Paizo Top Nav Branding
  • Hello, Guest! |
  • Sign In |
  • My Account |
  • Shopping Cart |
  • Help/FAQ
About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ
Owl

Ascalaphus's page

FullStarFullStar Venture-Agent. 6,405 posts (6,445 including aliases). 78 reviews. No lists. 1 wishlist. 10 Pathfinder Society characters. 1 alias.


RSS

1 to 50 of 6,405 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
Sovereign Court ** Venture-Agent aka Ascalaphus

Minimum required to cast the spell, unless specified otherwise, seems to be the norm.

Sovereign Court ** Venture-Agent aka Ascalaphus

"You were trying to get the jump on the swarm, but it reacted more suddenly than you expected."

I fully agree with the OP's handling.

Sovereign Court ** Venture-Agent aka Ascalaphus

I ran it this afternoon and we had a good time. I thought it would be far too easy, but the final fight (high tier) was rather tough on my players. The barbarian got sneak attacked to unconscious-rage-death while flanked by Davian, and then the swashbuckler and magus both got paralysed.

Bottom line: while the normal ghouls don't have very impressive to-hit, fighting ghouls is always risky with the paralysis. Davian's 3 attacks at +8 to hit and DC 14 paralysis save is particularly scary; if one of the first attacks hits he might get sneak attack damage on follow-up attacks even if he didn't have a flank already.

Sovereign Court ** Venture-Agent aka Ascalaphus

Sebastian Hirsch wrote:
I think that the best way to keep enemies alive, would be to deal a lot of nonlethal damage, if enemies drop unconscious, chances of survival are significantly better.

True enough. An enemy that's still fighting back is a bigger target for the PCs than one that isn't. More chances to suddenly take a lethal crit.

Sovereign Court ** Venture-Agent aka Ascalaphus

I agree on technical terms with Andrew Christian; a non-sentient can't be a worshipper.

That said, I think that ruling (animals are non-sentient no matter how smart they are) was a bad ruling. For every other creature type, Int > 2 signifies sentience; why not animals?

If animals were not meant to become sentient, why can they gain Int > 2?

Sovereign Court

Re: Tarxx and Remove Paralysis;

I generally enjoy reading your analyses and find them insightful. However in this case -

1) Remove Paralysis targets up to 4 creatures. Trading 1 action to unlock the actions of 4 PCs is a good trade.
2) Remove Paralysis works at close range. Unlocking someone standing elsewhere can improve battlefield dominance because you're expanding total threatened area of the party. Also, that PC might be standing next to an enemy he could full-attack, while you could only go there with a move action first.
3) Action advantage: paralyzed PCs could delay until after the cleric.
4) Paralysis might last more than one round. Meaning, the enemy took one action to deny your ally many actions. Spending one action to regain many actions is probably a good trade.
5) A significant cause of paralysis is as a rider effect on melee attacks (ghouls and their higher-level brethren). That means that if nothing is done, a CdG may happen next round. PC death is a massive drain on party resources because the PC will be unavailable or weakened for multiple encounters. Preventing death is a valuable meta-tactic for winning multiple subsequent encounters.
6) Remove Paralysis can also cure the Staggered condition. If your standard action can bring the iterative attacks and mobility of 1-4 other PCs back into the game, that's also an attractive trade. This makes the spell more versatile and therefore a better choice to keep in your arsenal.

Also a meta-argument: I think we should award a small premium to any choice that brings "locked out" players back into the game sooner, because being able to participate is important to enjoying the game.

Obviously not every condition is equally dire. Nobody bothers to spend an action in combat against Dazzled. Shaken is not necessarily worth removing, although it may be worth it if you suspect enemies can upgrade it to Frightened or Panicked; a fleeing PC takes a long time before he can rejoin the fight, and might actually flee in a direction that triggers additional encounters. Dropping your best weapons and provoking AoOs for fleeing is also a hassle and bad action economy.

If a condition is imposing serious disadvantage on your party (action economy, health risks, effectiveness of actions) then not removing it requires a good argument. Those could be: "I could instead do something worse to the enemy". But make sure you critically assess whether your other action is really that powerful in comparison.

Sovereign Court

PossibleCabbage wrote:
Can't each player take care of emergency (i.e. I have a strong chance of dying the next round) healing with potions, or just avoid fatal damage with tactics? There's absolutely value in being able to remove nasty status effects from party members who can't do so for themselves (e.g. paralysis) but if the simple issue is "HP loss" it seems unreasonable to expect another player, who might have something better to do with their actions ("better" as in "ends the fight quicker, with fewer resources consumed") than to do what you could do with a 5' step and a healing potion (carry some in case of emergencies, they keep you not-dead).

To hear some people say it, you should be able to avoid all serious harm with good tactics. I strongly disagree with this. For example, recently we played the 8-9 tier of an adventure and ran into an edavagor. That's supposedly a CR 12 monster (yeah right), but it has 5 attacks at +25 to hit, DR 10/good, high SR, high AC, high HP, reach, and a 16d6 breath weapon (reflex 24 halves). You fight it in a 20ft wide corridor with very little to hide behind.

You're going to get hurt. It went to town on our optimized paladin/monk/misfortune oracle/champion of Irori that's normally unhittable and then tore into the gunslinger behind him.

We actually managed to survive rather handsomely, but this was due to receiving a lot of specialist buffs. Communal Resist Fire (20), Blessing of Fervor, Communal Align Weapon (Good) being the most significant. This was all coming from the support cleric. Some emergency healing also helped to keep both those PCs in the fight.

PossibleCabbage wrote:
In my experience the players who are most insistent about "someone must be the healer" are the ones who get indignant when the cleric doesn't spend their turn healing them when they're down less than 25% of their total HP. It's not like there are penalties for being wounded in this game, so it's not any class's job description to keep anybody else topped off on HP. It's reasonable to ask party members to drop what they're doing and stabilize you, or fix things that you are incapable of fixing on your own that will take you out of the fight, but that's only a fairly small part of what "heal me" covers.

IMO the best reason to heal someone would be "he's better at defeating this monster than I am, and if I don't heal him he can't full attack next round". You don't need to heal every scratch, but if you can prevent someone from dropping to 0, going prone, dropping weapons, and not getting a full attack, that can be very economical. So if you see an enemy focus-firing on an important teammate and that teammate is going into the danger zone, it may be time.

Sovereign Court ** Venture-Agent aka Ascalaphus

I recently almost fried a PC in Returned To Sky;

Spoiler:
Those auto-resetting laser/plasma traps are nasty. You're disoriented by the gravity trap, but +16 touch attacks for 6d6 damage per round is just mean.

As it turned out, Trap Sense got the PC's touch AC against it up to 23 and he took only 85 damage in two rounds instead of 135. Which is enough to scare a L9 PC...

Sovereign Court

Orfamay Quest wrote:
Ascalaphus wrote:


I'm all for using good consumables, but I don't think they're a complete answer. If I'm going up against a dragon, I'm much more interested in that high-caster-level Resist Energy. And there aren't any Death Ward potions, and a ring of Freedom of Movement is pretty expensive. You can get them on a scroll, but who's gonna cast it?

The sorcerer, with her charisma and tricked out UMD skill.

It's gonna have to be pretty tricked out to be sure of meeting that DC 27 to do a caster level 7 cleric spell. And he's also going to need to make a roll to fake a wisdom of 14 (DC 29). Those are pretty high DCs if you can't afford to fail.

On top of that, he's spending a move action to draw the scroll, and FoM and DW are both touch spells, so he might not manage that in a single round. But if you need either of those spells, you really can't wait. Because that's either a Swallow Whole (and little to none of your 2H stuff works while swallowed whole) or another round of negative levels or con drain. Which you'll need another consumable to cure. At this point it's getting pretty expensive, L4 spell scrolls are 700gp at least.

You can afford to do that every other fight at level 15, sure. But at level 7 it's not certain you can make the DC, and it's a hefty WBL tax even if you do.

Sovereign Court

First Aid Gloves are pretty sexy, but a scroll of ear-piercing scream is 1d6 damage, DC 11 save for half. Not so sexy. Same for the scroll of Remove Curse: do you really think a caster level 5 is going to cut it?

One of the reasons First Aid Gloves (talk about awkward acronym) are so sexy is that they're fast to use. Many consumables are pretty hard to use in the middle of a fight. Drawing a potion provokes. Drinking a potion provokes. And it's explicitly permitted to strike at the potion with the AoO.

I'm all for using good consumables, but I don't think they're a complete answer. If I'm going up against a dragon, I'm much more interested in that high-caster-level Resist Energy. And there aren't any Death Ward potions, and a ring of Freedom of Movement is pretty expensive. You can get them on a scroll, but who's gonna cast it? Right, the divine caster.

Sovereign Court ** Venture-Agent aka Ascalaphus

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Since 4E they've been playing around with giving some weapons a higher to-hit bonus for proficiency than others. Which isn't the craziest idea.

Personally I wouldn't mind a strongly consolidated weapon table, where you have say 20 statblocks for melee weapons and many marginally different weapons just use the same statblock. That makes it much easier to engineer things so that each of those 20 statblocks really has something different going for it.

Sovereign Court

Orfamay Quest wrote:
Davor wrote:


If you're going to be facing challenging monsters, they'll probably manage to hurt you a couple of times while you're fighting them. If you can consistently stop monsters from hurting you, are they really challenging?

Yes, as long as you were "challenged" to find some way to keep that from happening.

For example, if the wizard summons a Wall of Meat to keep the baddies away, it might be the case that no one in the party took hit point damage, but the wizard just burned one or several high level spells to keep putting "another brick in the Wall."

That wasn't Davor you're quoting, that was me.

What I'm getting at is, that if you can routinely keep enemies from getting to you with a summoned critter, those enemies weren't really challenging. If you can usually keep enemies at bay that way, there's some challenge, but it also means that sometimes you don't succeed and get hurt.

Orfamay Quest wrote:


Quote:


At low levels, you can often remedy it with some quick wand charges, but at higher levels, enemies do so much damage that a wand just doesn't go fast enough, and also wears out very fast.

You misunderstand the role of the wand. The wand is normally used out of combat, when it doesn't matter how long it takes, and you can if necessary spend two minutes burning twenty charges of the wand for 20d8+20 hit points. And, yes, that can burn out a wand quickly.... but the 750 gp per wand is pocket change at those levels.

My point is that if you do get hurt in combat and need the healing, the CLW wand doesn't cut it. And while the CLW wand is cost-effective, the higher-level wands that would heal "fast enough" are not so cheap.

Orfamay Quest wrote:


Ascalaphus wrote:


There is no striker/tank role. If your group is comprised primarily of ranged/"squishy" characters, you need to plan accordingly, and it's your fault if you die because you didn't have the tactical understanding of how to play with what you've been given.

Precisely. You don't need a "tank", you need an anvil -- someone that can keep the bad guys from hurting the squishies. This can be a summoned monster, a tripping wolf companion, an area-denial spell, or a simple tanglefoot bag.

Just remember that the druid's entangle spell can do a lot more to keep a twelvepack of kobolds away from the wizard and the sorcerer than the druid herself can.

That wasn't me, now you're quoting Davor under my name.

I think you're both also misinterpreting the point by focusing on a narrow definition of the word "tank". My point is that nobody expects a party to do very well if they can't somehow keep enemies from getting to any party member they like, or eventually destroy enemies. I'd call a wolf tasked with keeping enemies from getting to the party a tank as well, and a sorcerer destroying enemies with Scorching Ray spam is also a striker.

My point is: you don't expect a party succeed if they leave a major hole open such as:
- No plan to actually defeat enemies, apart from holding them off a long time and hoping they go home
- No plan to recover when the enemy gets in a nasty attack of some kind; which higher-level enemies will do quite a lot

Sovereign Court

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Davor wrote:

There is no striker/tank role. If your group is comprised primarily of ranged/"squishy" characters, you need to plan accordingly, and it's your fault if you die because you didn't have the tactical understanding of how to play with what you've been given.

A typical group in combat usually "needs" a hammer, arm, and anvil, with many of those roles being interchangeable depending on your class. Heck, I had a trip/dirty trick reach fighter that, for a vast majority of encounters, completely eliminated the need for healing because he could so efficiently keep the enemy locked down. If I had chosen to do so, he could probably have done it at range as an archer.

You don't need a tank, you don't need a healer, heck, you probably don't even need a dedicated DPR guy. You need sound tactical knowledge and an understanding of what your group needs. We went a REALLY long time without anyone as a healer AT ALL with the above character.

I think Tarxx's article is very interesting, but I get a bit uncomfortable when you start talking about it like it was an absolute decree handed down from the heavens. Further, I think "striker" and "tank" are widely known terms that make it easy to get your point across. The traditional understanding of "striker" and the "hammer" also aren't all that far apart; they're someone who kills enemies somehow.

So what I was getting at, is that you don't expect a party to do very well if there is nobody in the party that's actually good at killing enemies, if all they can do is keep them at bay.

But the other side of that is that it's naive to think that you can almost always prevent enemies from doing serious harm to you. If you can really consistently stop the enemies from doing real harm, they're by definition not challenging enemies.

PC healthcare is not merely casting cure spells like walking CLW wand. It involves several layers of safety;

1) Lifestyle choices. Well-built PCs, sound tactical maneuvering. This is mostly up to the other players.
2) Preventing harm in specific situations. This is where a cleric comes into play to cast stuff like Resist Energy. Preventing can be very efficient. Clerics do this a bit better than oracles especially in a multi-day conflict where you can adapt spell selection to enemies.
2a) Altering the situation: throwing up Walls, debuffing enemies. This requires real specialization when save DCs need to be high. To really stratosphere your caster stat, you'll have to give up some combat versatility.
3) First Aid. A PC has been hurt and needs immediate help to stay effective (Remove Blindness/Paralysis) or to even survive the fight (Breath of Life, Delay Poison). This is something oracles can be very good at because of their quantitiy of spells and spontaneously replicating the thing you need a lot of. Also, scrolls.
4) Long-term care. Removing negative levels, curses, diseases, petrification, ability drain. Raising the dead. Clerics do this best because you may need a wide selection of rarely-used spells and caster level can be important for dispelling/removing curses.
5) Continuity of Government. If all else fails, retreat with as much bodies as you can move. Or use tissue samples or something. Using spells like Obscuring Mist or Word of Recall, if you can't win this fight, get out of there and recover so you can try again under better circumstances.

In Tarxx's parlance, you're the hand in surgical latex glove. It is NOT a dumb role.

What makes this a powerful paradigm is that you work to avoid single-point failures. If something goes wrong, you don't lose, you start fixing it at the next line of defence.

Sovereign Court

I've seen an abyssal bloodrager in action that had AC 12 while raging. That PC worked quite well however by threatening massive damage to anyone coming within his 20ft threatened radius, and using trip/Blade Lash to keep them on the edge of it, prone.

Sovereign Court

My rule of thumb is that anyone regularly in melee should have at last level+15 AC, and you don't start thinking of yourself as a tank until clearly past level+20.

That said, I ran into a freak monster with +25/+25/+25/+25/+25 to hit at level 9 recently, so even that doesn't always work.

Sovereign Court

PossibleCabbage wrote:

I'll just repost what I wrote in the guides thread. I wanted to delete the post (so others didn't continue the derail) but couldn't figure out how. Hopefully a mod will clean that up. Anyway.

I personally view "the party is doomed without a dedicated healbot" to be a sign of poor game design, poor scenario design, or poor GMing. No player should ever feel obligated to play a specific kind of thing "because the party needs one" since "I am playing this character, instead of the character I want because the rest of the players wanted me to" is a good way to create intraparty strife, which results in everybody having a worse time. The point of the game, after all, is to have fun.

A party consisting of a Barbarian, a Swashbuckler, a Monk, and a Rogue should be able to go on adventures and have fun. They probably won't be able to face down as tough challenges as the party consisting of a Wizard, a Druid, an Oracle, and a Bard but that doesn't mean that the former party is a pack of useless fools wasting precious oxygen on Golarion (or wherever). The GM just needs to tweak the scope of the campaign and the difficulty of the antagonists in order to make sure the party is challenged appropriately (sometimes that means shifting up, sometimes down.)

I disagree with this sentiment. You wouldn't expect a party to fare very well in a fight-heavy scenario where nobody wanted to play the "mandatory role" of striker/tank to stand between monsters and squishies.

If you're going to be facing challenging monsters, they'll probably manage to hurt you a couple of times while you're fighting them. If you can consistently stop monsters from hurting you, are they really challenging?

The amount and type of hurt also changes as you level up. At low levels, you can often remedy it with some quick wand charges, but at higher levels, enemies do so much damage that a wand just doesn't go fast enough, and also wears out very fast. In addition, enemies inflict many different conditions. Like paralysis, blindness, severe ability damage or drain. Some of these can wait until the end of the adventure to be cured; some need to be cured immediately or there'll be corpses.

What also changes is that at low levels, PCs are relatively well able to substitute for each other. Melee fighter goes down? Archer ranger draws a sword and goes switch-hitting. Cleric steps up from second to front line with his mace. Wizard spends his blast spell in this fight instead of the next one, and the fighter will have to work harder in that one.

But at later levels, as everyone develops more special abilities, it's much harder to do that. If the archer goes down, the melee fighter doesn't have the feats to really be all that impressive against the enemy that's too fast to keep close to. And the caster cleric isn't doing enough melee damage to really replace that fighter that just dropped.

So keeping the enemy team from doing some focus fire and taking down a PC becomes much more important.

---

The term "healbot" also suggest a rather low-tactics appproach to being what I think is more properly called a "support cleric" (or other class variant). The SC does heal a frontliner if it looks like he might otherwise have to stop full attacking enemies, but he's also checking to see if it's time to break out the Communal Align Weapon spell to get through that DR/Good, or the Communal Resist Fire against the breath weapon. Should he lead with Blessing of Fervor or is it better to cast Freedom of Movement so the two-hander paladin can't be Grab-Constrict-Swallow Whole'd?

Such a support caster is a very full-scale role and starts to become very nice to have around level 5, and hard to survive without at level 9 or so. Before that time hitting a lot and very hard can be extremely effective, but enemies start throwing stranger and stranger attacks at you and a 2H melee dude often needs some help handling that.

The thing is, even back in 3.0 the need for a cleric that went beyond healbot was very clear. That's what the Spontaneous Cure Spells class feature comes from. Before, clerics might get angry comments from other players; "why did you prepare X instead Cure Annoying Wounds?". Clerics were guilt-tripped into being only healbots. Spontaneous Cure Spells circumvents that, because a cleric can provide healing without the "guilt" of preparing non-healing spells.

Sovereign Court

Another note: some monsters tend to have more treasure ("double", "triple"), while others less ("incidental", "none"). The official recommendation is to vary your choice of monsters so it evens out.

Sovereign Court ** Venture-Agent aka Ascalaphus

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Yes. They're untyped bonuses from different sources.

Sovereign Court ** Venture-Agent aka Ascalaphus

6 people marked this as a favorite.

For some people who's very much into the RP side of things, overshadowing tactical sense, maybe it'll help to engage those people in RP instead of OOC discussion.

After the fight, you walk up to her.

"Hey, lady, we were feeling a bit abandoned during that fight. When we were packing in the Lodge you told us you were a warrior, but all you did was protect yourself and let the monsters past to get at our wizard. Look at what they did to him."

"I don't like fighting."

"Well, those orcs sure did. What were you going to do about that? I mean, if you can talk them down, go ahead. But it looked to me like they weren't going to stop until they'd killed and eaten us - not necessarily in that order. What were you going to do about that?"

---

Thing is to at once keep it wholly IC, and present your objections from a character, not player, perspective. But at the same time, restrain yourself; your character is probably pretty outraged, but it might not be a good idea to play all of that.

Sovereign Court

Re: fog tactics;

In my experience, most gamers aren't the tactical geniuses they think they are. More specifically, they're not good at Plan B. They have a very finely tuned Plan A but sometimes you run into an enemy that outguns you so much that Plan A is suicide. People are often bad at going to Plan B.

Spellcasters aren't much better; they tend to pick some spells and then often try to solve everything with those spells. "Physical" solutions might not even occur to them anymore.

Going for fog tactics is a good example of this. Concealment would give the party a 20% miss chance. It would give the enemy a lot MORE disadvantage, but that bigger picture may get overlooked by players who see the fog frustrating their Plan A. But in this case it's worth it because the enemy's Plan A was scarier.

Sovereign Court ** Venture-Agent aka Ascalaphus

Talking about my personal view now;

On the one hand, sometimes you play a non-bloodthirsty character and try to prevent fights when they're not necessary. But the way scenarios are written, it's not necessarily the pathfinders starting the fight.

"But I don't like violence" is IMO fine if violence can be avoided. A good reason not to start fights, and to push other players from starting them. Might even be a good reason to hang back at first if other PCs start a fight you thought wasn't needed.

But if the party is being attacked, then I would expect everyone to join in the defence. There are a lot of ugly words for people who leave their mates in the lurch.

In addition, if it's obvious that it's necessary to start a fight in order to have a shot at succeeding on the scenario, I would also expect people to cooperate (although grumbling is fine!). Sometimes a writer just requires you to be a murderhobo (which makes me sad) but often enough it's something like "a horrible monster is lairing on our dig site" or "go into the woods to slay the thing that's terrorizing the peasants".

Sovereign Court ** Venture-Agent aka Ascalaphus

Wei Ji the Learner wrote:


Two thoughts have been conflated here.

A basic assumption pacifism=not contributing.

Every indication from the OP has been that the 'offending' party is indeed participating/contributing, just not in a way that some would expect.

Perhaps a new thread is needed to just address 'What is contribution to a PFS scenario/module/special?'

Oh really? Let's read the OP again.

Quentin Coldwater wrote:

Okay, so there's a person in my group who often plays with another person, and they play an engaged couple. The idea of the character is that she's a pacifist Bard who doesn't like to attack until someone hurts her fiancee. Problem is, she plays a Strength-based Bard, and the other a caster-based Oracle who often stays in the back (luckily, she's pretty impulsive, so she runs into melee a lot). Until the fiancee is hit, she stays in full defense because she doesn't want to hurt anyone.

This drives me crazy, though I know it shouldn't. Everyone has their right to play their own character in their own way, but half the time, she doesn't contribute to the fight and doesn't even throw out a buff. She says it's in character for her to do so, and I'd agree, but this way, she doesn't contribute to the fight. Most of the time, we have characters that can compensate for that, but sometimes it's pretty close. She says she's having fun and I don't want to take that away from her, but the fact that she doesn't help out half the time is driving me crazy.

As an aside, I know the OP IRL, and he's pretty mild around people with different playstyles. He's actually done some good peacekeeping when people got off on the wrong foot with each other.

Sovereign Court

Majuba wrote:
Ascalaphus wrote:

Scroll of Obscuring Mist? 25gp

If you can't handle ranged, don't allow the other team to do it either.

Great idea, although it wouldn't slow down the splash damage.

Depends on whether they can correctly guess which square/vicinity to aim in. Splash radii aren't that big, a lot smaller than obscuring mist.

Sovereign Court

Use third-party source (Nethys, PF20SRD, Herolab) sources because they have an interface you like, but always verify your conclusions with a primary source (PRD, book).

Sovereign Court

Scroll of Obscuring Mist? 25gp

If you can't handle ranged, don't allow the other team to do it either.

Sovereign Court

I would think that a sorcerer or witch should be able to demolish an NPC alchemist at range fairly easily. Alchemists have questionable Will saves (especially if using mutagen to boost Dex), tend to have only 1-2 types of energy damage on their bombs (Lesser Metamagic Rod of Reach -> Communal Resist Energy).

Then again, for every meh-built alchemist you'll sometimes run into a cleverly built one with extreme defences and massive damage output. Alchemists are a nova class, which means that as NPCs who only have one fight in their life that matters, they get to unload all of that very fast. They rank just behind magi as NPCs that can be way OP because nothing that balances the class for PCs matters to NPCs.

Sovereign Court

I'm not so sure you can feed a potion to a willing non-helpless ally;

CRB wrote:
A character can carefully administer a potion to an unconscious creature as a full-round action, trickling the liquid down the creature's throat. Likewise, it takes a full-round action to apply an oil to an unconscious creature.

I'd extend that to feeding a Potion of Remove Paralysis to a paralyzed ally. (Or just about any other potion you like...)

But I think for someone to drink a potion, they have to "stand still"; even if you're not going through the motions yourself, you probably have to spend actions to stand still long enough for someone else to pour it down your throat. Not an issue for helpless PCs, but it does prevent extreme action advantage shenanigans like ErrantPursuit describes.

Sovereign Court

If it's in his mouth, it's certainly in his keeping again.

Given the enormously inefficient actions required for this, I think this would only see use for stuff like Freedom of Movement or Cure potions.

Sovereign Court

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I was impressed by flying kick when I was GMing and saw it in use. There were a lot of fairly cramped fights, but the player was able to use it to often be the first one to close the distance AND be the first to get a full attack.

UnMonk doesn't have a lot of things I'm super excited about, but that thing really made it seem much more dynamic than old monk.

Sovereign Court

Tricky question. I think the rules for immediate actions are not precise enough to answer it with 100% certainty. It hinges on what "can be performed at any time" means. Are there any "indivisible/atomic" things in PF that can't be interrupted by immediate actions?

We know that a lot of things that at first look like one big whole "task" (avoiding the word "action" for clarity) but that this task has sub-parts. For example, an attack has steps; declaring a target, rolling a d20, determining the final to-hit number, establishing whether than number hits, determining if any attack-cancelling abilities are used, rolling damage, applying DR/resistance, checking to see if any damage got through and rider effects are applied, rolling d20 for saving throws, determining result of save, applying effects of (failed/passed) save. For just about everyone of those steps there exists an ability that should be applied after one step but before the other one.

But not everything is divisible. For example, I don't think you can use an immediate action in the middle of a dice roll, after you've rolled about half of the dice and don't like the result so far.

In this case, your player waits until the blades appear, and then tries to stop them from appearing fully. I think that's just too late. There are some abilities that can be used "when you're targeted with a spell", so casting EFS when the BB is aimed at him is probably fine. But waiting until after the blades appear is too late. If he didn't make his spellcraft check, he'll have to make his decision without knowing what spell is being targeted at him.

Counterargument: if a fireball is flying towards you, you see the little red bead streaking, that would certainly be the cool (hehe) moment to cast EFS and block the bead's progress through the room - and making it detonate closer to the caster than he may have intended!

The difference between fireball and BB is that with fireball, the bead clearly spends some time travelling through the room (possibly including a to-hit roll) while BB appears in its whole area simultaneously.

---

What happens if EFS is cast while the BB is already there? Spells can't pass through an existing wall of force, but what if the WoF intersects an already existing spell? The rules don't quite say, so here are some possibilities:

A) It's too late, the spell has already "passed through".
B) The spell is cut into two halves that can henceforth be dispelled/dismissed separately.
C) The smaller half is suspended. When cut in the middle, 50% chance of either half being suspended. If the WoF ends before the other spell, the whole effect resumed.

Sovereign Court ** Venture-Agent aka Ascalaphus

I tend to read reviews thoroughly, and not every reviewer is good about using spoiler tags. Either I haven't found it, or is it weird that you can't flag reviews for containing uncloaked spoilers?

Sovereign Court ** Venture-Agent aka Ascalaphus

2 people marked this as a favorite.

He was one of the leaders of factions during the Chelish Civil War. Even if Thrune hadn't redacted the official histories, he'd be valuable as a first-hand witness.

Not info that's directly valuable in the scenario perhaps, but in the bigger picture of the Society, a prize find.

Sovereign Court ** Venture-Agent aka Ascalaphus

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Maite Donker wrote:
2. I'm wondering if my players will understand when the scenario is over. Usually there's a journal or something at the end that gives the information they are looking for, but in this case there is no specific information that they are looking for. They're just there to "excavate" which means that after they make the area safe they can spend ages there if they wish. And not find anything of note, which might be a disappointment - or it might not be, I'm just not sure how this will work out....

They're supposed to capture Davian, who will probably survive due to Regeneration. He can be brought back for interrogation.

Maite Donker wrote:

3. I personally think the information that you're sent to get from Zefiro is a bit meager. The only thing the PCs can get is the handout, which imho doesn't tell them anything they didn't already know: Thrune did not like the Davians. The only thing new is that they probably all starved, which tbh is not really relevant to the scenario/mission.

I'm also curious what the "sensitive information" might be that he can give.
I think I'll just have Zefiro relate the entire piece in the intro of the scenario if the PCs play nice with him (excluding the part where Arenzo ate his family, since there's no way he could know that).

I agree that Zefire's info is meager, but "starvation" should be an instant clue to experienced players.

Sovereign Court

Hmm, I missed that one. Matches my theory though, that orc settlements have to be hard to reach for Kellid reprisals.

Sovereign Court

They're both good choices I think. I'd personally go with the Sage because I'm a sucker for skill-heavy characters.

Sovereign Court

Magic takes a long time to learn, but once you have, it can be much faster that implementing scientific solutions. I invite you to take some time reading Shadowrun forums bemoan caster/techie disparity :P

I prefer the idea that the Androffans really didn't have a clue magic was real, that the first couple of planets they visited likewise didn't have magic anymore, but still had legends of angels and such, and so they started using that image. Vorlon style.

Sovereign Court

I personally use it for Persistent Major Image. But I've found that wizards are more fun when you prepare most spells only 1-2x and have to pick the moment when it would have the most impact.

Sovereign Court

Persistent Metamagic is pretty nasty. On Glitterdust or Burst of Radiance for example.

Dazing Burning Arc as a level 3 spell is also nasty, you can still amp that with a Lesser Rod of Persistent Spell.

Sovereign Court

Some GMs will stubbornly resist you, but it should be doable to pump Bluff to high levels and many NPCs aren't equipped for that. So there's a chance to completely take a scenario off the rails.

Sovereign Court ** Venture-Agent aka Ascalaphus

Zauron13 wrote:
Lau Bannenberg wrote:

The forum is a fickle mistress.

---

I agree with Ferious Thune. "Don't harm without consent" is a nice clear principle.

I've been at odds with my GM when he claimed that using a single magic missile to wake up my Fascinated L3 PC would constitute illegal PVP, while I actually wanted it to happen to me.

To be fair, your PC couldn't say it was ok. Probably one of those odd corner cases where OC and IC can't properly match up in terms of tactics. (Although, as A DM, it is the equivalent of letting some one lightly hit you to wake you from sleep. I'd allow it).

That is all though. I don't really want to muddle this thread more.

It's the player's permission that matters to me.

Sovereign Court ** Venture-Agent aka Ascalaphus

So far I've only seen people die because NPCs did unusually much damage. Sniper on a tower with favored enemy (you), fastbombing alchemist, harpy archers buffed by a high-level bard.

In the case of the alchemist saving throws played a role (he had a buddy with a wand of fireball), but that was just brutal and afterwards we discovered we could've played down but miscalculated.

Sovereign Court

I've been looking for any text about orcs in Numeria; they're found all over, but with no description about whether orc tribes openly exist there. I think the barbarian tribes would probably make short work of any orc settlements; the plains don't afford a lot of cover. The Technic League uses them as slaves/mercenaries.

My conclusion is that there are probably several Darklands orc tribes beneath Numeria. A significant portion of half-orcs probably escaped from them.

Sovereign Court

@James: thanks, knowing the answer isn't out there is a comfort, means I don't go crazy looking for it.

The way I see it, Androffa perhaps being in a no-magic zone actually protects it from direct assault by the Dominion of the Black, much of whose technology depends on magic to keep it all working together.

That would be a good reason for them to pursue Divinity to Golarion because that might be their key to Androffa..

Sovereign Court

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Haladir wrote:
Tangent101 wrote:

Magic is fading from Earth in RoW. It is implied that the higher-level people will lose those levels once Rasputin is dead and his efforts foiled.

So magic may just die off after a while. Technology may be responsible for this... because belief may be needed for magic to function, but anyone can use tech so there is no need now for belief.

That's like the rules from Mage: The Ascension.

I like that in MtA, but I don't really want it in my PF :)

Sovereign Court

The rules are pretty clear, but the end result is so off-putting to some people that they keep looking for "there has to be a rule against this".

Which isn't really that strange. It IS a wickedly powerful combination. You can make a boringly OP character with them if you're not careful.

Sovereign Court

- Freedom of Movement
- A way to breathe water
- A swim speed

Sovereign Court ** Venture-Agent aka Ascalaphus

The forum is a fickle mistress.

---

I agree with Ferious Thune. "Don't harm without consent" is a nice clear principle.

I've been at odds with my GM when he claimed that using a single magic missile to wake up my Fascinated L3 PC would constitute illegal PVP, while I actually wanted it to happen to me.

Sovereign Court

Ratnap wrote:


About grease:
Prior Ascalaphus stated that you apply the bonus from Improved grapple and greater grapple to your CMD, when you opponent makes a grapple check to escape the grapple, and here is the last sentence from the grease spell:

“A creature wearing greased armor or clothing gains a +10 circumstance bonus on Escape Artist checks and combat maneuver checks made to escape a grapple, and to their CMD to avoid being grappled. “

With the same logic you would add that +10 to your CMD increasing the difficulty for anyone who would try to use a grapple check to escape your grapple.

The spell seems very clear. You get a bonus to YOUR check to ESCAPE a grapple, and YOUR CMB to AVOID being grappled.

There's nothing in there making it harder to escape or avoid your grapples. The only weird side-effect is that you might have an easy time reversing grapples. However, once you've done that you get no more bonus to maintain it.

Ratnap wrote:


”Ascalaphus” wrote:


If the monster pins you, you can't attack it anymore and therefore no longer flank. But if the monster pins you, it still doesn't gain the pinned condition itself, so it doesn't lose Dex. Only you do.

That is wrong. When you pin someone, you lose your entire DEX bonus to AC (and to CMD as well then) as is stated here in the rules:

Pin
You can give your opponent the pinned condition (see Conditions). Despite pinning your opponent, you still only have the grappled condition, but you lose your Dexterity bonus to AC.

Which would allow a rogue to sneak attack you regardless of flanking conditions. That's also why it wasn't wrong to put penalties on the Agile Grappler when he pinned the Brutal grappler.

Hmm. Hadn't noticed that.

Ratnap wrote:

To both of you. Thank you for clarification with with the boni provided to CMD against checks the opponent makes to escape ^^

Also about the flanking, yes I think I confused myself.
The prerequisite for flanking is “must threaten an opponent.” but not “must be able to make AoO” Since you're still allowed to hit people when getting grappled as long as you don't have a two handed weapon you can provide flanking to others.

And yeah, the example with the 2 grapplers was just that, some convuluted stuff that are mostly just curious to see how the grapple rules play out ^^'

The confusion is because there are three things that usually go together:

- Whether you get Dex to AC at all
- Flanking
- Being able to make AoOs

Grappling disables AoOs, but doesn't alter the other ones directly. However, to threaten you often need 1-2 hands free depending on your weapon, but trying to grapple with less than all your hands has a penalty. So in practice many (amateur) grapplers stop threatening.

Sovereign Court

Ratnap wrote:

Don’t think I haven’t read and searched throughout the web for answers, but most, if not all of my questions where unanswered by forums and rule boards and several are probably somewhat houseruled by everyone.

It’s going to be a long read and there won’t be a tl;dr since there are going to be a lot of questions.
And if you know those questions have be answered by official side, please link away because I haven't found anything to those questions that are coming here ^^

I'll see how far I can get. Next time you post such a wall of text though, try using some bold to mark titles. Makes it easier to read :)

Ratnap wrote:

Starting slowly with the pinned condition:

You can give a creature the pinned condition by successfully making a grapple check against a creature that you’re already grappling.
A pinned creature can make a combat maneuver, or escape artist check to escape the grapple.
Which means a pinned creature can never become the grappler right away? (the one controlling the grapple)

Unclear. Breaking free from a pin seems to be just a special case of breaking out of a grapple, so I think Yes, you can.

Ratnap wrote:

Also: A grapple check is (usually) a standard action and without a bigger investment in feats you can only make 1 grapple check per round. Successfully doing a grapple check allows you to give a creature the pinned status.

However: Does the pinned status continue in all subsequent rounds of grappling, or do you need to make a grapple check to pin the creature each round, thus never being able to damage, or move it around? (And I’m not asking about tying someone up, I’m talking about an actual grappling combat without means of tying up)

Maintaining the pin is a special case of maintaining the grapple. You don't have to re-establish the pin every round. On a succesful maintain check you can do damage/tie up. With greater grapple, maintaining a pin becomes cheaper because it's maintaining a grapple.

Ratnap wrote:

Grappling and Attack of Opportunity:

When you have the grappled condition you can’t make Attacks of Opportunity. It’s not noted for the pinned status, but I guess the “is limited in the actions…” is sufficient enough to not let pinned creatures make AoO.

Yes.

Ratnap wrote:
Now there are some creatures/class powers/abilities (like grab) that say that you don’t get the grappled condition yourself while being the dominant grappler and/or can make AoO.

To be more precise, a creature with the Grab ability can, instead of performing a normal grapple, try to grapple with only one appendage. If it does so it gets a -20 on the grapple check (and subsequent maintenance) but doesn't gain the grappled condition.

Ratnap wrote:

So when the grappled creature tries to make a grapple check to escape your grapple AND doesn’t has any feat/ability/spell that prevents it from provoking AoO when doing a grapple check, do you get an AoO when it just tries to escape the grapple it is in with you?

EDIT: Found the answer, trying to escape a grapple doesn’t provoke AoO but other actions like disarm, or dirty trick would, if you don’t have the corresponding feats.

Correct.

Ratnap wrote:


Tying someone up:
The flow chart says that you can attempt to tie someone up you have grappled at a -10 penalty. When you fail, you’re still in the grappled condition.
According to that I come to believe, that you make the grapple check to maintain the grapple like normal and then make ANOTHER grapple check at -10 penalty to tie someone up. Is that correct this way? Because I would’ve thought that you’re supposed to make a “maintain grapple check” with a -10 penalty and when you succeed you tie your victim up, if you don’t succeed you lose grip while you fiddle around with the rope.

Correct.

Ratnap wrote:

The Rake ability:

I guess that’s an easy one. According to text
“In addition to the options available to all grapplers, a monster with the rake ability gains two free claw attacks that it can use only against a grappled foe“
That means the monster makes a grapple check as a standard action, dealing the damage of the limb that made the grapple (so for a tiger, either bite or claw) AND getting 2 more attacks for free (at a -2 penalty due to being in a grapple?) against the grappled target.

Correct.

Ratnap wrote:

Constrict:

When you or a monster have the constrict ability you deal with EVERY grapple check the noted damage. So in case you have to use the pin action each round to continue the pinned status you also deal damage to your foe, when you have the constrict ability. Right?

Correct.

Ratnap wrote:

Damaging in a grapple:

You can inflict damage to your target equal to your unarmed strike, natural attack, or an attack made with armor spikes or a light or one-handed weapon. This damage can be either lethal or nonlethal.
Does that mean in a grapple I can deal nonlethal weapon damage without incurring the -4 penalty for trying to deal nonlethal with a lethal weapon?

It would appear so. You're not making a separate attack roll so don't apply a -4 to hit.

Ratnap wrote:
About armor spikes. In the armor page it’s noted they deal “extra piercing damage on grapple attacks” What means “extra” comes the 1d6 damage on top of a natural/unarmed attack? And are the spikes only dealing damage when using the damage action? Like not dealing damage, when you pin your opponent aka hugging tight?

This one is quite vague. CRB and UE use the same text. I understand it to mean the following:

- When first establishing a grapple ("a grapple attack") they do extra damage if you manage to establish the grapple. But if you're not proficient, they make that harder to accomplish.
- When you're maintaining a grapple and choose to do damage, you could use the spikes instead of another weapon, natural weapon or unarmed strike.

Ratnap wrote:

Special Monster attacks:

The advanced hangman tree.
When the tree grapples with its vines it doesn’t gain the grappled condition.
But. A grapple check is still a standard action for it, so instead of flailing adventurers with 3 devastating vine whips it has to use a standard action to maintain the grapple it has on one unlucky adventurer if it wants to keep her grappled?

Yes. Round 2 is when it needs to decide who to swallow and who to let go.

Ratnap wrote:
Grab special Attack == improved grapple?

No. They're different abilities with different names and mechanics.

Ratnap wrote:
Many monsters can make a free grapple check when hitting with a certain limb without provoking AoO and gain a +4 bonus on that grapple check. But what about simply STARTING a grapple like normally? For example when the foe has so high AC that the grabbing creature decides to just directly start a grapple, circumventing the AC it can’t possibly hit and instead target the CMD of its foe? Does the creature with the grab ability provoke an AoO when it tries to start a grapple without hitting its foe prior?

Not provoking an AoO is listed as a side effect of using Grab as follow-up to a successful attack. So it only gets that benefit when it uses it that way.

The +4 bonus is a separate paragraph and it always gains that, regardless of how the grapple is established.

Ratnap wrote:
Also if a druid/ranger wants their companion to be a grappling monster and get them improved/greater grapple (after increasing the INT of the companion to 3) does having natural attacks that can grab already meet the prerequisite of the feat unarmed strike, or would one still need to get: improved unarmed strike > improved grapple > greater grapple?

It needs Improved Unarmed Strike. The Grab ability is not listed as an alternative way to satisfy the prerequisite.

Ratnap wrote:

Improved/Greater grapple and spells/items that explicitly increase your CMD against grapple attempts:

Reading through threads and discussions I came to the conclusion it’s not hard to start a grapple, but I came to the experience it’s hard to prevent the foe from ESCAPING it, since it’s a lot harder to accumulate bonus for CMD than for CMB, even though the CMD does add the DEX bonus (or penalty) as well. Especially when you’re not a Full BAB class without the combat defence training.

That's generally true, but it matters a lot who you're grappling. Most 3/4 BAB classes have a good shot at keeping a wizard grappled, but not a barbarian.

Ratnap wrote:

Now here’s the quiz question. Improved grapple increases your CMB for grapple by 2 and your CMD AGAINST grapple by 2.

Now you’re the active grappler and your foe tries to escape you. The rules explicitly state “make a combat maneuver, or escape artist check against the CMD of your opponent.”
In case of the combat maneuver I would say, yes you get the +2 to your CMD since a success in that combat maneuver check could make your foe becoming the dominant grappler.
But what about when you foe uses Escape Artist? She just wants to get away from you, not grapple you, would you still get the bonus from the feat?

Escape Artist is not a grapple check, so no bonus.

Ratnap wrote:
Also the spell grease: Would a Grappler who uses grappling as the main thing to fight profit greatly from being under the effect of a grease spell? Because it raises the CMD against grapple by 10 and would foil any attempt to escape her grip.

No. The bonus is on checks to escape, and to avoid being grappled yourself. The spell is clear on that.

Ratnap wrote:

Flanking, cover and ranged attacks:

When you have the grappled condition you can’t make AoO. Thus you don’t threaten adjacent foes and can’t provide flanking bonus to your allies in regards to other surrounding creatures. But what about the creature you’re grappling or that has you grappled right now?

It's not the grappled condition stopping you from flanking; you flank if you could make an attack, provided you had an action. You still flank even if you have no AoOs left this round.

What stops you is that you (probably) used both hands to grapple. If you have some other attack remaining (bite, improved unarmed strike head-but) you can still flank.

Note that you don't have to use both hands, but take a penalty if you don't. And the grappled condition you get as a grappled would still stop you from making AoOs.

Ratnap wrote:
The rules say you are adjacent to each other and NOT in the same square like it used to be in 3.5 Does that mean, when you’re grappled by a big ugly monster your friendly rogue can stroll around and sneak attack it in its back? Or does the rogue only get to make the sneak attacks if the ugly monster pins you and loses its DEX bonus to AC? (which is another situation a rogue may deal sneak attack as we know)

No, he can just stroll around.

If the monster pins you, you can't attack it anymore and therefore no longer flank. But if the monster pins you, it still doesn't gain the pinned condition itself, so it doesn't lose Dex. Only you do.

Ratnap wrote:
And even the other way around, when you’re the active grappler and have someone grappled, can your party rogue sneak attack your victim, when going into flanking position to you? I know the rogue doesn’t get to sneak attack just for attacking a grappled creature, since it’s only a DEX penalty and not “lose your DEX bonus blablabla” But I’m talking here about getting into flanking position, because normally a grappling creature shouldn’t? be able to provide flanking bonus.

If you still have some attack you can make, despite some/all your hands being busy grappling. Since Improved Unarmed Strike is a prerequisite for Improved Grapple and IUS can be done with kicks and head-buts, this is not uncommon.

Ratnap wrote:
Also since you aren’t on top of each other the ranger with Precise shot (no malus for shooting into melee) can fire arrows at her leisure as long as you don’t give the ugly grappling monster soft cover towards the rangers attacks?

Correct.

Ratnap wrote:

Finally a practical example of a grapple fight, if I understood the rules right.

The opponents are both half-elf fighters level 5. They took Escape Artist as a class feat with their alternate racial. In the left the brutal grappler, and in the right the agile grappler.
I’m only going to note stats of interest here.
Brutal Grappler:
STR 20+5
DEX 10
BAB 5
AC 10
Feats: Imp Unarmed strike, Imp Grapple, Greater Grapple
Grapple Check: +14
Damage: 1d3+5
CMD: 20 Against grapple: 24
Escape Artist: 8

You probably meant Skill Focus (Escape Artist). Greater Grapple has a BAB +6 prerequisite.

Ratnap wrote:

Agile Grappler

STR 10
DEX 20+5
BAB 5
AC 15
Feats: Imp Unarmed strike, Imp Grapple, Greater Grapple, Agile maneuver
Grapple Check: +14
Damage: 1d3
CMD: 20 Against grapple: 24
Escape Artist: 13

Round 1: Both grapplers start the round and enter the grapple. Brutal Grappler is the dominant grappler. Both take a -4 penalty to DEX
Brutal Grappler | Agile Grappler
Grapple Check +14 | +12
AC 8 | 13
CMD 18 | 18
CMD grapple 22 | 22
Escape Artist 6 | 11

We see right away, that the agile grappler is in a disadvantage here. He has still good chances to break the grapple and become the dominate grappler, but his rolls are worse the moment he’s in a grapple due to the -4 penalty on DEX and his reliance on DEX for his grapple checks (because of agile maneuvers) and with the +5 brutal grappler gets on his next turn for grapple checks he only needs to roll for 3 while the agile grappler needs to beat CMD 22 with his +12 on grapple checks (50% chance)

Round 2: Agile grappler fails to break the grapple and gets pinned by Brutal grappler. Brutal Grappler has -4 DEX, Agile grappler is denied his DEX bonus entirely and a -4 AC malus which also goes to CMD as well according to RAW
Brutal Grappler | Agile Grappler
Grapple Check +14 | +9
AC 8 | 6
CMD 18 | 11
CMD grapple 22 | 15
Escape Artist 6 | 8

From now on the battle continues, while the brutal grappler has the battle secured from his side to continue the grapple (as long as not rolling a 1 on one of his two allowed grapple checks per round) the Agile grappler has still a +9 on his grapple checks to beat the CMD of 22 (35% chance) of the Brutal grappler and then both their combat stats revert to normal again.

Now the other way around. The fight starts and the Agile grappler becomes the dominant one.
Round 1: Both grapplers start the round and enter the grapple. Agile Grappler is the dominant grappler. Both take a -4 penalty to DEX
Brutal Grappler | Agile Grappler
Grapple Check +14 | +12
AC 8 | 13
CMD 18 | 18
CMD grapple 22 | 22
Escape Artist 6 | 11

Agile grappler is the dominant one and gets a +5 on his next grapple check. However, due to the penalties from being in a grapple he has a harder time maintaining the battle already. Brutal grappler had to roll a 3 to maintain grapple, the Agile grappler needs to roll a 5. Brutal grappler has to beat the CMD 22 with his +14 to grapple checks (60%) chance.

Round 2: Brutal grappler failed to break the grapple (unlucky bastard) and is now pinned. But is this condition so detrimental to him? Because Agile grappler loses his DEX bonus to AC and subsequently to CMD as well.
Brutal Grappler | Agile Grappler
Grapple Check +14 | +12
AC 6 | 10
CMD 16 | 15
CMD grapple 20 | 19
Escape Artist 8 | 11

Now here we go where the grappling and especially pin rules become awkward!
Brutal grappler loses 2 to AC in contrast to being grappled before. Why? He doesn’t have the -4 penalty to DEX any more and “just” loses his DEX bonus to AC. Since he had no DEX bonus to begin with he INCREASES his AC and then subtracts the -4 AC malus from being pinned. While the Agile grappler even loses 3! AC because he’s denied his DEX bonus as well when pinning someone.
CMD is the same game. Brutal grappler loses only 2 points in them, while Agile grappler loses 3. The discrepancy becomes even greater the more Agile grappler invests in DEX.
Now comes the burner, the Escape Artist of Brutal Grappler RISES when he gets pinned, instead of grappled. Why? Because Brutal grappler doesn’t have a DEX penalty anymore, so his Escape Artist check actually INCREASES when he’s pinned instead of grappled. But since his Grapple Bonus is higher anyway he doesn't care all that much.
Even worse, now that brutal grappler is pinned it’s actually EASIER! for him to break that grapple from Agile Grappler. He has still a +14 on his grapple check, while Agile Grapplers CMD against grapple dropped to 19. Before he needed to roll a 8 to break the grapple, now it’s only a 5 (75% chance!) that is needed to do the same, even though he’s pinned and in a “much severe” state of grappling and the Agile Grappler still needs to roll a 3 to succeed in maintaining the grapple.

But as far as I see it, this is the correct application of the rules?

You seem to be applying the Pinned penalties to the controller as well as the controllee. That's incorrect.

Apart from that, yeah, combat maneuvers favour big hulking monsters.

Sovereign Court ** Venture-Agent aka Ascalaphus

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Here's how it should go:
"I'd love to blast that swarm for you, but I can't do it without also hitting you."

A) "No way, I've seen your DCs, that would probably kill me. I'll take my chances with the swarm."
B) "Do it, if you don't burn it this thing will eat me alive."
C) "If you delay for a second I can step where you won't hit me."

Not:
"I'm gonna blast him with my lawball."
"Dude, you're gonna hit me too."
"Well, you should've been Lawful."
"As a barbarian? Are you kidding me?"

1 to 50 of 6,405 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

©2002–2015 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.