Slatz Grubnik's page

And then he says that he uses house rules that ignor the issues other eople are having, so it's not an issue for him.

In other words, he doesn't play with the rules being talked about.

Not sure I quite understand why this is a big deal...

"Wow. so complex. I didn't even have to look it up."

Ja?

And?

To me, that reads as if he's just being snarky with how simple the rule was to him now. That's all.

So, . . . your basis for saying others are wrong (and giving some attitude) is that you don't actually play by the rules.

Where's he saying that? Because, that's not what I'm reading..

Share the load =)

Slatz Grubnik wrote:

I'm assuming that's a no to my question.

I'm in no hurry to do a Linux version, not because I have anything against Linux, just because I don't have the bandwidth.

Ah, I see. What about my proposition above? If you find that you don't have time for it, why not put it up on sourceforge and recruit others to do the job for you? That way, you're not devoting significant time or energy in producing the Linux version yourself, and it gets done for those of us who don't use Windows. =)

I'm assuming that's a no to my question.

Oil burns, kids! Invest in an apron!

The next poster is, in fact, the first Martian.

This program looks amazing! However, I do wish there was a Linux version. If you can't port it yourself, would you be willing to put it on sourceforge.net for others to do so?

Disclaimer: I'm a fan of the Free Software Foundation. (Free as in speech, not beer.)

So I'm a player in the OP's game. Actually I'm the wizard that initiated the "first strike." I wanted to just kind of shed some more light on the player's side of what happened to see what everyone thinks. We went into the town knowing that there was a barrier around it, but we didn't know what it did, other than that it held in the towns inhabitants. We also knew that the town was inhabited by animals the night before (our rogue did a scouting mission into the town), however our characters knew nothing about Lycanthropy (it hasn't existed for 2,000 years) and so we went in to investigate at dawn. When we got inside the town we found a man naked inside his house and when he spotted our rogue he screamed, "they're here" and attempted to run off. I put him inside a resilient sphere cause i was confused about him sounding the alarm but a couple dozen villagers were already headed towards us with weapons drawn. they began to surround us and demanded to know what was going on, we explained the situation and asked them to stop surrounding us, when they demanded we put our weapons away. All but the barb did and we asked that they did the same however they refused. The man in the sphere (once the spell released) whispered to the "leader" that they should just kill us to be safe and then the GM said they advance towards you. at that point i hit them with a deep slumber and thus began the combat. after we had run their leader into one of the buildings and set it ablaze (that was the rouge's doing) the rouge decided to kill the sleeping villagers before they could attack us as well. This, I believe is a complete picture from our end of what happened... maybe this will shine some more light on events.

From what I gather:

1) you broke into some guys house
2) you're confused as to why he's freaking out
3) even more confused why the town decides to run to help him
4) put the leader to sleep when the guy, who's house you broke into, suggests attacking you
5) confused why others retaliate
6) decide to kill the rest of the town, just in case..

So.. from what I can tell, the players were anxious to actually have a combat encounter, made some hasty decisions, everyone (including GM) got flustered and things escalated..

In the end, I don't think there's anything in your, or the GM's, story that didn't make the party sound evil to me. Then again, I wasn't there, but that's my observation from all the input.

Which do you use?

Yes ;)

Slatz Grubnik wrote:

Does one really need a rule printed for each and every contingency of absolutely anything that might happen, a player might request, or a DM might have to do? I say use common sense, roll some dice, and make stuff up. I'd rather not have to look up rule X on page Y in book Z each time my players ask me something. I'd rather say "i'm ruling X for now, we'll look at it after the game, and see how it differs, and i'll decide on which rule i'll use" for the sake of just getting on with the game. I don't mind doing the extra work, so long as it doesn't impede or interrupt the game.

+1 :) Emphasis Mine. ;)

Though I started with 3.0, it turns out I'm "old school" in the way I DM, lol..

Does one really need a rule printed for each and every contingency of absolutely anything that might happen, a player might request, or a DM might have to do? I say use common sense, roll some dice, and make stuff up. I'd rather not have to look up rule X on page Y in book Z each time my players ask me something. I'd rather say "i'm ruling X for now, we'll look at it after the game, and see how it differs, and i'll decide on which rule i'll use" for the sake of just getting on with the game. I don't mind doing the extra work, so long as it doesn't impede or interrupt the game.

Sorry, my vote is on Seoni.

It'd be nice to see other cosplay Iconics too =)

My suggestion? Get a new GM.
Or
Sit down with him and have a talk. Tell him about how you have already made this great character concept, and ask him what you can do to bring it to the game.

I'd go with the latter option. =)

3x CR 2 creatures equals 1800xp (600x3=1800). As for what CR that totals is only relevant as a sort of gauge to how difficult of an encounter it's going to be for your PCs. Since it's above the given XP allowance for 5, but less than 6, you can either call it "better than cr5, not quite 6", or just use the XP budget for 6 and call it a day.

Slatz Grubnik wrote:

xJoe3x wrote:

For those that want to read a bit more about what the boss man had to say on declaring actions and cleave:

link fixed

Thanks, I accidentally deleted that post trying to fix another. I was not used to linking that way.

NP =)

For those that want to read a bit more about what the boss man had to say on declaring actions and cleave:

link fixed

agreed

Initiative: 1d20 + 1 ⇒ (11) + 1 = 12

Slatz Grubnik wrote:

Just sayin..

For someone who keeps saying that people shouldn't be posting here, you seem to be posting here an awful lot.

It's like a car wreck.. though it's horrifying, you just can't look away.. lol. I have an addiction, what can I say lol

Just sayin..

I seriously hope someone comes in to close this thread soon. James, it seems to me that you're dismissing, or blatantly ignoring, most of what people are saying.

I'm going to quote the last thing Chris Mortika said, and i'd like you to really read it this time.. the whole thing:

James,

I understand your position. Around your table, a character can attack, and after the attack resolves can decide if she was using Cleave (and maybe Vital Strike?) or not. Fine. The problem here is that you're insisting that the Pathfinder rules support that sequence, as Jason wrote them, and people have patiently hauled out point after point, showing that --in their typical, very dense and legalistic way, the rules don't support that position. (The action of a Cleave is "Use Feat". That particular feat is a standard action, the same as a Trip maneuver. You wouldn't allow anyone to roll, and then declare whether they were tripping their opponent, would you?)

You can repeat yourself, bolding words every so often, but the evidence of the text is against you. I really appreciate the way you have remained polite and responsive in the teeth of what must seem to be a bunch of people Just Not Getting It. But my advice is, desist. Run your table the way you want to.

Is it too much to ask everyone to stop posting in this thread? This is absolute nonsense. This thread needs to stop.

I'm clicking X now..

"That depends on what the definition of is is.." ;)

This is just ridiculous.....

It is a big fat game of semantics. The whole argument seems to be around "Declaring an action". I don't know if this is fear of commitment or what...

You NEED to tell the DM what you are doing BEFORE you roll. Once you decide what you are doing, you see what type of action is needed Scroll down to "Table: Actions in Combat".

In the case of trying to Cleave, you use the Feat Action.

The table tells you to refer to the feat description. The feat description tells you it uses a standard action.

If you have a standard action available, you will tell you DM that you are cleaving, Your -2 AC will trigger now, then you roll the attack roll. Lets say you hit, you now roll again for the adjacent enemy and hit him too. Your -2 AC stays in effect until it hits your initiative on the next round. You now have a move action left available to do with as you please.

I don't understand how this is being misunderstood. I think it is most likely folks not liking how the rules work and arguing how it SHOULD work in their eyes. This is not a rules problem. The rules are clear. The common sense is clear. It has been spelled out by several folks so it's not the explanations that are the problem, it's someone not liking the way it works. This thread will never reach a point of resolution.

QFT

And with that, I'm done with this thread. (for good this time)

The way I think about it, you're not attacking the first guy then cleaving the second. You're cleaving into them both. Thus, any time I'm playing a character with that feat, and wish to use it, I say so before I attack anyone. Anyone I've ever played with plays the same way (now).

Snorter wrote:

james maissen wrote:

You are assuming that action types have to be declared based simply on assumption.

Yeeeeah; cos that would make a rivetting game, wouldn't it?

DM: "So, initiative...21? 20? Ah, that's you. What you doing?"

Player 1: "Not telling."

Umm.. try reading my posts, rather than just spewing out this stuff as it's not even addressing what I'm saying.

So I'm not sure what point you have to make, if any, but it's wasted so far cause you're not dealing with what I'm talking about in the least.

-James

I thought his point was pretty clear, really. He's trying to say (if i'm not mistaken): if you don't have to declare your action, what's the point in playing the game?

Though I'd wished this horse to be left alone a long time ago, I do enjoy Snorter's contribution. And, I am sorry James, but I've never EVER experienced a GM who plays the style you apparently do. I've run into Snorter's previous scenario (my own brother!), and I called him out on it, telling him to make his decision before the dice were rolled. Every GM I've encountered would've done the same. I'm not trying to be sarcastic, and I'm not saying that your style is wrong or anything. I'm just saying most, if not all, other GM's wouldn't allow you to decide if you were cleaving after your first attack. Most, if not all, would have you say what you were doing before you rolled your first attack.

I wonder how long this thread is going to keep going ad nauseam..

@meabolex: Thank you, truly!

Now if this thread would just die already =P

Aww, come on TOZ, don't make this an alignment debate =P

Why not break the system down into a point-buy system, like Mutants & Masterminds did with 3.x?

Hmm.. Pact feats..

Reminds me of my character in my previous game back home. I played an Elf Cleric (of Solonor, cg faerunian god of archery and hunters). The campaign was very heavily anti-devil. Along the way Malkezid ends up manipulating events to make my character think that my allies lives were in danger, and the only way to stop it is to 'sign the contract'. So, I did. Turns out it was a roleplayed nightmare spell. Several levels later, we're in a town that has this tinker gnome who makes golems. Wierd golems. Special golems. Fighting them, and defeating them, allows you to 'take their essence' in order to 'upgrade' minor artifact weapons to major artifacts. Well, I had some sort of icy longsword, and fought the Ice Golem. He got a lucky hit off and critted me in the face for well over massive damage. I roll my fortitude save vs massive damage, and I rolled a 1. Not just dead. But my soul now belongs to Malkezid, and I'm forced to do his bidding, and was immediately turned into one of his favoured creations: the "Formless Fiend". That was the end of my character Nym

lol.. have fun then =)

I'm done with this. This circular arguing is getting boring. How 'bout we just play however we're used to playing, and be done with this thread already?

First, I didn't intend to type "TWF or".. that was my typing fail. Fumble-fingers really.

Second, RAW you cannot "elect" to take a penalty to your AC. You can use actions that, as a side effect of their use, reduce your AC.

I'll restate my previous statement: You take the -2 penalty to AC as a result of using Cleave. Not the other way around.

You take the -2 penalty to AC as a result of using TWF or Cleave. Not the other way around.

@DigMarx: My games are the same ^^

To me, this looks like "Gestalt" rules with "Fractional" rules, combined, with a new name. The idea of "split-classing" is not new, and has been around since the earliest incarnation of the game from the 70's.

It's great that you're putting effort into making a viable alternative to the standard "Multiclassing" rules, it really is. But, is it really enough to claim that it's your own, original, idea? Not trying to pour any hate on the project, I'm just worried for your sake really.. =/

Example: you can take a -2 to hit on your first attack to keep your option open to TWF should you continue with a full attack, or you could, after seeing the result of that attack, elect to have that attack be a standard action and take a move action instead.

-James

I'm sorry, I see this as pure silliness. Nobody is going to voluntarily take -2 to their AC "just in case" they change their mind mid-stroke, or to "keep their options open".

Edit: You're either cleaving or you're not. If you do, you roll your attacks as normal, and apply the -2 to your ac from the beginning of your round. If not, make your normal attack, and forget about penalizing your AC.

They have a racial +8 to spot =)
Thanks for the reply.

TriOmegaZero wrote:

1. Doesn't matter, they're still flatfooted if they didn't make their Perception checks.

2. It's not a single attack, but it is a single action. Actions can be interrupted.

1. Incorrect. They are not flatfooted, but they are denied their dex bonus against things they cannot see. After the rogue attacks once he can be seen. Example: A rogue in hiding cannot full attack and gain sneak dice on all attacks merely by being unseen before he started attacking. After he makes his first attack he is visible.

2. Actions can be altered. Within themselves (eg a move action) or from one to another (e.g. full round: full attack to standard: single attack). But simultaneous events cannot (e.g. targets of a magic missile based upon prior missiles in that casting).

-James

1. You're partially correct. They are denied their dex bonus. But the rogue isn't technically making multiple attacks if he Cleaves. As Cleave is a single standard action. If he was making a full attack, then yes, you are correct, only the first attack would count for SA.

2. Actions cannot, and should not, be altered. The Full Attack action is the exception.

I've always viewed this game to be:
Declare actions
Roll dice
Check with DM for outcome.

Going back an altering your action after you've rolled is cheese, and as a GM, I personally don't stand for it. Unless you're starting with a full attack, and after the first attack, decide to move, as the rule states, that is.

*is sad his earlier post got overlooked*

Don't worry TOZ, I've been reading =)

Wait, this thread didn't die? Hmm.. where's my thermonuclear warhead..

Ja, I was wondering when someone would bring that up.

Well, technically I'm not sure you're even allowed to voluntarily lower your AC. But, for the sake of argument, let's say you can, and do. You still have to determine what actions you're going to use, and what you'll use them for. If you decide that you're going to want to use the Cleave feat, you then make your Cleave attack (standard action) and take an additional -2 to your AC. As you can't take the -2 before, and say it was for the Cleave after the fact. Even if you take the -2 and only used a standard action to make a single attack (not cleave), you're just gimping yourself, and that's not cool. NOBODY is going to take a -2 penalty "for the fun of it". You're either cleaving, or you're not.

If you take the -2 to AC and make a normal attack against one foe, you could be cleaving, or starting a full attack action- both are consistent with that and your options are open.

If you take the -2, then that means you've decided to use the Cleave feat. You can't declare that you'll take the penalty then "see what pans out".

Here's a question: are you allowed to 'do a cleave' if your first target is not adjacent to anyone else? When does that get checked?

-James

Anyone with the Cleave feat can declare that they're using it, not that it'd make sense, but it's not strictly prohibited.

KenderKin wrote:

Either way you don't need to declare cleave to use it!

(grin) You do at my table. Including PFS. Fair warning.

There it is =)

This is how I roll. In any of the games I've been in, I (and my GM's) have required to declare that you are using it before you roll your first attack.

I feel ashamed for asking really, but I'll try to be quick.

Let's say I have a Wizard 5, with a hawk animal companion, and I have spent 8 points to gain 4 ranks of Spot. How many ranks does the animal companion have? 8 because that's how many points I spent? Or 4 because that's how many ranks I have in it? Does the fact that they're cross-class for me, and not for the hawk really matter?

That being said, I'm glad in a PRPG game, I wouldn't have to worry about it. But, I'm in a bi-weekly 3.5 game at the moment. Usually I don't even bother with a familiar, but this is the first time I've ever felt that it's marginally useful.

Anyway, any insight would help. And thanks in advance.

For those that are interested, you can have your brain "cleansed" here =)

If you are a 1st level Sorcerer, with the Arcane Bloodline, then yes, you do get an Arcane Bond just like the Wizard. Read the description of Arcane Bond items in the Wizard entry, it plainly states exactly which items you can have.

Objects that are the subject of an arcane bond must fall into one of the following categories: amulet, ring, staff, wand, or weapon.

As for casting a spell:

A bonded object can be used once per day to cast any one spell that the wizard has in his spellbook and is capable of casting, even if the spell is not prepared

All it means is that you can cast any 1 spell you know. For a Sorcerer, that means "Spells Known", since they don't carry a spellbook.

Choosing a spell: Simply look in the back of the book under "Sorcerer/Wizard Spell List" and select the appropriate number of cantrips (0 level spells) and 1st level spells, based on your "Spells Known". At first level, you'd choose 4 zero level spells, and 2 first level spells.

Just relax, take a deep breath, say "woosah", and just read. It's all there ^^

When I start reading multiple threads with the same people arguing in each, I should learn to stay away, lol.

Edit: Mostly posting so I can find it later.