes "Look how broken this is!" where as Ashiel will go "The Devs totally wanted players to have genie simulacrums and +1 ability items. It would be cruel not to allow it."