Bit of a situation in a campaign I'm playing in: Super-stealthy enemy (we think it's a quasit, we think with witch levels) constantly harrassing the party (and our hometown), but never stopping to fight. It's been stealing volatile alchemical materials, alcohol, fuel, etc. recently, and we're pretty sure it intends to cause some sort of explosion. Not sure how big or where, but probably somewhere in town.
We can't track it (flying doesn't leave enough of a trail), we've failed to ambush it (we predicted some spots it might steal from and laid an ambush, but it beat my 32 Perception result, which was nearly the best the party could manage and stole right from under my nose), and we're pretty low-level with not a huge variety of options. As the one prepared 'caster' in the group, I'm feeling like it's my responsibility to pull out some miraculous solution, but I don't know what that solution might be.
The party consists of an investigator (me), an inquisitor, a psychic, and an unchained summoner and angel eidolon. All 3rd level and single-classed. We're super broke, but the town and its guard likes us enough that I think we could probably requisition most sorts of 1st and 2nd level potions or scrolls (above 2nd isn't available), but not in large quantities. The GM has vetoed the Inquisitor using detect chaos/evil every six seconds, for being cheesy.
The enemy is (we think) a quasit with (we think) witch levels. We've been harrassed with fiendish animal attacks that seem to line up with Summon Monster I (not too difficult, but it's annoying and tends to hit us when we try to rest, or get into other fights), with no sound of casting that we've been able to hear, so I'm assuming Silent Spell is involved. Invisibility (or maybe Vanish) seems to be used heavily, and a Hold Person spell that targeted us was identified at one point. Haven't seen anything yet that would suggest 3rd level spell slots.
Any thoughts on how to deal with this darned thing?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Vetoing something for being "cheesy" when you've left more or less no other option by giving it a stealth check too high to track?
I fail to see why the inquisitor woudln't do what you said- detect evil constantly. Because it works, and the only thing that says you can't is the dm saying it doesn't work, while providing no reason, like some sort of limited use.
In other words, he declared that you charecter is unwilling to use an option that plainly exists for them.
I could Probobly come up with something, but I'm a tad hung up on the way the GM handled this "problem".
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You should look into Glitterdust to help outline the enemy if it's invisible.
Also, given the tactics that this enemy is using, I utterly disagree with your GM that utilizing the magic at your disposable is "cheese". One option you can do is to use Detect Magic when you know something is casting a spell in the area. If the caster is within the range of your spell or using a spell to be invisible, then you'll see the aura. You can then use this to narrow down the square your enemy is in. At this point use nets or other options to try and tangle it up. Or even use something like a blanket to grapple it down.
Glitterdust or See Invisibility scrolls.
Bags of flour/powder which scatter to outline.
A big net.
Falling anvil with 'Acme' written on the side?
But GMs saying using class features as 'cheese' trying to overcome this problem sets off warning bells for me. I worry that doing anything to overcome this will be hand waived as failing until the GM is ready to let it fail.
Be careful that the GM doesn't cry 'cheese' when the fighters start beating on it with swords...carry a baguette to use just in case.
Invisibility Alarm should help you know if it's nearby if you do set up a trap where it might spring up.
Also, I agree with Faelyn. Using detection magic constantly would be hustling for that PC, so I don't see what's so cheesy. How else are you going to find an otherwise nigh-uncatchable pest like a quasit, if it really is one? If it has spellcaster levels, that's a VERY powerful foe for your level, and frankly is actually unstoppable as far as rules go if your GM wanted to rule against your detection methods. I'm running a similar creature in an adventure path, and the book straight up tells you to let your PC's find the critter because it's actually impossible for a 3rd level PC to find them otherwise. And that creature has rogue levels, not spellcasting levels!
Invisibility Alarm should help you know if it's nearby if you do set up a trap where it might spring up.
Hmm, I'd go for the normal Alarm spell, since it also covers the risk of the quasit just using Stealth. And it lasts longer.
Overall, the GM seems to enjoy being a pain in the b*** a bit much, so he doesn't want to see the quasit fail quickly.
Maybe he overestimates Detect Evil etc.: These spells only tell you that there is something somewhere in the cone, during the first round, and it might be out of the cone (into an unknown direction) next round. The quasit could simply carry a sheet of lead (once it has reason to expect such spells). It's even questionable to me whether it pierces invisibility.
Invisibility Alarm should help you know if it's nearby if you do set up a trap where it might spring up.
Also, I agree with Faelyn. Using detection magic constantly would be hustling for that PC, so I don't see what's so cheesy. How else are you going to find an otherwise nigh-uncatchable pest like a quasit, if it really is one? If it has spellcaster levels, that's a VERY powerful foe for your level, and frankly is actually unstoppable as far as rules go if your GM wanted to rule against your detection methods. I'm running a similar creature in an adventure path, and the book straight up tells you to let your PC's find the critter because it's actually impossible for a 3rd level PC to find them otherwise. And that creature has rogue levels, not spellcasting levels!
Hunh. I didn't know about hustling, but having looked at it: I may be able to convince him to allow a prolonged detection strategy with that rule involved. I figure he's mostly concerned about a 24/7 passive detection as a means of never being caught off-guard, more than about using it to actively search for something anyways.
Is Invisibility Alarm in a side book? I'm having trouble finding that spell?
Sounds like your DM is going on a power trip with using this enemy.
If the Inquisitor using their class ability as intended is cheese to your DM...then i really don't know what to tell you.
This is a perfect example of why people using "its cheesy" as a reason for why things don't work is stupid.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If the DM doesn't allow you to use your class abilities, then just pack up and leave. Find adventure elsewhere, because this one is beyond your abilities. If you can find higher-level adventurers, let them know about the problem.
Is Invisibility Alarm in a side book? I'm having trouble finding that spell?
It is in the Advanced Class Guide
If the DM doesn't allow you to use your class abilities, then just pack up and leave. Find adventure elsewhere, because this one is beyond your abilities. If you can find higher-level adventurers, let them know about the problem.
I'd try a few things first but if all else fails, then this is what I'd do. That or I'd at least seek out a spellcaster strong enough to locate and trap the beast. Any local NPC's you could consult to try and help? Maybe your DM wants you to seek help rather than tackle this yourselves alone.
Leaving the game seems like a really disproportionate response. The game is fun. No need for temper tantrums.
I'd try a few things first but if all else fails, then this is what I'd do. That or I'd at least seek out a spellcaster strong enough to locate and trap the beast. Any local NPC's you could consult to try and help? Maybe your DM wants you to seek help rather than tackle this yourselves alone.
We've actually talked to a lot of NPCs and are pretty prepared on that front! Extra guards have been recruited and trained, we've had general talks with lots of townspeople on fire-safety and dealing with potential fire-based mayham, the temple acolytes all have Create Water on their default loadout now, and mundane water is being stockpiled all over the city. Some folks might still die in the initial chaos of an attack, which is a concern, but I think we're pretty prepared for the aftermath of such an event, if it comes to it. We're nearly the highest level casters around though (only a 3rd/4th level cleric and 3rd/4th level wizard are around that are higher than us, that we know of), so recruiting higher level casters is a little helpful, but not a huge improvement on what we've already got.
It's actually catching the problem-creature that's giving us trouble.
Thanks for the Invisibility Alarm source. I missed it looking through the ACG myself. I do think Alarm may be better here though, just because of that duration.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Also: gaurd dogs, scent can detect invisible crestures. Net traps connected to your bait. See if the npc wizard can make scrolls of see invisibility or glitterdust for you.
|
locate object spells to find something it has already taken. Also, it might be a good idea to uniquely mark (say with an arcane marked or etch) items it is likely to target for theft. Then track/locate where it is hiding at least some of the loot (it may be planting fire bombs in several locations/building around your town).
Dogs are a good idea, but also to track (by scent) the stolen items. Yeah, it flew away with the oil - but the oil left a scent trail in the air when it did. Have the dog follow the scent of the item stolen.
When you know it is around, Summon swarm (bats) combined with the spell hide from animals - so that the bats will swarm the creature they can detect - which isn't anyone with hide from animals on them. This can be used to "clear a building" that you know it is in. Have nets put up to block windows (so the swarm doesn't attack townsfolk) - and wander thru the building opening doors to have the swarm search the entire building (duration of summon swarm is Concentration plus 2 rounds).
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
At the risk of earning the ire of everyone here, I'm going to suggest that your GM may be right about constant Detect Evil/Chaos/Magic/Foo being cheese. Cheese is that place where something is technically allowed by RAW but outside the realm of realistic or practical. With a duration of "concentration", maxing out at minutes/level, it really depends on how you are using it.
If you are just trying to detect the Quasit/whatever when you suspect it's there, then you should be fine. That is totally valid usage and your GM should allow it.
If your intent is to have it running 24x7 as a sort of invisible Quasit warning system, then, no. "Concentration" is not the same as "continual". You'd basically have to be concentrating all the time, and constantly re-upping the spell. That's cheese. Most people can't keep up something like that for very long before they forget, are distracted by something else, or simply get tired, bored, or frustrated.
The other advice you've received so far is all solid. I like the mundane detection methods (dust, flour, etc.) and of course spells specifically designed to deal with invisibility.
I also don't think you are outmatched here. You just have a foe that is using very smart tactics that your GM wants you to out-think.
At the risk of earning the ire of everyone here, I'm going to suggest that your GM may be right about constant Detect Evil/Chaos/Magic/Foo being cheese. Cheese is that place where something is technically allowed by RAW but outside the realm of realistic or practical. With a duration of "concentration", maxing out at minutes/level, it really depends on how you are using it.
It's a 3rd Level Inquisitor attempting to use their class feature. Hardly cheese.
So each casting of Detect Evil lasts 30 minutes as long as Concentration is maintained. It's only a Standard Action to maintain Concentration in a round and you can still walk/look around. So its actually quite simple to maintain the spell.
So looking at the fact that a round is about 6 seconds the Inquisitor could easily by rules maintain Detect Evil and move 30 feet all within that time frame.
Only things like being injured, vigorous motion, etc. (See Concentration chart) would potentially disrupt this.
If your intent is to have it running 24x7 as a sort of invisible Quasit radar, then, no. "Concentration" is not the same as "continual". You'd basically have to be concentrating all the time, and constantly re-upping the spell. That's cheese.
Concentration isn't that difficult as i showed up above; also they wouldn't be "constantly re-upping the spell" since it lasts for 30 minutes at 3rd level.
You can maintain concentration and eat dinner, or walk around the town, or maybe even sprint down the streets, assuming they could make the easy check.(Vigorous Motion would be a DC 11 Concentration check...which is kinda trivial.)
Most people can't keep up something like that for more than a few minutes before they are distracted by something else, or simply get tired, bored, or frustrated.
Most people also can't cast magic...
This just seems like a DM who got fussy because their brilliant plot could be foiled by the Inquisitor quite easily.
You can maintain concentration and eat dinner, or walk around the town, or maybe even sprint down the streets, assuming they could make the easy check.(Vigorous Motion would be a DC 11 Concentration check...which is kinda trivial.)
Most people also can't cast magic...
Just because there's magic that doesn't mean the rest of life doesn't apply. Water still flows downhill. People get bored and distracted when performing repetitive tasks. It's a game, not a simulation, one where the rules are primarily focused around combat. That's the whole point of Rule Zero. The GM gets to decide what's not covered by, or outside the bounds of, RAW.
If the quasit/whatever is casting spells while invisible, or even using spell-like abilities, make sure your GM knows about this Paizo ruling.
What exactly do I identify when I’m using Spellcraft to identify a spell? Is it the components, since spell-like abilities, for instance, don’t have any? If I can only identify components, would that mean that I can’t take an attack of opportunity against someone using a spell-like ability (or spell with no verbal, somatic, or material components) or ready an action to shoot an arrow to disrupt a spell-like ability? If there’s something else, how do I know what it is?
Although this isn’t directly stated in the Core Rulebook, many elements of the game system work assuming that all spells have their own manifestations, regardless of whether or not they also produce an obvious visual effect, like fireball. You can see some examples to give you ideas of how to describe a spell’s manifestation in various pieces of art from Pathfinder products, but ultimately, the choice is up to your group, or perhaps even to the aesthetics of an individual spellcaster, to decide the exact details. Whatever the case, these manifestations are obviously magic of some kind, even to the uninitiated; this prevents spellcasters that use spell-like abilities, psychic magic, and the like from running completely amok against non-spellcasters in a non-combat situation. Special abilities exist (and more are likely to appear in Ultimate Intrigue) that specifically facilitate a spellcaster using chicanery to misdirect people from those manifestations and allow them to go unnoticed, but they will always provide an onlooker some sort of chance to detect the ruse.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Concentration is a bit undefined, but IMHO you could think of it like doing arithmetic. What's 33x14? Now what's 46x9? What's 189/3? What's 178+55+19? And so on. Sure, you can do it while walking down the street, eating or whatever, but you won't be doing it for long without needing a break. So the GM's right to disallow it for continuous use.
I suspect the GM has some particular set piece in mind and it's going to happen no matter what you do, so don't sweat this bit. Maybe you're better off preparing for that fight, rather than the one you're not allowed to have.
I'd set up traps such as:
- falling nets
- Deadfalls that drop an anvil on the thing (marked "ACME")
- crossbows that fire cold iron bolts when a bait object is moved
- Tricks that burst bags of flour to fill the air with dust and encrust the room's contents(avoid open flames...)
- A magical trap that triggers Glitterdust
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You can maintain concentration and eat dinner, or walk around the town, or maybe even sprint down the streets, assuming they could make the easy check.(Vigorous Motion would be a DC 11 Concentration check...which is kinda trivial.)
Most people also can't cast magic...
Just because there's magic that doesn't mean the rest of life doesn't apply. Water still flows downhill. People get bored and distracted when performing repetitive tasks. It's a game, not a simulation, one where the rules are primarily focused around combat. That's the whole point of Rule Zero. The GM gets to decide what's not covered by, or outside the bounds of, RAW.
That's not what's happening in this case.
Concentration is well defined. The game tells you exactly how it works and what can ruin concentration.
Not liking it because it ruins plot isn't a good reason to suddenly decide a player's class feature doesn't function as written.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That's not what's happening in this case.
Concentration is well defined. The game tells you exactly how it works and what can ruin concentration.
Not liking it because it ruins plot isn't a good reason to suddenly decide a player's class feature doesn't function as written.
Fine. We'll do this strictly by RAW then, since you insist.
Concentration: The spell lasts as long as you concentrate on it. Concentrating to maintain a spell is a standard action that does not provoke attacks of opportunity. Anything that could break your concentration when casting a spell can also break your concentration while you're maintaining one, causing the spell to end. See concentration.
You can't cast a spell while concentrating on another one. Some spells last for a short time after you cease concentrating.
Anything more than a move action breaks the spell. Now, find the rules that state whether the following are move, standard, or full-round actions:
- Eating dinner
- Getting dressed
- Reading a map
- Going to the bathroom
- Looking both ways before crossing the street
- Drinking a glass of water (this may be covered by drinking a potion)
- Taking a bath
- Engaging in lengthy conversation
- Making battle plans
Then get back to us.
I suspect the GM has some particular set piece in mind and it's going to happen no matter what you do, so don't sweat this bit. Maybe you're better off preparing for that fight, rather than the one you're not allowed to have.
I feel like you're probably right. Maybe this baddie will stay to gloat at its victory once its plan begins, and we can use the opportunity to fling nets, powder, sonic spells that'll make it waste rounds, and our now-amassed supply of cold-iron throwing weapons and ammunition at it. In the meantime, we're actually pretty prepared for something happening. When I list out all our prep, it feels better than I'd thought earlier.
For the record I think our GM's ruling is fine, and was put in for a reason that makes sense. 'Course it's not my Detect Alignment. I dunno if our Inquisitor feels the same way as me (I'm the group's Investigator, not our Psychic :P ). I'll ask her how she's doing, and if she's not liking stuff, we can talk to everyone about it calmly.
Anything more than a move action breaks the spell. Now, find the rules that state whether the following are move, standard, or full-round actions:
- Eating dinner
- Getting dressed
- Reading a map
- Going to the bathroom
- Looking both ways before crossing the street
- Drinking a glass of water (this may be covered by drinking a potion)
- Taking a bath
- Engaging in lengthy conversation
- Making battle plans
Then get back to us.
Making battle plans.
Free Action to speak and Move Action to Manipulate Object if maps etc are involved.Engaging in lengthy conversation.
Free Action to speak.
Taking a bath.
Move Actions to Manipulate Objects and Move Action to get in.
Drinking a glass of water.
This one should be a Move Action out of combat via Manipulate Object.
I've seen the various Drunk archetypes vary between Standard or Move to drink booze or potions during a fight.
So maybe?
Looking both ways before crossing the street.
Considering there isn't facing in this system at most a free action.
Going to the bathroom.
Mix of Manipulate Object and Free Actions.
Reading a map.
At most Move Action to Manipulate Object plus free action to look at it.
Getting dressed.
At most a series of Move Actions to Manipulate Object.
Eating dinner.
Manipulate Object to move a fork, spoon etc. Plus we know speaking doesn't break concentration so a mouth full of food wouldn't either. (Unless a specific spell needed speaking to concentrate.)
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Just because there's magic that doesn't mean the rest of life doesn't apply. Water still flows downhill. People get bored and distracted when performing repetitive tasks. It's a game, not a simulation, one where the rules are primarily focused around combat. That's the whole point of Rule Zero. The GM gets to decide what's not covered by, or outside the bounds of, RAW.You can maintain concentration and eat dinner, or walk around the town, or maybe even sprint down the streets, assuming they could make the easy check.(Vigorous Motion would be a DC 11 Concentration check...which is kinda trivial.)
Most people also can't cast magic...
It's basically a stakeout. PCs being on a stakeout is totally fine.
If - as a GM - I was feeling particularly annoyed about such a tactic (I wouldn't), after an hour or so I'd simply start requiring slowly-increasing Concentration checks to represent staying on task and holding off boredom.
That's a reasonable application of Rule Zero.
Saying that employing reasonable and clever tactics as a means of overcoming my "super special encounter I worked hard on that can only be dealt with the way *I* SAY!" is childish and the sign of a weak GM. So what if this GM designed a special "set piece" where you deal with it?
I've got news for new GMs out there: never overprepare, and never assume the PCs are going to do what you think they're going to do. "Yes, and" GMing makes a better experience for everyone.
So using "yes, and" on the inquisitor to create *consequences* for his constant use of detect evil is *FAR* more satisfying than just saying, "Uh, no. You can't do that. Because I didn't take the time to understand what you can do, didn't think about that, didn't prepare for it, and it ruins my plans."
We GMs need to adapt on-the-fly. Screw my plans. Sometimes I'll introduce a challenge that I expect my players to blow through with ease, and they completely miss the "obvious" solution I had in mind, and instead come up with convoluted plans to deal with it. Sometimes I introduce what I assume is going to be an insane challenge, and they blow through it with ease. But the proper response to the party getting lucky with phantasmal killer on the fire giant chieftan is not "Oh, well then the Fire Giant Chieftan's bigger, stronger brother comes in, and he's immune to mind affecting magic." (<- an actual thing that happened in a game some of my players played in.)
This kind of lazy, uncreative, stubborn, inflexible GMing is probably my single biggest pet peeve.
If - as a GM - I was feeling particularly annoyed about such a tactic (I wouldn't), after an hour or so I'd simply start requiring slowly-increasing Concentration checks to represent staying on task and holding off boredom.
That's a reasonable application of Rule Zero.
Agreed.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Invisibility is magic. That means it has an aura. Full stop.
But often, detect magic isn't quick enough to reveal an invisible creature before it moves. It's three rounds of concentration, remember? But if you do get the creature in the detect field long enough, then you you certainly should be allowed to see it under invisibility (or, at least it's aura in the right square).
Invisibility is not nondetection and giving it more power than it already has is a horrific mistake :P
Is it really that odd to be good at your job? Like... if you were trying to find a lost kid in the woods, you'd probably be looking around for it constantly.
Why do we treat a magically invisible quasit and a magic flashlight differently in our storytelling/rules mechanics?
Let's see...searching for someone that you know is lost and, arguably, wants to be found using a flashlight that emits light and has batteries that last for hours vs. searching for an invisible creature that is actively hiding from you and you don't know if it's even there or not using a spell that lasts minutes. Yeah, I'd say that's a fair comparison.
As was pointed out above, what's being done here is more akin to a stakeout: waiting and watching to see if the creature appears.
A GM is will within Rule Zero to say that a character can't keep up that sort of pace for hours on end. It's exhausting. Despite what Brain_in_a_Jar wants us to believe, this kind of repeated use of the spell is not actually covered by RAW. The rules are designed around short encounters in combat.
Now, saying outright that you can't use the spell at all is definitely draconian. But, imposing some limits or penalties is within reason.
Is it really that odd to be good at your job? Like... if you were trying to find a lost kid in the woods, you'd probably be looking around for it constantly.
Why do we treat a magically invisible quasit and a magic flashlight differently in our storytelling/rules mechanics?
Let's see...searching for someone that you know is lost and, arguably, wants to be found using a flashlight that emits light and has batteries that last for hours vs. searching for an invisible creature that is actively hiding from you and you don't know if it's even there or not using a spell that lasts minutes. Yeah, I'd say that's a fair comparison.
As was pointed out above, what's being done here is more akin to a stakeout: waiting and watching to see if the creature appears.
A GM is will within Rule Zero to say that a character can't keep up that sort of pace for hours on end. It's exhausting. Despite what Brain_in_a_Jar wants us to believe, this kind of repeated use of the spell is not actually covered by RAW. The rules are designed around short encounters in combat.
Now, saying outright that you can't use the spell at all is definitely draconian. But, imposing some limits or penalties is within reason.
First off the spell lasts 10 minutes a level. Not just minutes.
Also a GM is also within their rights using rule zero to say the spell Fly doesn't let you fly...for reasons. House Rules don't really lend credibility to an argument.
I've also already showcased that Concentration is in fact not exhausting.
Your opinion of why you can't concentrate on a spell has been noted.
The rules fully allow repeated casting of At-Will spells and already tell us what can break that Concentration. Adding to that is a house rule and has zero bearing on how it functions in the rules.
So provide proof other than "rule zero" aka house rules...or accept that a player using the rule set is allowed to do what I've already showecased with the rules to be true.
I've also already showcased that Concentration is in fact not exhausting.
And when presented with a list of actions that characters would do during the day if they weren't abstracted away by the game, you amazingly and conveniently declared them all move actions or better (despite the fact that there is no RAW to back up those claims), and therefor not disruptive to the spell.
Look, all you have to do is admit we are outside of RAW territory here. Everything here is House Rule/Rule Zero.
I've also already showcased that Concentration is in fact not exhausting.
And when presented with a list of actions that characters would do during the day if they weren't abstracted away by the game, you amazingly and conveniently declared them all move actions or better (despite the fact that there is no RAW to back up those claims), and therefor not disruptive to the spell.
Look, all you have to do is admit we are outside of RAW territory here. Everything here is House Rule/Rule Zero.
Seriously...
Manipulate an Item is a Move Action. That's in the Core Rulebook.
Speaking is a Free Action. Also in the Core Rulebook.
Just because your not familiar with the rules doesn't make this situation outside of RAW.
Seriously...
Manipulate an Item is a Move Action. That's in the Core Rulebook.
Speaking is a Free Action. Also in the Core Rulebook.
"However, there are reasonable limits on what you can really do for free, as decided by the GM."
That's just one example that jumps to mind where the rules give latitude to the GM because they can't cover every possible scenario because it's a game, not a simulation.
But let me try a different approach here. The OP came in with a specific question about an encounter, and noted that the GM isn't allowing a particular tactic. We weren't given a lot of details about the specifics of the tactic, or even why the GM disallowed it. We just have a vague situation with few details.
In response, we got a bunch of comments slamming the GM. One person calls them a "pain in the b****", another saying they are on "a power trip" (that's you, I think), another saying to "pack up and leave", and another calling their GM'ing "lazy, uncreative, stubborn, inflexible".
I mean, really, we don't even know the GM, the encounter, or the situation. Those are some pretty severe comments based on one side of the story in one encounter. The OP came here asking for advice. If you think rage-quitting the game, or denigrating someone you don't know are reasonable responses, then we have nothing to talk about.
I present an alternative scenario: one that starts from the assumption that people are not generally stupid jerks, and that maybe there's a valid reason why the tactic isn't allowed because the situation is on the fringes of the rules or even outside of what the rules generally cover. And in response to that, I get arguments over the minutia of RAW. In a way, I get it. Arguments over rules and details are a whole thing around here. But we should draw the line at insulting someone who isn't here to speak for themselves.
Here's an alternative suggestion for the OP: talk to your GM. Ask why the tactic of continual Detect Splat isn't being allowed, and see if there's a middle ground.
The problem with the inquisitor using detect evil is it would be child’s play for the creature to avoid it. Unlike the paladins detect evil this one requires you to concentrate and only covers a 60’ cone. It takes a round to scan a 60’ cone and it is probably fairly obvious that the inquisitor is doing so. All the creature has to do is to move out of the area and it will not be detected. You don’t get the exact location until the third round of concentration by which time any semi intelligent invisible creature is going to have moved out of the way.
If it is a quasit than it should have a moderate evil aura which means its aura lingers for 1d6 minutes. You have to use a standard action to maintain concentration to keep detect evil up. Finding tracks is at least a full round action and may take more time so using detect evil to track a creature based on the lingering aura is not going to work. But it should at least be able to confirm if the creature is a quasit or other evil outsider.
What you can do with detect evil is to make sure that the creature is not there when you setup traps. If the creature is watching you when you setup traps for it, it will be able to avoid them without any problems. Get some holy water and setup up a trap that causes the holy water to break open when it is moved. If it is a quasit it will take damage from the holy water. Even if it avoids a direct hit from the trap it will still take 1 point of damage from the splash.
"However, there are reasonable limits on what you can really do for free, as decided by the GM."
That's just one example that jumps to mind where the rules give latitude to the GM because they can't cover every possible scenario because it's a game, not a simulation.
That is in reference to how many Free Actions are allowed in a single round.
So in regards to speaking while maintaining concentration on a spell. You could speak a few sentences each round (6 seconds). So more than enough to converse with others as you concentrate and move around looking.
"Speak
In general, speaking is a free action that you can perform even when it isn't your turn. Speaking more than a few sentences is generally beyond the limit of a free action."
But let me try a different approach here. The OP came in with a specific question about an encounter, and noted that the GM isn't allowing a particular tactic. We weren't given a lot of details about the specifics of the tactic, or even why the GM disallowed it. We just have a vague situation with few details.
We actually do know what happened. The "tactic" in question is using the Inquisitors class ability as written within the rules.
"The GM has vetoed the Inquisitor using detect chaos/evil every six seconds, for being cheesy."
And was not allowed for no other reason than it would help find the invisible foe.
I present an alternative scenario: one that starts from the assumption that people are not generally stupid jerks, and that maybe there's a valid reason why the tactic isn't allowed because the situation is on the fringes of the rules or even outside of what the rules generally cover. And in response to that, I get arguments over the minutia of RAW. In a way, I get it. Arguments over rules and details are a whole thing around here. But we should draw the line at insulting someone who isn't here to speak for themselves.
It isn't a fringe rule or outside what the rules cover.
It's the Inquisitors class ability granted at 2nd level.
"Detect Alignment (Sp): At will, an inquisitor can use detect chaos, detect evil, detect good, or detect law. She can only use one of these at any given time. "
It can be cast at will, concentration only requires a Standard Action, and long term use doesn't require a concentration check; we know this based on the chart for concentration checks.
So what we have is a player attempting to use their class feature as written in the rules in a perfectly legal way.
The GM's response was to flat out say they can't do it. With no rules backing to support it.
Dropping a House Rule on a player because they tried to use their ability the way it is written is lazy GMing; particularly since it seems like the GM in question is only disallowing it because it would allow the group to find the invisible foe.
The GM saying they can't concentrate on Detect Evil for a long duration is the same as a GM saying Smite Evil doesn't work on this evil foe for "reasons".
I've always interpreted concentration as requiring intense mental effort, perhaps comparable to solving complex math equations in your head. It's something that you could do for a significant period of time, but not while doing anything much more complex than walking around.
Prolonged mental effort of that sort would be tiring and would interfere with other activities. A character could potentially maintain the required focus for a prolonged period, but should suffer penalties similar to characters who participate in prolonged vigorous activity.
I've always interpreted concentration as requiring intense mental effort, perhaps comparable to solving complex math equations in your head. It's something that you could do for a significant period of time, but not while doing anything much more complex than walking around.
Prolonged mental effort of that sort would be tiring and would interfere with other activities. A character could potentially maintain the required focus for a prolonged period, but should suffer penalties similar to characters who participate in prolonged vigorous activity.
That seems like a fair house rule.
But the base rules don't require such penalties or checks.
|
I would say use a trap but then put out a smoke stick. It is cheap and you can blind the enemy forcing them to move slowly. Then I would caltrop the entrances.
I am unfamiliar with a Quasit but if it walks it would not be aware of the spikes and takes the effect. The 1 damage would remove invisibility or drop the creature from stealth. The half escape speed would make it easy pickings. The problem is you will be blind with them until the smoke dissipates and watch the exit.
A similar solution if you have dark vision is to use shadow cloy over a smoke stick but it gets expensive for lvl1. Smoke stick caltrop combo is like 21 gold for 1 door. 1 gold more per door beyond.
BTW - I just read and you aren't lvl1 so you could also set a trap and simply lock everything inside and threaten to start the place on fire. It is carrying flammables. Watch it go boom. Another example is to have the room full of water. This GM sounds like my old GM who always wanted us to be the most inventive people in the world.