Brandon Tomlinson's page

Ah hah! I figured I was just missing a sentence. Thanks for pointing that out!

• The Tatzlwyrm, It should have +16 in snow to stealth. Based on it's fluff text it waits in snow for creatures to wander past, that implies it's been waiting a while (over 2 minutes). Either the stealth dc of 26 was calculated with a take 10, or it was calculated only using the snow terrain +6 modifier. also it would only be 26 if you were within 10 feet.

• Vrixx. His reason for not telling more doesn't make sense to me.
  
  pg.23:

  He refuses to tell the PCs more, knowing full well the White Witches will pierce his heart with a sliver of ice if he talks.

  I thought winter-touched fey already did that
  

  pg.72:

  Willingly pledging themselves to a
  wholly evil life, these creatures undergo a complex ritual
  called the Winter Rite, in which they accept a sliver of ice
  into their hearts that infuses their bodies with the same
  supernatural winter perpetuated by the White Witches of
  Irrisen.
  
  

I'll add more as I do more in depth preparation.

Hmmm so the mirror men are just humans with the heads of mirrors?

nope, constructs, think soulbound dolls.

And their power listing would be spoilerific.

It's awkward how they seem to push cold themes in the character creation, when the characters start a stones throw from the Qadiran border.

I feel I may rewrite all the campaign traits to make them still useful, but not so... stretchy.

And the download servers are down

so many tears...

Not sure I follow. Just saying he is building up to the point made in this post.

*snip*

The point you are failing to make has already been made.

It is, in fact. You lose your bonus to Dexterity when you cannot react to an attack, so say the rules. How do you propose one can react to an attack from an unperceived opponent, hidden or otherwise?

Flat-Footed: A character who has not yet acted during a combat is flat-footed, unable to react normally to the situation. A flat-footed character loses his Dexterity bonus to AC (if any) and cannot make attacks of opportunity.

If people don't know where you are, that's the definition of flat-footed against your attacks

It's not.

but to the articulate point:

*snip*

Touche!

My only counter argument left is that is says if you pass, you can react, but the fail condition doesn't say you cannot react. (nitpicky, I know).

My ending point is I'm not sure sniping should always give the sneak attack bonus damage. I think it is mechanically overpowered, and I think the it is RAW'ly murky.

IMO we need a better litmus test for 'being able to react'.

But I will concede.

Agreed, I enjoy these.

That voids the entire point of Sniping. And makes no sense. If you are hidden, you are hidden. Your argument is basically "A blind character is never flat-footed once attacked." Or "A creature with greater invisibility doesn't get any bonus for it after the first attack is made." It's contrary to how everything works. Giving him endless sneak attack is not breaking the system because that is how the system works. If he succeeds at hiding, you can't prepare for the oncoming attack because you don't know when or where it is coming.

• Blind says you are denied dex
  
• The invisibility specifically says "ignores its opponents' Dexterity bonuses to AC (if any)".
  

The only way you could make the argument that hiding gets you surprise again is if combat rounds end, and are started anew with a fresh surprise round and fresh init-round 1. The only advantage of sniping (and it's a big one) is that people don't know where you are.

No support for the take note, thats just how I understand the definition of 'notice'.

And the first table applies to paragraph two of check, while the others are not "The following table", so I think we can assume they apply to all other perception checks.

My ending point is we agree on RAI, but you are saying RAW is definitivly one way, and I feel it is not necessarily that way; therefore I argue another completely valid interpretation.

It comes down to the definition of notice which in our context can mean two things

• To take note of
• To be aware of

As a GM I can feel completely confident ruling one way or another based on context. But RAW is murky, and doesn't lean one way or the other.

TL:DR "It's slightly more complicated than you make it out to be"

But where does it say that you cannot react to attacks made by people who are hiding once combat has started and is 2 rounds in. Specifically looking for either 'cannot react' or 'flat-footed' or 'denied dex'.

RAW I think I'm solid, but you're saying RAI. My argument is that people can react once they know there is a situation. A sniper in a belltower may be concealed well, but once the first shot is taken, people run and take cover. They do not stand there in 'lolwut' mode. Once combat has started and round one is done, everyone is in combat and not flat-footed. The guy hiding doesn't get any more surprise on them, but he does have the advantage that people may not be able to find him and stop him. Giving him endless sneak attack is breaking the system.

You guys seem to not understand that you can see something without noticing it...

^^^That^^^

By raw: Failing to notice doesn't not equate to failing an opposed stealth/perception role. Those are two seperate uses of the skill. You know the person is there, but you failed to take note (that is to notice) of them.

So you are saying straight up that someone who makes a Stealth check you fail to beat with your Perception gets no surprise on you because you really have seen them, you just didn't notice them?

how is this person in the open making a stealth check?

"but the rules for not being aware never changed"

Where are those rules (prd link preferred)?

the description of 'check' has two paragraphs. One dealing with surprise, and one dealing with noticing stuff.

You guys seem to not understand that you can see something without noticing it...

A person you fail to 'notice' via the notice rules doesn't get surprise on you. Those are two separate functions of perception. I am actually arguing RAW here.

And you cannot react to your opponent, thus loosing dex bonus to AC, when you cannot see him, barring uncanny dodge. Stealth makes you not see the stealthed character. Simple.

PRD link?

But the text doesn't match with what you say.

And if they're in the jungle, and not trying to stealth, they are auto-noticed. If they were worried about being noticed, they would be making stealth checks (and getting the distance bonuses). If they are walking in a jungle, cutting through brush and stomping on leaves... that's not a quiet thing.

Brandon Tomlinson wrote:

Where does it say this? Without referencing that chart for 'fine details', can you give an example where you need a perception check to be aware of a guy with no cover or concealment.

The chart is not for 'fine details', that descriptor is for the skill.

The chart is labelled as DETAIL.

http://www.d20pfsrd.com/skills/perception

So to notice a DETAIL, ie something as obvious as seeing a person, it is DC0. FINER details have higher DC's.

No they don't, read the check section. That 3rd party prd gives the text out of order, the second paragraph of the check entry end with "The following table gives a number of guidlines".

Only the first paragraph deals with awareness, the second one deals with noticing fine details.

You can't become aware of them if you don't notice them.

I think this is where we can pinpoint our disagreement.

And that section I keep quoting is within the check section.

If you fail a DC 0 Perception check you are basically blind to the obvious.

Where does it say this? Without referencing that chart for 'fine details', can you give an example where you need a perception check to be aware of a guy with no cover or concealment.

If that were the case, then you'd need to make checks every time you enter a room, if you have a fighter with no wis bonus, he will is effectively blind to 1/20th of the world (more beyond 20 ft away). In combat, he can't tell where many enemies are beyond 10 ft.

That's not what that chart is for, you are using it wrong.

Quote:

Facing an Unseen Opponent

To properly defend itself in combat, [b]a creature must be able to see its foe[b/], or use some ability acute enough to substitute for sight, such as the blindsight special quality (or the uncanny dodge ability; the section on uncanny dodge section is in Part Three).

I cannot find this in the PFRPG rules. And that blurb doesn't name a penalty. It doesn't say 'cannot react', or even 'denied dex bonus'.

If you are denied dex bonus to ac or flanked (reference) you take sneak attack damage.

DC0 to see a person.

But the chart is labeled as guidelines 'to notice fine details'.

You are in a hallway, 50 ft down there is a person.

Failing the check doesn't mean you aren't aware of the person, it just means you didn't notice that he was the henchman of that assassin that's been tailing you for months.

I think you guys are using that chart wrong.

Brandon Tomlinson wrote:

Arrow slits are total concealment?

Nope, but if he is behind a wall/barrier he would still get cover/concealment. I am sure he can't have an arrow slit if he is not hiding behind something.

But not total concealment, or total cover.

Therefore, what you quoted up above doesn't apply.

I personally really don't think the goblin should be getting sneak attack on all those people. The first two shots, sure (surprise, and round one for those he beats in the init check). After that people are able to react. They aren't pinned, or bound or anything.

my arrow slit comment was a somewhat rhetorical response to

When facing a totally concealed foe, a creature is denied Dexterity bonus (if any) to Armor Class and the attacker gets a +2 attack bonus as well.

Correct.

Its not a factor of player A's Stealth, it is alla factor of player B's Perception.

As no Stealth is actually in play its DC0 perception check, modified (in this case) by range. 15 and 1 respectively for the question posed.

DC 0 to do what?

Arrow slits are total concealment?

*snip*

That was the closest I could find as well. And the 'react' bit is why I said that after the first round, people are aware of a situation and on the lookout. Sure they cannot find the shooter, but they certainly can react.

Unless you find something that says you cannot react to something you can't see. I'm a bit stumped.

The table is to determine the DC to notice things. It tells you how to mathematically arrive at the correct number using certain conditions.
It is not RAI, but it is RAW.

Well no.. that's what I'm saying I think it is RAI as well. You have just made my argument.

To give a more clear statement. If you fail to 'notice' someone on the other side of the room, is it effectively the same as him being stealthed, even if he is not making a stealth check?

Do you choose to forfeit the save before or after the effect.

A creature can voluntarily forego a saving throw and willingly accept a spell's result

also:

(harmless): The spell is usually beneficial, not harmful, but a targeted creature can attempt a saving throw if it desires.

I'd say that normally only harmless effects are assumed to be 'forgone'.

'harmless' seems to say the save can be made if desired. Otherwise you must willingly forego the save via my first quote.

If your opponent is not aware of you, then they are denied their dex bonus to AC.

Can I get a prd reference?

You quoted the flavor/fluff, which is not the rules.

This is where I will disagree. There are more rules in the skill description than just the charts.

Specifically, my 'flavor' says " The DC to notice such details varies depending upon distance, the env, and how noticeable the detail is. The following table gives a number of guidelines."

So when attempting to notice details, that chart is used. The DC 0 is to identify a face, to have that 'wtf is he doing here?' situation. That table is not the rules for 'how to determine awareness'.

They are not flat-footed, but they are still denied dex if they can not find him.

I'm trying to find text to back this up, but can not.

The only thing that auto denies dex-to-ac is the invisibility effect.

I agree that no cover equals no stealth but every 10 feet increases the perception dc by 1, unless you are just stating house rules.

Distance to the source, object, or creature +1/10 feet

Right, but what warrants the perception check? The description of that table says "to notice fine details". The actual text of that skill doesn't indicate that if you roll bad on a perception check you are blind to your obvious surroundings. The raw makes sense and I think people are artificially injecting stealth into a section of the rules that has nothing to do with stealth.

I'm placing a 'burden of action' on the stealther.

So to rephrase - If you have no cover or concealment, you cannot be 'stealthed'.

To elaborate, I would use the DC 0 'notice a visible creature' for situations like trying to identify a target from a distance (across a tavern, or across a market). The target isn't trying to stealth, the subject is trying to 'perceive it better':

Perception is also used to notice fine details in the environment. The DC to notice such details varies depending upon distance, the environment, and how noticeable the detail is. The following table gives a number of guidelines.

And then the table you reference is given.

To directly answer the OP:

Stealth is not invisibility. After firing and initiative is rolled, creatures are only flat-footed until their first turn. From there, they are aware of a shooter and are on the lookout.

If people are observing you using any of their senses (but typically sight), you can't use Stealth. Against most creatures, finding cover or concealment allows you to use Stealth.

If you have no cover or concealment, there is not perception DC. Even far away by raw. The distance modifiers would only come up if you qualified for stealth in the first place.

How is this person 'stealthed' without cover or concealment?

Tactics and teamwork are good. However, I would understand that round 2 would require that the standard action to complete the summon angry dogs spell come prior to the move.

Well if you're going with the ruling that the effect resolves before the next turn (turn 3), Couldn't you finish the spell and then move, then the effect will execute from where you are then, therefore it doesn't matter when you move.

As a standard action possibility that isn't talked about much, I am curious how this works with spells.

PRD[/url]]Start/Complete Full-Round Action

The “start full-round action” standard action lets you start undertaking a full-round action, which you can complete in the following round by using another standard action. You can't use this action to start or complete a full attack, charge, run, or withdraw.

Specifically I am thinking of 'Summon Monster N'.

A spell that takes one round to cast is a full-round action. It comes into effect just before the beginning of your turn in the round after you began casting the spell. You then act normally after the spell is completed.

My gut tells me that one 'begins casting' only after the 'complete full round action' action. This then brings into question concentration issues, if you don't 'begin' until the second action and are done casting at that point.

My follow up thought is 'whats the point, if the spell effect comes out at the same time', I think the utility is this could allow one to move, cast long spell, finish long spell, move (two rounds of movement and a full-round-action spell).

I don't understand what are the problems that need correcting for 'high level play in general'? Have play lots of high level games since 3.0(some converted from 2nd ed) never ran into problems. Not saying there are not problems...just never had to deal with them. I am asking more for curiousity sake and I think if we are going to fix these problems we should discuss them to see if they are actual problems for everyone.

There aren't 'problems'. There's a content gap. As someone else said earlier, high cr monsters aren't enough. There doesn't need to be a bunch of new feats/classes; rather some DM side content for prepping high end stuff for those unaccustomed to it, new game mechanics or twists on existing ones, etc.

IMO most PF content is level 1-15ish, and going straight to epic leaves a 5 level gap. Personally I like to run/read 'vanilla' style modules to test the waters of different play styles before diving off the deep end myself.

ELH seemed to represent so much wrong with the old system, that the prospect of it in PF scares me.

Also note that if they are trying to sell their AP's and modules, an ELH doesn't really serve them well. Most APs stop at 15ish, and most modules are 1-15 (with an expception or two). So ELH would be for those % customers not running modules or APs, and who play to epic levels. Seeing as how most PF setting stuff itself is lower level as well (they tend to keep the setting pretty tame), we I can imagine they aren't using the setting stuff (though they could be). Seems like a narrow audience.

I think I need to re-articulate this part of my post, because it was fueled by a bit to much 'meh... epic levels'. I think we've touched on if not outright expressed what I was trying to say.

• The level 21 wall
  In the old ELH, getting level 21 was like jumping a hurdle. Unlike most other feats and PrCs, these feats would outright say "Requires level 21". Everywhere else the level requirement was danced around with skill rank requirements, or bab requirements (this still is how its done). The ELH was a strange exception to the standard, and made the transition to it feel awkward.
  
• The content gap
  Not sure what all to say here. APs don't touch these levels currently, modules do (sometimes). The setting material could handle it, though it seems a bit touch-and-go to me (this is likely just me though).

  A cool thought that occurs to me: we have APs that start at 1 and go to 13-16. What if there was one or two that instead ran from 7-(insert higher number). I think we all agree that cramming 1-21+ into a 6 part AP is a bit to much, this seems like an interesting way to have th APs touch higher-end stuff. You could even run a few gamemastery modules that are a sort of an optional prelude to get players to 7( AP sequels anyone?).
  

brock wrote:

How about overlapping the 'Mythic Adventures' book so that it gives guidelines on how to run with high-level characters under the existing rules, say levels 15-20, and then extends that past 20th?

This is what I would most like to see.

I think it would be wise to downplay the "barrier" at 20th, and work on correcting higher-level play in general. This would naturally lead to some expanded rules for 20+ play, but I would really prefer the holistic approach.

Both of these are spot on IMO.

ELH seemed to represent so much wrong with the old system, that the prospect of it in PF scares me.

Also note that if they are trying to sell their AP's and modules, an ELH doesn't really serve them well. Most APs stop at 15ish, and most modules are 1-15 (with an expception or two). So ELH would be for those % customers not running modules or APs, and who play to epic levels. Seeing as how most PF setting stuff itself is lower level as well (they tend to keep the setting pretty tame), we I can imagine they aren't using the setting stuff (though they could be). Seems like a narrow audience.

I would prefer more 15+ content before I'd ever ask for a 20+ book.

So we get a new 'multiplying skeleton' for animating.

The four arm skelly is just for reanimating mudras(or any base creature with four arms)?

skeletal mount and armored skelly seem awkward here. They seem like prebuilds of stuff you could make following the normal skeleton rules.

also: What's a mudra?
edit:nvm it's from classic horrors.

Wall of Stone: Instantaneous... check.

Stone to Flesh: Instantaneous... check.

Flesh = Meat... check.

Meat can be eaten... check.

Meat tastes like... granite?.. check. :)

MmMmM... nethack

My take: Don't use create water, it goes away to soon for a reliable income. Just because you have a supply doesn't mean there is a demand. You can do price arguments all day but in reality there is an in game system that does this: profession.

Give them a bonus to profession rolls and be done with it.

A more usable system would be selling spell-casting services via the equipment section. Less material components and such. Don't do spell by spell though, abstract it with a spellcraft check in place of a profession check (maybe use wis-mod to make it more profession like, showing business sense.)

If a player comes up with a moneymaking scheme I usually make them choose a standard of living as well, and incorporate that into the game.

So my 2cents: let if fly, abstract it.

It's listed in the front of plague of Shadows as well :)

holy cow... just finished the book. This was a really good story of the folorn.

*files under tragedy/adventure*

This sounds like what the gunslinger would be like if it was an alternate class for the alchemist instead of the fighter.

(I like it)

Screw all that Asian stuff... but firearms are okay!

hurr hurr hurr