|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I completely object to this proposed break and will continue posting regardless.
Now... For the continuing Adventures of Garif Stonetoe! Watch Garif sift through the rocks on the edge of the shore! Hear Garif's dissertation on 38 forms of cave rock!
The party returns to 5 pages of gameplay posts on the Rocky Road of Garif Stonetoe!
Thanks for bearing with me while I was traveling and posting from my phone! I am back for a couple of days, and then we'll officially pause for GenCon.
|
Okay, so poking around, it seems like there is some dispute about whether or not a natural 20 confirms a critical hit when a 20 is only hitting because it's a 20. If we say that the 20 would confirm, then it is a crit threat. It's just a skeleton and I don't want to go back and retcon a roll for a critical confirmation, but I may handle it differently if the situation comes up again, especially if I can find a more recent thread with greater consensus.
I'm not entirely sure I'm understanding your point, since you rolled a 20 for the claw attack but did not roll to confirm that crit threat. The initial natural 20 is clearly both a hit and a crit threat:
When you make an attack roll and get a natural 20 (the d20 shows 20), you hit regardless of your target's Armor Class, and you have scored a "threat," meaning the hit might be a critical hit (or "crit").
I don't see how that can be read any other way. You got a 20 on the die, so you hit and have scored a threat. A roll to confirm that results in a hit against the target's AC would confirm it, as we all know.
Am I missing your point or is there some other rules language somewhere that introduces ambiguity?
|
|
If the confirmation roll also results in a hit against the target's AC, your original hit is a critical hit. (The critical roll just needs to hit to give you a crit, it doesn't need to come up 20 again.)
I'm guessing the uncertainty comes from the bolded text above, but I think the first part of the parenthetical text resolves it - your confirmation roll just needs to be a hit, which a nat 20 would be.
I've never heard anyone question whether a nat 20 confirms, and I think any doubts about it on the boards spring from the few folks who want to read the rules in their own particular ways, rather than a large group who really read the rule that way. But that's just my thinking on it, without any empirical support.
|
|
I don't think there is ambiguity in Pathfinder rules.This seems like a fun quote to take out of context.
*whistles innocently*
You are correct. I should have said there is no ambiguity in that part of the Pathfinder rules.
Having said that, Garif then proved me wrong. I hadn't realized there were questions about if a natural 20 on the confirmation roll still counted as an auto hit. I have always run it that way. If the opponent already needs a natural 20 to hit, they are in a lot of trouble.
Dennis explained the ambiguity. I now lean toward saying that a natural 20 confirms because the roll to confirm is still an attack roll; I just don't think that it's worth retconning in this particular case. Based on the old threads, there are folks local to me who do not believe that it confirms, which is probably why that was in my head.
Yes, I leave tomorrow as well. We'll reconvene next week.
I'm back! But since others are still traveling, let's officially reconvene Wednesday.
Yes! I really enjoyed our Saturday evening chat and our Sunday morning breakfast. Also, 1-00 was my only game in the Sagamore, and I'm so glad I got to play with you!
|
I've been back for a couple of days, but am still getting mentally settled.
The eclipse was FREAKING AWESOME. If you get a chance to see a total eclipse, take it. It's a phase change away from seeing even the deepest partial solar eclipse.
There is truth here: https://xkcd.com/1880/
(Except that I'd nudge Planetary Conjunction above Supermoon.)
Hey folks, I'll have to get the map for the next bit up tonight or tomorrow morning. I seriously underestimated how tired I'd be the week after GenCon, and I'm still finishing up a freelance assignment.
|
|
I'll ask it here so we can hopefully handle this consistently.
I have not been applying cover to my bow shots. It is technically a bonus to AC so the monster stats change, not my to hit. However, given how Pathfinder math works it turns into the exact same effect.
I've seen others apply the cover to their attacks.
How do we as a group want to handle it? Should I start putting it into my attack line, or assume the GM will apply the appropriate bonus to the monster AC?
My preference is the same as Bret's. Since cover is an AC change, I prefer to have the GM account for the effect rather than the player.
|
|
My preference is the same as Bret's. Since cover is an AC change, I prefer to have the GM account for the effect rather than the player.
I'll try to remember this. I play a lot of archers and I always add the cover penalty in to my attack rolls - but I clearly indicate in the dice code text that I'm including it.
|
My preference is the same as Bret's. Since cover is an AC change, I prefer to have the GM account for the effect rather than the player.I'll try to remember this. I play a lot of archers and I always add the cover penalty in to my attack rolls - but I clearly indicate in the dice code text that I'm including it.
Ditto. As a DM, I find it helpful for players to keep track of all the things (they're aware of) that affect their attacks; I've got enough other things to track.
I'll endeavor to remember your preference and allow you to handle cover. Do you find it helpful to be reminded that it's there, or would you rather I don't concern myself with it at all?
Given that this varies between GMs, I think everyone basically has to say which way they're handling it. I'm not sure that there's any way around that.
|
|
While we're on the topic of minis, every time there's a new map, Nico's icon (which is a nice set of anagrams) keeps getting changed from the black panther to some sort of cute tiger thing. Not sure why it's happening, but it's confusing him greatly!
Damiar - more on the icons: Wh do you prefer them circular? Just curious. And second, how do you do that in google slides?
|
|
I prefer them circular because I can then see the corners of the grid. You can crop any image into a circle by selecting it, hitting the crop button, and choosing the circle shape. I also add color borders while I am at it for visibility. You can do all these things in Slides.
Hmm
PS What color do you want for Nico's border?
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Some good reasons for the circular minis, and I like the square vs circular model also, will have to think about adopting that in my own games. And thanks for explaining how to do it.
As to the color of Nico's border, I changed it to white, for good reason. Nico is named after a dear, departed cat of mine (still referred to as our 'first born' by my partner and me, despite our having two human children now). Nico was all black, with a white patch on his chest, so the white border fits. He also had many toes, so he looked like he had thumbs, he was very adept at walking on his hind legs, and he taught himself to use the toilet, so Garif's Nico has a high bar to clear to compete with the original Nico.
[/cat nostalgia]
Oh no! Janira!
|
|
Bummer about Janira!
On a different note, I have a question for you all, since I have a team of crack GM's here. This contains a key spoiler (though obliquely worded) for Treacherous Waves, so I'll spoiler it for those who don't want to see behind the curtain.
|
|
I don't think she is dead yet, just unconscious.
He returns to say that no, it really isn't possible to bring that person there. The NPC basically went off until he recovered his equilibrium. A single skill roll may be enough to make him fear for his life, but that doesn't suddenly make him spill is most closely guarded secret in my opinion.
It is the same result, but at least they see that yes the intimidate was successful.