Paizo Top Nav Branding
  • Hello, Guest! |
  • Sign In |
  • My Account |
  • Shopping Cart |
  • Help/FAQ
Recruitment Play-by-Post Play-by-Post Discussion
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game
Pathfinder Society

Pathfinder Beginner Box

Pathfinder Adventure Card Game

Pathfinder Comics

Pathfinder Legends

SR's - Great Southern Isles (PbP) (Inactive)

Game Master stormraven

High-Power Pathfinder Homespun Game


901 to 950 of 1,264 << first < prev | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | next > last >>

Heh...not to be a buttinski here, but...

SR: would it have been possible for Popeye to use the Flash of Insight roll on the Mirror Image check, so he would hit Orin and not an image? True, he would lose the auto crit roll, but looking at the Confirm roll I think he would have hit anyway :)


DM

I considered that but Insight gives the cyclops the ability to adjust one of HIS rolls. Technically, deciding which image he hits is one of MY rolls. I think it would be a little unfair to extend his ability that way.

I also considered negating his use of Insight on his attack. Had I recalled that Orin had Mirror Images I wouldn't have had him 'waste' a use of the ability when the odds were that poor. But, as the DM, I live by my mistakes. This isn't the first time I screwed up and that, had I been thinking, I would have done things slightly differently.


Ushari Velnokal wrote:

Heh...not to be a buttinski here, but...

SR: would it have been possible for Popeye to use the Flash of Insight roll on the Mirror Image check, so he would hit Orin and not an image? True, he would lose the auto crit roll, but looking at the Confirm roll I think he would have hit anyway :)

Well, it depends. Look at this text from Mirror Image:

When mirror image is cast, 1d4 images plus one image per three caster levels (maximum eight images total) are created. These images remain in your space and move with you, mimicking your movements, sounds, and actions exactly. Whenever you are attacked or are the target of a spell that requires an attack roll, there is a possibility that the attack targets one of your images instead. If the attack is a hit, roll randomly to see whether the selected target is real or a figment. If it is a figment, the figment is destroyed.

The bolded part leads me to believe that if someone hits me, I'm rolling the Mirror Image roll, not the attacker. If that's the case, Popeye couldn't use his Flash of Insight, as it only affects his rolls, not his opponents'. Of course, if it's ruled that he can use it on the Mirror Image roll (which I agree, would be smart), at least it's a regular hit and not a crit, and I can live with that. :-)

Oh, and here were my modifiers on my trip:

1d20 + 7 (BaB) + 3 (Str Mod) + 4 (Class Feature) + 2 (Feat)+ 4 (Weapon training +1 and my hair is a +3 weapon) + 1 (Prayer) + 2 (Inspire Courage)


DM

I believe Trip would use your INT not STR bonus there, Chief... according to the Witch write-up. Or have I made another mistake? :)


stormraven wrote:

I considered that but Insight gives the cyclops the ability to adjust one of HIS rolls. Technically, deciding which image he hits is one of MY rolls. I think it would be a little unfair to extend his ability that way.

I also considered negating his use of Insight on his attack. Had I recalled that Orin had Mirror Images I wouldn't have had him 'waste' a use of the ability when the odds were that poor. But, as the DM, I live by my mistakes. This isn't the first time I screwed up and that, had I been thinking, I would have done things slightly differently.

Ninjaed! Glad to see we interpreted the spell the same way. IMO, mirror image is one of the best spells in the game.

FWIW, I think it's perfectly acceptable for you to not waste his Flash of Insight. We all make mistakes, and it's a friendly game. Of course, I understand why you don't want to tap it back and I support that decision too, if that's what you want.

stormraven wrote:
Gah! I missed that. I forgot you had Mirror Images up. Don't roll yet... Resolved. :( Dammit, I don't get to snap your character in half in your first battle. Color me disappointed.

Well, Popeye might need to make a Fort save vs Nausea for smelling the load that Orin probably just dropped in his pants. ;-)


stormraven wrote:
I believe Trip would use your INT not STR bonus there, Chief... according to the Witch write-up. Or have I made another mistake? :)

Well, here it is:

At 1st level, a white-haired witch gains the ability to use her hair as a weapon. This functions as a primary natural attack with a reach of 5 feet. The hair deals 1d4 points of damage (1d3 for a Small witch) plus the witch’s Intelligence modifier. In addition, whenever the hair strikes a foe, the witch can attempt to grapple that foe with her hair as a free action* without provoking an attack of opportunity, using her Intelligence modifier in place of her Strength modifier when making the combat maneuver check. When a white-haired witch grapples a foe in this way, she does not gain the grappled condition.

So the attack does 1d4 (up to 1d8 now, due to destiny weapon) + Int Mod for the damage, but it doesn't say anything about using Int for attacks.

I think you might be referring to the part I bolded above, but as you can see that only triggers when I grab someone after hitting them. So I take that to mean that I use Str mod (since it's a natural weapon) to hit, the damage mod is based on Int. Then I get a swift action (no longer free--that was errataed) to grapple. THAT roll uses the Int mod.


DM

Yep, you are correct. I forget the INT bonus was to damage not to ATT. I agree your ATT would use STR.


Orin Vanderwhal wrote:

Ninjaed! Glad to see we interpreted the spell the same way. IMO, mirror image is one of the best spells in the game.

FWIW, I think it's perfectly acceptable for you to not waste his Flash of Insight. We all make mistakes, and it's a friendly game. Of course, I understand why you don't want to tap it back and I support that decision too, if that's what you want.

Ahh, that explains things much clearer. BTW I would agree with Orin here about not using that ability. While the DM may be fallible, Popeye wouldn't be, he he. Unless he really believes Fate is on his side....

Orin Vanderwhal wrote:
Well, Popeye might need to make a Fort save vs Nausea for smelling the load that Orin probably just dropped in his pants. ;-)

No kidding...Ushari can smell it from up here...:P


DM
Orin Vanderwhal wrote:
Ninjaed! Glad to see we interpreted the spell the same way. IMO, mirror image is one of the best spells in the game.

Agreed. It's a keeper.

Orin Vanderwhal wrote:
FWIW, I think it's perfectly acceptable for you to not waste his Flash of Insight. We all make mistakes, and it's a friendly game. Of course, I understand why you don't want to tap it back and I support that decision too, if that's what you want.

Nah, retconning for the DM's benefit is one of those slippery slopes I try to avoid. Moreover, Popeye isn't a genius so if he makes this kind of dumb mistake, it isn't out of character. Now, IF I throw an INT:20 Spellslinger at you guys - THEN I might argue Dinwat Jr. isn't dumb enough to make that mistake. :D

stormraven wrote:
Gah! I missed that. I forgot you had Mirror Images up. Don't roll yet... Resolved. :( Dammit, I don't get to snap your character in half in your first battle. Color me disappointed.
Orin Vanderwhal wrote:
Well, Popeye might need to make a Fort save vs Nausea for smelling the load that Orin probably just dropped in his pants. ;-)

LOL. I can live with that.


Quick question--when I almost got cut in half, you mentioned that I might want to use one or more Hero Points. How many Hero Points do I have?


DM

You have three total, and that is the maximum number possible without feats, magic devices, spells, etc.


Cool. I've never played with Hero Points before, so this will be a good place for me to see how they work out.

Have any of you guys used the Critical Hit Deck before? I'm considering getting it, but it has mixed reviews.


DM
Duh Rules wrote:

At 1st level, a white-haired witch gains the ability to use her hair as a weapon. This functions as a primary natural attack with a reach of 5 feet. The hair deals X DAM plus the witch’s INT modifier. In addition, whenever the hair strikes a foe, the witch can attempt to grapple that foe with her hair as a SWIFT action without provoking an attack of opportunity, using her INT modifier in place of her STR modifier when making the combat maneuver check. When a white-haired witch grapples a foe in this way, she does not gain the grappled condition.

At 4th level and every four levels thereafter, a white-haired witch’s hair adds 5 feet to its reach, to a maximum of 30 feet at 20th level.

In addition, a white-haired witch further improves her ability to control her hair as she progresses in level, gaining the following abilities:

Constrict (Ex): At 2nd level, when the white-haired witch’s hair successfully grapples an opponent, it can begin constricting her victim as a SWIFT action, dealing damage equal to that of its attack.

Trip (Ex): At 4th level, a white-haired witch who successfully strikes a foe with her hair can attempt a combat maneuver check to trip the creature as a SWIFT action.

Pull (Ex): At 6th level, a white-haired witch who successfully strikes a foe with her hair can attempt a combat maneuver check to pull the creature 5 feet closer to her as a SWIFT action.

This ability replaces Hex.

Reference

Key Phrases:
1) whenever the hair strikes a foe, the witch can attempt to grapple that foe with her hair as a SWIFT action
2) who successfully strikes a foe with her hair can attempt a combat maneuver check to trip
3) a white-haired witch’s hair adds 5 feet to its reach, to a maximum of 30 feet at 20th level.
4) using her INT modifier in place of her STR modifier when making the combat maneuver check

OK, this is a discussion, not a ruling. Here's how I literally read/interpret these phrases. Feel free to reality check me.

The Witch gets to attack from a distance with his/her hair. Unlike a normal attack which requires a single ATT or CM roll, the witch's attack requires one or two attack rolls.

Standard Attack - the Witch rolls an attack using a STANDARD or FULL Action:
ATT roll based on BAB + STR + Other stuff
DAM roll based on BAB + INT + Other stuff

CM Attack - the Witch rolls a STANDARD or FULL Action Attack followed by a SWIFT:
ATT roll based on BAB + STR + Other stuff
CM roll based on BAB + INT + Other stuff
Damage or other effects depend on what CM maneuver is tried.

Just touching briefly on Orin's AoO on Popeye. Based on this reading of the rules, his first roll would have been a Hair 'Hit' standard ATT against Popeye's AC. THEN he would have needed to make a second roll - a CM roll vs Popeye's CMD.

Assuming any Hair CM attempt requires two rolls, the larger question is whether a CM AoO attempt by a witch can legitimately be made - since it may be considered more than a single attack (requiring one attack roll to hit with the Hair and a second roll to CM the opponent). It is worth noting that the definition of AoO specifies a 'single attack' - which could mean either one 'attack' regardless of the number of rolls to make the hit happen OR it literally refers to an single Action - whether STANDARD, SWIFT, or FULL. Depending on how you parse that definition... a Witch may only be allowed to do a standard Hair 'Hit' on an AoO because a Hair CM requires a STANDARD plus a SWIFT action.

Now, a more 'middle of the road' interpretation would allow the CM as part of the AoO, if the entire thing constitutes a 'single attack' BUT the limitation would then be that the character would need to have a Swift action available for the attack and once that single Swift action is used - either from the current or next round - then the witch would no longer be able to do a CM Attack... having spent the Swift action on an AoO.

Thoughts? Opinions?


DM
mbauers wrote:

Cool. I've never played with Hero Points before, so this will be a good place for me to see how they work out.

Have any of you guys used the Critical Hit Deck before? I'm considering getting it, but it has mixed reviews.

I've never used the Critical Hit Deck but, back in the day, my IRL group ginned up a % table to simulate random effects of critical hits. I really didn't like it. I'm a bit leery of this latest version... much in the same way I'm leery of the Critical Fumble Deck. There is enough randomness in combats that additional effects seems punitive. But I look at it from the point of view of what my crit'ing baddies might do to the heroes and how irritating such effects might be.


Well, I disagree a bit, and here's why:

"At 1st level, a white-haired witch gains the ability to use her hair as a weapon. This functions as a primary natural attack with a reach of 5 feet. The hair deals X DAM plus the witch’s INT modifier. In addition, whenever the hair strikes a foe, the witch can attempt to grapple that foe with her hair as a SWIFT action without provoking an attack of opportunity, using her INT modifier in place of her STR modifier when making the combat maneuver check."

The first sentence is the most important. My hair is a weapon. I would rule that it's a natural weapon, as it is a "weapon that functions as a natural attack".

Whether it is ruled a weapon or natural weapon, I can use it to make trip attempts. Since I have 10 ft reach, when the 'clops moves through my threatened area to get to Jofram, he would trigger an AoO, and I choose to use a trip instead of a regular attack (just like someone could choose to trip with a whip or their hand instead of taking a regular AoO).

As far as the grab, constrict, trip, and pull abilities go, they require swift actions. Therefore, they can only be used on my turn. So if I use a standard or full attack on my turn and hit someone with my hair, I can THEN choose to use a swift action to constrict, trip, etc.

Of course, I have greater grapple, so my planned combo is: Standard--hit you. Swift--grapple you. Move--grapple again to pin you. All the while, I'm not "grappled". :-)


stormraven wrote:
mbauers wrote:

Cool. I've never played with Hero Points before, so this will be a good place for me to see how they work out.

Have any of you guys used the Critical Hit Deck before? I'm considering getting it, but it has mixed reviews.

I've never used the Critical Hit Deck but, back in the day, my IRL group ginned up a % table to simulate random effects of critical hits. I really didn't like it. I'm a bit leery of this latest version... much in the same way I'm leery of the Critical Fumble Deck. There is enough randomness in combats that additional effects seems punitive. But I look at it from the point of view of what my crit'ing baddies might do to the heroes and how irritating such effects might be.

Yeah, and one of the results is decapitation. I mean, a mundane kukri can function as a vorpal weapon if I'm lucky enough? A peasant has a 1 in 400 chance of decapitating an ancient wyrm (well, ok, a 1 in 400 chance times the number of decapitation cards in the deck, but you get the idea, hehe)


DM
mbauers wrote:
Yeah, and one of the results is decapitation. I mean, a mundane kukri can function as a vorpal weapon if I'm lucky enough? A peasant has a 1 in 400 chance of decapitating an ancient wyrm (well, ok, a 1 in 400 chance times the number of decapitation cards in the deck, but you get the idea, hehe)

Right. And that is the problem I have with it. The lucky half-blind Goblin could lop off the head of your 20th level uber-badass that you've been playing for three years. No matter how much 'randomness' a player likes, I'm fairly certain you'd have one incredibly pissed player if that was the result. :)

FWIW - thanks for your thoughts on the Hair issue and I don't think you need to consider it a disagreement between us since, as I said, I am seeking opinions not making a statement of my beliefs on the subject.


stormraven wrote:
mbauers wrote:
Yeah, and one of the results is decapitation. I mean, a mundane kukri can function as a vorpal weapon if I'm lucky enough? A peasant has a 1 in 400 chance of decapitating an ancient wyrm (well, ok, a 1 in 400 chance times the number of decapitation cards in the deck, but you get the idea, hehe)

Right. And that is the problem I have with it. The lucky half-blind Goblin could lop off the head of your 20th level uber-badass that you've been playing for three years. No matter how much 'randomness' a player likes, I'm fairly certain you'd have one incredibly pissed player if that was the result. :)

FWIW - thanks for your thoughts on the Hair issue and I don't think you need to consider it a disagreement between us since, as I said, I am seeking opinions not making a statement of my beliefs on the subject.

Oh yeah, sorry, I didn't mean I disagreed with you personally. I saw that you were just looking for a discussion of the issue. I just meant I disagreed with those different interpretations. :-)

I just hope this dude lives long enough for me to pin him, because the imagery of that is just too awesome for it NOT to happen, hehe.


Hmmm...ok let me take a stab at this:

The way I interpret the CM check is it would be OK to allow the check in addition to the initial AoO attack. My reasoning for this is the initial ruling stated the CM is considered a Free Action, which means it could be tacked on to the AoO. Plus, keep in mind the CM will not trigger if the AoO fails to hit. IOW, if Orin misses with the AoO, he does not have the opportunity to make any CM check.

Orin, I am not sure if you can make a Trip attack as an AoO, although I seem to remember that question coming up with Jayse and using a Trip as an AoO. I believe SR allowed it earlier (correct?). If this initial AoO is a trip attack, I would rule it as using STR instead of INT as the mod, however.

PS: I am nor altogether keen on the Crit decks, esp in a PbP environment. If you bring those into play, then things like called shots would also need to be added. HP is an abstract system and has always been waaaaaay back since Basic DnD, he he.


Ushari Velnokal wrote:

Hmmm...ok let me take a stab at this:

The way I interpret the CM check is it would be OK to allow the check in addition to the initial AoO attack. My reasoning for this is the initial ruling stated the CM is considered a Free Action, which means it could be tacked on to the AoO. Plus, keep in mind the CM will not trigger if the AoO fails to hit. IOW, if Orin misses with the AoO, he does not have the opportunity to make any CM check.

Orin, I am not sure if you can make a Trip attack as an AoO, although I seem to remember that question coming up with Jayse and using a Trip as an AoO. I believe SR allowed it earlier (correct?). If this initial AoO is a trip attack, I would rule it as using STR instead of INT as the mod, however.

PS: I am nor altogether keen on the Crit decks, esp in a PbP environment. If you bring those into play, then things like called shots would also need to be added. HP is an abstract system and has always been waaaaaay back since Basic DnD, he he.

It was originally called a free action, but according to the SRD it has been ruled that it was supposed to be a swift action (I think by James Jacobs). It hasn't made the official errata YET, but it will at some point (free actions would be AWESOME, btw. I mean, I could potentially hit you and then grab, constrict, trip, and pull, since I can take as many free actions as I want).

Here's why you can make a trip attempt when making an AoO:

From the SRD:
Definition of AoO:
"An attack of opportunity is a single melee attack..."

Definition of a trip:
"You can attempt to trip your opponent in place of a melee attack."

Note how this is different from, say, a bull rush:
"You can make a bull rush as a standard action or as part of a charge, in place of the melee attack."

Something else to consider:

From the FAQ/Errata:
If you want to make a trip combat maneuver, do you have to use a weapon with the trip special feature?

No. When making a trip combat maneuver, you don't have to use a weapon with the trip special feature--you can use any weapon. For example, you can trip with a longsword or an unarmed strike, even though those weapons don't have the trip special feature. Note that there is an advantage to using a weapon with the trip special feature (a.k.a. a "trip weapon") when making a trip combat maneuver: if your trip attack fails by 10 or more, you can drop the trip weapon instead of being knocked prone.

As my hair is a "weapon", it can make trip attempts. As a trip can make AoO, my action should be allowed.

Not trying to sound too argumentative or "rules-lawyerish", but I'm pretty tired and wanted to type this in quickly before I went to bed.

Good night everyone!


DM

Hey, Eric, there was an errata to the original Witch definition by James Jacobs which states that all of the CMs for the Witch are supposed to be Swift not Free actions. You can debate what the intent of that change means. :)


stormraven wrote:
Hey, Eric, there was an errata to the original Witch definition by James Jacobs which states that all of the CMs for the Witch are supposed to be Swift not Free actions. You can debate what the intent of that change means. :)

Simulpost! :-)


SR, I wasn't saying the change by JJ wasn't warranted. I think it was to prevent the abuse of the player who says "Oh, lookie here I get an unlimited number of free actions! I will have my Witch do a Trip, then a Bull Rush, AND a Pin! Hey, they are all free actions, right?". Changing it to a Swift action is fine in my book, all I was trying to say the additional CM is allowable in that specific case ONLY. IOW ,usually a swift action can only take place on your turn but the CM check would be an exception to that rule, IMHO.

Jeez you guys type fast...:P

EDIT: Matt, I do agree Orin should be allowed to Trip as an AoO, it makes sense to me IMO.


DM

So just to be clear... are you both agreeing that for a Witch to do a Trip as their action, he/she makes a standard ATT (STAND) roll to 'hit' with the hair and then, as a SWIFT action, would make a CM roll to trip?

To my knowledge, there is no other 'weapon' that has this requirement which makes me wonder if following the basic "you can trip as an AoO" is appropriate since it seems that the premise of the hair's attack is that it must hit someone before there is any chance to perform a specific CM.

It seems to me you are suggesting there is one set of standards when the character attacks with hair and another set when responding to an AoO. Or am I reading you guys wrong?


SR, I think the Witch has BOTH options here available to choose from.

IOW,

  • Option 1: Declare AoO as a Trip attack (using Str as the Ability modifier). NO option to add an additional CM check assuming the Trip attack succeeds.

  • Option 2: Declare Standard attack as AoO, with the Trip CM (using INT as the ability mod) as a Swift action, assuming the AoO hits.


STONE-FACED KILLA

I agree with mbauer, too. And for the reasons he listed out. The hair is a natural attacks (and plays by all the natural attack rules). It's just a natural attack that gains a lot of additional bells and whistles as the witch progresses in level.

Quick Note: I don't think it's generally a big deal that a witch gets all these additional bells and whistles because even a witch optimized to the hilt for combat maneuvers is only going to do okay with their hair maneuvers. I mean, they're a low-BAB, low-hit die class who try to trip/grapple/whatever their opponents. The odds aren't in their favor. Obviously Orin's gestalt build changes that because he's taken something that's 'only okay' on the witch and synergized it with the biggest, baddest combat maneuver beast in the rules: the Lore Warden.

stormravn wrote:
are you both agreeing that for a Witch to do a Trip as their action, he/she makes a standard ATT (STAND) roll to 'hit' with the hair and then, as a SWIFT action, would make a CM roll to trip?

Mostly, with one caveat. "... to do a Trip as their action, he/she makes a standard ATT (STAND) roll to 'hit'...". One little nitpick here. It's not necessary for a trip to be a standard action. As mbauer pointed out, trip is one of the combat maneuvers that states it can happen "in place of a melee attack". Which means that on a full attack, it can happen multiple times. Jayse is a good example of this. On a flurry he can use a trip for any of his norma flurry attacks... not just restricted to one as his standard action.

So, as was the case here with the cyclops, he provoked an AoO from the area threatened by the hair. In place of a standard, damage-dealing attack, Orin used a trip attempt. The trip attempt isn't' allowed because of the witch's ability to make a rider trip attempt when successfully attacking with the hair. The trip was allowed per the Trip combat maneuver rules by way of substituting it "in place of a melee attack".

stormraven wrote:
To my knowledge, there is no other 'weapon' that has this requirement which makes me wonder if following the basic "you can trip as an AoO" is appropriate since it seems that the premise of the hair's attack is that it must hit someone before there is any chance to perform a specific CM.

I hear what you're saying here, but the difference is that the tacked-on CM is in addition to the usual benefits of having a natural attack. One of those benefits being the ability to trip instead of do damage (as is the case with any weapon/natural attack). From what I can tell, this ability is a bit of a corner case because there is no other ability or weapon exactly like it. But that's fine to me because it's a class feature. The closest analogy I can come up with is the Bear's Grab ability or the wolf's trip ability (though the analogy does fall a bit short because these are free actions allowing only one additional roll type where-as the hair's ability is a swift action allowing a few options). The bear can make an attack with its claw, then -- if it hits -- make a free grab attempt. If we had a bear standing in for Orin, the bear could have made a trip attempt with his claw instead of a regular attack (this is analogous to Orin forgoing his hair's special ability to deal damage + trip to simply trip reactively), and the result of that primary roll would have been what went against the cyclops's CMD to drop it to the ground...

stormraven wrote:
It seems to me you are suggesting there is one set of standards when the character attacks with hair and another set when responding to an AoO. Or am I reading you guys wrong?

No, that's about right. Orin could make the trip because he made his trip attempt "in place of a melee attack" -- the melee attack being the AoO. Had he tried to deal damage in the hopes of following up with the trip allowed by his hair's special ability, it wouldn't' have worked because he can't spend the swift action necessary to make the followup trip attempt.

Does that make sense?


STONE-FACED KILLA

Regarding crit decks: I"m not the biggest fan either.

Yes, it provides some entertainment in the right game, but Stormy has the right of it. Just from a sheer number's game, the players will generally be faced with far more crits than they'll dish out (generally). That being the case, it just makes it likely that you end up with maimed/comatose/worm-feeding players really, really fast.

In the right game (where people know to build for the crit deck and build characters they're fine having God-knows-what happen to them in every single fight), it can be humorous or exciting.

I just don't want to introduce it to a game like this because... well... I like Jayse. Having him insta-gibbed by a lucky scrub trash-mob would frustrate me. :)


STONE-FACED KILLA

Also, were we waiting to progress combat to have his hashed out? Or is everyone waiting on me to move things forward with Jayse?


DM
Jayse wrote:
Also, were we waiting to progress combat to have his hashed out? Or is everyone waiting on me to move things forward with Jayse?

Waitin' on you, Chief. As I think I stated in the thread, we're playing through the rest of this combat using Matt's assumed hair AoO rules regardless of what the final decision is...

SO GET YOUR ASS IN GEAR, SOLDIER, AND KILL THAT #&&#(&#@$(*&%ing CYCLOPS!


STONE-FACED KILLA

Hmmm.... rolls = not so good. :(

Hopefully him being prone will help a bit.


STONE-FACED KILLA

I'm curious about other people's perspectives on situations like the one between Jayse and Popeye.

Jayse is giving an ultimatum. He's honestly telling the man to do something or Jayse will attack. He clearly wants to have the man take a specific action -- which would indicate that some kind of skill roll should be necessary because I'm trying to influence/change the target's actions. But at the same time, Jayse isn't' necessarily intimidating him. It's just the truth. Jayse isn't relying on his own scariness to coerce the man to do it... he will kill him if the man doesn't comply.

Thoughts?

It's mostly an academic question. I'm obviously fine with Stormy asking for a roll, and Im fine with whatever outcome in Jayse's specific situation.


Jayse, I have to go with SR's interpretation here. It is clear looking at the description of the Intimidate skill that is what Jayse is trying to do here. Now SR may throw some circumstance bonuses here, but he is not required to do that.

Which begs the question, why doesn't Jayse have any ranks in Intimidate??? O_O


DM

Part of the problem is that what is written in a post can be read in different ways. I initially read your post as Jayse trying to convince Popeye to give up - hence a Diplo or Intimidate roll.

If you are making a definitive statement and not bluffing, then having a little blue text that says that or explains what you are trying to achieve would help out. If you WERE Bluffing, then I'd ask for a Bluff roll.


STONE-FACED KILLA

I can dig. I'm not saying there shouldn't be a roll. It just strikes me as odd that someone in this situation can be giving an ultimatum and need to roll a intimidate.

I didn't give Jayse intimidate bcuase it didn't fit with how I wanted to play him and would have had to take ranks away from other more concept-integral skills to get him trained in it. I guess I didn't think about the general level of scary a guy as combat-efficient as Jayse can be.

: shrugs :

I guess I can rectify it next time we level.


DM

Again, I'm flexible on this. Had I a better idea of what you were thinking, I wouldn't have needed to ask for a roll in this particular case.


Lol. I seriously just wanted people's thoughts on situations like this in general. I didn't mean to bring the current situation into question.


DM

OK, maybe I'm slow on the uptake or maybe I have no patience for abstractions... but I find some of the arguments presented hard to understand. So let's get down to the nut of this - the mechanics. What I want to see is what you think are the basic 'formulas'. Here's an example:

AoO Attack (options):

Option #1 (Hitting for Damage):
HIT: 1d20 + Mods + STR Mod
DAM: Dice + Mods + INT Mod

Option #2 (CM Check cause Trip):
HIT: 1d20 + Mods + INT Mod <-- Does not count against Swift 'Trip' Limit
DAM: Tripped

Attacks on Orin's Turn:

(Hit for Damage either STAND or FULL Action):
HIT: 1d20 + Mods + STR Mod
DAM: Dice + Mods + INT Mod

(Grapple - STANDARD + SWIFT):
HIT: 1d20 + Mods + STR Mod (vs AC) - THEN - HIT: 1d20 + Mods + INT Mod (vs CMD)
DAM: Grapple

(Constrict - STANDARD + SWIFT):
HIT: 1d20 + Mods + STR Mod (vs AC) - THEN - HIT: 1d20 + Mods + INT Mod (vs CMD)
DAM: Constriction (Dice + Mods + INT Mod)

(Trip - STANDARD/FULL + SWIFT):
HIT: 1d20 + Mods + STR Mod (vs AC) - THEN - HIT: 1d20 + Mods + INT Mod (vs CMD)
DAM: Trip


stormraven wrote:

OK, maybe I'm slow on the uptake or maybe I have no patience for abstractions... but I find some of the arguments presented hard to understand. So let's get down to the nut of this - the mechanics. What I want to see is what you think are the basic 'formulas'. Here's an example:

AoO Attack (options):

Option #1 (Hitting for Damage):
HIT: 1d20 + Mods + STR Mod
DAM: Dice + Mods + INT Mod

Option #2 (CM Check cause Trip):
HIT: 1d20 + Mods + INT Mod <-- Does not count against Swift 'Trip' Limit
DAM: Tripped

Attacks on Orin's Turn:

(Hit for Damage either STAND or FULL Action):
HIT: 1d20 + Mods + STR Mod
DAM: Dice + Mods + INT Mod

(Grapple - STANDARD + SWIFT):
HIT: 1d20 + Mods + STR Mod (vs AC) - THEN - HIT: 1d20 + Mods + INT Mod (vs CMD)
DAM: Grapple

(Constrict - STANDARD + SWIFT):
HIT: 1d20 + Mods + STR Mod (vs AC) - THEN - HIT: 1d20 + Mods + INT Mod (vs CMD)
DAM: Constriction (Dice + Mods + INT Mod)

(Trip - STANDARD/FULL + SWIFT):
HIT: 1d20 + Mods + STR Mod (vs AC) - THEN - HIT: 1d20 + Mods + INT Mod (vs CMD)
DAM: Trip

Ok, my responses in bold.

AoO Attack (options):

Option #1 (Hitting for Damage):
HIT: 1d20 + Mods + STR Mod
DAM: Dice + Mods + INT Mod

Agree

Option #2 (CM Check cause Trip):
HIT: 1d20 + Mods + INT Mod <-- Does not count against Swift 'Trip' Limit
DAM: Tripped

It should be Str Mod--I only get Int Mod if I hit you, then use a swift action to grapple

Attacks on Orin's Turn:

(Hit for Damage either STAND or FULL Action):
HIT: 1d20 + Mods + STR Mod
DAM: Dice + Mods + INT Mod

Agree

(Grapple - STANDARD + SWIFT):
HIT: 1d20 + Mods + STR Mod (vs AC) - THEN - HIT: 1d20 + Mods + INT Mod (vs CMD)
DAM: Grapple

It should be a standard to attack (as you have listed), then deal damage using Int mod. Then use a swift to Grapple, with the mods you have listed.

(Constrict - STANDARD + SWIFT):
HIT: 1d20 + Mods + STR Mod (vs AC) - THEN - HIT: 1d20 + Mods + INT Mod (vs CMD)
DAM: Constriction (Dice + Mods + INT Mod)

It should be a standard to attack (as you have listed), then deal damage using Int mod. Then use a swift to Constrict. This might actually use Str mod--have to check wording, but can't right now.

(Trip - STANDARD/FULL + SWIFT):
HIT: 1d20 + Mods + STR Mod (vs AC) - THEN - HIT: 1d20 + Mods + INT Mod (vs CMD)
DAM: Trip

It should be a standard to attack (as you have listed), then deal damage using Int mod. Then use a swift to Constrict. This might actually use Str mod--have to check wording, but can't right now.

Alternatively, I can just use a trip (or disarm or sunder, I believe) in place of one of my attacks. So I have BaB 7, and let's say I'm hasted.

That's 3 attacks.

I could full attack--first attack I trip you (Str mod)--hits, you're prone. Second attack I smack you for damage (Str to hit, Int to damage). Third attack I smack you for damage (Str to hit, Int to damage). Now, since I hit you, I use a swift to grapple you, using my Int mod.


STONE-FACED KILLA

MBauer is right in that on all of his Attack + CM actions there is still a damage roll involved for the preliminary attack (at least that's what I'm seeing).

About this last thing, though:

mbauer wrote:

{talking about full-attack} So I have BaB 7, and let's say I'm hasted.

That's 3 attacks.

I could full attack--first attack I trip you (Str mod)--hits, you're prone. Second attack I smack you for damage (Str to hit, Int to damage). Third attack I smack you for damage (Str to hit, Int to damage). Now, since I hit you, I use a swift to grapple you, using my Int mod.

This isn't right. The hair is a primary natural attack. Even on a full attack, any one natural attack can only be used once (with the exception of an extra Haste attack -- making two uses of the hair on any given round the max). And while it can be combined with a full attack with manufactured weapons, doing so makes it a secondary natural attack, incurring a -5 penalty and (if it was using STR to damage) reducing it to .5 STR. (Then we also have to determine if that same general principle applies to the INT bonus to damage -- which would reduce it to .5 INT modifier to damage if the hair is being used as a secondary natural attack… I say yes.)

So discounting AoO's, the most hair attacks he could make in one round would be one (and then of course the riding swift-action CM if it hits) or two (considering Haste).

As to the issue of using INT or STR on the CM rolls:
The wording leaves this open to interpretation a bit, from what I can tell.

The Rules (for convenience) wrote:

In addition, whenever the hair strikes a foe, the witch can attempt to grapple that foe with her hair as a free (swift) action* without provoking an attack of opportunity, using her Intelligence modifier in place of her Strength modifier when making the combat maneuver check. When a white-haired witch grapples a foe in this way, she does not gain the grappled condition.

… stuff ...

Trip (Ex): At 4th level, a white-haired witch who successfully strikes a foe with her hair can attempt a combat maneuver check to trip the creature as a free (swift) action*.

Pull (Ex): At 6th level, a white-haired witch who successfully strikes a foe with her hair can attempt a combat maneuver check to pull the creature 5 feet closer to her as a free (swift) action*.

By strict RAW, only the Grapple after successful attack allows the witch to substitute INT for STR on the attack roll, and it's the only one that doesn't provoke an AoO (feats not-withstanding).

But i don't think that's what was intended. I think it was intended that all the successful attack + CM rolls follow the rules of the grapple, they just didn't build in sufficient language to make that clear.

Given the lack of clarity, I'm fine with whatever interpretation.

Then one more set of oddities regarding the White Hair and grappling:
Basically, the hair becomes a natural weapon that is apparently intended to be used (at least in some circumstances) for grappling. Cool. I get that. Very neat ability.

Here's the weirdness:

From the Grapple Rules wrote:


Linky
As a standard action, you can attempt to grapple a foe, hindering his combat options. If you do not have Improved Grapple, grab, or a similar ability, attempting to grapple a foe provokes an attack of opportunity from the target of your maneuver. Humanoid creatures without two free hands attempting to grapple a foe take a –4 penalty on the combat maneuver roll. If successful, both you and the target gain the grappled condition (see the Appendices). If you successfully grapple a creature that is not adjacent to you, move that creature to an adjacent open space (if no space is available, your grapple fails). Although both creatures have the grappled condition, you can, as the creature that initiated the grapple, release the grapple as a free action, removing the condition from both you and the target. If you do not release the grapple, you must continue to make a check each round, as a standard action, to maintain the hold. If your target does not break the grapple, you get a +5 circumstance bonus on grapple checks made against the same target in subsequent rounds. Once you are grappling an opponent, a successful check allows you to continue grappling the foe, and also allows you to perform one of the following actions (as part of the standard action spent to maintain the grapple).

I bolded what I'm unsure of. Does the lack of hands used still apply? I mean, thematically, it seems silly, but the rules don't address it.

It seems like enforcing this rule gives a hefty penalty that probably would make the usual White Haired Witch all but incapable of actually using this ability, so I'm inclined to think this is an oversight.

Or is it addressed somewhere and I just missed it?


DM
Jayse the Well Versed wrote:
Even on a full attack, any one natural attack can only be used once (with the exception of an extra Haste attack -- making two uses of the hair on any given round the max).

0.0 - I've never heard this before. Clearly, its something in the rules I missed (no surprise there).


STONE-FACED KILLA

Yup... it's why animals and what-not don't obey the iterative attack system... unlike humanoid opponents.


Ooh, forgot about that. But if I use beast shape or something that gives me claws an bites, I could hair attack, swift grapple, claw, claw, bite. Might need to do that now, hehe.


STONE-FACED KILLA

Lol. Why do I suddenly have the mental image of a head-banging crocodile.


Because it's an awesome image? :)


Hey SR, I have a question--for my weapon training, I chose this:

Natural: unarmed strike and all natural weapons, such as bite, claw, gore, tail, and wing.

I'm using a cestus, which says this:

Cestus

The cestus is a glove of leather or thick cloth that covers the wielder from mid-finger to mid-forearm. The close combat weapon is reinforced with metal plates over the fingers and often lined with wicked spikes along the backs of the hands and wrists.

Benefit: While wearing a cestus, you are considered armed and your unarmed attacks deal normal damage. If you are proficient with a cestus, your unarmed strikes may deal bludgeoning or piercing damage. Monks are proficient with the cestus.

Drawback: When using a cestus, your fingers are mostly exposed, allowing you to wield or carry items in that hand, but the constriction of the weapon at your knuckles gives you a –2 penalty on all precision-based tasks involving that hand (such as opening locks).

Weapon Feature(s): monk

I bolded the part I'm wondering about. Would you still count an attack with a cestus as an unarmed strike for the purposes of me getting the weapon training bonus?

Sorry for yet another rules question, btw. ;-)


DM

Looking at the weapons list, the Unarmed Strike and Gauntlet are listed as Unarmed Attacks. While the Cestus and Spiked Gauntlet are considered Light Melee Weapons... so I read that as the Cestus being a weapon but if you elect to do an unarmed attack with it on - the damage is lethal.


STONE-FACED KILLA

If it helps, it's listed in UC (on the Fighter archetypes section) under the Expanded Weapon Groups under "Monk Weapons".


HP: 51/79 | | Anatomist (+1 to confirm Crits) | | Fav. Enemy +4 = Humans, Half-Humans, Undead

SR - just to make it easier (and because I just realized that I can,) I've created a list with pertinent post links for Jofram's gauntlet. These will be helpful to me, and possible you as well. Let me know if you think of any posts I should add to the list.


DM
Jofram wrote:
SR - just to make it easier (and because I just realized that I can,) I've created a list with pertinent post links for Jofram's gauntlet. These will be helpful to me, and possible you as well. Let me know if you think of any posts I should add to the list.

Cool! I'll check it out and let you know if I can think of any other posts you may want to link to.


DM
Jayse wrote:
If it helps, it's listed in UC (on the Fighter archetypes section) under the Expanded Weapon Groups under "Monk Weapons".

As always, Ben, if you think my ruling is off the mark or not in accordance with the rules - speak up.

901 to 950 of 1,264 << first < prev | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | next > last >>
Paizo / Messageboards / Paizo Community / Online Campaigns / Play-by-Post Discussion / SR's - Great Southern Isles (OOC) All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.

©2002–2014 Paizo Inc.®. Need help? Email customer.service@paizo.com or call 425-250-0800 during our business hours: Monday–Friday, 10 AM–5 PM Pacific Time. View our privacy policy. Paizo Inc., Paizo, the Paizo golem logo, Pathfinder, the Pathfinder logo, Pathfinder Society, GameMastery, and Planet Stories are registered trademarks of Paizo Inc., and Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pathfinder Adventure Card Game, Pathfinder Player Companion, Pathfinder Modules, Pathfinder Tales, Pathfinder Battles, Pathfinder Online, PaizoCon, RPG Superstar, The Golem's Got It, Titanic Games, the Titanic logo, and the Planet Stories planet logo are trademarks of Paizo Inc. Dungeons & Dragons, Dragon, Dungeon, and Polyhedron are registered trademarks of Wizards of the Coast, Inc., a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc., and have been used by Paizo Inc. under license. Most product names are trademarks owned or used under license by the companies that publish those products; use of such names without mention of trademark status should not be construed as a challenge to such status.