It doesn't need to fight. The eidolon's there for utility.
If he needs to fight he can summon stuff.
If his Eidolon is scouting, that means it will at least sometimes be out when combat starts.
Rather than spending his first turn banishing his Eidolon and having no other action, it is better if his Eidolon has SOME combat function so it's not dead weight in a fight, either directly or indirectly by destroying Jelani's action economy.
@Carina: The two stack. Your Mutagen is an alchemical bonus while Barkskin is an Enhancement bonus. Likewise the stat boosts, you could benefit from Cat's Grace in addition to its Dex bonus.
We'll just have to continue agreeing to disagree.
Except for the natural armor thing, you're spot on with that one.
KC, would I be able to use my old Readied Attack roll if I spend Round 6 chugging the murky Barkskin potion? Or would I have to roll anew for it?
You can keep the roll.
Thanks. :)
Now that I've made myself a guinea pig with this murky potion, I'll have to visit a temple to make sure I'm not going to suffer any ill effects from this...
Which murky potion are you referring? Farrukh already drank the barkskin potion.
I thought we had more than one. I was referring to the red potion we found in a submerged chest where all the lizardfolk eggs were.
We only had one barkskin potion which Farrukh drank a while ago.
I've done pretty good job of keeping the loot sheet up to date. If you check out the right-most tab under party consumables you can see what we have left.
I think Farrukh used the listed expeditious retreat potion back before fighting Telakin. Also, item #23- the pointy wand with the dragon carving- is now kaput.
I don't see that potion listed.
I nixed the wand.
I don't see that potion listed.
I nixed the wand.
Oh, my error. Wrong tab.
So, I've been looking at people's sheets, and something caught my attention.
Eben is Chaotic Good
Carina is Neutral Good
Farrukh is Lawful Neutral
Astraden w/is Chaotic Neutral
Tanith is Chaotic Neutral (though his sheet no longer shows it)
And Cuetzpalli was True Neutral.
I'm curious—who here feels that their alignment has remained consistent throughout the campaign so far? Who here feels that their character has skirted the boundaries at times, or has even come close to outright changing?
I think at first Cuetzpalli was more LN. But the longer he's been with the group, the less rigid he became. Thus becoming N.
I'm not sure if Carina's shifted alignment wise, but personality wise she's definitely taken a turn for the darker.
Seeing friends die, dying herself, being on the wrong end of a Kyuss-zombie's worm puke and nearly dying from an evil floor have probably ensured that she's traumatized at this point.
Farrukh has become slightly good-er I think, more willing to put himself in danger to help others.
But at heart he's still a ruthless bastard who puts himself and his friends above most else.
I think Eben's still his old chaotic good-ish self, with occasional situationally induced deviations. But y'know, who among us hasn't wanted to peel someone's face off?
|
Astraden has fluctuated around CN, I think. She's really flirted with every alignment a step away - N with her pleas for moderation when dealing with weaker enemies/using diplomacy wrt the lizardfolk, CE with the mine managers and the riot instigation, and CG with the people of Lambere and her reaction to the results of the Neff riots.
I'd say she's still CN, and will be after reincarnating, but depending on the rest of the campaign she may eventually settle down in one of the other possible Olidammara-worshipper alignments.
Is there a particular race you're hoping Astraden comes back as?
Tanith starting at CN was supposed to represent the fact that he was basically a thug that had found religion (like a youth pastor!).
He's been working his way into CG.
Well, those attacks pretty much changed my healing target priority.
Seriously, what on Earth are those drow packing? Miniature harpoons? That's a crazy amount of damage they're putting downrange!
I'd guess they're bolt aces with deadly aim.
The rocket tag continues!
It could be worse. They could be full gunslingers.
The rocket tag continues!
Seriously, you keep using that term. I do not think it means what you think it means.
Being a bolt ace when you wield a hand crossbow as your main weapon? What else would you be, a frenzied berserker? As for Deadly Aim...yeah, they wanted to actually add something to their 1d4 damage. Crazy world.
These guys deal an average of 11.5 damage, and have to spend a move action to reload. I don't know what your definition of "rocket tag" is, but it seems ludicrously liberal. :P
I have witnessed the power of Deadly Aim firsthand.
I must say I am intrigued.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I just got home. Best typo.
One of the nice things about playing Ixiaxian for a couple of months was that he actually had Deadly Aim, so I got to sample it on a build similar to Eben's for free. It will show back up in my feats, sooner or later.
I'm more alarmed by these two managing to skewer invisible, stealth-using Eben from 30 feet. Double fail on the 50% concealment is bad enough, but how did they pinpoint him in the first place? Wouldn't that have been a DC 40+ Perception check?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I just got home. Best typo.
That was a typo?
If so, I thought it was pretty in-character.
...
...
...
...
Alas, with the drow gunning Eben down there's not enough time for a love action.
One of the nice things about playing Ixiaxian for a couple of months was that he actually had Deadly Aim, so I got to sample it on a build similar to Eben's for free. It will show back up in my feats, sooner or later.
I'm more alarmed by these two managing to skewer invisible, stealth-using Eben from 30 feet. Double fail on the 50% concealment is bad enough, but how did they pinpoint him in the first place? Wouldn't that have been a DC 40+ Perception check?
Maybe they can See Invisibility too.
Maybe they can See Invisibility too.One of the nice things about playing Ixiaxian for a couple of months was that he actually had Deadly Aim, so I got to sample it on a build similar to Eben's for free. It will show back up in my feats, sooner or later.
I'm more alarmed by these two managing to skewer invisible, stealth-using Eben from 30 feet. Double fail on the 50% concealment is bad enough, but how did they pinpoint him in the first place? Wouldn't that have been a DC 40+ Perception check?
Pretty sure not- KC did roll concealment % checks for them. (Though Eben is now convinced that drow can see through invisibility and nothing anyone says will convince him otherwise.) At the very least, I made my attacks assuming they couldn't see me. (Not that it mattered, because apparently I've neglected to appease the RNG...)
Alright, because of my encumbrance, I don't think I can reach Eben with my actions to tap him with the wand.
With Tanith and Farrukh dealing with the drow, I'm planning on moving over to Spiny and healing him.
Oh... didn't realize you couldn't move 30. Well. Hope that doesn't come back to bite me. :-)
I just got home. Best typo.
I was too busy to think of a joke, but I made sure to quote it in case it got fixed. ;P
I'm more alarmed by these two managing to skewer invisible, stealth-using Eben from 30 feet. Double fail on the 50% concealment is bad enough, but how did they pinpoint him in the first place? Wouldn't that have been a DC 40+ Perception check?
If you recall, the rules changed right before the stalker fight. The "sense general direction" passive check went from a flat "DC 20" to "invisible guy's Stealth check sans invisibility bonuses". Which in most cases would benefit the stealther, but Eben doesn't have ranks in stealth, so he's fairly easy to hear.
Normally, that still wouldn't have let them actually shoot you. It's a "general direction" check, not an actual "pinpointing". But this was one of those cases where "general direction" doesn't leave much margin for error. They knew you were within 30 feet, and walking, not flying, so they shot straight ahead and hoped they hit something.
I honestly didn't really expect them both to hit, but these seem to be very lucky drow.
I was too busy to think of a joke, but I made sure to quote it in case it got fixed. ;P
Missed opportunity!
I realize this is an evil drow and likely a thrall of the mind flayer but do you think it might be worth taking her captive?
That's why Eben's trying to hogtie her with the whip. (Plus neither of the whip feather tokens have done jack so far so I'd like it to work at least once...)
I assume we won't get any useful info, but the characters don't know that, and from a meta perspective, we might be able to at least figure out the whole 'mental powers' part of mind flayers. (Since none of us otherwise can ID the 'squidface'.)
Precisely.
Danke you must have even more free time at work than I do. You've destroyed me at leveling in Drawception.
If you recall, the rules changed right before the stalker fight. The "sense general direction" passive check went from a flat "DC 20" to "invisible guy's Stealth check sans invisibility bonuses". Which in most cases would benefit the stealther, but Eben doesn't have ranks in stealth, so he's fairly easy to hear.
Normally, that still wouldn't have let them actually shoot you. It's a "general direction" check, not an actual "pinpointing". But this was one of those cases where "general direction" doesn't leave much margin for error. They knew you were within 30 feet, and walking, not flying, so they shot straight ahead and hoped they hit something.
At the time I didn't chime in on that discussion for several reasons: I was playing a bad guy and not directly worried about the encounter, I didn't have my books with me so wasn't sure about the rules anyhow, and the topic was being addressed with us as the Perceptioners and the Stalkers as the stealthers, so I wasn't really thinking about the long term ramifications of this ruling. So, apologies if I'm bringing up stuff that was addressed around then:
The standard rule for Perception vs stealth + invisibility isn't a static DC 20 check; it's the invisible guy's stealth check + 20. The static DC 20 you're citing is if someone's invisible and not being stealthy. So the change you're instituting here absolutely doesn't work to the stealther's benefit regardless; it's basically eliminating the bonus from invis altogether and just making it a flat stealth check. Is that the actual goal here? This isn't an issue with the current combat, but I do want to hash it out for future reference.
Danke you must have even more free time at work than I do. You've destroyed me at leveling in Drawception.
Actually, (and even more embarrasingly, I think...) I don't even play Drawception at work; that's all my free time drawing. I just get super obsessive when something new crosses my path.
I've also been trying to draw as much as I caption; a drawing is worth more points in the long run. (Both from the automatic point you get for it over a caption and people tend to more readily upvote a drawing.) And once you get to 15th level and can play vet games... well, it gets way easier to get points, since Vet games are more likely to make it to the Top Games section and thus get a lot more views and an almost insane increase in votes for your stuff.
Normally, that still wouldn't have let them actually shoot you. It's a "general direction" check, not an actual "pinpointing". But this was one of those cases where "general direction" doesn't leave much margin for error. They knew you were within 30 feet, and walking, not flying, so they shot straight ahead and hoped they hit something.
And on this: they still didn't know the exact square. Again, I'm not arguing with the ruling but trying to be clear on a precedent as an archer: if I'm in a similar circumstance (empty 5-foot wide hallway with a walking invisible creature that I know is there even if I don't have his exact location down) will I be likewise able to just fire in a straight line down the hall instead of picking a specific square out?
Ah.
Most of my games are private games with friends. They don't give XP. =(
The standard rule for Perception vs stealth + invisibility isn't a static DC 20 check; it's the invisible guy's stealth check + 20. The static DC 20 you're citing is if someone's invisible and not being stealthy. So the change you're instituting here absolutely doesn't work to the stealther's benefit regardless; it's basically eliminating the bonus from invis altogether and just making it a flat stealth check. Is that the actual goal here? This isn't an issue with the current combat, but I do want to hash it out for future reference.
If this is true, it seems like both Rynjin and I misunderstood the rule, since he was the one to bring it up. I'd appreciate his input on this. A modification to the house rule may be in order.
And on this: they still didn't know the exact square. Again, I'm not arguing with the ruling but trying to be clear on a precedent as an archer: if I'm in a similar circumstance (empty 5-foot wide hallway with a walking invisible creature that I know is there even if I don't have his exact location down) will I be likewise able to just fire in a straight line down the hall instead of picking a specific square out?
That was my "line" of thinking.
The standard rule for Perception vs stealth + invisibility isn't a static DC 20 check; it's the invisible guy's stealth check + 20. The static DC 20 you're citing is if someone's invisible and not being stealthy. So the change you're instituting here absolutely doesn't work to the stealther's benefit regardless; it's basically eliminating the bonus from invis altogether and just making it a flat stealth check. Is that the actual goal here? This isn't an issue with the current combat, but I do want to hash it out for future reference.If this is true, it seems like both Rynjin and I misunderstood the rule, since he was the one to bring it up. I'd appreciate his input on this. A modification to the house rule may be in order.
Ah. I think I see what you're saying. Your reading of the invisibility rules is as follows (assumed interpretations in blue):
A creature can generally notice the presence of an active invisible creature within 30 feet with a DC 20 Perception check. The observer gains a hunch that “something's there” but can't see it or target it accurately with an attack. It's practically impossible (+20 DC) to pinpoint an invisible creature's location with a Perception check. Even once a character has pinpointed the square that contains an invisible creature, the creature still benefits from total concealment (50% miss chance). There are a number of modifiers that can be applied to this DC if the invisible creature is moving or engaged in a noisy activity.
Whereas I've always assumed that the chart of modifiers are intended to be applied to the base DC 20.
Is that where we're seeing differently here?
Yes. It had actually never occurred to me to read it any other way. DC 20 (passive) to notice the presence or absence of invisible creatures, vs Stealth modified by Invisibility to pinpoint.
In my games I make both checks modified by Stealth, though still passive to notice presence.
Boosts stealth, without the tediousness of KCs change IMO.
Well, it's hardly the only case of wording in the rules leaving room for interpretation. (And like you guys, I'd never even thought about reading it another way.) My reading has always been that, 'There are a number of modifiers that can be applied to this DC if the invisible creature is moving or engaged in a noisy activity.' would mean to the initial +20, simply because the 'pinpoint' number isn't a given DC, it's just given as a modifier to the base DC. If the wording was something like,
'It's practically impossible (DC 40) to pinpoint an invisible creature's location with a Perception check. Even once a character has pinpointed the square that contains an invisible creature, the creature still benefits from total concealment (50% miss chance). There are a number of modifiers that can be applied to this DC...'
I'd say your reading was unambiguously correct.
Also there's the fact that some of those modifiers are for circumstances when pinpointing a creature's location would be logistically impossible. (Through a closed door it's only a +5 DC, for instance. That would make sense as a modifier to just sense the presence of someone, but as a DC to pinpoint the exact square someone is in behind a door in a room you've never been in?)
Good news!
Tanith's isn't quite as poor as I thought he was. I'd missed an entire payout in his cash log (the most recent one for 5k). He's still behind the curve but not by nearly as much.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Leave it to Tanith to somehow forget about 5,000 gp... "Oh, THAT sack? I was just using it to do curls in the morning. Never thought to open it up and see what was inside it!"
But it was the perfect weight!
Yes. It had actually never occurred to me to read it any other way. DC 20 (passive) to notice the presence or absence of invisible creatures, vs Stealth modified by Invisibility to pinpoint.
In my games I make both checks modified by Stealth, though still passive to notice presence.
Boosts stealth, without the tediousness of KCs change IMO.
As we're just about at the end of the dungeon, I'm giving this house rule another look.
Active check (pinpointing) is DC = Stealth check. This part is unchanged from the basic rule.
Passive check is DC = Stealth check -20 (meaning without the invisibility bonus). This made more sense to me initially. That said, I'm starting to see the same hole Eben did, and I'm starting to regard this as a messy house rule.
What's a bit funny is that, in this adventure, the house rule has been tested twice—and both times gone against the party. Invisible Stalkers have good stealth bonuses, so not having to use the flat DC 20 works out great for them (it would also work quite well for Farrukh or Jelani's upcoming eidolon). But for Eben, a flat DC 20 would actually be preferable.
Like I said, it's getting messy. The invisibility rules have always thrown me for a loop, and the house rule I felt would even things out is just turning inconsistent. I prefer there not being a flat DC 20 for all passive checks (maybe using Eben's interpretation, which was actually my own until maybe half a year ago). And I still favor the "automatic passive check against adjacent foes" rule. But the rest was clearly just impractical.
I'm alright with simplifying the house rule and just using the flat Stealth check for both. Some house rules work out, some don't. Thank you all for your patience, and my apologies to Rynjin, who saw this coming and whose warnings went unheeded. :P
Aw, shucks.