Hey guys,
Just got home from work a little while ago, and it looks like I'll be really busy until at least the early afternoon. I'll try to post something in the morning, but between meetings and conference calls, I'm gonna be stuck. I hear Macavity's concerns and I'll try to post a summary of actions, but right now, only a couple of gargoyles are going to dive in and go toe to toe with someone, and the leaders will keep shooting for as long as possible.
Hey Ruul, good luck with the RotRL campaign. If you ever need a good rogue, just gimme a holla!! :p
LM
Hey everybody,
Just got home from work, where today was even worse than yesterday. The good news is that the office crisis has finally passed, and I can do some regular work at the office again. It also means that, after a holiday party we are going to tomorrow evening, I can start posting again. Sorry for the holdup.
LM
Hey guys, I'll be posting off and on throughout the day. Sorry it took so long to get back into the action.
Still invisible, Macavity runs underneath and in front of the retreating grotesque. He hopes to take a shot as they fly by.
** spoiler omitted **
[dice=Perception check]1d20 + 12
One gargoyle sees a shimmering form in front of it and instinctively takes a swipe at Macavity.
[dice=Claw v. Macavity, AC24]1d20 + 9
[dice=damage from claw]1d6 + 2Macavity feels something slice into its arm as he runs by. You find yourself standing in front of the leaders as they retreat
LM
I don't mind Macavity being attacked or damaged while he's invisible, but I'm genuinely confused here. I thought the gargoyles were flying 20 feet off the ground. Macavity is not flying and running on the ground. I suspect the gargoyles don't have that kind of reach, so I don't understand how Macavity got into melee range with a gargoyle. Besides invisibility should provide 50% mischance regardless. Please advise.
cheers
Still invisible, Macavity runs underneath and in front of the retreating grotesque. He hopes to take a shot as they fly by.
** spoiler omitted **
[dice=Perception check]1d20 + 12
One gargoyle sees a shimmering form in front of it and instinctively takes a swipe at Macavity.
[dice=Claw v. Macavity, AC24]1d20 + 9
[dice=damage from claw]1d6 + 2Macavity feels something slice into its arm as he runs by. You find yourself standing in front of the leaders as they retreat
LM
I don't mind Macavity being attacked or damaged while he's invisible, but I'm genuinely confused here. I thought the gargoyles were flying 20 feet off the ground. Macavity is not flying and running on the ground. I suspect the gargoyles don't have that kind of reach, so I don't understand how Macavity got into melee range with a gargoyle. Besides invisibility should provide 50% mischance regardless. Please advise.
cheers
Here was my thinking on that post: Normally, it wouldn't have seen you, the bonuses to Stealth for being invisible is very nice, but in PF it is not as much of a 'gimme' as it was under 3.5, where invisibility meant you could never been seen, period. I think for PF, they went with the 'Predator' approach, where it is possible to be seen, but not very likely. In this case, I rolled a nat 20 for Perception, which always hits/succeeds, etc.
So I ruled that the gargoyle did see 'something,' and decided to attack. This is the part where I admit to a mistake. He did come down to take a swipe at you. That means that you get an AoO on it. I should have said that as part of my post. It was the gargoyle designated G3 for the record, so you can take the AoO in the gameplay thread if you want. I promise, it won't even flinch. :)
Hi LM
EDIT: I just read the gameplay thread. The G3 attack should not be an AOO, because Macavity could never be in reach of G3.
Wait a minute, Macavity acts before G3 in initiative. Even if G3 saw Macavity, he should not get an action until after Macavity had completed his run. Since G3 is flying and Macavity is running past him on the ground, there's no melee AOO. Therefore, G3 must somehow fly-by attack or charge Macavity considering how far in front of the grotesque Macavity is after his run.
Even if G3 could or does attack him, shouldn't Macavity still have a 50% mischance being invisible? Please advise.
And no thank you, Macavity would not take the AOO, because it would dispel his invisibility.
====================
As an aside, I would like to suggest that skills like Perception do not operate with auto-miss on 1 and auto-succeed on 20. Even with a natural 20 +9 Disable Device, the DC 30 lock remains locked, right?
Because... even though Macavity has Fast Stealth allowing him to double move without penalty to his stealth giving him a +36 Stealth with invisibility. If Macavity was only double moving, he should get a Stealth roll to provide the DC to the Perception check, right?
However, Macavity is running. Stealth clearly states that it can not be used while running, so Macavity's base Stealth DC is only 20 from the invisibility.
=====================
Sorry for making this more complicated than it needs to be, but I think it's important to align our understanding of the rules now, because Macavity will be using the Vanishing Trick extensively.
cheers
Hi LM
EDIT: I just read the gameplay thread. The G3 attack should not be an AOO, because Macavity could never be in reach of G3.
Wait a minute, Macavity acts before G3 in initiative. Even if G3 saw Macavity, he should not get an action until after Macavity had completed his run. Since G3 is flying and Macavity is running past him on the ground, there's no melee AOO. Therefore, G3 must somehow fly-by attack or charge Macavity considering how far in front of the grotesque Macavity is after his run.
Even if G3 could or does attack him, shouldn't Macavity still have a 50% mischance being invisible? Please advise.
And no thank you, Macavity would not take the AOO, because it would dispel his invisibility.
====================
As an aside, I would like to suggest that skills like Perception do not operate with auto-miss on 1 and auto-succeed on 20. Even with a natural 20 +9 Disable Device, the DC 30 lock remains locked, right?
Because... even though Macavity has Fast Stealth allowing him to double move without penalty to his stealth giving him a +36 Stealth with invisibility. If Macavity was only double moving, he should get a Stealth roll to provide the DC to the Perception check, right?
However, Macavity is running. Stealth clearly states that it can not be used while running, so Macavity's base Stealth DC is only 20 from the invisibility.
=====================
Sorry for making this more complicated than it needs to be, but I think it's important to align our understanding of the rules now, because Macavity will be using the Vanishing Trick extensively.
cheers
I've always allowed the nat 20 as an automatic success, because there is always a chance for a lucky shot. That being said, a nat 1 is not an automatic failure (although I might poke a little fun at the roll). If the group wants wants the nat 20 to not be an auto success, then I'll change the rule. Bear in mind, however, that it works both ways; you may want a nat 20 to hit that CR 25/MT 6 balrog some day...
Just because auto fail and auto succeed do not apply for skills does not necessarily mean auto fail and auto succeed do not apply to attacks and saving throws. My group plays that auto fail and auto succeed applies to attacks and saving throws BUT not to skills.
PS Macavity's third round action was to run (full-round action)
cheers
I've always allowed the nat 20 as an automatic success, because there is always a chance for a lucky shot. That being said, a nat 1 is not an automatic failure (although I might poke a little fun at the roll). If the group wants wants the nat 20 to not be an auto success, then I'll change the rule. Bear in mind, however, that it works both ways; you may want a nat 20 to hit that CR 25/MT 6 balrog some day...Just because auto fail and auto succeed do not apply for skills does not necessarily mean auto fail and auto succeed do not apply to attacks and saving throws. My group plays that auto fail and auto succeed applies to attacks and saving throws BUT not to skills.
PS Macavity's third round action was to run (full-round action)
cheers
I've always used the nat 20 to indicate a hit in combat; out of combat, my house group gets to add +5 to their rolls (it will go up to ten once the characters reach level 10). Also, when the group makes a stat check, a nat 20 gives them a +2, as if Aid Another kicks in. When it comes to nat 1 outside of combat, it doesn't matter, just the usual razzing that everyone gives. A nat 1 in combat is a fumble of some kind (I have the Paizo app for critical hits and fumbles, it's always fun to break that out in the group).
No. One (extreme granted) example from a playing session a few years back was that one of my players was riding a horse and attempting a charge attack. He was still pretty wet behind the ears so he didn't have any of the feats needed to do mounted combat. I made him roll a Ride check; he rolled a nat 1. I told him to roll a Dex check to stay on the horse; he rolled another nat 1; at this point, everyone was laughing, including him. I ruled that he was able to stay on the horse but that his sword went flying into the air. I made him roll to hit (I really was trying to break his bad roll streak); he rolled yet another nat 1. The first thing that popped out of my mouth was something to the effect of "Your luck is so bad that you do in fact fall off the horse, land ass up in the mud, as the sword comes down and slices your pants right down your backside." We had to take a break everyone was laughing so hard.
I've had one DM that only applies the nat 20/1 for hit/miss to attacks and assigned +5/-5 for nat 20/1 skill checks if that sounds like a decent option to you?
I don't know if I would be comfortable with throwing in a -5 on a nat 1 roll. I don't think I could make a bad situation even worse by doing that.
An automatic failure on a natural 1 for skill rolls would imply that 5% of the time, a skilled horse rider who has ridden a horse in combat every day would fail to control his horse and fall off or something. A skilled jumper who can easily make a 20 foot long jump standing still, 5% of the time will trip over her own feet and eat dirt. It's not realistic. Do you fail to tie your shoes 5% of the time you try to do it?
Ranged attacks, especially with longbows, are a really consistent high-damage dealer in Pathfinder. Individual hits may not do a lot of damage, but you get like 3 or 4 per round. Plus you're a constant harrasser of foes. If an enemy stars casting a 1-round summoning, hit her with an arrow and force a concentration check.
Well, THAT was unpleasant!
Well, THAT was unpleasant!
Huh? WHAT was unpleasant?
Heh, yeah.
That was not fun. But I hope everyone over there in Seattle are ok. I'm guessing a power outage. :(
How are we looking for posting over the next few days with Xmas and all? I can post for part of the day on Monday (dinner with the family in the afternoon) and part of the day on Xmas (movies in the afternoon).
Posting should be normal for me.
Normal weekend erratic availability for the next two weeks
Fair enough. Just to forewarn everyone, I would like to begin implementing the mythic rules in the coming weeks, with one notable exception: the +20 to initiative at MT2 is out. I can't see how that helps to speed things up, except that it gives everyone 2 full actions to mop the floor with anything I throw at you, before any of my NPC's can say 'whoopsie!'.
If you can all give me an idea of which path you want to take, we can go from there. I understand that some might be reluctant, but I see this as more of an experiment. I think it will work out well overall, but if it doesn't we can disconnect from it before much harm is done. Is anyone really opposed to trying this? I'd like to hear from everyone first before I start.
I'll be posting through the weekend, but there won't be much in combat for a little while.
Umm. Where can read the mythic rules without purchase?
Umm. Where can read the mythic rules without purchase?
There is a free download available here on Paizo, this is the link: Mythic
I didn't realize that there might be some grief about this. I'll give it some thought as the others weigh in on their opinions.
I think the game we're playing is high-powered enough. I'd like to do mythic rules eventually, but not feeling it for this particular campaign.
I skimmed the rules last night. I would be ready for them after the characters gain a bunch of levels. Not yet.
|
To clarify my position, I would only ever consider playing under a Mythic ruleset if it fits a campaign, if the game began that way and was not added on later and if I had created a character with the Mythis rules in mind.
None of those apply here and I have no desire to try to convert Lavinia to a Mythic character.
|
|
I will not go into detail regarding my opinion on the rules themselves - I have not yet played enough with a Mythic character to make an educated guess on that one.
Even though in my opinion this would mean a lot of extra work for you LM, it is also in your hands and head if this game has the potential to become a Mythic endeavor - it certainly looks like that to me :D
In any case, I would welcome the opportunity to build INTO a Mythic character, not only for the added options, but also for the flavor of it keeping in mind the whole back history for the campaign, and the nature of the path laying ahead of us. For me it is a yes, but I will of course follow the choice made by the group.