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

Rithralas's page

Goblin Squad Member. Pathfinder Society Member. 128 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists. 2 Pathfinder Society characters.


RSS

1 to 50 of 128 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Qadira

Hit me up here if anyone in this area is looking (and available) to play in a Pathfinder game once per week (currently on Monday nights). Thanks!!

Qadira

Yep. Being a cooperative game, it seems to quickly devolve into a competition when a rules lawyer sits at the table.

Qadira

Can a PC take 20 on a stealth check to hide in a static location? If he is not moving and is able to set up the environment to near perfection, I see no problem with it.

Qadira

My group decided to tie up a goblin, place him in a wheelbarrow, and roll him down the stairs....essentially making such a ruckus to awaken Tsuto. Of course, Tsuto promptly woke up and investigated. <evil grin>

Also, the party sorcerer decided to steal a 360gp glass dragon from the gift shop (promptly earning himself...and the party Cleric that saw him do it....a greed point). Not sure how to handle this type of behavior. The Cleric said it was OK because it was for the benefit of the "party". /shrug

Qadira

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Who let the nerds out? Who? Who?

Qadira

The creature is an Incoporeal Ooze, and the attack allows a DC22 Fort save for half damage.

Qadira

Hawktitan wrote:

In general magical energy damage is not reduced by DR so the damage in this case is not reduced.

Typically you would need energy resistance to mitigate magical damage but disintegrate is untyped (and I assume Disintegrating Touch is as well) so it should bypass most if not all damage reduction methods.

My understanding as well. But I was hopng for more clarity on the way DR is worded in the core rules. IIRC, there is a sentence tehre reading "touch attacks are not negated by DR"....or something to that effect. What is the intent? My understanding is that if you get hit with a touch attack, you don't apply DR.

Qadira

As the DM, I mistakingly rolled two attacks with a creature that had a touch attack, but called for normal AC. Which, in the case of a plate mail wearing paladin, the normal AC is much higher than his touch AC. Both "touch" attacks missed due to the mistake on my part, but would have hit if we were using his touch AC.

Is it wrong to reduce the CR of the encounter due to it (because of said mistake) being an easy encounter?

Qadira

Specifically, the question is based on a PC with DR 10/silver versus an NPC (Incorporeal Ooze) with a touch attack called Disintegrating Touch...which does 6d6 damage, with a DC 22 Fortitude save for half.

Does the PC reduce the damage by 10 if he gets hit?

It is a touch attack.....

Qadira

That is correct!

Qadira

The black raven wrote:
Cheeseweasel wrote:

So, we have the GM stating he warned the Player, who went ahead with the Holy Smite (? or whatever it was).

The rest of this debate is meaningless: Player warned of consequences went ahead regardless.

Player THEN whines about consequences and derails game with hours long argument about infant alignment, is how I read it played out.

Innocent=/=good.

Babies, having no capacity for making moral choices, must perforce be Neutral.

I can't believe this thread has gone on for 159 posts. Really? There's this much "Twist The Rules To Save Babies" animus? Seriously?

Gah.

Actually, the GM had a specific opinion about the baby's alignment, while some of the players had another shared specific opinion about it.

Both were different. The GM did not tell the player beforehand that the spell he would use could kill an innocent (ie, not Evil) baby.

The PC's intent was most definitely not to kill the baby. Thus he was most definitely NOT warned of consequences.

IMO, the GM should have been more precise in stating that the Cleric's opinion of "if it dies it means it was Evil, and thus OK for Good PCs to kill" was WRONG and that a Neutral creature too could be killed by the spell.

Apparently, this was not done. Thus the PCs had no doubt that the spell would kill the baby only if it deserved to die (ie, was Evil). I imagine the shock they got from realizing that the spell killed the innocent baby not because it was Evil, but because the GM considered it Neutral, an opinion that was not shared by the players (who thought an innocent baby Good).

No Good PC ever wants to kill an innocent baby. Thus I can most easily understand arguing long and hard with the GM about this.

I certainly agree that the players intent was to not kill the baby. (Keep in mind that this player has a history of interpreting the rules contrary to both what I understand and what the rules say in <mostly> plain English...and is not afraid to get into heated debate.) :-)

The spell is very clearly written, and both the player and character should be fully aware that it affects Neutral creatures. Therefore, even in the event that I didn't warn them, it's on the player/character for being careless. At the very least, knowing that the spell affects NEUTRAL creatures, other steps should have been taken both by the player and the character. At the end of the day, it boils down to a careless player.

Qadira

Cheeseweasel wrote:

So, we have the GM stating he warned the Player, who went ahead with the Holy Smite (? or whatever it was).

The rest of this debate is meaningless: Player warned of consequences went ahead regardless.

Player THEN whines about consequences and derails game with hours long argument about infant alignment, is how I read it played out.

Innocent=/=good.

Babies, having no capacity for making moral choices, must perforce be Neutral.

I can't believe this thread has gone on for 159 posts. Really? There's this much "Twist The Rules To Save Babies" animus? Seriously?

Gah.

This is pretty much how it played out. I was told I was being dumb, and the player even lied to an absentee player about how things went down. Specifically, he stated that he wasn't warned and I wouldn't allow him to take it back.

When he declared that he was casting Holy Smite, I looked at the rules and declared that the infant was in the AOE. I was then told that I was being dumb and that if the baby died, it was an evil baby. I declared that it was neutral. I looked at the AP and checked the stat block of the parents, which said they were neutral. Then I read the entries for the various alignments and it was a no-brainer to declare NEUTRAL. It was repeated that if the baby dies, it is evil. Dice were rolled, and things got really ridiculous. I then questioned myself as to why I would play in/DM for such an immature group of players. Seriously.

Qadira

Right on. This is how I understood it, and have always played it. I would think that loading a crossbow and drawing a weapon at the same time would be quite challenging for even the most seasoned warrior. ;-)

Qadira

Cheapy wrote:
Quote:
Pretty much agrees with my understanding

This is why I wanted to discuss this.

Qadira

Writer wrote:
All of the listed examples are RAW legal. It makes sense IMO and reflects real world combat pretty efficiently. Might I ask why this needs discussion?

It is my new understanding that the latest printings have cleared this up, but the fact that the footnotes were in the first printing in the first place lead me to rule this differently. So, I was seeing if others were playing it the same way I was.

Qadira

The rules are fuzzy on this and I'm just trying to get clarity from the community.

I am referencing the first printing of the core rules.

The rule basically states that you can draw a weapon (or ready/drop a shield) as part of a "regular" move as long as you have a BAB of +1 or higher.

The sentence is confusing in that "regular" is undefined, although I have always played it as the act of moving from one place to another i.e., not as a move equivalent action. (My logic is that there are no "irregular" move actions).

The "MOVE ACTION" table on page 183 even contains footnotes to clarify which move actions qualify (draw a weapon or read/drop a shield).

So, if I start my round with a potion in my hand and want to move to an enemy and draw a two handed weapon on the way, my understanding of RAW is as follows:

Move action - stow the potion
Move action - move 10 feet to enemy and draw a two handed weapon as a free action
End of turn and have to wait to attack next round

Is this correct?

If the answer is no, then the following scenarios (starting the round empty handed this time) should be possible:

Move action - open a door and draw a two handed weapon as a free action
Standard action - attack enemy on other side of the open door
End of turn

or

Move action - move a heavy object and draw a two handed weapon as a free action
Standard action - attack enemy adjacent to you
End of turn

or

Starting the round with a light crossbow in one hand)
Move action - load a light crossbow, drop it as a free action and draw a two handed weapon as a free action
Standard action - attack enemy adjacent to you
End of turn

or

Move action - mount a steed and draw a two handed weapon as a free action
Standard action - attack enemy adjacent to you
End of turn

See a pattern developing here? Please discuss. How do YOU rule this? What is the intent of the rule?

Qadira

mdt wrote:

Until and unless the children can make moral decisions, they are neutral. There is no specific age that they become good or evil or stay neutral. You might have a 95yo man that was born neutral, and never had to make a choice one way or the other to be good or evil. He never went out of his way to help or hinder others. Or you might have a 9yo boy who saw someone beating a prostitute in an alley and threw a brick and knocked the assailant out, and the experience made him want to be better than that robber, so he makes a conscious effort to be good from then on.

The big problem I see here is people equate innocence with good. Innocence is not inherently good, it's merely an absence of sin. If you're in a christian mythos ethical construct, then they are also inherently good. But within PF/D&D world terms, there is no equation of good and innocent. A good person can be a mass murderer (think of the concept of a Paladin who's a dragon slayer and slays evil dragons as part of a personal crusade). Such a character is by no means innocent in any way shape or form, but he's good. A newborn baby is utterly innocent, but is in no way good or evil, as there has been no moral choices to align him with either alignment. The game rules themselves say that a single act shouldn't change alignment, so how can an absence of act change your alignment?

So for the example of children standing up after the smite, maybe the 9yo who threw the brick is still standing, but the 15yo boy who gropes girls is down, so is the 13yo girl who worries more about her looks and trying to land a rich husband than helping others. And so are the babies, because they haven't even had a chance yet to be good or evil.

This is why good is harder than evil, you have to be more careful and more aware of your actions. Evil can just do whatever it wants. The only reason evil doesn't win is it can't work well with others and usually ends up falling to its own internal divisions.

THIS! Very well said, mdt! Likewise, I would add that in the PF/D&D world, the gods have no inclination to care that the infant is in harms way. Why would they make an exception? The gods themselves are not concerned with that minutiae. It is incumbent on his followers to uphold his mantra lest they suffer the consequences for stepping out of line. They wouldn't step in and make exceptions for the careless cleric to go about smiting in the presence of "innocents".

Qadira

Maya Deva wrote:
Rithralas wrote:
Zog of Deadwood wrote:


Holy Smite is a 20 foot burst: a sphere, not a disc. Ergo, it is quite possible to aim the centre in mid-air so that it does not affect the 5' cube near the floor. Since your average human is over 5 foot tall, he'd be creamed while the baby on the floor was unaffected.
So, in my campaign, while the baby, being NN, would certainly be toasted by a Holy Smite, the cleric could easily aim the effect so as to avoid hitting the baby (assuming no ceilings etc getting in the way). Same for a wizard casting fireball.

I suppose that is true. But then how do we avoid the next question of "What percentage of the BBEG's body need be in the AOE to apply full damage? Does he get a save for only being partially in the square?"? Things of that nature.

While I admit that is ridiculous, and I wouldn't pull that crap as the DM, I could certainly see my players arguing with me over it if the shoe were on the other foot. :-)

Qadira

RAW states "all creatures have an alignment". And it just so happens that NEUTRAL suits an infant perfectly. For purposes of determining spell effects, this has to be in place.

Likewise, the cleric (player and character) has to know that the spells they cast have an affect on specific alignments and should act accordingly. To my way of thinking, it really is that simple. If in doubt, don't cast it....do something else instead.

For the record, my player knew that there was a chance of killing the infant. I warned him just after he said he was going to cast the spell. He did it anyway.

Qadira

Zog of Deadwood wrote:

Babies are neutral, unless, as raised earlier, in this game world or according to the tenets of the faith in question they are NOT neutral after being baptized (presumably many would then slide downward with age).

However...was this baby being held? Or was it on the ground or low bed? Was there a ceiling and if so, how high was it?

I ask because it seems at least possible in some circumstances to place a Holy Smite high enough to hit a standing villain of Medium size and miss an infant of Tiny size.

BTW, someone earlier using inductive logic, came to the conclusion that Holy Smite should not hurt babies because it would be ridiculous for it to cause late term abortions. That at least is not a concern. It wouldn't harm them at all, as there is no line of effect.

The infant was in the same 5 foot square, lying on the floor. But, I think the intent of the games rules are fairly clear in that if it affects one person in a 5 foot square, it affects everything in that same square. These rulings where "I place the spell just so it affects him from the nose up, thereby saving the baby he is cradling in his arms" is stretching the intent and making things overly complicated. That's just me.

Qadira

Ciaran Barnes wrote:
Disregard for the well-being, wishes, and right of others, with no definitive rationale behind it? Chaotic evil.

Negative. To be CE, you would have to have bias. Infants do not as far as I can tell.

Qadira

No, I am not a monarchist. And I do agree with the premise that Goblin babies are not inherently evil. I also realize that I made a global sweeping and statement implying that they are, but I still maintain that in my game (for the sake of simplicity and in the interest of not bogging down the game in metaphysical discussions regarding morality) are evil. Therefore, to be clear, a Lawful Good cleric does not risk losing favor by smiting the little bastards. ;-)

Now, having said that, this thread does not question the alignment of goblin babies, and I'm really not interested in discussing that issue any further.

Let me put things into context as they happened in game:

BBEG is taking innocent babies from poor/delusional/misguided villagers under the guise that he is holy and performing good. The villagers willingly give the children to him because they have been fooled and believe they are doing the right thing. Enter the PCs.....who know the evil, nefarious plans of the BBEG and are completely aware of the situation. PCs encounter BBEG with an infant. Any rational person would immediatley assume that the infant is innocent and should be protected. Cleric PC spams HOLY SMITE anyway, claiming "If the baby dies, he is evil!". Paladin in group says nothing and lets it happen because PLAYERS say that infant human NPC's with Neutral aligned parents are GOOD and should not be affected.

/smh

Qadira

Mikaze wrote:
Rithralas wrote:
Mikaze wrote:

Human babby are neutral, like all races' babby.

Rules are rules....so I disagree. If I look up "GOBLIN" in the Bestiary, it clearly states EVIL. This is assuming the critter in question is an NPC. Remember, this is a game...and rules are rules.

Look at the Bestiary again.

Quote:
Alignment, Size, and Type: While a monster's size and type remain constant (unless changed by the application of templates or other unusual modifiers), alignment is far more fluid. The alignments listed for each monster in this book represent the norm for those monsters—they can vary as you require them to in order to serve the needs of your campaign. Only in the case of relatively unintelligent monsters (creatures with an Intelligence of 2 or lower are almost never anything other than neutral) and planar monsters (outsiders with alignments other than those listed are unusual and typically outcasts from their kind) is the listed alignment relatively unchangeable.

Rules.

Also, you can't be of an evil alignment if you've never even had time to develop and then think and do evil, with or without indoctrination into a crap culture those races are typically stuck in to throw the odds out of their favor.

Thats fine. But this thread is about HUMAN infant NPCs with NEUTRAL parents. The Goblin discussion is not something I'm interested in.

My response was based on my game. If you encounter goblin babies in my game, they are evil.

Qadira

Mikaze wrote:

Human babby are neutral, like all races' babby.

Rules are rules....so I disagree. If I look up "GOBLIN" in the Bestiary, it clearly states EVIL. This is assuming the critter in question is an NPC. Remember, this is a game...and rules are rules.

Qadira

Darkwolf117 wrote:


Curiosity begs me ask, what's the rationale for it being Good?

So the player can get the spell off and not kill the infant? That's the only rationale I can muster. And all four players agreed that the infant was GOOD and should not be affected by the spell HOLY SMITE. /smh My players are munchkins.

Qadira

Marthian wrote:

Just a question: Why?

If it's one of those mean spells that does harmful things to neutral things, I think that could be evil...

I dunno.

Spell = Holy Smite

Big Bad Evil Guy standing in the same square as infant is targeted by Holy Smite = dead infant.

I think that is what you are asking.

Qadira

"All creatures have an alignment. Alignment determines the effectiveness of some spells and magic items.

Animals and other creatures incapable of moral action are neutral. Even deadly vipers and tigers that eat people are neutral because they lack the capacity for morally right or wrong behavior. Dogs may be obedient and cats free-spirited, but they do not have the moral capacity to be truly lawful or chaotic." - from SRD

I maintain that infants are NEUTRAL.

Qadira

This came up in game when determining a spell affect that was alignment contingent, and the table was divided. Therefore, I am reaching out to the community for clarity.

First let me define two important considerations that must be accounted for:

1. Infant = completely dependent on others for basic survival, and for our discussion, let's assume that this infant is 6 months out of the womb.

2. Parents = stat blocks clearly indicate NEUTRAL alignment.

Secondly, the table was divided into the following two groups:

Group 1 - claimed that the baby was clearly of GOOD alignment.

Group 2 - claimed that the baby was clearly of NEUTRAL alignment.

Discuss!

Qadira

Ok, so a certain AP has a certain critters tactics written to cast Lightning Bolt while underwater. Seems that the electricity would harm everyone in the vicinity, whether they were targeted or not. I know this is going to become a bone of contention with the players, so I'm reaching out for clarity and rulings. Thoughts?

Qadira

A 13 in a stat is "quite skilled". An 18 is "super-human". Just sayin.

Qadira

Thanks for comfirming what I suspected.

Qadira

5 Troglodytes in a 30' diameter room....one save against stench, or five saves?

Qadira

Destructive Smite (Su): You gain the destructive smite power: the supernatural ability to make a single melee attack with a morale bonus on damage rolls equal to 1/2 your cleric level (minimum 1). You must declare the destructive smite before making the attack. You can use this ability a number of times per day equal to 3 + your Wisdom modifier.

If I declare the destructive smite and miss, do I lose one use of the ability?

Qadira

Checking with the community to determine what the general consenus is regarding the Hungry Ghost Monks "Steel Ki" ability. The player wants to steal ki from unconcious opponents (for instance, an opponent that was nocked below zero HP by another party member), justifying it by the fact that a coup de grace is a critical hit. Technically, as per RAW, this is true. RAI? Probably not so much. Thoughts?

Qadira

I have a player that wants to take subject feat. Rolled a half-orc, and wants to get the most out of his bite.

The feat clearly states a pre-req of three natural attacks. My argument is that the half-orc only has one natural attack (the bite) and the otehr limbs would be considered unarmed attacks. Am I correct?

Qadira

I'm pretty sure that "It does get hard for them (a monster at expected CR at level 8) to compensate." = disruptive.

If the "single" CR equivalent monster can't hit the tank, the encounter is (in most cases) a cake walk. If we add more lower level baddies to generate an equal CR, then the baddies have ZERO chance of hitting. And, this happens most of the time in AP's.

Qadira

Caineach wrote:
Jarl wrote:
31 is easy for a fighter at lv 8.

Love to see you do it while staying within wealth by level guidelines (no more than 1/4 total wealth spend on defense) and keeping your focus on offense.

31 is doable. Its also disruptive and causes GMs to start to throw out of CR challenges your way in order to damage you, which puts other party members at risk.

Agreed!

"Table: Character Wealth by Level can also be used to budget gear for characters starting above 1st level, such as a new character created to replace a dead one. Characters should spend no more than half their total wealth on any single item. For a balanced approach, PCs that are built after 1st level should spend no more than 25% of their wealth on weapons, 25% on armor and protective devices, 25% on other magic items, 15% on disposable items like potions, scrolls, and wands, and 10% on ordinary gear and coins. Different character types might spend their wealth differently than these percentages suggest; for example, arcane casters might spend very little on weapons but a great deal more on other magic items and disposable items."

Qadira

What is a reasonable AC for a rogue at level 8? For a ranger? For a fighter?

Likewise, what would be a disruptive (broken) AC for those same classes at level 8?

I'm simply trying to determine what the community would recognize as an over-optimized PC.

Qadira

Dotting for future reference..

Qadira

Major cheese! The 6 second round happens while everyone is acting, but it just so happens that we have to take turns at the table. I really don't think your enemy is going to stand there while you change your your shield multiple times in a round...it's laughably cheesy, RAW or not.

Qadira

This question came up because the PC's triggered a trap, got hit for 2d6 acid damage, and then quickly left the area. The rules are so unclear on how to adjudicate the item damage however, so the CR7 trap seemed extremely weak to simply allow the PC's to not worry about any of their equipment and walk out of a high level trap with only 2d6 damage.

Qadira

Tengu with bite NATURAL attack uses a dire flail (using both hands...both heads of flail with the Two Weapon Fighting feat) in a full round attack. Does he get to make a SECONDARY bite attack at BAB -5?

Qadira

1 person marked this as FAQ candidate.

What is the mechanic for how the acid affects the ITEMS worn by characters caught in the ACID FOG spell area of affect? It seems very tedious (and un-fun) to account for every, single item the PC(s) carries.

Qadira

Dotting

Qadira

I ran this twice..and both times it was a cakewalk for the PC's.

Qadira

Dotting...

Qadira

This looks like fun! Looking forward to it!

Qadira

Brodyz wrote:

Name: Valjean

Race: Half-elf
Classes/levels: Bard 2
Adventure: The Haunting of Harrowstone
Location: U3: The Headless Guard
Catalyst: Gurtis Vortch and poor rolls
Name: Brother Benedict Love
Race: Human
Classes/levels: Cleric of Shelyn 2
Adventure: The Haunting of Harrowstone
Location: U3: The Headless Guard
Catalyst: Gurtis Vortch and poor rolls
The Gory Details:
** spoiler omitted **

Did you forget the 50% miss chance for being headless? Vortch would be very brutal without that miss chance...just sayin'.

Qadira

brother ehhnnzioh wrote:

Name: Arron

Race: Human
Class: Druid 1
Adventure: Haunting of Harrowstone
Location: Restlands
Catalyst: Gravediggers
Gory Details: The PC failed his stealth check and a group of 4 gravediggers were on patrol in full armour though only had spades and not real weapons. The PC was discovered and was asked to leave didn't do so and had Cause Fear cast at him 4 times which he identified as cause fear. After he stopped running he charged them nearly killing one of the clerics, the remainder of the clerics took him out with a full round of attacks putting him on -2 followed by a coup de grace

Why would a Druid be killing gravediggers anyway?

Qadira

See page 178 of Core. Under the heading "The Combat Round", it reads:

When the rules refer to a "full round", they usually mean a span of time from a particular initiative count in one round to the same initiative count in the next round. Effects that last a certain number of roundsend just before the same initiative count that they began on."

Therefore, I think this supports the "roll a 1 on the d4 and the dragon uses his breath weapon again next round" interpretation.

1 to 50 of 128 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>

©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.