Can I just offer heartfelt congratulations to what seems to be an entire group of 'not dumping charisma'! It's really nice to be playing with a group who care about what their characters look and sound like and don't mind sacrificing a bit of combat effectiveness for this.
Narnel Falerathon wrote:
The particular change over to the new link does not poulate on my campaign page...do I need to go to the boards to see it? Why is that?
Sadly, only one thread can be linked to a campaign... Your task diverges from the main thread, and sadly there is no way to link it. I checked about this yesterday and Gary Teter told me it is one gameplay thread to a campaign. :(
Elinor Knutsdottir wrote:
Agreed! It is very nice to be sharing this story with storytellers! Thank you!
As you may have noticed, combat has begun for the team on the way to the herbalist. I am still working out the best way to do this. What I have done is made a primitive map (do not laugh it is one of the first I have ever made! :D ) and emailed it to the participants of the combat. In combat, if you can post your co-ordinates, and your action in the thread, and at the beginning of each round I will try to email a new map. Also, please roll your damage at the same time as your attack roll. It would also be really helpful if each combat post included your current hit points, AC, and any buffs, etc to make the combat run smoother. (TY ML!!)
As always, anything you can think of to make it work more smoothly is very welcome. Thanks for you being guinea pigs for my first PbP DM experience. :)
Yeah, if you roll our initiatives, then we know what order we can go in battle, and it will help keep things less chaotic. From what I understand, it is common for GMs to do this during PBP.
Your map is cool, although it might be nice if you added where our characters started on the map and where the bad guys were. If you plan on making a new map every round, we would have a good frame of reference to look back to.
While I like having control, as long as I see the roll, I'm fine with it.
In terms of running combat, in my experience, one of the trickiest things is flow -- it's often worth having people post out of order and making minor adjustments based on what happened, rather than wait for each person since they might check in during the day in different orders (in fact, some GMs I've played with take average init for each team and then let everyone go as appropriate to help with that, though I'm not advocating that, per se).
2 other conventions... In the case of a tie for initiative, the character with the higher "plus" will go first.
Also, please consider all maps to be a 5' per square scale.
Posting out of order sounds fine with common sense towards optimizing... The fighter is clearly going to choose a new target if his falls before his turn. To this end, if/or statements are likely helpful too. Ie "If foe one falls, then I cast cure light wounds, otherwise I attack foe one."
Lesson learned for me... I need to send marked maps! :)
Link to map in campaign info tab, and it should appear at the top of the page... not sure how its done. Looks thus:
Map of Level 1 - Updated 14/02/2012
I noticed a couple of rules points which I wanted to raise. I'm not trying to influence this combat at all (and I don't expect it to be altered) but just get a bearing on how we do this next time.
1. Pluchak can't normally cast enlarge person in a surprise round. You can only do a single move or standard action. That spell is a full round action. He could have moved once in the surprise round then cast it in round 1 with a five foot step.
2. Has the sabretooth got a base speed over 50ft.? It doesn't particularly matter because it will probably be first in with a charge this round but maybe in other circumstances that would matter.
3. You lose your Dex bonus to AC when you run. But does a fighter lose his two-weapon defense? Probably yes...not sure though. Suggestions please.
You can do initiatives upfront. I generally had them on my DM Profile and let the first player on deck roll for everyone. Or you could take from us a series of ten or twenty rolls and use them for passive checks like perception, stealth, sense motive and also init.
Thanks Enaris for that.
1. The idea of a full round action being 2 standard actions makes sense to me. Its elegant. Can you explain the next bit some more? Doesn't that leave a move action or 20ft? What am I missing?
2. This is probably the same as the last question but where do you get an 80ft move in a surprise round? Isn't it a single move action? I'll take a look in the books tomorrow myself - again I must be missing something.
3. Like I said thanks.
Is Pluchak going down the arcane armour training route then - with mostly melee spells?
Aidan Ayrvar wrote:
Even with failure % you took armor? Bold.
As a Crossblooded Sorcerer, my spell selection is extremely limited, and I won't be getting my second first level spell until level 4, and my first second level spell at 6. Until then I will be doing mostly buffing outside of combat with Enlarge Person and some blasting, but mostly backup melee. The armor was necessary for me to have an AC over 10 while Enlarged, otherwise it would be 8. Not good.
With Armored Kilt and Leather Armor I only have a Spell Failure of 10% and a +3 to AC, and no Armor Check penalty for only 30 gold. I though it would help my sustainability until I got a couple more levels under my belt.
1-I thought he had a movement speed of 30', so that figure is misquoted- So long as you move across an unimpeded, straight, level, dry plain (like a road) you may basically use run. I suspect that RAW says something about it having to be a full-round to run, actually.
In summation, I am misusing the stated rules because my current use of them a) does not hamper fairness and b) is not a stretch of imagination or physics.
Probably it's to do with the slightly arbitrary nature of the move/standard split - a 'move' is I think considered to be taking place at the same time as the round's standard action rather than sequentially so a single move is a walk, a double move is a run and 'running' is flat out. Actually going flat out for three seconds (from a standing start) isn't actually going to get you very much further than 'running' (from a standing start) for the same time period. This is a bit of a rationalisation to make the rules make sense. As you say, not hampering fairness/not stretching imagination should trump perfect adherence to RAW.
I am play a fair amount of wargames (tomorrow I'm a true blue Union General) and Pathfinder sometimes fits the bill of a skirmish game with roleplay on top. Pbp's are a good way to find out how others play. Also because I occasionally run Pathfinder Society games at UK cons this sort of RAW -ishness is more important to understand.
Using a surprise round action to effectively double move or half-run is no great issue for me. In fact a single move compared to casting, for instance, maybe short changing the advantage of surprise some.
Most of us hail from older versions of the rules where DMs had to make such judgement calls all the time. This sort of chat is likely to crop up again so I want you guys to realise why it matters to me. I'm always willing to see the other guys view.
Eli, I see where you're coming from, but the math is wrong. Average human walks at 3mph; assuming one jogs in combat, or "hustles", move actions are taken seperately. I had a large debate over this a while ago when my pc was playing a primarily charging character- movement rules came up a lot.
Are we not handling our prep for combat correctly? One thig I didn't realize wazs that your 'I think I saw a helmet' was actually Sigil probably PMing you about your good perception. I'll have to watch that closer..
FYI - I'm out of the office again 3 days. I will check daily, but probably at the end of each day. The start of this campaign hit just as I've had some job obligations.
Thanks for being patient as we work out combat. Hopefully it will run more smoothly in the future as we work out the kinks. This is so much easier with a battlemat and everyone pushing thier own tokens around!
Also thanks for the questions about rules! It does slow things a bit but in the end, doing this "RAW" is important to me so I learn the right way. I really appreciate having so many veterans at the table and am happy to learn from you! As I have been considering the surprise round above and reading the rules, I am not finding much that to my mind supports a half move run. I am willing to look at it differently, and am not going to redo anything that has happened thus far, but in the future lets not do have move runs. :)
One other thing that is really helping me, is when players post thier combat stats in thier post (AC, HP, and any buffs or special modifiers) and also, what space you end up on at the end of your turn. Running 2 groups is significantly more effort than I originally planned on (I am not asking for pity, I brought it on myself! AND I am having alot of fun!) so anything that can speed things up for me, and save me a few moments is greatly appreciated.
It was just a joke, I like that you use a quarterstaff. It's one of my favorites from way back.
And I will probably ditch the armor at some point. Mage armor works much better once I can get it.
Sorry for seeming so snarky. Mine was a poor attempt at a joke to, very poor. Please put it down to British sarcasm and yesterday not being a good day with a trip to A&E, sick child off school and a migraine in the morning.
When I said thanks Pluchak, I meant it. Because I never usually play characters with low movement, it's too frustrating.
Anyway it looks like there maybe one or two left alive by the time Abbas reaches the fight.
Aidan asked me in the IC thread if caled shots were allowed. I said yes. But I am rethinking that, and here is why. If called shots can be used by the PC's, they can be used against the PC's. While the average mook is not going to use them, it seems reasonable that named enemies would take the opportunity if it were to thier advantgae. The problem is that usually the worst that can happen to your PC is he winds up dead. But with called shots he can be all sorts of maimed as well. And some of these effects are rather long lasting. So I am open to either idea. However we go it will not affect combat that has already happened. What do you think?
Personally, I've never been a fan of them being used for things other than dramatic reasons (and that need was greatly reduced with the introduction of easy rules for Sunder, Disarm, Trip and Dirty Trick) -- probably because I've never seen a system for called shots that didn't allow for what I find to be, at best, cheese, and at worse, outright abuse.
Of course, I'm an old-school gamer who bought into the early-edition abstraction of hit point damage, namely that more experienced characters are able to turn with the blows, etc, so that what would have been lethal when they started (the d8 from a sword) becomes far less severe.
Generally, I find that called shot rules tend to interfere with that by making strikes which (per the hp abstraction) would not normally be reduced in severity as a result of experience suddenly have powerful and potentially long-lasting effects, which in many ways negates the advantage.
But that's me, and my gaming style.
I've played with and without them over the years, and I could see arguments going both ways. But for this time I am going to suggest that we don't. Both for the sake of simplicity, and because my character wouldn't use them :P
My experience has been positive, as my PCs use it for flavor. A pretty hulking hellknight ripped out a vampire's heart with his gauntlet, they've shot a fleeing enemy in the leg, the classic clomp over the head... Or the slingstone to the arm. It's fairly balanced, though it DOES make for a darker, deadlier game.
Looks like we are evenly split. Two for, two against, and one on the fence. Guess the GM will have to make a call.
Aidan, we posted at the same time but it was just before bed to me, so I missed your post. Your cat would go first, but part of Pluchak's frustration is that he didn't really even get to attack. I will work out his frustrations later.
Which brings me to the point, did your character say that out loud? I know it was in ooc text, but it sounded like it could have been said. If so, I would answer.
I'd also say no to called shots. D & D is a game with abstracted hit points and called shots is a compromise with a hit location system and I find that compromises generally fail spectacularly. Having said that, I've never actually used a called shot system in D & D.
I also prefer the variant vitality rules, with vigor and wounds, but its unwieldy on PbP. The called shot rules are still an abstraction, representing trying to do something other than cause harm, in a method besides maneuvers. I can see the opposition's point, I just think what it adds to the game is greater than what damage it causes.
Aidan Ayrvar wrote:
Well, I didn't know your character well enough to think that it wasn't or couldn't have been. I've played a druid with a sense of humor before, and a lot of my characters are known to be somewhat comical, so I figured I would ask.
For the record, I agree, the HP abstraction has always bothered me -- it's just that at the same time, its an integral part of the scaling that comes with the level-based game, and so things that skip over it, effectively, mess with the game.
I mean, yes, I like the idea of slowing something by shooting it in the leg or wing -- it's thematically appropriate and it prevents the weirdness that comes otherwise where you can't stop the guy with 60 hp, even though 6 of you hit him with bows or crossbows.
I just see too much potential for abuse, I guess.
For instance, I look at how a single (full-round) attack at with a -2 (to the arm) will cause the recipient to take -2 to all checks using that arm (including iterative attack rolls) for d4 rounds without a save -- as long as the attack isn't prevented by damage reduction. So even if 1 point "gets through", the target suffers from the effect - even if they otherwise have fast healing or regeneration such that the injury that caused the effect is gone before (at) the end of the round.
The cost (one full-round action) is minor compared to the potential benefit -- especially when the full-round action can be paid for by a summoned creature or low-level follower and effectively mess up something of much higher level (which the CMD mechanic would otherwise prevent)
Further, the rules don't say what happens in the case of strength (or other) penalties to damage (unlike damage resistance) -- so, then, does the 1 point (minimum) non-lethal damage that happens on, for instance, a d3-1, still trigger the called shot effect? If so, a lot of the small or tiny fae with weapon finesse become rather devastating in combat, and most of them are more than intelligent enough to figure that out.
In any case, I already put in my 2 cents, but I thought I'd clarify my reasoning with an example -- as I said before, I'll go with the majority.
Maybe we should get to know each other better first before we leap into the land of house rules. Given sufficient time we may be more willing to listen to some changes. Sigil has made it abundantly clear that as a new DM on the boards he wanted to run things very Core.
But pbps do lend themselves to a bit of artistic licence, especially if it does not spoil the game.