http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/spells/light.html
Note that the spell lists the target as just an object (not an unattended object, etc.), it has no save, and it does not mention a melee touch attack anywhere.
I was unable to find any generic rules saying that touch spells always require melee touch attacks on unwilling targets or their stuff by default.
All I found was this suggestion that spell designers should consider adding such, but here they didn't:
Quote: Most spells that are usable against others should require either a saving throw or an attack roll (generally touch or ranged touch). Spells that are quite powerful for their level, like disintegrate or phantasmal killer, may require both, or allow two saving throws. Also the section in magic on attacks:
Quote: Some spell descriptions refer to attacking. All offensive combat actions, even those that don't damage opponents, are considered attacks. Attempts to channel energy count as attacks if it would harm any creatures in the area. All spells that opponents resist with saving throws, that deal damage, or that otherwise harm or hamper subjects are attacks. Spells that summon monsters or other allies are not attacks because the spells themselves don't harm anyone. Light itself doesn't harm anyone or decrease their speed or stun or dazzle them or anything hampering. If summoning a grizzly bear next to somebody isn't an "attack" then...
Does this mean as long as I'm within reach of you I can just (likely defensively) cast light on, say, your armor with automatic success?
Or perhaps less unrealistically, if I metamagic light with Reach Spell, would it require a ranged touch attack?
If you go up exactly one line above the target line, you will see: Light wrote: Range touch Then we go to the rules for spells, specifically range. Range wrote: Touch: You must touch a creature or object to affect it. A touch spell that deals damage can score a critical hit just as a weapon can. A touch spell threatens a critical hit on a natural roll of 20 and deals double damage on a successful critical hit. Some touch spells allow you to touch multiple targets. You can touch up to 6 willing targets as part of the casting, but all targets of the spell must be touched in the same round that you finish casting the spell. If the spell allows you to touch targets over multiple rounds, touching 6 creatures is a full-round action. So yes, every spell with a range of touch requires a touch attack. You don't have to roll the attacks if the targets are willing but there's no exception for unwilling targets.
Yes, a Reach Light would require a ranged touch attack against an unwilling target. Because it's a touch spell.
I don't think you read the quote that you just posted, good sir. It does not say anything about melee touch attacks.
Pathfinder Maps Subscriber
"You must touch a creature or object to affect it." If the creature doesn't want to be touched (or any object in that creature's possession), then that's a touch ATTACK.
SlimGauge wrote: "You must touch a creature or object to affect it." If the creature doesn't want to be touched (or any object in that creature's possession), then that's a touch ATTACK. Is there a rules text for this somewhere I am not finding, like buried in the combat chapter or somewhere even more general or something (I looked but may have missed it)?
Because it doesn't say that in the magic section. In fact, it defines what an attack is, and the definition does not cover this, since the spell does not do damage, have a saving throw, harm, or hamper the target.
The arrow that is likely to fly into their face the next round may damage them, but not the spell. Which would be just like a summoning spell, where the dire wolf you just summoned is likely to damage them next round, but not the spell itself. And it lists summoning as not an attack explicitly.
Crimeo wrote: SlimGauge wrote: "You must touch a creature or object to affect it." If the creature doesn't want to be touched (or any object in that creature's possession), then that's a touch ATTACK. Is there a rules text for this somewhere I am not finding, like buried in the combat chapter or somewhere even more general or something (I looked but may have missed it)?
Because it doesn't say that in the magic section. In fact, it defines what an attack is, and the definition does not cover this, since the spell does not do damage, have a saving throw, harm, or hamper the target. Declaring that the spell doesn't 'hamper' the target is an assumption.
Making something shed light makes it visible. Visible targets can be attacked.
Do you honestly believe that you can just run around in game and touch enemies without having to roll?
Allies don't recoil from you touching them because they know you and trust you, an enemy would not provide the same courtesy.
You wanted rules though, so I quote from the listing under Standard Actions:
“Armed” Unarmed Attacks: Sometimes a character's or creature's unarmed attack counts as an armed attack. A monk, a character with the Improved Unarmed Strike feat, a spellcaster delivering a touch attack spell, and a creature with natural physical weapons all count as being armed (see natural attacks).
The range of Light is 'touch', so it is a touch attack spell.
Quote: ...a spellcaster delivering a touch attack spell... i.e. it already has to qualify as a touch attack (not just touch), which hasn't been established yet.
Quote: Making something shed light makes it visible. Visible targets can be attacked. Character standing next to angry dire wolves can be attacked, too, and the summoning spell is what put them there. Yet it specifies summoning as not an attack for the reason that the spell ITSELF doesn't damage.
Also, light does not necessarily make somebody visible. They may already be lit, such as if they were holding a torch already.
Quote: Declaring that the spell doesn't 'hamper' the target is an assumption. How does light hamper you? Unless you are a creature with light sensitivity or something, in which case situationally I would agree if it causes any sort of dazing, etc. But only for those creatures.
If you're going to claim that anything that inconveniences your preferred plans in the future = "hampering" then you're opening up a huge can of worms, wherein you can start to claim that fog cloud = an attack, and healing your own allies = an attack (because it makes it harder for the enemy to do what it wants, i.e. kill them), or somebody buying the last roast chicken at the tavern in front of you = an attack, and blah blah. Which will have significant implications for the usefulness of, say, the invisibility spell, or sanctuary.
It doesn't matter if the touch spell is an attack spell or not. You can try to cast a healing spell on an enemy and it would still require a touch attack unless the enemy decides to make itself a willing target.
No GM in their right mind will allow free touches on enemies, this discussion is moot.
Unless you are the GM, in which case, do as you please.
You can declare your desire to touch an enemy, the GM can state it is an attack, because you are attempting to put on them something they didn't ask for or want.
Trying to argue that you are allowed to simply touch them without rolling (or provoking an AoO) places burden of proof squarely on your shoulders.
It is not up to us to disprove your theory, it is up to you to find proof to support it.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
From the Combat chapter:
"Touch Spells in Combat: Many spells have a range of touch. To use these spells, you cast the spell and then touch the subject. In the same round that you cast the spell, you may also touch (or attempt to touch) as a free action. You may take your move before casting the spell, after touching the target, or between casting the spell and touching the target. You can automatically touch one friend or use the spell on yourself, but to touch an opponent, you must succeed on an attack roll."
Note that this does not distinguish between "attack" spells and regular touch spells.
Fair enough, Forseti, that cinches it. Thanks.
Quote: No GM in their right mind will allow free touches on enemies, this discussion is moot. The actual goal was using Reach Spell, so roleplaying wise it would not have been ridiculous. But for technical reasons the attack roll vs. not still mattered. Forseti seemed to slam dunk it though.
Crimeo wrote: Fair enough, Forseti, that cinches it. Thanks.
Quote: No GM in their right mind will allow free touches on enemies, this discussion is moot. The actual goal was using Reach Spell, so roleplaying wise it would not have been ridiculous. But for technical reasons the attack roll vs. not still mattered. Forseti seemed to slam dunk it though.
We usually just cast it on an arrow and then fire it into somethings face.
Your approach seems better though. Touch AC is usually much lower. :D
On the upside, if it IS an attack, then you could possibly use it with Ride-By Attack, and light up the enemy, but also be out of range of the light by the end of your turn, lol.
Or flyby attack more clearly works (as it's any standard action) if you have a familiar that can take it. They also have the higher speeds to actually be able to get out of the 40 foot light radius fully.
Crimeo wrote: On the upside, if it IS an attack, then you could possibly use it with Ride-By Attack, and light up the enemy, but also be out of range of the light by the end of your turn, lol.
Or flyby attack more clearly works (as it's any standard action) if you have a familiar that can take it.
I'm gonna stick with my approach.
BOOM! HEADSHOT!
:D
alexd1976 wrote: Crimeo wrote: On the upside, if it IS an attack, then you could possibly use it with Ride-By Attack, and light up the enemy, but also be out of range of the light by the end of your turn, lol.
Or flyby attack more clearly works (as it's any standard action) if you have a familiar that can take it.
I'm gonna stick with my approach.
BOOM! HEADSHOT!
:D And then when the arrow hits the enemy it is automatically broken and then it no longer has light because the item the spell was cast on was broken.
You can just buy 2 or 3 durable arrows for 1gp each, and reserve them for light spells.
...or cast light specifically on the fletching, not the arrow. However, light cast on an arrow would simply take an action to get rid of. It it's on the armor, it's much harder. Or if it's on something valuable, they might not want to drop it.
claudekennilol wrote: alexd1976 wrote: Crimeo wrote: On the upside, if it IS an attack, then you could possibly use it with Ride-By Attack, and light up the enemy, but also be out of range of the light by the end of your turn, lol.
Or flyby attack more clearly works (as it's any standard action) if you have a familiar that can take it.
I'm gonna stick with my approach.
BOOM! HEADSHOT!
:D And then when the arrow hits the enemy it is automatically broken and then it no longer has light because the item the spell was cast on was broken. It's not like they turn to dust when they hit, they just break.
Also, why would breaking an item affect the spell?
Quote: Also, why would breaking an item affect the spell? Broken magical items stop working. It's not an exact analogy, but I'd say the evidence definitely leans far more toward spells no longer applying either than the opposite. So it's not that it disintegrates, but that it snaps, and when a thing breaks, it disrupts the magic on it.
Quote: It it's on the armor, it's much harder. Yes, that is the goal. Wizards are a bit harder, as they often don't carry anything that's too hard to remove. Though if you ask your DM "Are they wearing a backpack? Bandolier? Belt? Scroll case? I expect them to take ALL of that off before they can remove their robe" it's good enough.
Crimeo wrote: Quote: Also, why would breaking an item affect the spell? Broken magical items stop working. It's not an exact analogy, but I'd say the evidence definitely leans far more toward spells no longer applying either than the opposite. So it's not that it disintegrates, but that it snaps, and when a thing breaks, it disrupts the magic on it.
Quote: It it's on the armor, it's much harder. Yes, that is the goal. Wizards are a bit harder, as they often don't carry anything that's too hard to remove. Though if you ask your DM "Are they wearing a backpack? Bandolier? Belt? Scroll case? I expect them to take ALL of that off before they can remove their robe" it's good enough. Interesting, you would consider that arrow to be a magic item?
Huh. Different playstyles I guess.
Crimeo wrote: Is there a rules text for this somewhere I am not finding
Because it doesn't say that in the magic section.
Yes
Quote: Range: Touch But this has already been shown to you in previous posts.
So what exactly do you think you're going to accomplish?
Casting light on a object held by the enemy or even his armor will do nothing but make it glow. The old "cast light on an enemy to blind him trick" went by the wayside when Light was downgraded from being a spell, to an orison/cantrip.
LazarX wrote: So what exactly do you think you're going to accomplish?
Casting light on a object held by the enemy or even his armor will do nothing but make it glow. The old "cast light on an enemy to blind him trick" went by the wayside when Light was downgraded from being a spell, to an orison/cantrip.
I intend to hide in the shadows during my moonless or cloudy night time raid, repeatedly shooting the enemy in the face while he remains unable to hit me or find me because I have total concealment of darkness, without any stealth check needed. Whereas he is unable to hide because his armor/robe is glowing and it would take multiple rounds to remove it.
Dancing lights does this a lot more easily, but many classes only get light, and not dancing lights.
Crimeo wrote: LazarX wrote: So what exactly do you think you're going to accomplish?
Casting light on a object held by the enemy or even his armor will do nothing but make it glow. The old "cast light on an enemy to blind him trick" went by the wayside when Light was downgraded from being a spell, to an orison/cantrip.
I intend to hide in the shadows during my moonless or cloudy night time raid, repeatedly shooting the enemy in the face while he remains unable to hit me or find me because I have total concealment of darkness, without any stealth check needed. Whereas he is unable to hide because his armor/robe is glowing and it would take multiple rounds to remove it.
Dancing lights does this a lot more easily, but many classes only get light, and not dancing lights. Wrong.
That's not how Stealth works. You NEVER automatically succeed just because you have total concealment. The Stealth Rules explicitly state that concealment and total concealment allow you to make a Stealth check.
Those same rules also say you cannot use Stealth while attacking, so whatever you're shooting him with, each time you make an attack you lose Stealth. To avoid this, you'll want the Sniping rules that are described in the Stealth section.
Note that those still require you to make Stealth checks, even with a huge penalty.
So the Stealth check is DEFINITELY needed.
Now, if you're using darkness to hide (with Stealth checks, because that's required) and your target cannot see in the dark, he will have a hard time hitting you because of your concealment (20% miss chance) or total concealment (50% miss chance), but he can still locate you and attack you (or attack your square) by beating your Stealth check with his Perception check.
Yes they CAN hit me, but to do so, they have to guess which square I'm in.
After considering the precision of their s@+$ty human hearing or whatever crude methods like guesstimating arrow direction, they probably have at best a 1/20 or so chance of doing that (very generous). And then they get a 50% miss chance on top of that for total concealment.
Stealth is not required for either of those. If I chose to use it, I could get the chance of reducing my 2.5% being hit chance down to closer to 0%, but whatever. Not a big deal. Humans don't have darkvision or anything else relevant either than I might normally worry about darkness stealth for.
Go try it yourself -- walk outside, cover your ears, close your eyes. Have a friend walk to a random spot in a forested area 50+ yards from you. Uncover ears, let them chant something for 3 seconds, then move 30 feet in any direction they want without talking (normal walk, not stealthy). Then cover your ears again until they get back to you. Then go walk over and tell them the exact location they were standing after moving in and see how hilariously more wrong you are than 2.5 feet away.
Now do that with 10 other people around screaming and whacking metal together to simulate a battle, and have somebody hit you in the arm with a frying pan right after he does the chanting. See if your precision improves.
To be fair, when you're all done, take whatever distance you were wrong by and divide by 2 to account for a hypothetical strong NPC with +10 perception bonus (10DC ~= double hearing power acoustically and psychologically, I have calculated this). You'll still not make it.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Crimeo wrote: Yes they CAN hit me, but to do so, they have to guess which square I'm in.
After considering the precision of their s!**ty human hearing or whatever crude methods like guesstimating arrow direction, they probably have at best a 1/20 or so chance of doing that (very generous). And then they get a 50% miss chance on top of that for total concealment.
Stealth is not required for either of those. If I chose to use it, I could get the chance of reducing my 2.5% being hit chance down to closer to 0%, but whatever. Not a big deal. Humans don't have darkvision or anything else relevant either than I might normally worry about darkness stealth for.
Go try it yourself -- walk outside, cover your ears, close your eyes. Have a friend walk to a random spot in a forested area 50+ yards from you. Uncover ears, let them chant something for 3 seconds, then move 30 feet in any direction they want without talking (normal walk, not stealthy). Then cover your ears again until they get back to you. Then go walk over and tell them the exact location they were standing after moving in and see how hilariously more wrong you are than 2.5 feet away.
Now do that with 10 other people around screaming and whacking metal together to simulate a battle, and have somebody hit you in the arm with a frying pan right after he does the chanting. See if your precision improves.
You can hypothesize about chanting in the woods with your friends and hitting each other with frying pans all you want, but none of that has the slightest thing to do with the stealth and sniping rules that DM_Blake cited.
Sniping does nothing but give me a -20 on my stealth checks.
Since I don't NEED stealth checks to be invisible in darkness and for humans to not be able to pinpoint me to within 2.5ft from half a football field, that -20 is irrelevant.
And I quote:
Quote: Creatures that fail to beat your Stealth check are not aware of you and treat you as if you had total concealment. As if you had total concealment.
You know what gives you total concealment already? Darkness. Ergo, being in darkness is as if being permanently successful on visual stealth checks.
So you jsut have hearing. Note on the perception page that "Hear the sound of a [non-stealthed] creature walking = DC 10" +1DC per 10 feet. Means it's a DC of 25 just to even DETECT my walking AT ALL, as in its existence, at 150ft, before we even broach the question of pinpointing its location with deadly precision. IIRC, pinpointing is +20DC on top of detection for any perception rolls, so that'd be a 45DC to guess my square. Every ~10 you miss by, you increase the random dartboard radius by double, since that is the falloff of sound.
So if you roll a perception 25, you know my location within about a 10ft radius, or 1 out of 21 squares. Roll a d20, gotta nat 20 it to guess the square correctly. Now flip a coin for 50% miss for total conceal. NOW roll your attack. And since I can see you plainly, I get my DEX bonus to AC and everything (by the way, you generally don't get it on your turn if I'm shooting you from darkness, but DM might reasonably make an exception for a verbal spell)
We're in the rules forum. Here's the rules. Vision and Light wrote: In areas of darkness, creatures without darkvision are effectively blinded. In addition to the obvious effects, a blinded creature has a 50% miss chance in combat (all opponents have total concealment), loses any Dexterity bonus to AC, takes a –2 penalty to AC, and takes a –4 penalty on Perception checks that rely on sight and most Strength- and Dexterity-based skill checks. Areas of darkness include an unlit dungeon chamber, most caverns, and outside on a cloudy, moonless night. Perception table wrote: Hear the sound of battle –10
Hear the details of a conversation 0
Hear the sound of a creature walking 10
Hear a bow being drawn 25
Stealth wrote: Your Stealth check is opposed by the Perception check of anyone who might notice you. Creatures that fail to beat your Stealth check are not aware of you and treat you as if you had total concealment. You can move up to half your normal speed and use Stealth at no penalty. When moving at a speed greater than half but less than your normal speed, you take a –5 penalty. It's impossible to use Stealth while attacking, running, or charging. So as you already said, darkness only makes you immune to visual based perception checks and there's a lot that deal with hearing. Additionally, you can't use Stealth at all if you attack unless you use the sniping rules. Your "during a battle" reference would fall under favorable and unfavorable conditions for perception. Your "chanting" reference seems to imply spellcasting, which must be spoken in a "clear, strong voice". What's the DC to hear that? Because it must exist, but it doesn't have a defined DC on the table. Hearing the details of a conversation is only a DC 0 check, surely hearing someone speaking at all, especially in a clear, strong voice is easier to hear than the exact details of a conversation someone is having.
Also, I'm not sure why you think this would be a great tactic. If they're useless in the dark why would they not be carrying a light source of their own and why would they try to extinguish a light source and fight in the dark? Casting light on them just gives them a hands-free source of light for free.
Perception wrote: Hear the sound of battle [DC]–10
If you are making attacks, no matter what kind, it is very easy to detect you, even if you can't be seen.
The stealth rules do not quite work the way you think they do.
Like I said, I'm not trying to use stealth, I agree that I get huge penalties to stealth for sniping. I don't care, because I'm not making a single stealth roll, so my penalty to it doesn't matter.
They are blind to me anyway. Thus, it all comes down to hearing:
Quote: Hear the sound of a creature walking 10 you forgot to add:
Quote: Distance to the source, object, or creature +1DC/10 feet Then pinpointing my location, not just DETECTING me at all, is then +20DC more:
http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/glossary.html#invisibility
Quote: 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). Yes, that page is about invisibility, but that particular quote is not talking about stealth. It's talking about just the difficulty of pinpointing a NON-stealthed creature who you cannot see, i.e. relying only on your hearing and other senses to figure out their exact 5ft square (not just detecting them). None of this has anything to do with stealth, that's a different set of modifiers.
I am talking if I am casting a spell, but then I move after before your turn, so the talking doesn't pinpoint me usefully. Do add -10DC for moving full speed my second half of my turn though.
Overall:
10DC (walking) + 15DC (distance) +20DC (pinpoint) -10DC (half speed walk)
= DC 35 perception check to pinpoint my square. If you miss it you should still to be fair get some blind luck chance, if you didn't miss the check by much (if you totally whiffed it, then no). Then a 50% miss chance on top of that even if you do for full concealment. Then an attack roll to my AC.
Invisible is a specific status, unless you are actually invisible, you do not get that bonus.
Invisibility wrote: Invisibility makes a creature undetectable by vision, including darkvision.
Are you suggesting that invisibility makes you harder to hear? If not, you are grasping at straws. If so, you're wrong ("Of course, the subject is not magically silenced" in the invisibility spell)
I am visually invisible to them. By basic common sense, everything about invisibility perception (except the stealth which is irrelevant since I already have total concealment) applies.
There is no other logical interpretation other than those perception DCs corresponding to the use of smell and hearing, etc. to pinpoint creatures you cannot see.
Quote: including darkvision Nothing I'm aware of has darkvision to 150ft where I would be casting medium spells from usually in my games (tend to start not at level 1).
Usually, it's humans.
That's not how the rules work. They have been written in a specific way to prevent what you are attempting to accomplish.
"effectively invisible" is not the same thing as "actually invisible"
I have no idea where you are construing the implication of invisibility affecting sound... the DC boost is ostensibly because you are only detectable by sound.
Some GM's may run effective == actual, but it's not in the rules.
Re: darkvsion
Invisibility does not care about range, only about the possibility provided something was in range.
If you could be seen with darkvision, you are not invisible.
It may not be logical, but that's the rules. You get a +20/40 bonus to stealth for being invisible, not for being hidden. Most of the light/darkness, perception and stealth rules are written for balance, not because things make sense.
Sniping from darkness isn't a bad tactic, but usually isn't a great one. Even if targets can't see you, once you attack them, they know the direction the attack came from, and can usually move to cover. And that's if you manage to attack from a range that they can't see you at, which usually means outside at night, because it doesn't usually come up in caves or dungeons.
Also, kiting enemies from ranges that they can't possibly fight back from isn't an interesting tactic, it's shooting fish in a bucket. That's usually not fun for anybody.
Note that even with above silly rulings, it's still awesome. You STILL get a DC 25 check for 10 for walking sounds +15 distance. And that's still to notice, not to pinpoint, so you need to add some amount more as a ruling still.
Even at like APL 10, that's like 50% miss for a lot of enemies. Then 50% failure again for total concealment. I'm already at 25% chance to hit before an attack. That's almost like +7 AC.
For arrow attacks, guy in the light still loses his dex bonus to AC if I shoot you from the dark. Page 179, core rulebook:
Quote: If you can't react to a blow, you can't use your dexterity bonus to AC And the guys in the dark can make free stealth checks whenever, lit guy cannot easily. Dark guys can retreat easily, lit guy is easy to follow. Etc.
Crimeo wrote: Note that even with above silly rulings, it's still awesome. You STILL get a DC 25 check for 10 for walking sounds +15 distance. And that's still to notice, not to pinpoint, so you need to add some amount more as a ruling still.
Even at like APL 10, that's like 50% miss for a lot of enemies. Then 50% failure again for total concealment. I'm already at 25% chance to hit before an attack. That's almost like +7 AC.
For arrow attacks, guy in the light still loses his dex bonus to AC if I shoot you from the dark. Page 179, core rulebook:
Quote: If you can't react to a blow, you can't use your dexterity bonus to AC And the guys in the dark can make free stealth checks whenever, lit guy cannot easily. Dark guys can retreat easily, lit guy is easy to follow. Etc.
Uh, how are you getting the numbers for a "50% miss"? Because for monsters the average HD for CR 10 is 15, plus class skill plus wisdom. So probably more like +20 to perception. For NPCs the bare minimum is 10+3(class skill)+wisdom (assuming PC levels and wealth, otherwise add one). For the druid in my game it was 10+3(class skill)+5(wisdom)+5(feather domain)+2(half-elf)+6(skill focus) for a total of +31.
How are you seeing these guys at 150 feet?
If you're using Low-Light Vision, then you see 2x as far as they do, so if there is enough light for your LLV to see them at 150 feet then they can see you at 75'.
If you're using Darkvision, then I'm amazed at the range you have. Off the top of my head, I don't know of anything that has 150' Darkvision, though it's probably possible with the right race/feats/magic.
If you're less than 150 feet away, then why did you use that number?
So I assume these guys already have light? No humans tend to walk around blind in the dark. Not if torches or other light sources are available. And that would explain how you can see them at 150' but they cannot see you.
Once you begin shooting, they move into cover from you or they move 120' toward you (unless they truly are blind in which case they're idiots for not using light sources and/or for not moving into cover). After moving 120' toward you, with their light source, you're probably already visible (within 40' of one of their light sources, making you dimly lit). Your tactic just ended with after one round. Two rounds if you want to shoot them now at 30' range.
But of course, if they DID have their own light source, then you wouldn't want to cast Light on their stuff to make them easy to hit, now would you - it would be pointless, right? So I guess they don't have light.
So it seems, after all that, they really are idiots.
Congratulations, your tactic is a perfect plan to kill idiots.
Quote: Uh, how are you getting the numbers for a "50% miss"? Because for monsters the average HD for CR 10 is 15, plus class skill plus wisdom. So probably more like +20 to perception. For NPCs the bare minimum is 10+3(class skill)+wisdom (assuming PC levels and wealth, otherwise add one). For the druid in my game it was 10+3(class skill)+5(wisdom)+5(feather domain)+2(half-elf)+6(skill focus) for a total of +31. I just looked up a bunch of actual CR 10 creatures and they tend to have about +15 perception overall. If you're fighting groups of lower CR creatures (usually more likely), then even less.
And I'm talking about their modifier, not their roll. So not "10+blah blah" Just the plusses.
If your modifier is +15, then 50% of the time, you'll roll a 10 or lower for your d20, and 50% of the time, you'll roll a 11 or higher.
They need a roll of 10 + 15 modifier to = the DC 25, so 50% miss. Actually 45% miss since 10 makes it, sorry, whatever.
Quote: P.S: Invisibility actually does make you harder to hear. It says plain as day right in the spell that this is incorrect: "Of course, the subject is not magically silenced"
Your bonus to stealth is purely due to the visible component of noticing you being removed, thus making it easier to hide. It not fixing the hearing part of your stealthiness is why it's ONLY a bonus. Otherwise it would just be "auto succeed" if it masked all senses.
Quote: How are you seeing these guys at 150 feet?
If you're using Low-Light Vision, then you see 2x as far as they do, so if there is enough light for your LLV to see them at 150 feet then they can see you at 75'.
The situation is that it is the middle of the night, and they just had light cast on their armor. So they are lit up, and I am not. So LL vision is not relevant here, nor darkvision. It's as easy for me to see them as in daylight, and impossible for them to see me.
And yes usually they start with a torch, that's how I'm able to easily swoop in and cast light on them. The tactical reason for doing so, though, is that usually if you get shot in the face half a dozen times because of your light, you'd tend to put out your light to hide. Or maybe after getting shot just once, if you realize it is only a liability.
But although they can snuff out the torch any time, they won't be able to snuff out my magical light on their armor when they want to (takes minutes to remove armor). or from over 100ft away if I reach meta +2
And if I have it prepared with Reach Spell metamagic, I can light them up from 25+5/2level away, and you can cast touch spells ahead of time, so I can double move in, light, and retreat back to total darkness before they can do anything.
I was using the guidelines for monster creation but if you want to I'll go through the full list of actual CR 10 monsters (because I'm bored and know you're wrong). You can also use this spreadsheet, though I believe it's slightly out of date.
Perception: 13, 0, 26, 15, 16, 23, 18, 23, 14, 16, 24, 20, 26, 28, 19, 21, 17, 15, 22, 15, 25, 21, 23, 17, 17, 19, 19, 17, 10, 19, 19, 14, 15, 13, 0, 27, 12, 20, 23, 20, 18, 14, 18, 19, 21, 10, 9, 22, 16, 17, 14, 22, 22, 1, 17, 11, 23.
Mean 17.5 (a little above the spreadsheet).
Median 18
Mode 17
Removing the two zeros and a 1 (constructs with no skill points) gives us:
Mean 18.4
Median 18.5
So looks like I overestimated a little, and you underestimated by a little more than that. Either way you're now looking at more like a 70% chance of success for them on average.
Also, I still don't think you've thought this through. If you use it as a touch spell they use their move action next turn moving after you. You're not hidden when you move away (since you're in the light) and you can't stealth when you attack except with sniping.
Assuming you use Reach Light, it sheds normal light out to 20 feet and dim light out 40. You need a caster level of at least 8 before you're not within view of the light spell. Assuming they don't have a torch (same range) and already see you coming. Assuming they don't have darkvision (60 feet means you'd need a caster level of 16 before they wouldn't see you casting the spell). Assuming they don't have low-light vision, and you'd need a caster level of 22 for them not to see you casting it. And same as the melee version, move after you next turn.
Quote: Also, I still don't think you've thought this through. If you use it as a touch spell they use their move action next turn moving after you. Like I said I was planning to use Reach Spell metamagic with it. So at say level 8 (to go with those CRs and stuff) it will be range 45ft for a level 1 spell slot, or 180ft for a level 2 slot, depending on the day's needs.
Obviously 180ft there's no chance of them catching me. If 45ft, I cast my touch spell earlier (you can store touch spells). Then in one turn, I run to 45 feet away, light them up, and run 30 feet out. I am now 75 feet worth of movement away from them, and although they know the basic direction I'm in, they don't know what SQUARE I'm in. So that's another high level perception check to know how to get to me, and a double move won't get them there. They could run, but they'll probably choose the wrong straight line if they don't pinpoint me, and even if they do, if they hit ANY difficult terrain (which they can't see ahead of time since it's dark), they are forced to stop and lose the action, since you can't run through difficult terrain.
If I had any chance to scout or if I have darkvision, I can even intentionally choose a path that leaves a convenient rough terrain between us in the straight line.
And that's all assuming I'm walking normally. Often, I won't be. I may be wildshaped as a bird (80ft or 100ft speed means I'm 95ft away not 75, and I'm in the air thus leaving no sound of footsteps to follow! They won't even know what cardinal DIRECTION I'm in), or I may be on a rooftop. Or whatever. Wildshape is actually likely, since druids are one of the classes that only get light. If I'm a wizard, I would be using dancing lights and this whole thing is moot.
You can hold touch spells. You cannot hold ranged touch spells. Holding the Charge wrote: Ranged Touch Spells in Combat: Some spells allow you to make a ranged touch attack as part of the casting of the spell. These attacks are made as part of the spell and do not require a separate action. Ranged touch attacks provoke an attack of opportunity, even if the spell that causes the attacks was cast defensively. Unless otherwise noted, ranged touch attacks cannot be held until a later turn.
Removed some posts and its replies—be civil, please.
Ah that is annoying, less useful then. Still viable wildshaped with flyby attack, or reach spell +2 version. But I dunno, maybe with +2 all the time, it might be cheaper to try to figure out a way to get dancing lights added to one's spell list. Do orange prisms still do that? I remember there was one way to do it that survived the recent errata.
The invisibility rules do not apply to the general stealth rules. You do not gain 'invisibility' or any of the associated rules to that spell when in total concealment or otherwise 'not visible'. The spell is entirely distinct and has separate rules, regardless of the commoniusage of the term 'invisible'. Do not conflate the two.
Worth noting that the enemy doesn't need to pinpoint your square exactly - he or she can simply canvas your rough area using the light you have provided to reveal your location. If you are within 20ft radius or the light source you will lose darkness and no longer be in stealth.
Quote: The invisibility rules do not apply to the general stealth rules. You do not gain 'invisibility' or any of the associated rules to that spell when in total concealment or otherwise 'not visible'. The spell is entirely distinct and has separate rules, regardless of the commoniusage of the term 'invisible'. Do not conflate the two. I realize this is the case for word for word rules.
I'm saying however that it is silly, illogical, contradictory for a DM to rule this way anyway. The reason is that by making this distinction you are logically necessitating that it is harder to sense an invisible creature than a not-visible creature.
Since your visual senses are obviously the same either way (identical, both zero), and since the invisibility spell explicitly says it does not dampen sound (thus hearing is identical as well), there is no valid explanation for why that would be.
So basically your NPCs are metagaming by gaining extra information about a creature based on the magical nature of their lack of visbility, which the NPCs have no way to know. Even if they did know, they possess no sensory organs or abilities by which to come upon this extra information. So they're still metagaming by looking at the game map to see my character better than their eyes and ears are able to see and hear in otherwise identical circumstances.
(Darkvision or truevision, etc. are exceptions, of course. Consider a vanilla human for sake of argument)
Quote: he or she can simply canvas your rough area using the light you have provided to reveal your location. I wouldn't use this tactic if I did not have a way to be outside of the light radius I just created by the beginning of their turn.
Pathfinder Maps, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber
It seems this is digressing.
Original point - any spell cast on an opponent is an attack spell, even if it gives benefits (unless your opponent makes a spellcraft check and decides to let the spell affect them due to it being beneficial).
I won't touch the wonky concealment, perception, and stealth rules. One could never watch a stadium sports game using pathfinder perception rules.
The elephant in the room is that the light cantrip can only be used once at a time. If cast on a second target, the first spell vanishes. This means you can only paint one target at a time with a light spell.
The following is opinion -
Casting such a spell is wonky in regards to basic invisibility. If cast on an ally, or unattended object you remain invisible. Cast on an opponent or their possessions would break your invisibility as it is an attack. Similar wonkiness for the silence spell.
Quote: The elephant in the room is that the light cantrip can only be used once at a time. If cast on a second target, the first spell vanishes. This means you can only paint one target at a time with a light spell. Yeah I know. The biggest threat is good enough. Whichever one you want to focus fire on and bring down first anyway.
It also makes it (clumsily) dismissable in effect, even though it isn't in the normal sense.
Looking up dancing lights, I see that it is actually normally dismissable. Sigh. Why is dancing lights 30x better...
|
