|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
sword n' board wrote:
In my group, one of the pcs is a paladin who uses detect evil constantly. my problem with this is that i cant have anybody to be evil without him knowing and killing him. so is there a way that i can prevent the paladin from ruining every quest with an evil person.
Make the bartender evil, but not criminal, and have the local authorities arrest the Paladin for murder when he kills the bartender.
You may hate to hear this, but start adapting your character to the encounters. Maybe a level or 2 of Alchemist could be of assistance. The party make-up is, honestly, missing the arcane caster slot.
The clear solution is find a friend who wants to play a sorcerer, and suggest he take a little known spell called "fireball."
Alternately, you could take the leadership feat and get yourself a sorcerer cohort.
Or even a hireling.
Or splash one level in an arcane class and buy a fireball wand.
I'm Hiding In Your Closet wrote:
That's an interesting lineup of games (items 5-8) you've got there. I've played and enjoyed them all at least once (that being said; Titan as part of a high school class? Good luck scheduling games).
Titan has an iPad app now, with pretty good AIs. I play it on the treadmill in the gym. I can usually finish a 25 round game in about 30 or 40 minutes vs 3 AIs, which admittedly take their turns fairly fast.
If I were doing it in my own classroom setting (not the OP's one-week constraint) I'd set it up in the corner and have everyone take a turn a day.
I think I'd also add Diplomacy to the list. While not about probability, it's certainly got some fantastic game theory elements in it.
And yet, it pays the bills. There are other lessons to be learned in Pathfinder as well, lessons about cooperation and leadership and the like, but all the social skills in the universe don't amount to a hill of beans in the business environment unless you know a skill, and skills worth a heck require math, and optimization. Once you have your career figured out, there's plenty of time in your life to go back and figure out how to live an enlightening existence.
Money doesn't make you happy, but poverty sure doesn't help any.
I'll second Jaunt's comments on Satanism / etc, especially if you're in a small town environment. Angry Christians get people (like teachers) fired.
The three of us told him no, it's ours because we did the fight, he said "I'll just kill your characters off then".
You guys have a metagaming problem.
You the players shouldn't be saying anything about loot divying. Your characters need to tell his character he doesn't get any loot. If his character responds to your character "I'll just kill you off then," then your characters should respond accordingly by their alignment, possibly including sticking a sword in his character's throat.
Your GM will be fine with this, by the way.
I'm Hiding In Your Closet wrote:
- I STRONGLY discourage getting involved with the "optimization" scene -
This is crap.
Most high level business jobs are about mathematical optimization methods in some form or another, and all the best optimizers I've ever met in the business world come from a gaming background.
If I were a high school teacher, I would teach a class called "Strategic Optimization Methods." Curriculum:
1) Stochastic Methods
My students would be almost guaranteed $10k additional salary compared to the baseline student.
Load up on guns, bring your friends
There was a campaign I played in for two years, once, back in 1st Edition, where the whole party died when one PC accidentally caught himself in the blast radius of his necklace of missiles. He failed his save, it failed it's save, and the whole necklace cooked off. Blew a couple city blocks of Greyhawk sky high. Like 120d6 of damage. We were well under 10th level.
It was a random encounter too.
Pretty wild way to end a campaign.
What my gaming group found, was that no matter how creative and interesting a store bought campaign was, nor how creative and interesting a GM custom campaign is, it's never more interesting than actual mythology. Real mythology is freaking wild, dude.
So we spent a little time and built a game world from scratch that consisted of an ocean, with a bunch of island chains, each of which represents an old Earth mythology. We use Wikipedia as our fluff.
I would quit your game.
In fact, I've definitely quit a very similar game in the past, because the GM continually tacked on HP to the monsters until the party was close to dying, to "keep the climactic encounter climactic."
We figured it out. It got real old real fast, because strategy was meaningless. We knew the BBEG was going to die whenever we were almost dead, no matter how smart or dumb our strategy was, and no matter how great or terrible our rolls were, so instead of the encounter being "climactic" it was, well, "lame."
Fantastically, boorishly lame.
Oh man, that is freaking awesome.
This continues to support my emerging policy of "always read Ravingdork posts."
If you don't want to do that, a Ring of Counterspelling will work as well. Or, as mentioned above, an invisible lackey in the corner with a readied action to dispel or counterspell any debuffs or other such hostile enchantments that hit the BBEG.
Your character concept is horribly ineffective. But you knew that.
I personally think playing ineffective characters is a lot of fun.
I think it's fun when other players play ineffective characters as well. It makes the story more interesting. Not everybody has to be a hero in every story, sometimes there are bit players, sometimes there are cowards or other folks who contribute in some way to a story. All that makes for fun story telling. Some of the most fun I've ever had roleplaying was when one friend of mine played a Gully Dwarf named "Wonk Bonk Hole-In-Sock, RATSLAYER," who was basically terrible at everything. The GM would feed him pertinent story line info to keep the rest of the party from killing him off.
But that's not for PFS, it's for playing with friends to create a storyline. PFS is more like a sport. I would not enjoy playing on a soccer team where one guy tied one foot behind his back because he thought it was funny.
Don't the guys that oversee PFS have the ability to overrule Paizo in creating league-wide "house rules?" I know they dumped all the custom gear creation rules, and they're pretty strict about WBL. Couldn't they also fix a couple of these problematic FAQs as well, for the purposes of their league?
Just curious. I've never played PFS, and don't really intend to. Just not my thing.
james maissen wrote:
Yeah, this. ^^
In order to back away on a mount and cast a spell, the caster should by all rights have to make two concentration checks, one for the movement and one for the vigorous motion.
But even skipping the caster issues, if withdrawing extended its freedom from AOOs up to the rider, the rider would just have the mount "withdraw" every round instead of simply riding him around every round, and never provoke AOOs from his first square worth of movement. Routine mounted combat would become a free almost-clone of spring attack, because the melee guy could swing and then have the mount "withdraw."
I don't like the idea that an unconscious rider strapped to a spring attacking mount doesn't provoke an AOO, but a conscious one does. It's a silly result of the rules, should they be ruled that way. But I agree with James that ruling them the other way creates worse problems, and I thank James for providing that example to help clarify the issue in my head. This thread has been productive.
Gwen Smith wrote:
Oh freaking yuck.
I think I'll tactfully ignore telling my gaming group about that clarification.
Man, yeah, that sucks. Guess most of that Halfling expansion was wasted ink.
He probably doesn't even need the craft wands feat, if everyone else is willing to pitch in a little to buy the wand. Remember that metropolises are understood to have "all" minor magic items available for purchase, so if you're going by those rules, the cure light wand is a fantastically affordable way to top off between fights.
I don't know what you guys are talking about. I built a pretty disgusting halfling wolfrider sling ranger recently around some of the new racial widgets. You have to have "warslinger" racial trait to make any of it work, but access to the Halfling Slinger feat (an addition +1, stacks with weapon focus) and also Large Target (+1 damage / size cat difference) separates you from the bow fighters. Throw in, say, beastmaster archetype and skirmisher archetype and put him on the back of a roving wolf mount, and you get to take your full sling attack while moving, and can do so in enclosed dungeon environments.
I don't see why a croc would engage players that are on the deck of a boat to begin with.
If I were running it, I'd have the crocodile sunder the bottom of the boat repeatedly until it sinks or the players come down to fight it under water. I'd also probably make the water muddy to give the croc concealment.
As far as your questions go, it only gets both attacks if it makes a full attack action. If it moves, have it bite. With the 'grab' ability, basically it will go like this:
Croc rolls to hit on a bit, bite hits
james maissen wrote:
First, if the mount were simply moving along and provokes, would you claim that the rider did not provoke as well?
I think the rider goes as the mount goes. To me, the rider is like gear. If the mount had an unconscious body on the back of it, and it provoked an AOO, then the creature it provoked from could stab at the unconscious body just like it could sunder the mount's gear or stab at the mount itself.
On the flipside, if the mount didn't provoke an AOO, then then the unconscious body strapped to its back wouldn't provoke the AOO either. The unconscious body is basically just gear.
So why would being conscious suddenly change that? I'm awake I provoke an AOO, I'm asleep I don't? Can I just pretend to be asleep for a second while my mount moves?
But you're dead on with this:
An aside, if the mount's movement didn't also have the rider provoke.. then simply using a mount to withdraw and full attack becomes a bit abusive.
So I'm not really sure how to approach the issue.
Yay James Maissen. I respect your opinion quite a bit.
james maissen wrote:
No, Spring attack only protects the user of the feat. The rider is on their own.
You and Ssalarn seem to disagree, and it was one of my primary questions that sparked the thread. Do you (or he?) have somewhere to point to, to support this premise one way or the other? His reasoning seems very sound to me - if the mount does not provoke an AOO from the mount's movement, why would having something on the mount's back suddenly provoke an AOO? What if the mount had a large backpack on, would the backpack suddenly provoke an AOO? What's the difference between that and a rider who's not swinging at the target?
Ride By Attack states specifically that there is no AOO on you or the mount. Spring Attack does not state it specifically, since it was not written for this case, but the Mounted Combat section implies that you use your mount's movement, albeit on your turn.
I'm not entirely certain how you would direct the mount to Spring Attack. You certainly need to direct it to attack. The DC 10 ride check is merely so that the rider can attack.
The same way you'd direct it to attack at all - by having the ride skill. In my case it doesn't matter, because the mount has an INT of 6 and I can speak to it, ("hey doggie, go spring attack that guy") but I don't think this matters. You are allowed to manage (and micromanage) your mount's movements in combat by the rules. Whether you can do so with a free ranging animal companion is always a subject of debate - I tend to say no - but mounts are different.
I presume the DC 10 ride check applies not just for the rider to attack, but also for the rider to do other things similar to attacking, such as casting spells.
Opinions on this appear to differ above. For a caster on the back of a mount that's taking a full round action involving movement, do you think the spell should go off at the half way point of that movement, or before/after the movement?
Those are two examples, among many, of things that can cause concentration checks. They are not exclusive, and the concentration rules are clear that those examples are not exclusive.
Yes they do. Standing on a rowboat in a pitched see, even if that rowboat is anchored against movement, requires a check. Standing still during an earthquake requires a check. The concentration rules are very clear on this. They are also very clear that it's not only earthquakes that require a check, but in fact things like earthquakes require a check. The concentration rules do not present an exhaustive list of things that require you to check, they provide a set of examples to use when determining what the check should be. Applying a check to something else that's not in their specific list is not a house rule. It's the intention of the system, as written.
If the only thing happening is that the mount is using Spring Attack, then they shouldn't get an attack of opportunity against the rider. It is the mount taking the action of moving through the threatened squares and the mount doesn't provoke for that movement. Now if you're taking another action that provokes, like casting a spell, then that action may very well provoke an attack of opportunity.
Again thank you.
So if one presumes that spells from horseback follow the same form as ranged attacks from horseback, the spell goes off when the animal has made half it's movement for the round, and the victim of the spring attack does not get an AOO if the spell goes off before the animal closes, but would if it goes off after the animal closes and the caster did not also cast on the defensive.
No, it's not. Absolutely not. The mount is not motionless, the mount is attacking. There is motion involved in attacking, even if no position changes on the board. Uppy downy, side to sidey, bitey motion, which counts as "vigorous motion" in the rules for concentration.
Simply because your mount doesn't go from one square to the next does not mean that he is a stationary motionless platform from which to cast spells.
If the dragon's spell has a somatic component, absolutely, because the mount is in "motion" without changing position. Unless the dragon could also levitate, the wing action of him hovering in mid air would also count as vigorous motion at a minimum.
No it's not. It is absolutely NOT movement. It's "motion." If you are on a small boat in rough water that is not moving, that is still vigorous motion, and still a concentration check. That is straight, word for word, out of the RAW. Small boat bobbing up and down is the same thing as "on the back of a dire wolf who's trying to bite someone."
The clear keyword in the rules as written is not "movement," it is "motion," of which there are three categories, "vigorous," "violent," and "extremely violent." The RAW have examples of all three which do not involve movement from your square.
And what if the mount stands still and makes a full attack action? Is there no concentration check at all, simply since it didn't move?
What if the mount is an awakened creature or a dragon or somesuch, and it casts a spell, or uses its breath weapon. No concentration check at all?
It seems very clear to me that full round actions by your mount require concentration checks on par with the amount of motion that they're making, and you don't simply get to opt out by claiming that you cast before it acted, or after it acted. That trick/excuse clearly works when the mount doesn't take a standard action, since you can have it hold still for you while you cast, but the idea of cramming your full round and his full round into the same full round without any sort of penalty just by working the initiative system is silly. They spelled it out for ranged attacks, doesn't it work that way for spells?
Thank you. Finally some sense enters the thread. Now that we can dispense with the nonsense, would you please evaluate my questions in my top post?
1) does the victim of the spring attack get an AOO on the mount's rider if the rider is not doing anything other than the mount's movement to provoke an AOO?
Not true. You're mount can take a double move action and then you can cast, but since the mount is not moving both before and after your casting you are not casting while the mount is moving.
I really, really don't think it works this way.
So my mount can double move all over the board every round and I never have to make a single concentration check?
By your rationale, my mount could X4 move every round and I could still cast without making a concentration check.
That can't be right. Flagging this for FAQ.
You can even ready actions to interrupt your mount.
You absolutely CANNOT do that. Readied actions have to take place after your turn is done, and the mount goes on your turn.
You seem to be under the impression that your turns are somehow combined, but they aren't. You and your mount just happen to use the same iniative count because it wont do anything without you commanding it to.
If this were true, then why would anyone ever have to make a concentration check on the back of a mount?
I do not believe you can cast in the middle of your mounts spring attack. I think you would have to choose to cast at either the beginning or the end of its movement. (Or like Claxon says, forget spring attack, have it just make a double move and cast between the 2 moves.)
This can't be right. Disregarding Spring Attack for a moment, consider the following basic cases, which are true in the rules:
If the mount moves once, you don't have to make a concentration check. You may cast and then have the mount move, or have the mount move and then cast.
If the mount moves twice in the round, you must make a concentration check because it's presumed you're casting during one of the mount's move segments. You take your standard action to cast during either the mount's first move segment or the second, not in a tiny instant before or between it's actions. If I could just cast before my mount did a full round action, as you seem to imply, I'd never have to make concentration checks at all. I could cast first, and then tell my mount to X4 Gallup. Since I can't, then I can't possibly cast before I tell my mount to undertake any other full round actions either. Casting on a mount that's taking a full round action must be done during the movement of the mount.
Now lets consider Spring Attack: (text replaced for clarity)
As a full-round action, (the mount) can move up to (the mount's) speed and make a single melee attack without provoking any attacks of opportunity from the target of (the mount's) attack. (The mount) can move both before and after the attack, but (the mount) must move at least 10 feet before the attack and the total distance that (the mount) move(s) cannot be greater than (the mount's) speed.
There is no 'time' to cast before or after the mount's Full Round Spring Attack action. The casting must take place while the mount is moving.
Arthanthos: The Stable Gallup feat on the mount (+4 to the concentration checks of the rider) combined with high relevant ability modifiers makes Uncanny Concentration unnecessary, but thanks for the tip.
The feat in question is "Spring Attack" - it's in the thread title. The mount has spring attack, and makes a spring attack action, and the rider casts while the mount makes the spring attack action. The mount has spring attack feat, the rider has neither the spring attack feat nor the rideby attack feat.
Okay, here's a good one. Let me see if I've got this all squared in my head.
Q1: As I understand it, if you're on the back of a spring attacking mount, any movement based AOOs on the rider are negated by the mount's feats, and the only AOOs the rider would provoke would be from actions the rider takes during the movement, not from the movement itself. Is that correct?
Q2: Are these the only relevant checks? -
Q3: Spell goes off at the midpoint of the mount's movement, correct? I read that on forums, but can't find the rule - would help to know where that is. Thanks in advance.
Q4: If the mount moved more before its attack than after, then the spell will go off before the mount closes to bite, and no casting on the defensive is necessary, correct?
Q5: If the mount moved more after its attack than before, then the spell will go off after the mount closes to bite. Does the defender get an AOO on the spellcasting rider even though he does not get an AOO on the mount? And would casting on the defensive prevent this AOO even though the caster is moving in and out of the defender's threatened zone, since his movement is tied to the spring attacking mount?
Q6: Does any of this change if the target has reach?
Presume the rider does NOT have ride by attack.