More than a decade has passed since the Goblinblood Wars left the nation of Isger in shambles, and the Pathfinder Society uses the many abandoned roads through the county's interior to smuggle valuable relics. But when a series of attacks on the Varisian caravans carrying the illicit cargo puts the route in jeopardy, it falls to the PCs to investigate and rid the region of the threat to the Society's operations.
**
Discussion begins!
Eventually as PCs are selected, I'll need the usual:
PFS #
Day Job Roll
Initiative
Perception
Dot.
I should know later this morning about the remaining invitations, then I'll throw open remaining slots to Flaxseed folks.
sure
Lamontia and I are in
That's 4.
I have a 5th who likely won't confirm until much later today (and I'm not opposed to running with just 4, which is kind of optimal for older scenarios).
Why don't you guys start selecting PCs and I'll fire up the introduction shortly. I don't expect to roll any initiatives until next week.
what levels are we looking at?
I think folks are playing 1-2s for various reasons this outing.
I'm in! I've been making a game of playing all of the pregens, but it's probably high time I started levelling a new character. We'll see what time/inspiration permits.
You all can feel free to roleplay in the lobby outside Drendle Dreng's office while others finish selecting characters and check in. Unless everyone surprises me and checks in today, we'll officially start rolling out a briefing on Monday.
Still on the drawing board for concepts but with only one active PC I'd like to create some new characters I can get excited about, but nothing has quite stuck yet. If nothing does, I'll check in on Monday with Harsk. My indecisive streak has kicked in hard, and an afternoons workshopping and three notepad files later I'm still not 100% decided.
Apologies if I'm holding things up!
|
PFS#: # 84608-4
Day Job:
Init: +2
Perception: -1
Trying out something a little unorthodox, and going out of my comfort zone by playing a character of another gender (until a month ago, I'd never done so, but where better than PFS?)
Still have skills and equipment to figure out, but as it's near 2AM, tommorrow is Australia Day, and the school term starts the following day, I'll just have to pick at it throughout the week. I'll see to it that Serana is ready by the first combat.
I think we're just due a Lamontius check-in. Dreng can start his briefing and Lamontius can step in, having a little harder time to rise than the others in the middle of the night...
Lamontius already checked in
Lamontia has not yet but is working on it
Apologies all! My net has cut off for three last two days, am looking to get reconnected.
I work in learning support, and I got surprised with a job offer early last week, a full time position from what had been monthly casual shifts. We have to build a support unit from the ground up with limited resources, so things have been pretty wild. Couple that with the fact that Serana's stats arestill in limbo and I haven't got quite a grasp on her character yet, and the postmonster eating a demoralizing amount of drafts (posting from mobile can be horribly unforgiving).
I apologise for the roleplay I've missed so far! I'll keep up with the combat and hope to redeem myself later in the module. :)
As a side note, Ayo is spectacularly entertaining and I will continue to favorite all of her posts.
Just an FYI
my build is mainly about Aid Another, providing flanks and generally debuffing the enemies
be careful if you are going to post out of turn
Serana, your post missed flanking, aid provided by Zartan, etc that you did not count at all, from us who are going ahead of you in the init order
Thanks for the heads up! :)
I'm sorry folks. This has been a week or two coming but it's probably time I withdraw from this game. This job came as a surprise and six posts is all I've been able to manage so far. That's not the kind of standard I'd like to hold myself to as a PbP gamer, and it wouldn't sit right with me taking credit for a scenario I've hardly been able to participate in. Each time I get on top of my other games I've slipped further behind here, and I fear I won't be able to keep up with the pace of PFS play until six weeks from now in the school holidays.
I really hope we do get a chance to play with each other then, however. I've really enjoyed this game, even as a spectator. All the best for the rest of this scenario!
I've actually handwaved that Serana engaged the other hobgoblin who moved around behind to attack the group's rear.
You'll get some credit for the scenario since you did play the earlier part. I'll need to brush up on exactly how much, but I suspect it will be 1xp 1pp even with you bowing out early.
On this:
The shaken condition lasts one round, which means it ends at the beginning of the hobgoblin's turn.
I might've been playing it wrong all these years, but my operating assumption is that the priestess's spell's effect began at "initiative 11" (since the effect begins at the end of her action, not at the beginning of her initiative).
This is how a level 1 caster could use ill omen (duration of 1 round) and then follow it up in the following round with any spell they choose, since the ill omen actually lasts until the beginning of the initiative of the first round when the effect is active (which is to say the initiative immediately following the caster's). Or how you'd draw, then use a wand of vanish and at least have the invisibility effect for your next round (since the spell began on the initiative after your round, and would then end at the beginning of that initiative in a subsequent round).
I can see some fudge to lean either way.. although leaning towards it actually ends "slightly less than 1 round" - aka at the instant before the standard action was taken to cast it, nerfs the effectiveness of a lot of 1 round duration effects that seem to be intended as a pre-spell cast before an actual spell.
I know we have a handful of GMs here... how do the rest of you run this?
Yeah I know that exact text as it's come up dozens of times and the general following debate is "it can go either way".
So, it's just a question of reading "initiative count they began on".
Interpretation A
Round 1, Init 11
Witch moves
Witch uses misfortune, effect happens at the end of this standard action, aka...
Round 1, Init 10 (misfortune at beginning of this init)
Some guy does something
Round 2, Init 11
Witch cackles, to extend misfortune hex
Round 2, Init 10 (misfortune 1 round would have ended as this init count began)
--
Interpretation B
Round 1, Init 11
Witch moves
Witch uses misfortune, effect happens at the end of this standard action, so it counts as Init 11
Round 1, Init 10
Some guy does something
Round 2, Init 11 (misfortune ends before witch can do anything)
Witch shakes fist
--
To further compound interpretation, you'd actually rule it began on the witch's turn if they do *anything* after the spell's casting completes (take a free action, swift action, or move). But if the witch does absolutely nothing after the casting, the question is "what's the initiative count that the effect began on?". The argument I've heard is that the text says "initiative count that the effect began on" vs "initiative count of the action taken to cause the effect" (thus the CL1 wand favorable ruling).
Generally, I've taken Interpretation A, since it favors the players with the wands of vanish, ill omen and witches (and rarely does it favor enemies, this being I think the first time that I can think of where it would).
|
|
Your reading essentially makes all 1 round duration effects 2 rounds, as the affected party has had to take two turns under the effect, which I definitely think is both against RAI and RAW. I dont have much sympathy for witch hexes, as they are already quite powerful, and--as mentioned--they can cackle on the turn they apply the effect.
Hmm, no. Maybe you're reading me wrong on Interpretation A if you see the effect is in play for 2 full rounds (in fact it's never in play for a 2nd time for any single initiative count).
Interpretation A could also be read as "every initiative actor gets 1 round with the effect up".
An afflicted PC, monster, etc, only has 1 turn (of their own) in which they experience the effect.
Interpretation B is 1 full round minus a turn.
I don't see it as against RAW or RAI to read someone who draws and uses a wand of vanish on Round 1, Init 11 to be allowed to be considered invisible starting Round 1, Init 10 and - as long as they don't attack - remain invisible until Round 2, Init 10 begins (aka, 1 full round of the effect being in play).
In other words, the effect lasts a round (not 2), ending at the beginning of the initiative count they began on. However, had that wand popped out from a wrist sheathe, been used, and then the invisible creature moves on Round 1, Init 11 (thus meaning the effect began in the middle of Round 1, Init 11), it would end at the beginning of Round 2, Init 11. The reading here is that "you, the caster, get some benefit from the spell, if you haven't had any yet, and if you've gotten some benefit in a round, then you don't get benefit the next round".
I think this is both RAI and RAW (and consented as such when this position was made to me ages ago as I didn't have a horse in the race at that time to really analyze it deeply).
As for witch hexes.. maybe. If the witch had to move before the hex, that would prevent them from ever experiencing even a fractional-round in which they see the effect/benefit of a 1-round hex. It would be like the 1-round duration was clipped by 1 turn.
I have always played my PFS witch under "Interpretation B".
So if I use Evil Eye to reduce an enemy's saves and the target makes their Will Save, I know I have to immediately Cackle in order to keep that effect up so that it is active during my next turn, when I want to follow up with say a Slumber and take advantage of the reduced save.
This is why an item like the Cackling Hag's Blouse is so valuable to witches, for allowing a couple Cackles on Swift Actions for those "oh crap" moments when the baddie made their Will save and you have to Cackle, but still really need that Move Action for something else.
I do not really have much more to add to this than that.
|
|
Panic, I really dont see how you are making the jump to say that somehow the beginning of the effect changes depending on how people act after. If I misfortune you and stand still or if I run past and take an AoO, either way misfortune began at the same time. If a tree falls in a forest and nobody hears it, it still made a sound.
I dont see why wands of vanish have to be effective. Many spells dont work well as wands. I've never even seen someone use one, as far as I can remember.
This is the key text:
"initiative count that they began on."
The game's based on initiative counts.
There's this infinitesimal blip of non-time between "End of Round 1, Init 11" and "Start of Round 1, Init 10". In essence this is an instantaneous moment.
If a warrior uses Dazzling Display as their action on Round 1, Init 11, when do we consider the initiative count that the effect began on? It's clear the warrior began taking the action to cause the effect on Round 1, Init 11. He completed the action at the end of Round 1, Init 11. Did the effect begin at "the end of Round 1, Init 11"? That's instantaneous with "the start of Round 2, Init 10". GMs get to make a call here - which initiative count do I want to say the effect began in for the purpose of that single sentence that describes 1 round duration effects.
The question is, does the warrior ever experience a turn when they can actually see the effect of the action they took?
Interpretation A is almost identical to Interpretation B, except it allows the effect to be present for 1 round (vs 1 round minus 1 turn), where it's including that very last turn of experience for the actor who caused the effect to come into play at the end of their prior round/initiative count (which is interpreted as instantaneous with the beginning of the initiative count that immediately followed it).
If an effect comes into play during the middle of a round/initiative count, then it counts as in play for that particular round/initiative count, thus in the ruling of 1 round effects, it's over at the instantaneous moment before the next round's same initiative count.
Consider how you run Dazzling Display used as a full round action. If it causes a 1-round duration of shaken, can the warrior who waved his sword around get to ever attack his shaken foe?
(I run with Interpretation A, for the last few years, as it was pointed out to me that adventures written by the developers have tactics where BBEGs apply a 1-round duration effect and then utilize the fact their opponent has that effect applied in the following round for some sort of "combo").
|
|
A person's turn doesnt end when they do dazzling display, though. They still can take free and swift actions. They could activate arcane strike, drop their weapon, blow a raspberry, etc.... A rogue could use dazzling display while prone, then use their Stand Up talent to stand up as a free action (which still provokes because of the wording), and use the shaken condition as a way to make themselves harder to hit. A person's turn ends when they decide to stop attempting actions, which is a distinct beat in initiative from GM calls the next player, afaic. I dont need to have a full turn with dazzling display in-effect to "see the effects on the game world." This is a cooperative game. My ally could color spray to take advantage of the reduced saves, or run past and risk provoking because the enemy attacks are penalized, or any number of things.
You can read it that way if you want, but developers dont always read the rules correctly either. I can point you to any number of tactics blocks that include outright errors. I could also make the argument that allowing characters and NPCs to pull off such combos on their own disincentivizes players from comboing with other players. One of my favorite moments in the last PFS special was when the oracle cast Fear, the monster saved, and I used Improved Dirge of Doom to make it frightened. Doing that combo yourself is a million times less fun, speaking from experience.
I will accept your ruling as GM, and because I dont feel it particularly matters right now anyways (I mainly have just wanted to get the subject resolved since I know it will come up again). I still dont find your argument compelling in the slightest. I do not agree at all with your assessment of which initiative count is referred to in "before the initiative count that they began on." We will just have to agree to disagree.
It doesn't matter in the slightest for Goblinblood Dead, so it's purely an academic discussion.
FWIW, I argued the point, years ago, the same position you have, and was talked into the other interpretation.
Historically, typical games (outside of organized play, going way back to 1e) usually featured the stereotypes though - fighter, rogue, wizard, cleric. The "1 round" duration goes that far back. So the rules were less intended for synergy, but were usually a way for a caster to apply a condition for a follow-up. The older the adventure, the more you see the "lone BBEG" trope too. It's really the late 3.5e era and Pathfinder where a more precise definition here is a topic.
The original intention of turn-based combat was that it's trying to mirror everything happening in a round was happening in the game world simultaneously. In actual practice, it's sequential. But in spirit, the rules work (not elegantly) to approximate this.
Round 1
Warrior hits orc, Wizard casts spell, Cleric heals warrior, Orc bites warrior
(all the above is meant to happen in your mind at once)
Round 2
Warrior hits orc, Wizard casts another spell, Cleric heals wizard, Orc bites warrior
(and the same, it's meant to simulate it all happening at once)
Now the question arises, if the wizard's spell in round 1 came into play at the end of that round - it seems to imply that if it's a 1-round effect, it would be up for Round 2.
Technically RAW (Pathinder and 3.5e alike) don't actually have initiative ties result in the actors going on different initiative counts. They both maintain the same initiative count, and then as you "go into that count", you resolve the tie by modifiers and roll-offs. This technically (for a RAW lawyer) would mean if you had say a warrior at count 11 and a wizard at count 11 (where the warrior's init bonus was higher than the wizard's so he swings his sword prior to a spell), that their spell would end at the beginning of their shared init count (and thus the warrior never experienced a game moment in which the spell was active and they were able to take their turn).
It's one of the vague areas of the rules, and I see those areas are up to GMs discretion. What's not vague is that the effect ends at the init count in which the effect began. What's vague is: "in which init count does an effect begin?" If a wizard's turn ends with completion of a spell or a warrior's turn ends with their dazzling display, did the effect begin in their initiative count, or the next initiative count?
I honestly don't know the "right" answer. I just know what most players have lobbied for, and didn't have a particular reason to strongly argue against that in the light of monsters/BBEGs/adventures that seem to employ similar 1-2 combo tactics. Thus, my default position leans towards what the players want, and what adventures seem to indicate is intended.
Juggling work today so wanted to get everyone's chronicles out quickly, which means I'll be trusting you all to fill in your day job results.