|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
A question came up while reading a thread about Alchemist healing bombs.
Can a PC forfeit their Dex and dodge bonuses to AC when an attack is made against them essentially making the Touch AC 10 (or about, based on size, etc.)?
PRD wrote: Dodge Bonuses: Dodge bonuses represent actively avoiding blows. Any situation that denies you your Dexterity bonus also denies you dodge bonuses. (Wearing armor, however, does not limit these bonuses the way it limits a Dexterity bonus to AC.) Unlike most sorts of bonuses, dodge bonuses stack with each other. I am not going to be trying to dodge out of the way of his bomb that I know is going to be healing me.
I understand not being able to forfeit armor bonus (if that applied here)but I can't find anything saying you can't forfeit dex and dodge.
So can you?
|
5 people marked this as a favorite.
|
I think it would be a bad and pointless thing to have written in a rule book. Not only would it be a waste of space, but that would just make me think if there has to be rulings on every little thing, like going to the bathroom.
Anyway, I don't think there is a single GM on this planet that would tell you no and that you're forced to dodge against your will.
|
3 people marked this as a favorite.
|
This is a tricky area of the game, that leads to a slippery slope and other problems. Such as, if you can willingly reduce your AC by giving up your dodge can you make yourself a willing target for your friends to perform combat maneuvers like reposition or bullrush to move you out of the way of dangerous things.
As a GM I simply resolve this with no. It is too difficult to make something balanced around this in my opinion and it is easier to say no. There are not really rules that cover this topic unfortunately.
At the very least I would say that if you willingly lower your AC it last for an entire of combat, not just your turn or however long it takes to for you to be affected by what you desire. Remember that combat is an abstract, and though turns are all taken sequentially they all occur simultaneously within the same 6 second round. If you open yourself up to taking (beneficial) hits from an ally you open yourself up to taking harmful ones from an enemy.
Sauce987654321 wrote: Anyway, I don't think there is a single GM on this planet that would tell you no and that you're forced to dodge against your will. Hi!
Generally, I just reduce it to an AC or CMD 10 check to do something to a willing target.
Claxon wrote:
At the very least I would say that if you willingly lower your AC it last for an entire of combat, not just your turn or however long it takes to for you to be affected by what you desire. Remember that combat is an abstract, and though turns are all taken sequentially they all occur simultaneously within the same 6 second round. If you open yourself up to taken (beneficial) hits from an ally you open yourself up to taking harmful ones from an enemy. I agree with this. If you're going to stand still to let yourself be touched, you're going to be standing still for the orc who's trying to bash you with a mace.
Can't you just stand there and not take it like a man?
Cowering wrote: The character is frozen in fear and can take no actions. A cowering character takes a –2 penalty to Armor Class and loses his Dexterity bonus (if any). Although I don't see why standing still and not dodging out of the way would be impossible. Preventing that so it doesn't break other things seems like the wrong approach.
|
2 people marked this as a favorite.
|
i usually resolve this in either of the 2 ways:
ready action on the receiving end:
"i'm readying an action to stop moving just as the alcemist throws the bomb"
the above "eats up" the standard action of the one receiving as well as the action of the one giving. BUT it has the benefit that the character was actually waiting and watching for just the right moment to freeze in space, and continues to weave and dodge afterwards (so no penalty to ac)
the second way is simply th echaracter forfeiting his dex/dodge ac bonus by staying still. This has the implication that it lasts TILL THE START OF HIS NEXT ROUND similar p.e. to power attack, expertise, etc.
so the bad guys benefit as well, but it doesn't require any concentration (read standard action) to actually perform.
I see no reason to not allow a person to voluntarily give up their Dodge bonus and/or DEX bonus to AC. You are allowed to voluntarily fail a saving throw, so why not?
I may implement a similar restriction to the one Claxon stated: If you drop your DEX to AC, you lose it until your next turn or something like that. But you should be allowed to drop it.
In the one or two times this has come up in games I've played, the GM has turned to the person and said "are you going to try and dodge / are you going to let him bull rush you?" And that was pretty much it. It's up to the GM as it's not specifically stated you can't and it's implied that you can but there aren't specific rules for doing so.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Claxon wrote: At the very least I would say that if you willingly lower your AC it last for an entire of combat, not just your turn or however long it takes to for you to be affected by what you desire. Remember that combat is an abstract, and though turns are all taken sequentially they all occur simultaneously within the same 6 second round. If you open yourself up to taking (beneficial) hits from an ally you open yourself up to taking harmful ones from an enemy. I disagree with this. Trying to dodge three sword swings from three different enemies requires you to respond to each one, to identify the threat and move out of the way. If you can do that for free, you can equally move intentionally into the path of something you do want to hit you, which would make you much easier to hit than an AC 10 flat footed character.
We don't require to-hit rolls for PCs who want to be hit by touch spells from friendly characters - they aren't trying to evade, so no attack roll is needed. Doing the same at range shouldn't be much harder.
MurphysParadox wrote: Generally, I just reduce it to an AC or CMD 10 check to do something to a willing target. Matthew Downie wrote: We don't require to-hit rolls for PCs who want to be hit by touch spells from friendly characters - they aren't trying to evade, so no attack roll is needed. Doing the same at range shouldn't be much harder. Agreed with this. It should still require an attack roll to hit because it's a ranged attack. A bad throw, concealment, a strong wind, or unsteady surface can still cause the thrower to miss. But if a target wants to be hit by something, it shouldn't be that hard. If he's able to dodge an attack, why shouldn't he be able to move directly into the path of the attack using the same effort? I don't agree that a character should be required to lower their defenses for an entire round so they can willingly be hit by a single attack.
In reference to the forfeiting of a save; one does not automatically forfeit all saves for that whole round then correct? I am unsure why forfeiting Dex/Dodge would be any different.
I do disagree that it should be an auto-hit though, especially with something ranged. Even aiming at a wall or particular square has an AC of at least 5, not to mention a nat 1 could be rolled.
Edit: Shinobi Rhatahema!
|
4 people marked this as a favorite.
|
Claxon wrote: This is a tricky area of the game, that leads to a slippery slope and other problems. Such as, if you can willingly reduce your AC by giving up your dodge can you make yourself a willing target for your friends to perform combat maneuvers like reposition or bullrush to move you out of the way of dangerous things. As GM, if a player wants to spend a standard action to move another player 5 feet, or push them out of the way, and that player is down with it, they can have it. Free. No roll.
But yes, this is one of those "check with the GM" situations.
And I don't think the game needs more official rulings on such things, lest it collapse under its own weight and form some kind of RPG black hole.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
I would most certainly allow one PC to willingly let another PC affect/hit him with pretty much anything, if for no other reason than simplicity's sake and making teamwork more viable.
Claxon wrote: This is a tricky area of the game, that leads to a slippery slope and other problems. Such as, if you can willingly reduce your AC by giving up your dodge can you make yourself a willing target for your friends to perform combat maneuvers like reposition or bullrush to move you out of the way of dangerous things. I don't see the problem with that. If the person wants to spend THEIR round moving YOU, why is that an issue? They could already do something like that with a spell anyway. You make it sound like they can push you out of the way of a fireball or something. Only if you can bull rush as an immediate action.
Claxon wrote: As a GM I simply resolve this with no. It is too difficult to make something balanced around this in my opinion and it is easier to say no. There are not really rules that cover this topic unfortunately. You can fail saves intentionally. It's not the same thing, but it's similar, and gives you an idea of what's possible.
Claxon wrote: At the very least I would say that if you willingly lower your AC it last for an entire of combat, not just your turn or however long it takes to for you to be affected by what you desire. Remember that combat is an abstract, and though turns are all taken sequentially they all occur simultaneously within the same 6 second round. If you open yourself up to taking (beneficial) hits from an ally you open yourself up to taking harmful ones from an enemy. This right here is TERRIBLE. You're telling me that in a single 6-second round of combat I can notice and get a shot at dodging 19 different attacks from enemies, but if I move to intercept one thing thrown at me I have to stand perfectly still for the entire six seconds and let EVERYTHING hit me? And as Thewms said, similar to the above rule of intentionally failing a save: you don't put yourself in a position to fail all saves for the remainder of that round. Similarly, do you enforce rules like this for ally buffs? If the cleric touches you, do they roll against your AC, or are you not allowed to dodge enemies or the rest of the round because you didn't dodge the cleric?
Thewms wrote: I do disagree that it should be an auto-hit though, especially with something ranged. Even aiming at a wall or particular square has an AC of at least 5, not to mention a nat 1 could be rolled. I'd even be fine being expected to resolve an attack against 10 + deflection. Deflection bonuses usually represent things you can't willingly control (even though they don't seem to come up in the case of touching allies). But at the very least, you should be able to consciously not dodge.
Dispari Scuro wrote: This right here is TERRIBLE. You're telling me that in a single 6-second round of combat I can notice and get a shot at dodging 19 different attacks from enemies, but if I move to intercept one thing thrown at me I have to stand perfectly still for the entire six seconds and let EVERYTHING hit me? And as Thewms said, similar to the above rule of intentionally failing a save: you don't put yourself in a position to fail all saves for the remainder of that round. I don't think it's that terrible. It's logically consistent with the rest of his concerns, which we don't happen to share.
|
4 people marked this as a favorite.
|
Claxon wrote: if you can willingly reduce your AC by giving up your dodge can you make yourself a willing target for your friends to perform combat maneuvers like reposition or bullrush to move you out of the way of dangerous things. Why would that not be allowed? That's a fantastic idea that encourages teamwork and coordination. To say that a friend can't pull you out of the line of fire is just arbitrarily limiting.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Mythic Evil Lincoln wrote: Dispari Scuro wrote: This right here is TERRIBLE. You're telling me that in a single 6-second round of combat I can notice and get a shot at dodging 19 different attacks from enemies, but if I move to intercept one thing thrown at me I have to stand perfectly still for the entire six seconds and let EVERYTHING hit me? And as Thewms said, similar to the above rule of intentionally failing a save: you don't put yourself in a position to fail all saves for the remainder of that round. I don't think it's that terrible. It's logically consistent with the rest of his concerns, which we don't happen to share. I generally have a very hard time understanding why people want to make it difficult, if not impossible to do something as simple as cooperate with allies. Like people who want you to take an entire feat tree just to be able to feed someone a potion. Discouraging teamwork seems to go against the entire idea of tabletop gaming with friends.
You are fine to disagree with me Dispari Scuro, there are no written rules for this situation. I have had trouble with it in the past making it too easy in certain situations by using the constructs of readied actions combined with "automatic success" against allies, or even near automatic. Ergo, I don't allow it. This was merely my suggestion to you.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
I would say you're not dodging 19 different attacks but rather everything that comes your way. Imagine trying to catch one out of twenty things that come at you in a span of 6 seconds.
As to the other point, would you allow a fighter to bring an NPC whose sole purpose was to bull rush them into place for a full attack every round?
Durngrun Stonebreaker wrote: I would say you're not dodging 19 different attacks but rather everything that comes your way. Imagine trying to catch one out of twenty things that come at you in a span of 6 seconds.
As to the other point, would you allow a fighter to bring an NPC whose sole purpose was to bull rush them into place for a full attack every round?
Snatch Arrows.
And yes, that sounds like a terrible waste of money, and again something you can probably do with spells anyway. Besides, they can already do that, the DC is just higher. In any case, the fighter's CMD is almost likely NOT a result of high Dex or dodge, it's from BAB and Str.
Dispari Scuro wrote: This right here is TERRIBLE. You're telling me that in a single 6-second round of combat I can notice and get a shot at dodging 19 different attacks from enemies, but if I move to intercept one thing thrown at me I have to stand perfectly still for the entire six seconds and let EVERYTHING hit me? the rules exist to allow a real time world to work with turn based actions.
see it this way:
combat expertise assumes that you move more defensivly sacrificing some offence for it.
if you could simply turn a switch between defence and no defence, then it would be perfectly logical to allow someone to attack on his round with no penalty whatsoever in offence (he doesn't have to defend himself while attacking right?) and then switch on defence mode for the remainder of the round.
similary, you can't "pause" for a split second before a bomb lands and then resume your dodging, because, despite the rules, everything happens relativly simultaneously (in 6 secs).
the above is the justification for ALL the actions that affect your combat round (combat relfexes, fighting defensivly, full defence, power attack, etc). If you justify being able to stop be defensive for some attack, and resume being defensive for the attack that comes 0.01sec later, then you can assume that your character can dodge after his initiative (turn defensive fighting on p.e.) without the drawbacks to his current attack routine
ofc, the way i rule it (option give to the player to either actually shift his focus on that precise moment, with a ready action, or to either lower his guard for a few seconds, by losing the dex bonus for the whole round) i try to (i want to think) stay as true as i can to the spirit of a real time world.
Whatever your interpretation of the rules logic of combat in Pathfinder, I'd still expect a GM to look at situations on a case by case basis and rule with balance in consideration. To that end, do you really want it to be disproportionately difficult for the alchemist to use his healing bombs on the party tank? No one is demanding a successful touch attack to grant an ally a cure spell.
Rhatahema wrote: Whatever your interpretation of the rules logic of combat in Pathfinder, I'd still expect a GM to look at situations on a case by case basis and rule with balance in consideration. To that end, do you really want it to be disproportionately difficult for the alchemist to use his healing bombs on the party tank? No one is demanding a successful touch attack to grant an ally a cure spell. that's clearly defined in the rules though. and you have to consider that said cleric is within the range of getting his head smacked by a greatsword, as opposed to the alchemist who is far in the back chucking bombs.
and it's not hard to actually hit touch ac with an alchemist vs a tank.
either way, the way that pathfinder has winded up, at least for me and my group, i have to go out of my way to actually make encounters intersting, because players obliterate CR appropriate monsters without blinking an eye, sometimes (most of the times) the element of suspence, and the anxiety of "will i hit or not" are what actually make a pnp rpg exciting and memorable.
But as most have said, rules are not all inclusinve, and you will see a lot of variations in tables, whatever keeps the whole group happy is the best (and this is why i don't find myself playing pfs where dms are more restricted by the rules than they are of each individual table composition)
Dispari Scuro wrote: Mythic Evil Lincoln wrote: Dispari Scuro wrote: This right here is TERRIBLE. You're telling me that in a single 6-second round of combat I can notice and get a shot at dodging 19 different attacks from enemies, but if I move to intercept one thing thrown at me I have to stand perfectly still for the entire six seconds and let EVERYTHING hit me? And as Thewms said, similar to the above rule of intentionally failing a save: you don't put yourself in a position to fail all saves for the remainder of that round. I don't think it's that terrible. It's logically consistent with the rest of his concerns, which we don't happen to share. I generally have a very hard time understanding why people want to make it difficult, if not impossible to do something as simple as cooperate with allies. Like people who want you to take an entire feat tree just to be able to feed someone a potion. Discouraging teamwork seems to go against the entire idea of tabletop gaming with friends. Indeed. It's bad enough that there's no way in Pathfinder to actually walk as a group.
Seriously, there's no way to walk up to your move speed side-by-side with another character. Even a readied action can't do it; the two characters still move serially instead of simultaneously. This actually matters sometimes (often involving traps).
shroudb wrote: Rhatahema wrote: Whatever your interpretation of the rules logic of combat in Pathfinder, I'd still expect a GM to look at situations on a case by case basis and rule with balance in consideration. To that end, do you really want it to be disproportionately difficult for the alchemist to use his healing bombs on the party tank? No one is demanding a successful touch attack to grant an ally a cure spell. that's clearly defined in the rules though. and you have to consider that said cleric is within the range of getting his head smacked by a greatsword, as opposed to the alchemist who is far in the back chucking bombs. This creates far too many scenarios. The cleric isn't always standing next to an enemy, anyway. He can be behind you. Or maybe there isn't even an enemy.
Besides, what if the person I'm throwing a potion at isn't near any badguys? What if I spend my free action to shout "Potion incoming!" Okay, maybe there's not enough time. What if I shouted it last round? What if I'm standing adjacent to the person I'm throwing the potion at, just like the cleric you mentioned? What if I'm throwing it at the wizard, who is 60 feet away from all combat, and hasn't been in danger for the last 4 rounds? What if we aren't even in combat? If we're taking all these things into account, at what point do we allow the player to not dodge it?
If a cleric can do it with Reach Spell, why can't an alchemist? In fact, does Reach Spell also require an attack roll? Do you deny that person their defense for the entire round, like people have been saying above?
When you try to include "realism" and start talking about what takes place in the 6-second time span of a round, you just create more problems.
Dispari Scuro wrote: shroudb wrote: Rhatahema wrote: Whatever your interpretation of the rules logic of combat in Pathfinder, I'd still expect a GM to look at situations on a case by case basis and rule with balance in consideration. To that end, do you really want it to be disproportionately difficult for the alchemist to use his healing bombs on the party tank? No one is demanding a successful touch attack to grant an ally a cure spell. that's clearly defined in the rules though. and you have to consider that said cleric is within the range of getting his head smacked by a greatsword, as opposed to the alchemist who is far in the back chucking bombs. This creates far too many scenarios. The cleric isn't always standing next to an enemy, anyway. He can be behind you. Or maybe there isn't even an enemy.
Besides, what if the person I'm throwing a potion at isn't near any badguys? What if I spend my free action to shout "Potion incoming!" Okay, maybe there's not enough time. What if I shouted it last round? What if I'm standing adjacent to the person I'm throwing the potion at, just like the cleric you mentioned? What if I'm throwing it at the wizard, who is 60 feet away from all combat, and hasn't been in danger for the last 4 rounds? What if we aren't even in combat? If we're taking all these things into account, at what point do we allow the player to not dodge it?
If a cleric can do it with Reach Spell, why can't an alchemist? In fact, does Reach Spell also require an attack roll? Do you deny that person their defense for the entire round, like people have been saying above?
When you try to include "realism" and start talking about what takes place in the 6-second time span of a round, you just create more problems. as far as reach spell goes, a feat is a specialization of a character. I wouldn't mind a player of mine asking me if p.e. he could pick up a feat that would grant him exactly that, because thematically feats are exactly that, specializations of your character (i doubt ther will be ever a need to design such a feat though)
but as far as i am concerned, in my tables, what you described is exactly that, a readied action to receive a bomb on your chest, or as others have said, a movement from the affected party to intercept the projectile.
But passivly dropping your defence, when it's not your turn, and resuming it immidiatly afterwards?
as i said before in my example:
f one can do that, why then can't he attack first and THEN switch to defensive fighting? or even total defence? isn't the rationale that you can stop and change your stance (defensive, offensive, etc) with a mere thought what we argue here?
shroudb wrote: as far as reach spell goes, a feat is a specialization of a character. I wouldn't mind a player of mine asking me if p.e. he could pick up a feat that would grant him exactly that, because thematically feats are exactly that, specializations of your character (i doubt ther will be ever a need to design such a feat though) You have to take a discovery to throw healing bombs. And bombs, anyway, are just an alchemist class feature -- because they're the only ones skilled in it. And (since we're talking about doing all this next to badguys), you probably also need the precise bombs discovery so as not to hit enemies with it too. Is that not specialization?
Attempting to drag ou reposition a friend is NOT EQUAL to the Reposition or Drag maneuver which state "You can attempt to drag a foe" or "You can attempt to hinder a foe "...
I will allow it to a character that can't discern friend from foe though... :p
THere's no maneuver in the book which let you drag or reposition a friend so you have to make a rule : he can be willing or not, in every case he provoke... That's my rule... ;)
Dispari Scuro wrote: shroudb wrote: as far as reach spell goes, a feat is a specialization of a character. I wouldn't mind a player of mine asking me if p.e. he could pick up a feat that would grant him exactly that, because thematically feats are exactly that, specializations of your character (i doubt ther will be ever a need to design such a feat though) You have to take a discovery to throw healing bombs. And bombs, anyway, are just an alchemist class feature -- because they're the only ones skilled in it. And (since we're talking about doing all this next to badguys), you probably also need the precise bombs discovery so as not to hit enemies with it too. Is that not specialization? same thing can be said about the healer though isn't it not? spells are their class feature, they need to expend resources to do them, and etc.
you still haven't answered my example about:
Quote: if one can do that, why then can't he attack first and THEN switch to defensive fighting? or even total defence? isn't the rationale that you can stop and change your stance (defensive, offensive, etc) with a mere thought what we argue here?
Loengrin wrote: Attempting to drag ou reposition a friend is NOT EQUAL to the Reposition or Drag maneuver which state "You can attempt to drag a foe" or "You can attempt to hinder a foe "...
I will allow it to a character that can't discern friend from foe though... :p
THere's no maneuver in the book which let you drag or reposition a friend so you have to make a rule : he can be willing or not, in every case he provoke... That's my rule... ;)
Please tell me you're not actually serious?
By the by, you also do realize that you're never required to take an AoO when provoked, so that does nothing?
You normally could decide whether you're using Combat Expertise from attack to attack, except the feat explicitly states that you cannot.
No comparison here.
It is widely accepted that you can fail a Will save on purpose, is it not? Why in one moment are you fully able to mentally defend yourself, then let down your mental barriers. Then once the effect has taken place, put those barriers back up, all on someone else's turn.
It's reactionary, I'd say. You know the cause (spell, song, arrow, bomb etc.) and are able to react appropriately (fail the save, not dodge).
Zhayne wrote: You normally could decide whether you're using Combat Expertise from attack to attack, except the feat explicitly states that you cannot.
No comparison here.
err no?
as you say, it is explicity stated that you cannot. as is explicity stated in power attack. as is explicity stated in fighting defensivly, as in full defence, as in etcetcetc.
Almost all actions that modify your stance last from the moment you activate them till the start of your next round (exceptions being lunge feat and styles which require a specific action to switch)
based on the above, and barring ANY rule that states that you can forfeit dodge bonuses, the most logical solution in my mind is that dropping your dex/dodge lasts from activation to start of next round.
Thewms wrote: It is widely accepted that you can fail a Will save on purpose, is it not? Why in one moment are you fully able to mentally defend yourself, then let down your mental barriers then once the effect has taken place, put those barriers back up, all on someone else's turn.
It's reactionary, I'd say. You know the cause (spell, song, arrow, bomb etc.) and are able to react appropriately (fail the save, not dodge).
because failing a will saving throw takes a split second of thought, dodging/not dodging requires actual movement and time
You should be able to allow an attack/bomb to hit you in which you loose dex/dodge bonuses just like you can opt to intentionally fail a saving throw on a spell an ally is casting on you.
People don't dodge touch from cure spells, and they still keep their full AC vs enemies. I don't see the problem here. Neither cure spells or this healing bomb is an attack.
shroudb wrote:
Almost all actions that modify your stance last from the moment you activate them till the start of your next round (exceptions being lunge feat and styles which require a specific action to switch) If there are obvious exceptions, why cannot this be one of them? The fact that they explicitly state that they operate in specific ways implies to me that they are all exceptions, actually, to the intended rule.
Even moreso, how does this rule actually improve or enhance the game?
Zhayne wrote: shroudb wrote:
Almost all actions that modify your stance last from the moment you activate them till the start of your next round (exceptions being lunge feat and styles which require a specific action to switch) If there are obvious exceptions, why cannot this be one of them?
Even moreso, how does this rule actually improve or enhance the game? there aren't obvious exceptions:
lunge still carries the penalty p.e. till the start of the next round, only the benefit goes away.
styles are swift action to enable so you wouldn't be able to change them if it's not your turn.
what people are asking is if they can drop their ac, ouside of their turn, and reenable it again, again outside of their initiatize.
as for the actual benefits, what are the benefits of p.e. the monsters having AC and not attacks autohitting everything? for the challenge of it.
sure, if i play in a table that everyone is against it i wouldn't rule it that way, but challenge adds excitment, excitments adds enjoyability.
I see this only adding frustration, annoyance and false difficulty; instead of just fighting the enemy, you have to fight the enemy and the rules.
Zhayne wrote: I see this only adding frustration, annoyance and false difficulty; instead of just fighting the enemy, you have to fight the enemy and the rules. everyone can have an opinion, and since there are no concrete rules, everyone can play it on their table as they want.
but for me, i believe that having the option of targeting the ground for "certain" healing vs targetting the one in the thick of it for "maximum healing but with a chance of failure" is a valid option, especially since it turns single target healing abilities into aoes.
if you can autohit with the healing bombs why ever consider the option of ground targetting them?
Not to derail, but this is also an area where the game rules are just lacking. For example, suppose you wanted to simulate a boxing match where one competitor wants to throw the match. Ideally, the player should be allowed to alternate between attempting to defend themselves and allowing some blows to hit. Pulling some punches, attempting to deliver others, and bluffing the crowd into thinking he's trying his best with every move. As is, if you punch, it's got to be full strength modifier, full dice rolled. If you wanted to be punched, you'd still have to try to dodge it. And if you wanted to "deceive someone" (the other boxer and crowd), the action is at least 1 round, which would mean you could only convince them while not throwing punches (assuming bluff covers nonverbal deception).
With all the extraordinary things a character can do in combat (potentially dodge a 20ft radius fireball centered on them without getting burnt), I don't see why realism becomes such a huge issue in this instance.
Rhatahema wrote: Not to derail, but this is also an area where the game rules are just lacking. For example, suppose you wanted to simulate a boxing match where one competitor wants to throw the match. Ideally, the player should be allowed to alternate between attempting to defend themselves and allowing some blows to hit. Pulling some punches, attempting to deliver others, and bluffing the crowd into thinking he's trying his best with every move. As is, if you punch, it's got to be full strength modifier, full dice rolled. If you wanted to be punched, you'd still have to try to dodge it. And if you wanted to "deceive someone" (the other boxer and crowd), the action is at least 1 round, which would mean you could only convince them while not throwing punches (assuming bluff covers nonverbal deception).
With all the extraordinary things a character can do in combat (potentially dodge a 20ft radius fireball centered on them without getting burnt), I don't see why realism becomes such a huge issue in this instance.
This came up in a recent thread where someone was asking if they could decide not to crit, due to a scenario in which they were trying to knock someone out and killed them by accident.
While I understand that rules are there to guide the combat, I don't think they should somehow imply that we have no control over our own actions.
Rhatahema wrote: Not to derail, but this is also an area where the game rules are just lacking. For example, suppose you wanted to simulate a boxing match where one competitor wants to throw the match. Ideally, the player should be allowed to alternate between attempting to defend themselves and allowing some blows to hit. Pulling some punches, attempting to deliver others, and bluffing the crowd into thinking he's trying his best with every move. As is, if you punch, it's got to be full strength modifier, full dice rolled. If you wanted to be punched, you'd still have to try to dodge it. And if you wanted to "deceive someone" (the other boxer and crowd), the action is at least 1 round, which would mean you could only convince them while not throwing punches (assuming bluff covers nonverbal deception).
With all the extraordinary things a character can do in combat (potentially dodge a 20ft radius fireball centered on them without getting burnt), I don't see why realism becomes such a huge issue in this instance.
i would never have a problem with someone not using their full strength score on a round p.e. despite rules not covering it, it's painfully obvious that one could do that.
bluffing the crowd through movement would also be allowed, after all, that is feinting but against a larger crowd.
lowering your guard (dropping your dex bonus) would also be possible.
also deliberatly getting hit.
each of those though, would require some actions.
p.e. you could ready an action to plant your face in his fist (auto hit), you could lower your guard for a few secs (dex penalty till the start of next round), imitating an attack pattern but missing (bluff check).
i'm not arguing that those things can't be done. what i'm arguing is that they can be done without any consious effort (free actions outside of your initiative order).
The rules assume certain actions will always be against foes, but the book is not large enough to cover every possible situation. Now since we are in the rules section, which I did not realize with my last post, I have a question.
Does the healing bomb target AC because it is just like any other bomb, or is it written without calling for an attack?
shroudb wrote: i'm not arguing that those things can't be done. what i'm arguing is that they can be done without any consious effort (free actions outside of your initiative order). Fair enough. I guess what it comes down to for me is that, besides rules simplicity and balance, that I have higher expectations of Pathfinder characters than real life fighters. Compared to everything else a character can potentially accomplish, allowing someone to choose not to dodge a flask thrown at them unexpectedly doesn't seem far fetched. If you wanted some additional restrictions, maybe a perception check to notice it in time, or maybe it provokes if they let their guard down for that second (this actually seems most in line with the rules logic to me).
wraithstrike wrote: The rules assume certain actions will always be against foes, but the book is not large enough to cover every possible situation. Now since we are in the rules section, which I did not realize with my last post, I have a question.
Does the healing bomb target AC because it is just like any other bomb, or is it written without calling for an attack?
The wording is: Benefit: When the alchemist creates a bomb, he can choose to have it heal damage instead of dealing it. Creating a healing bomb requires the alchemist to expend an infused extract or potion containing a cure spell. A creature that takes a direct hit from a healing bomb is healed as if she had imbibed the infusion or potion used to create the bomb. Creatures in the splash radius are healed for the minimum amount of damage the cure spell is capable of healing. A healing bomb damages undead instead of healing them.
While the "direct hit" part could be assumed to imply an attack roll, it's also used throughout several bomb descriptions to describe the difference between the creature in the middle of the effect (full dice) and those in the splash (minimum dice). So you COULD argue that it doesn't actually ask you to make an attack roll.
Healing bomb discovery changes bomb the same way that p.e. concussion bomb does (marked as a discovery that alters bombs and not stackable with other types of bombs)
Then it goes on to describe what happens on a direct HIT and what happens on the splash radius.
P.s.
After this discussion, it occurred to me that apart from the 2 options I usually give my players I could potentially give a 3rd one, aoo:
Alchemist sees fighter wounded and fighting an orc, he yells to him "bigstupidfighter healbomb incoming" only to be yelled back "wait for my signal"
The alchemist readies an action to throw the bomb when the fighter calls
Initiative progress, and the fighter's turn arrives. He smacks the orc in the head (full attack) and momentarily disengages (5ft back) yelling "now" as he holds still (provokes from all around) and gets a vial in his head healing him (from the ready action alchemist)
Seems much more fluid that way, that you can stay still, IF it is your initiative, but doing so provokes from those around you. And adds a layer of strategy behind.
Dispari Scuro wrote: wraithstrike wrote: The rules assume certain actions will always be against foes, but the book is not large enough to cover every possible situation. Now since we are in the rules section, which I did not realize with my last post, I have a question.
Does the healing bomb target AC because it is just like any other bomb, or is it written without calling for an attack?
The wording is: Benefit: When the alchemist creates a bomb, he can choose to have it heal damage instead of dealing it. Creating a healing bomb requires the alchemist to expend an infused extract or potion containing a cure spell. A creature that takes a direct hit from a healing bomb is healed as if she had imbibed the infusion or potion used to create the bomb. Creatures in the splash radius are healed for the minimum amount of damage the cure spell is capable of healing. A healing bomb damages undead instead of healing them.
While the "direct hit" part could be assumed to imply an attack roll, it's also used throughout several bomb descriptions to describe the difference between the creature in the middle of the effect (full dice) and those in the splash (minimum dice). So you COULD argue that it doesn't actually ask you to make an attack roll. If you are aiming for a square then the AC is 5 or 10, I forget which, but either way I don't think the intent is for the ally to try to dodge your attack.
Square is AC 5, or 10 - 5 dex mod
Zhayne wrote: Please tell me you're not actually serious?
By the by, you also do realize that you're never required to take an AoO when provoked, so that does nothing?
Yes I realize that but do you realize that if you can use the Reposition Maneuver with an ally you can move him without having him to suffer from an AoO from his foe ?
Same with bull rush without greater bulle rush you can move your ally without suffering AoO but when you take Greater Bullrush the same ally you can move before without suffering from AoO now suffer from it ?
No, you should make a difference between maneuver you do to a foe and maneuver you do to ally... The same way you difference spell you cast on a foe and spell you cast on an ally...
Oh yes, for the opening post, your throwing a kind of splash weapon like a grenade, you don't have to roll against the ac of the character in this square but against the square AC which gices you an AC 5 to beat...
I Think bomb is the same no ? Am I wrong ? I haven't read the splash weapon rule in a while...
|
