Alrighty then.
Spell damage (and other AoE effects) don't affect a character's equipment. Attended items are assumed to be completely unaffected by these effects unless the character rolls a natural 1.
Attended (Held/Wielded etc.) Items: Unless the descriptive text for a spell (or attack) specifies otherwise, all items carried or worn by a creature are assumed to survive a magical attack. If a creature rolls a natural 1 on its saving throw against the effect, however, an exposed item is harmed (if the attack can harm objects). Refer to Table: Items Affected by Magical Attacks to determine order in which items are affected.
Also, instantaneous duration spells (Such as burning hands and fireball) don't set characters on fire.
Characters exposed to burning oil, bonfires, and non-instantaneous magic fires might find their clothes, hair, or equipment on fire. Spells with an instantaneous duration don't normally set a character on fire, since the heat and flame from these come and go in a flash.
The exception to this of course are spells like Spontaneous Immolation which explicitly states that it sets the character on fire. Burning hands can light things on fire, but as we've seen above, attended items are only affected on a 1.
Now, you could rule that characters could catch fire due to having highly flammable stuff on their person (Like papers or oiled rags), but even in this case, characters are allowed a reflex save:
Characters at risk of catching fire are allowed a DC 15 Reflex save to avoid this fate. If a character's clothes or hair catch fire, he takes 1d6 points of damage immediately.
It doesn't matter for this combat, as it's already done, but just keep it in mind for posterity's sake.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This discussion reminds me why I'm so afraid of necklaces of fireballs. Particularly, the two sentences above the Construction requirements. =P
Ah yes, just found the Catching on Fire portion myself as well. I haven't come across catching on fire from spells yet as a GM so this is good info.
Let me say first, I do agree that Ava's clothes shouldn't have caught fire and I don't plan on clothes catching on fire from non-instantaneous magic fires in the future. Unless you've got oil or some other highly flammable substance on your clothes, of course. This will require some determination on my part as GM, and so bear with me if the way I view a situation differs from your own.
Second thing, I don't see why a character couldn't put out a fire on someone else. That doesn't make any logical sense to me. So if that is RAW, then consider this my house rule that you can put someone else out as a full-round action (like a character who on on fire themselves could), or with enough water like a Create Water spell or a horse trough or something. There would be a reflex save needed by the person putting out the fire for someone else using the full-round action, to avoid getting burned themselves as they put out the flames.
Thanks Ava, for the info!
I'm much more concerned about the story and fun than RAW, but I also understand the need for structure and obeying the rules of a game so people can have a consistent, positive experience. For everyone, any questions, comments, suggestions please don't hesitate to bring them up at any point.
Now kill yourselves some Tieflings! and someone... please save the dwarf. :)
Is G9 (where Caladius is) just a niche that goes nowhere? I can't tell from the map.
They are stairs that go up into another one of the buildings.
It goes upstairs to a dead wizardmummy? I suppose we could run up and kill the webbed tieflings. I figured that IC, Enko would not burn them in the web; other people might not mind. :D
What's the plan now? I feel like spoilered combat is preventing us from being coordinated at the moment.
To be clear, you can read spoilers, its to keep things clean and hopefully you'll follow the init so your character doesn't heal someone before their hurt for example. But if you're after someone in init, you can and should see what they posted.
I noticed people reading spoilers and...oops, I also see I posted as another character, haha. Thanks for the clarifying!
Congrats!!! and I will bot you skill and aplomb. (I just wanted to say aplomb)
Congrats, Viscount! I also have two kids, 8 and 5. All the best for the birth.
For those having trouble seeing Google Docs images, are there any sites which are accessible? I just learned Photobucket is blocked for me here at work, so that's out during weekdays.
Congrats, Corneleous! I hope all goes wonderfully.
My kids are 2.5 and -0.16. (I'll be botted some in April, but I fully intend to access games whilst in the hospital. What else is there to do? :D)
Oh! And congratulations!
Sabinus, when Tycho is trying to be inconspicuous why don't you roll a stealth check for him? He's small, it's dark, the uneven ceiling could help him hide. Some won't think twice, others will pay close attention to it, and so if you're wanting him to be sneakier -go ahead and roll stealth too. (Taking into account the stealthy movement limitations of course.) Just something to be think about as a general, ongoing thing.
Done. Edited my post.
@Sabinus - Awesome.
You know it just occurred to me, what happened the last time someone in the game had a new addition in the family... Amon! Yikes!
I don't know about Tanner (Amon), but I know gmpathfinder (Corneleous) is starting up a Carrion Crown AP as the GM, so I don't expect him to be away for too long unless there are complications with the baby or with momma.
Both of them had premies though, so who knows?
Yeah, I don't really expect it to be a horribly long delay, just trying to drum up some suspense.
My wife's water broke exactly 3 weeks ahead of her due date for both our kids. Weird!
I was 5 weeks premature... a good thing too because I didn't come out small. It'd have been a much tougher delivery for my mom if this bun had been in the oven another 35 days =P
lol how big were you? The biggest I've seen was 16lbs! That poor mother!
I popped out on the upper end of normal-sized, just over 10 lbs and something like 26 inches. A 16 pound baby? That's not a baby, that's a toddler!
Wow, 5 weeks premee and over 10 lbs? That is big! Yeah I'm guessing that 16 lbs baby came from viking stock or something, cause dang!
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
4 weeks early, 6lbs, she's in good shape (although they did detect a little murmur). She's in the NICU.
I've been traveling between home and hospital- we have an almost 3 year old who's pretty confused (they won't let her in the hospital due to the flu outbreak).
I'm slow, but not out of the game.
You, good sir, are hard core on all fronts. I hope you get her home soon enough.
Hey folks, had a death in the family this evening. Ill be pushing things along when I'm able. Thanks.
My condolences, Mug.
Congrats, Viscount, and my condolences, Mug.
I feel funny raising a mundane question, but if I don't I might forget... It seems a bit illogical to me that Sabinus' misfortune hex would suffer a miss chance from concealment, since the hex doesn't need to make an attack roll. I could see if he didn't know where Pavaleen was, but since he knows Pavaleen's square and can see part of Pavaleen's body (the part coated with oil), it seems like maybe the miss chance should not apply to his hex, as opposed to an attack that requires precise targeting.
Is there a rule as to whether the concealment miss chance applies to spells that don't require a to hit roll? I couldn't find it on a brief search, but it seems like there should be a rule out there...
I've always thought of hexes as targeted spells, as opposed to area of effect spells. But you make a valid point about not needing an attack roll.
In my mind I picture the hex needing some sort of eye-contact or something, and so Sabinus tried to 'guess' where Pavaleens eyes are when he cast the hex. I realize that's a lot of speculation on my part, but as I couldn't find a lot of information either... that's what got used.
Also, total concealment, which Pavaleen has, seems less about attacking to me about more about the chances of a successful (harmful) action against the concealed creature.
Total Concealment: If you have line of effect to a target but not line of sight, he is considered to have total concealment from you. You can't attack an opponent that has total concealment, though you can attack into a square that you think he occupies. A successful attack into a square occupied by an enemy with total concealment has a 50% miss chance (instead of the normal 20% miss chance for an opponent with concealment).
You can't execute an attack of opportunity against an opponent with total concealment, even if you know what square or squares the opponent occupies.
However, this is also my own take on it and if someone has additional information that'd sure be welcome.
No worries, take what time you need. Hopefully we can prove a much needed distraction.
Everything I've read regarding total concealment and invisibility seems to involve the attacker targeting a square, rather than a target.
Quote:
Total Concealment: If you have line of effect to a target but not line of sight, he is considered to have total concealment from you. You can't attack an opponent that has total concealment, though you can attack into a square that you think he occupies. A successful attack into a square occupied by an enemy with total concealment has a 50% miss chance (instead of the normal 20% miss chance for an opponent with concealment).You can't execute an attack of opportunity against an opponent with total concealment, even if you know what square or squares the opponent occupies.
I interpret the bolded part there as "You can't target an opponent that has total concealment". Oddly enough, I've never encountered a situation where a hex or spell like charm person was used against an invisible opponent. It's murky water, to be sure. Personally, I'd lean toward it just flat out not working - so the miss chance is actually more generous than how I think I'd wind up ruling it. It's a fascinating question though!
I'm leaving tomorrow morning on a trip and traveling through Sunday. My access to the game will be sporadic at best. Not great timing as we're getting into some juicy RP! Hopefully I'll be able to post a few times, but it is hard to know what the scene will be during my travels...
Found the rules for tying people up! Was under 'grappling'
If you have your target pinned, otherwise restrained, or unconscious, you can use rope to tie him up. This works like a pin effect, but the DC to escape the bonds is equal to 20 + your Combat Maneuver Bonus (instead of your CMD). The ropes do not need to make a check every round to maintain the pin. If you are grappling the target, you can attempt to tie him up in ropes, but doing so requires a combat maneuver check at a –10 penalty. If the DC to escape from these bindings is higher than 20 + the target's CMB, the target cannot escape from the bonds, even with a natural 20 on the check.
Aha, thanks
Caladius has a +7 for his CMB. I'm guessing he and Lucon are tied for highest?
I think that's right, my friend.
Added loot to the Torchbearer inventory. Link is at the bottom of Ava's profile if you ever need to find it in the future. Also here. Will update again if anything changes, or we find some more.
I thought it made sense to move the torture discussion to the discussion thread. Enko's link is only somewhat on point, because the terms of the question was about torture for fun and punishment, as opposed to gather information, there seems to be general agreement that such sadistic torture is evil in PFS, but no such consensus about torture to get information that can't be gotten by other means. I'm not taking an in game position on how to proceed, but I don't think non-sadistic torture to get information is necessarily evil in the context of super violent Golarion.
All I'm saying, is that Caladius would totally go dark-side for you guys =P
Caladius, you fiend! :D
A survey of the "is torture evil even if you account for..." threads always turns up with the answer "yep, still Evil".
Here's a Torture-for-Info thread (again PFS) TortInfo
Another one: Tort for Info 2
...pretty much every thread will have an overwhelming majority of players saying it's an evil act. Even if done to evil creatures, intelligent undead...take a gander through the forums. Did my due diligence, Sabinus!
Enko I think you're jumping the gun a bit here. Nobodies strapping the man to a rack or waterboarding anyone. We're just going to question him. It's a question of how far they're going to go and when one of us more squeamish characters are going to step in to stop it, but I think we should let it play itself out. He might just spill his guts immediately if we make our intimidate rolls, ferinstance.
I'm keen to move on and bonk some heads or head back to base to resupply, (even if Lucon has better things to do with his afternoon than wrestle a giant purple worm, he's married, after all :P) so I feel like we should wake him up and let things play their course, or otherwise bring him back to Arael.
If you say so, but please, don't confused principled with squeamish. Enko will wade through gore and has the Will save to remain unfazed; he just doesn't torture.
There's a joke in there about being married and wrestling a giant purple worm.
There's a joke in there about being married and wrestling a giant purple worm.
It's a stealthy one alright. :P
Hey folks, quick update. I'm in CA after driving 12 hours today. I tried to post this info earlier but my 3G wasn't cooperating. Ill be in a funeral tomorrow and will possibly get to hop online tomorrow night. Its possible ill be too busy until Monday, but ill see what I can do. Feel free to RP or whatever till I can move things along. Thanks for your understanding!