That character is just damned inspired.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Who, Trent? Poor guy. He throws a brick at a man who is basically a dragon wearing a tiefling suit, then gets his mind blasted out of his head with a divine word of rebuke, then manages to curse more colorfully than any other NPC so far when glitter gets in his eyes.
I hope he survives this.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That character is just damned inspired.
I think he was referring to your Vanessa character. Because it is damned inspired!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Lmao Dragon wearing a teifling suit! <3
Ya the poor guy. Came at me with a rock. I can't hate him.
Thanks for correcting me on the spell radius. For whatever reason, I was convinced it was a 20' radius, not 10'.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Hah! Demoralizing is a good way to use actions while blind.
As a funny note you guys might appreciate, I was at my therapist today, and we had this exchange:
Me: I want to do something special for my first birthday since transitioning.
Therapist: Of course! I see you cosplaying Avelina and walking around on the arm of an armored Wonder Woman.
Me: *realizes my therapist is awesome and knows me perfectly*
Lol that's awesome, Avelina.
Early congrats on your big day coming up!
Indeed! Enjoy yourself, whatever you do.
I was looking over the Area Templates for Reach as a double check. There is an erata noting that while a 10' reach did not used to reach the 2nd diagonal except as to threaten the square if someone moves through it to the 1st diagonal, this has been changed. If you haven't looked at the reach diagrams for a while, be sure to check them out. Leriel threatens a lot of squares between her glaive and her armored fists, so if you are going to be moving, be sure you know which squares she threatens.
If you want to announce movement and then wait for the results of an AOO (if any), I'll try to get such posts up promptly.
Trent continues to not disappoint.
I got the stats of the character from the NPC Guide. It's meant to be a representative of a street thug, which I figure is the kind of follower a cult of Baphomet cleric would attract in the aftermath of the fall of Kenabres. He's not got the weapons to overpower anyone, and since he's only had one round to act unimpeded by magic, he's had to improvise a lot. Glad you like him.
Hey guys, I'm so sorry for the delay. I had a post apoc larp this week but was on staff and thought i would have access to post. Unfortunately the site was so far out that i did not have any connectivity on my phone :(
I am back now and I will endeavor to give a warning next time regardless of if i think ill have connectivity.
No problem. I'll post early this afternoon (EDT, US).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
No worries on the time. That roll though? Unacceptable, we expect better than threes, Karas :)
Just a note. I have been hit with some of the worst food poisoning I've had in forever. If I'm not around much this week, please feel free to bot Ellena for me. Obviously, she plans on rending the giant in front of her limb from limb.
Thanks. I'll get back as soon as I feel up to it.
Sorry to hear it. Hope you feel better soon. The serpent creature has received some healing and it is active again. Unless Avelina manages to put it negative again, Ellena will get an AOO when it rises from prone (whatever that means for a serpent). If it is still alive when Ellena acts, I'll roll random as to whether Ellena attacks Leriel or the serpent, unless I get other instructions before then.
If Ellena wants to spoiler two attacks for AOOs and her turn attacks, feel free.
Minor rules question: If a character has combat reflexes, she normally gets a number of AOOs in a turn equal to her Dexterity modifier + 1. If a condition affects her dexterity score, such as enlarge person or dexterity damage, would that reduce the number of AOOs by 1 for every 2 points of dexterity drop?
Some changes to ability scores do not affect things that are related to the ability score bonus, such as receiving a bonus to Constitution from Bear's Endurance does not affect the number of rounds a barbarian can rage.
Is there a default assumption that all ability score changes affect things that are derived from the modifier unless noted otherwise?
Thanks for your input.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Ability damage and penalties only affect the exact list of things listed under their entry in the CRB/PRD, and AoOs from combat reflexes is not one of them. Only ability drain actually alters your ability score.
Essentially, you should never lose access to a feat or hve to recalculate your carrying capacity because you of ability damage or penalties. It also makes con damage slightly more manageable because it does not actually lower your con score, which means your negative con (and the point at which you die) stays the same.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
No problem! Everyone runs penalties and damage wrong, partly because apparently few people (including myself for a long time!) actually read those sections of the rules and partly because they worked differently in 3.5, so people just assumed the rules were the same.
It is a very important distinction, though. I had an argument with a GM in a PFS module because he was declaring another character dead (who was an aasimar that the GM wouldnt be able to rez or remake) based on an incorrect interpretation of the rules.
I've been wrong enough times this melee to be gun-shy about my command of the rules, so I wanted to put my understanding of a few points relating to Ellena's most recent action here first before I post anything I'll have to retcon.
First, regarding the question of switching targets with Smile Evil. The text, for reference: "Once per day, a paladin can call out to the powers of good to aid her in her struggle against evil. As a swift action, the paladin chooses one target within sight to smite. If this target is evil, the paladin adds her Cha bonus (if any) to her attack rolls and adds her paladin level to all damage rolls made against the target of her smite."
This seems to clearly limit the target to one creature/character. This seems to be reinforced by the later statement: "The smite evil effect remains until the target of the smite is dead or the next time the paladin rests and regains her uses of this ability." Since target is singular, I don't see that the target can be changed once the smite is invoked.
So as I read it, since Ellena used Smite Evil last turn on Leriel, she only gets the bonus to hit and damage Leriel and only gets the bonus to AC vs. attacks from Leriel.
Regarding the attack of opportunity, I had already rolled that in a post earlier. Ellena hit and did 9 points, so while the attack just rolled also hits, it does less damage, so I'll keep the results of the AOO I rolled for her. At the start of Ellena's turn, the serpent creature was down and out.
I also want to post something to clarify the rules on what provides cover from a ranged attack, but I'm out of time, so I'll get that up this afternoon. Sorry for the delay.
Updated information because Franti loves being so small. Eventually, I might go for a race that isn't Kobold/Goblin, but the reduced speed of most small races is offputting to me.
N Medium humanoid
Init +10; Senses Perception +5
Languages: Taldane, Varisian, Skald
AC 18, touch 16, flat-footed 13 (+2 armor, +5 Dex, +1 Size)
HP 24 (3d8+6)
Fort +3, Ref +9, Will +1
Defensive Abilities evasion, Danger Sense +1
Speed 30 ft (20 if not Goblin or Kobold)
Melee mwk sap + 10 (1d6+5 nonlethal) OR
Mwk sap +8 (1d6+5 nonlethal), sap +7 (1d6+2 nonlethal)
mwk cold iron dagger +9 (1d4/19–20)
Ranged
mwk shortbow +9 (1d6/x3) or mwk cold iron dagger +9 (1d4/19–20)
Special Attacks sneak attack +2d6 (+2 with Non-lethal bludgeoning from Sap Adept)
Str 10, Dex 20 (18 when Medium), Con 14, Int 12, Wis 9, Cha 14
Base Atk +2; CMB +2; CMD 16
Feats Two-Weapon Fighting, Imp. Initiative, Weapon Focus (Sap) (from Rogue Talent) Sap Adept, Weapon Finesse
Skills See GM Rolls. spoilered below.
Languages Taldane, Varisian, Skald
SQ rogue talent (Weapon Training(Sap)), Trapfinding +1, Finesse Training(Dex to Damage with Saps).
[dice=Initiative, Small]1d20 + 9[dice]
[Dice=Fort]1d20 + 3[dice]
[Dice=Ref]1d20 + 8[dice]
[Dice=Ref, Small]1d20 + 9[dice]
Additional +1 Reflex vs. Traps
[Dice=Wis]1d20 + 1[dice]
“If he succeeds at a Reflex saving throw against an attack that normally deals half damage on a successful save, she instead takes no damage.“
[Dice=Primary Melee Attack]1d20 + 8[dice]
[Dice=Damage]1d6+4[dice]
[Dice=Sneak Damage]2d6[dice]
[Dice=Small Primary Melee Attack]1d20 + 10[dice]
[Dice=Damage]1d4+2[dice]
[Dice=Sneak Damage]2d6+2[dice]
Two Weapon fighting is two attack rolls, both with a -2 modifier to my attack rolls!
The Below Assumes using Blunt Arrows.
[Dice=Primary Ranged Attack]1d20 + 7[dice] (20/3x)
[Dice=Damage]1d6[dice]
[Dice=Sneak Damage]2d6+2[dice]
[Dice=Small Primary Ranged Attack]1d20 + 9[dice] (20/3x)
[Dice=Damage]1d4[dice]
[Dice=Sneak Damage]2d6+2[dice]
Skills
[Dice=Acrobatics]1d20 + 10[dice]
[Dice=Tumbling]1d20 + 14[dice]
[Dice=Acrobatics, Small]1d20 + 11[dice]
[Dice=Acrobatics, Small Tumbling]1d20 + 15[dice]
[Dice=Appraise]1d20 +5 [dice]
[Dice=Bluff]1d20 + 6[dice]
[Dice=Craft(Devices)]1d20 + 6[dice]
[Dice=Craft(Alchemy)]1d20 + 5[dice]
[dice=Diplomacy]1d20+6[dice]
[Dice=Disable Device]1d20 + 13[dice]
[Dice=Disable Device, Small]1d20 + 14[dice]
[Dice=Disguise]1d20 + 7[dice]
[Dice=Escape Artist]1d20 + 8[dice]
[Dice=Escape Artist, Small]1d20 + 9[dice]
[Dice=Intimidate]1d20 + 6[dice]
[Dice=Knowledge(Dungeoneering)]1d20 + 6[dice]
[Dice=Knowledge(Local)]1d20 + 6[dice]
[Dice=Linguistics]1d20 + 5[dice]
[Dice=Perception]1d20 + 5[dice]
[Dice=Perception for Traps]1d20 + 6[dice]
[Dice=Perform (Comedy)]1d20 + 7[dice]
[Dice=Sleight of Hand]1d20 + 10[dice]
[Dice=Sleight of Hand, Small]1d20 + 11[dice]
[Dice=Stealth]1d20 + 11[dice]
[Dice=Stealth, Small]1d20 + 15[dice]
[Dice=Use Magic Device]1d20 + 6[dice]
Once per day, if you fail an Acrobatics, Bluff, Disguise, Sleight of Hand, or Stealth check, you may immediately reroll that check as a free action. You must take the second result, even if it is worse
[dice=Str]1d20 + 0[dice]
[dice=Dex]1d20 + 4[dice]
[dice=Dex, Small]1d20 + 5[dice]
[dice=Con]1d20 + 2[dice]
[dice=Int]1d20 + 1[dice]
[dice=Wis]1d20 - 1[dice]
[dice=Cha]1d20 + 2[dice]
@GM: Correct interpretation.
@Ellena: You are still allowed to attack other targets but your bonuses are only in effect against the target of your smite.
|
|
You're absolutely correct about smite. It affects only one target. You can attack whoever you like, but you only get those bonuses against the target you chose.
GM, I had a question about spiritual weapon. Since the spell was written before there was ever such a thing as an oracle, it adds the caster's wisdom modifier to the attack rolls regardless of the caster's spellcasting ability modifier. It's even been suggested by Paizo that a reasonable house rule would be to allow oracles to use their charisma in lieu of wisdom for the spell.
Since Anarya has the wand of spiritual weapon, I'd really like for it to be a useful and powerful tool for her, but if she has to use Wisdom, it won't be useful and we'd probably just end up selling it. Would you be okay with a house rule to use charisma in place of wisdom for spells like this in the future?
There is what amounts to an official pronouncement from a game developer of how to rule on this question, which seems reasonable to me.
This question is one I’ve considered for some time, and following my discussions with Mike Brock and Sean K Reynolds about a FAQ post earlier this year, I’ve made a decision. A character who receives spiritual weapon and/or spiritual ally as a bonus spell (such as an oracle mystery spell or witch patron spell) may use her primary spellcasting ability score in place of her Wisdom score when calculating the spell’s attack bonus. In this way a select set of characters that would otherwise have no choice but to learn the spell (e.g. spirits patron witches, ancestors mystery oracles, and sacred servant paladins with the war domain) can still make effective use of a character feature.
This ruling only applies to the two spells mentioned above and does not modify any other spells that may have similar circumstances. This ruling does not alter how the above spells function for characters who do not receive those spells as bonus spells.
This is a clarification that we are using for Pathfinder Society Organized Play. We plan on updating this in future update of the Pathfinder Society FAQ.
So if an oracle has the ancestor mystery, she gets the spell Spiritual Weapon as her 4th level bonus spell, so she gets to use the charisma modifier in place of wisdom modifier. Other oracles use the wisdom modifier.
Another developer suggested that in general, he was okay with spiritual weapon being more effective for clerics than for oracles.
I actually ran my first oracle with the ancestor mystery and use spiritual weapon a lot but she only had a wisdom of 12 and a Charisma of 16. I don't recall if the GM house-ruled spiritual weapon once she started casting it, but it wasn't a big deal. Having a weapon fight for you is a great benefit, even if the bonus to hit is not as good as it might be using charisma.
So I'll go with what the developers have suggested and only grant the charisma bonus for casters who get spiritual weapon as a bonus spell, such as ancestor oracles. Others have to use the wisdom bonus.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't want to delay the melee further but I wanted to get this discussion started and see what you think. I looked and looked and couldn't find any definitive posts in various discussion boards, so if you know of something I missed, please provide the link. Otherwise, let me know what you think for the following case.
To determine whether your target has cover from your ranged attack, choose a corner of your square. If any line from this corner to any corner of the target's square passes through a square or border that blocks line of effect or provides cover, or through a square occupied by a creature, the target has cover (+4 to AC).
When making a melee attack against an adjacent target, your target has cover if any line from any corner of your square to the target's square goes through a wall (including a low wall). When making a melee attack against a target that isn't adjacent to you (such as with a reach weapon), use the rules for determining cover from ranged attacks.
Reference map shows a large enemy with a reach weapon. Squares outlined in yellow are squares such an enemy threatens according to the area templates [See Large (Tall) section].
There are three allies who are in melee with this enemy, all in threatened squares, labeled 1, 2, and 3. There are two possible sources of cover which could affect whether or not the enemy can make AOOs against the allies. One is a “square that blocks line of effect” and the other is a “creature”. The square that blocks line of effect is something like a square 5x5 foot pillar. The creature is a medium sized creature.
So my question is, which of the allies, if any, has cover and hence would not provoke an AOO if he moved more than 5 feet?
My answer is that 1 does not have cover. 2 would seem to with a literal reading of the rules but with some reservations, and 3 may have cover, depending on how one interprets passing through a corner square of something that provides cover.
1 would not have cover because one can draw lines from the NE corner of the enemy’s square to each of the corners of 1’s square without going “through a square occupied by a creature.” Two of those lines pass through the border of the creature, but not through the square itself.
2 would have cover because two of the lines drawn from the SE corner of the enemy pass through a “square or border that blocks line of effect”.
My concern, however, is that this interpretation, while literally correct according to standard meaning of a border, would mean someone standing at the end of a 5’ wide hallway would get cover from ranged attacks shot down the hall (see right side of map, Trent shooting at 4). That seems counter-intuitive, yet two lines from Trent to 4 always go through the borders of something that blocks line of effect. Perhaps the rules writer’s meant “across a border” when they said “through a border,” that is, from one side to the other, not along the border itself. But if that is the case, why say “through a square or border”? You can’t going through a square without going through a border of the square.
3 strikes me as ambiguous. If we draw lines from the SE corner of the enemy to 3’s square, one line goes through the corner of the square that blocks line of effect. One could argue that the corner is part of the border, so then 3 has cover. But a border is usually considered to be a line, not a single point, so if that is the case, 3 does not have cover. In any case, if 2 does not get cover from the pillar, than neither would 3.
There is a debate in the rules discussion boards on this topic (corners), but I’m not sure there was consensus or any official reply from the Paizo rules honchos. There is no mention of cover in the FAQs for Pathfinder.
One could draw lines from the SW corner of the enemy to 3 without crossing any borders, but that corner is more than 20’ from 3. So 3 would not have cover if the enemy was making a ranged attack but that corner could not be used as a test for reach attacks to squares more than 20’ from the corner. Even though the rules don’t specifically spell that out, it seems logical.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Ooo, that question is way too math-y for me to even guess at. I'm just glad my interpretation of Smite Evil was okay, lol.
|
|
Unfortunately, Anarya has a lot of excellent uses for her standard action each round, so creating a sword which will attack at 1d20+2 three times and then vanish probably won't be too high on her list. Alas, it's a cool spell for a cleric.
If someone with UMD and a higher wisdom than me wants to use it, let me know.
No rush on the cover questions. Look at the map as you get a chance and it will make more sense. It mostly comes down to how to handle situations involving obstructions which are not directly in the path of an attack but the lines connecting the attacker and the target run through one of the borders of an obstruction.
That would be my common sense interpretation. That leaves the question of why include the phrase "or border" when talking about the lines going through an obstacle that blocks line of effect but then omit the reference to a border when the obstacle is a creature.
Great idea, Tauni!
Dang, Tauni, it shows who is the intelligence based character of our group. Dang, that Command took me out of commission. Two rounds I've lost now...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If we are making it into a competition, let us all remember who was the one who dealt the killing blow on that viper familiar.
|
|
Not to make things worse for us, but unlike a spell with a casting time of "one full round," a "full round action" should have its effects apply immediately, and doesn't continue into the next turn. I think Cor-Atim is conscious, assuming that potion is healing him.
I'd find a source but it's harder when posting from my phone at work.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Dang, Tauni, it shows who is the intelligence based character of our group. Dang, that Command took me out of commission. Two rounds I've lost now...
Thanks! I'm just trying to live up to that Hermoine compliment from before... ;)
I'd be interested in any information on how to process full-round actions. Some things don't take place immediately, like when casting a summon spell. So what happens if the caster of a summon spell is attacked and wounded or killed before the end of the next round?
And I would think if someone is administering a potion to an unconscious character and someone killed him before the start of the next round, there would be a chance the potion would not be administered. I can see how that would complicate the GM job, but I don't recall anything about that in the Core rules, although that doesn't mean there isn't anything.
I've never had to GM such situations.
|
|
The only type of action which "carries over" is a spell with a casting time of "one full round." If the caster is killed between the end of his turn and when the spell goes off - the spell was not completed, and it doesn't get cast. Similarly, he can be interrupted by damage after his turn ends, forcing him to succeed at a concentration check or lose the spell.
All other full-round actions begin and end on the same turn (except if you use the "begin a full-round action" standard action - but that's a whole different story). It's only the spells with that "one full round" cast time that spill over to the start of the next turn. (Even a spell with a casting time of "full round action" wouldn't spill over.)
Sorcerers and Bards: Sorcerers and bards choose spells as they cast them. They can choose when they cast their spells whether to apply their metamagic feats to improve them. As with other spellcasters, the improved spell uses up a higher-level spell slot. Because the sorcerer or bard has not prepared the spell in a metamagic form in advance, he must apply the metamagic feat on the spot. Therefore, such a character must also take more time to cast a metamagic spell (one enhanced by a metamagic feat) than he does to cast a regular spell. If the spell's normal casting time is a standard action, casting a metamagic version is a full-round action for a sorcerer or bard. (This isn't the same as a 1-round casting time.)The only exception is for spells modified by the Quicken Spell metamagic feat, which can be cast as normal using the feat.
For a spell with a longer casting time, it takes an extra full-round action to cast the spell.
A spell that takes 1 round to cast is a full-round action. It comes into effect just before the beginning of your turn in the round after you began casting the spell.
<snip>
When you begin a spell that takes 1 round or longer to cast, you must continue the concentration from the current round to just before your turn in the next round (at least). If you lose concentration before the casting is complete, you lose the spell.
This is the only mention of an ability not taking place immediately in any of the rules - it's specific to spells which take "1 round to cast" - which, as we can see in the Metamagic Feats section quoted above, is not the same as "a full round action."
They both require a full round action to cast - but spells with "1 round" casting time have the unique added caveat of continuing beyond that action and requiring a little more.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Simply "one round" (not Full-Round) spells carry over until the beginning of the next round. I believe that if a caster is damaged during the casting of such spells, it calls for a concentration check to keep, and if they are prevented from completing the spell, it would effectively be lost. This would include spells like Enlarge Person, or Summon Monster, but not an Enlarged Fireball.
It is a full-round action to administer a potion to someone unconscious, so a move/standard, not move/standard+time until the start of the next turn. As such, at the end of their turn, the effect of the potion should have began. At least, this is my understanding of it.
So the consensus seems to be that although administering the potion to an unconscious character is a full round action, the potion effect will be delivered by the start of the receiving character's turn. It means Cor-Altim can act at his normal turn in the rotation.
So Cor-Altim received healing from a CMW potion and is conscious and no longer negative. Also note that when healing magic is applied to someone with both lethal and non-lethal damage, the number of points healed is subtracted from both types of damage.
Any thoughts on whether the barbarian should be fatigued from his raging or have the 2 rounds he spent unconscious allowed him to recover from the fatigue from the one round he spent raging? Not a major point, but not something I expect the rules cover.
Also, when researching these questions, I came across someone who said it was legal to take a move action and in the same turn, start a full round action (like administering a potion or casting a spell) and have it complete at the start of the next round by giving up the move action of the following turn. Over the course of two full rounds you would get a full round action, a standard action and a move action, so there is the same outcome. But it does mean the full round action is accomplished a bit earlier. I could have had Scariani do that on his previous round. He effectively moved but took no other action, waiting for his next turn to accomplish the full round action of giving the potion to his UC ally. Cor-Altim would have been able to act one turn earlier than the way I handled it.
Does anyone recognize that as a RAW or is that more of a homebrew option? It sounds reasonable to me.
I make a similar option available for movement that involves opening a door. You can move 20' of your 30', at which point you reach a closed door. I would allow you to open the door, as a move equivalent action, and then move 10' more to fill out your normal movement. It otherwise doesn't make sense that you have to sacrifice 10' of movement just because of where in the move action the door was encountered. I'd think something similar would work for actions that span a full round.
I don't think the barbarian should be fatigued, if he spent two rounds unconscious already. Of course, that's just personal feeling rather than any rule I know of.
I think it would be delivered prior to their turn, on the action by the deliverer, then they'd resume acting on their turn.
On the rage question, while a bit silly, I'd say that being unconcious would count to those fatigued rounds. The barbarian is fatigued for 2x rage duration, and technically, I believe that is now over. How I see it at least. I guess I am saying bring back the berserker!
When a spell or ability cures hit point damage, it also removes an equal amount of nonlethal damage.
Oh. Did not know that. Makes my build a bit weaker.
On the Full-Round split, I am okay with the homebrew, but, RAW...
The “start full-round action” standard action lets you start undertaking a full-round action, which you can complete in the following round by using another standard action. You can't use this action to start or complete a full attack, charge, run, or withdraw.
RAW, it is two standards, not a move/standard combo.
|
|
Franti is again correct. You give up two standard actions, not a standard and a move. It's a bit too powerful to let the move action count - it would allow a spellcaster to cast two spells in one turn (three, with quicken).
And I concur about the fatigue. His little nap should have let him rest up.
With that in mind, I'd like Anarya to move to stand in the square where his sword was dropped. I'd forgotten that's what the sword icon on the map represented.
I'm good with the unconscious rounds counting. The full round question seems to be well summed up lol.
Thanks for the quick feedback. Once I got home, I did a few searches and found the Start Full-Round action rule.
Does Tauni do anything differently based on the response to her question about the tent? Does she want to move?
Otherwise, Franti is up. This battle did not shape up to be as close as I thought it would be. You took out the two biggest and baddest enemies with critical hits in the first round and they've been at a disadvantage every since. They still have some options if they can keep fighting, but you've definitely got the upper hand.