@Cal I agree with all of that, including mere suppression rather than dispelling the torch.
And yea, buying a cleric version of the torch, even a level 3 version, is an affordable investment with potentially great return.
Mouse, you’re still level 2? I will only estimate your stats at this point, so please level Mouse to 3 ASAP. We will also hit level 4 before completing the book.
Did I miss a level-up? Yeesh - how did that happen? :/ I'll look into it and get updated right now.
And as for ioun torches, my assumption is always that magic items are created at the lowest possible level unless it's specified otherwise, so I assumed they were on wizard casting. (And I've heard of the heighten trick too - doesn't come up often, but when it does, it can be really handy.)
Re Mouse's question about Str and unarmed strikes. Per the weapon description for unarmed strike: "An unarmed strike is always considered a light weapon."
The explanation of Strength Bonus to damage only states you had 1-1/2 when wield a weapon two-handed, but it also says "[y]ou don't get this higher Strength bonus, however, when using a light weapon with two hands."[/b]
Since Unarmed strike is a light weapon, I'd rule you don't get 1.5x Str to damage, but only 1x.
Thoughts?
BTW Pietro, isn't your splash damage 6, not 5? (Minimum damage for 2d6+4).
Mouse, you need Dragon Style for that, but it gives you 1.5 STR to all your unarmed attacks, and not only the single ones. Think you can qualify for that as soon as you can get two feats with Flexibility.
Edit: After reading your post a couple more times I think I understand!
Uh, it's controlled rage for strength, I don't have any other one after the errata. Sorry. And I've got the Threatening Defender trait, which reduces the penalty by 1. It's nothing now, but it'll be significant later.
As for the attack, I meant to use it with the attack, and not after. Sorry. Doesn't do anything for the roll, but I now see how I worded that in a confusing way.
Btw, bless/IC allowed Pietro's flask to hit, and IC allowed Garvid to down the big skeleton. Gotta love buffers.
Btw, bless/IC allowed Pietro's flask to hit, and IC allowed Garvid to down the big skeleton. Gotta love buffers.
Not saying you're wrong but remember that Pietro is hitting with ranged 'touch'.
I'm a fan of buffers. :)
Regarding 1xSTR on unarmed attacks: totally cool. I'm just more accustomed to natural attacks, and sussing out the mechanical differences between them is a work-in-progress for me.
Regarding Dragon Style: that might have to be a thing. :O Question, though - why would I have to wait? Its only requirements are STR 15, Improved Unarmed Strike, and three ranks of Acrobatics, all three of which I meet. (The only bummer is it wouldn't stack with Pummeling Style, which is definitely happening, so I'd have to choose between one or the other.)
Regarding level 3: I figured out why I didn't get leveled up - I was in the hospital when we got it. I s'pose that's a good enough reason. ;) Following is my level 3 improvement.
Changes:
+8 HP (6 HD, 2 CON)
+1 BAB
+1 Will save
+1 to dirty tricks from Maneuver Training
+1 Acrobatics
+1 Knowledge (local)
+1 Perception
+1 Stealth
+1 Lore (Shoanti) (background)
+1 Perform (act) (background)
+Pummeling Style feat (lets me total damage before applying DR with flurry/full-round attack of unarmed strikes)
@Pietro - I always thought both bless and IC applied to bombs, as they require an attack roll and are considered weapons. Does the fact that it's "ranged touch" make a difference? The reason it was close was the cover from the bodies between you and your target. I also just noticed you don't have precise shot. I don't think it mattered for this fight, though.
@Mouse - Yes I think we can cut you some slack. Level looks good. Lore (Shoanti) should be just fine.
@Yazi - Your wand of bless is CL 1? Its duration should be 1 min, yea?
Correct, duration is 1 minute, I forgot I was casting from wand.
Also, this weekend I'm at a cosplay/medieval fair thing, so I won't be able to post often. Feel free to bot Yazi if needed (either continue to buff the party or hit the enemies with a Misfortune if they're hitting hard). She can also cast Detect Undead if it looks like we're heading into a possible combat zone and Protection from Eeeeebil.
@Yazi - Roger. There's also the leftover wand of CLW we found in Gaedren's fishery. It has 8 charges remaining, and I'll assume you're carrying that (unless Cal really wants to).
@Pietro - I always thought both bless and IC applied to bombs, as they require an attack roll and are considered weapons. Does the fact that it's "ranged touch" make a difference? The reason it was close was the cover from the bodies between you and your target. I also just noticed you don't have precise shot. I don't think it mattered for this fight, though.
Bombs are considered weapons and can be selected using feats such as Point-Blank Shot and Weapon Focus.
Bombs attack as a splash weapon and make a ranged touch attack against the target.
Ranged touch is an 'attack'.
Just re-reading bombs here and it seems that the reflex save for 1/2 damage is only for the splash and not the direct hit.
I don't have precise shot but I have 'precise bomb' where I dictate up to four squares with NO splash damage.
Does firing into melee affect bombs (splash weapons) or is that just for missiles?
I guess 'cover' applies to bombs, which is what you are saying.
Yea I think we're on the same page. I apply those rules as youve listed, including the reflex save for splash only.
As a ranged attack, without precise shot you'll incur a -4 against targets in melee (bomb-centric builds look a lot like archery). In this fight you had the opportunity to target enemies further back, so avoided that problem.
Precise bombs can avoid slashing allies (unless you miss), but doesn't remove the above penalty.
Cover does apply to bombs, although you're fortunate to be targeting touch AC.
So here's, e.g. you rolled a 14. I Subtracted 4 for throwing through allies, then added 2 from bless and IC.
Questions/comments (from all)?
Oh dear. The enemy has amazing stealth and won both surprise and initiative. Ouch! This is the GM's comeback after you obliterated the entryway guardians :).
@Pietro - I like your approach to decision-making. This seems like it will speed up gameplay significantly. In this case, two PCs in agreement was enough for me!
I'm also taking some liberties in assuming your movements for the sake of speed. E.g. in a live game I might have asked you if you entered this corridor, but for PbP I'm content to just assume you'd enter once Li disarmed the trap. Any thoughts about this assumption?
@Garvid - If any penalties apply, I'll be sure to let you know.
@Cal - little surprises like that Al Green song make me smile.
I would imagine that Yazi's detect undead would have had more of an effect, as I don't imagine our actions after she cast it to have exceeded 3 minutes. It should have given at least Yazi a chance to act in the surprise round.
I should be able to post later tonight, but now it's dinner time and I have to watch a parade after.
Unfortunately these are constructs, not undead...
@Pietro - I like your approach to decision-making. This seems like it will speed up gameplay significantly. In this case, two PCs in agreement was enough for me!
You're welcome. :)
I also like you wrapping up combat when it's clear that it will not pose a threat to the party. I think that also speeds up play and we all know that we need all the help we can get to keep momentum going in these games.
So thank you for that.
Game on!
Oh. That makes sense then.
I had to edit my last gameplay post, as I misapplied Garvid's Fortitude. He's not paralyzed, afterall!
Ah. I rarely assume things are dead, unless crits are in question. I just thought that a snake skeleton might still be operational after losing a foot's worth of bones!
EDIT: I read the whole post, disregard the assumption on assumptions.
Yea that was just flavor text. The snake survived your attack and was just attacking on its turn. Didn't intend to make you appear reckless in combat.
Li will always try to maneuver herself to get to add her sneak attack damage. Would you prefer that I add it and you disregard if it doesn't apply or not roll it and you add it if it does apply?
Sure, go ahead and include it if you think it should apply. If I think it shouldn't, I'll just ignore that damage.
As we're gaining levels, the number of special abilities is going to become complex. I am doing my best to remember things like Garvid's DR, uncanny dodge, and the like. If you're worried I might forget, it never hurts to include that info at the end of your post, like Garvid has done.
If I need to "undo" damage that has been dealt, or cancel an effect that shouldn't apply, we can do that easy enough.
Questions/comments?
Wicked: why is the starting conditions 'dim light'?
Dancing lights provide 'normal light' within 20' and dim light beyond that.
What other light sources do we have?
Didn't Yazi also provide magical light?
If that's the case, then the darkness will downgrade these 'normal lights' to dim lights.
Am I missing something?
Are these guys casting 'deeper darkness'?
Good question! Only because that's the default state, the ambient light level. Without your torches, you're in dim light (for reasons which will become apparent if/when necessary). But within the range of the torches, the light is normal (at least it was, until darkness hit) and there have been no concealment penalties up to this point.
The "effects" heading only represents what's active at the beginning of that round. It doesn't include what happens below it. E.g. My next post will list darkness, unless it's somehow neutralized.
As to darkness, we talked about the effective caster level of the ioun torches before entering the dungeon. All other sources are either mundane or cantrips, and the darkness spell trumps all of them.
As to darkness, we talked about the effective caster level of the ioun torches before entering the dungeon. All other sources are either mundane or cantrips, and the darkness spell trumps all of them.
I agree that it trumps them all but I think the effect is that it shifts the light towards darkness by one step.
That is that 'normal light' becomes 'dim light' and 'dim light' becomes 'darkness'.
I wasn't aware that the darkness spell shifts the 'normal light' to 'darkness (two steps).
I'm reading from here.
But it's your game so if you say it's darkness then it's darkness.
Game on!
Baby boy was born this morning. Another 10 pounder. Mom and Baby are doing well.
Baby boy was born this morning. Another 10 pounder. Mom and Baby are doing well.
Congrats!
I was going to give you baby advice but you got me beat. :)
I'm glad everyone is doing well.
Congratulations Calcedon! That's awesome!
--
So let me explain how I calculated this turn of events, and then you can point out where you think I've blundered. If the majority of you disagree with my reasoning, I'm sure we can come to an agreement as to how we'll interpret the darkness rules now and in the future.
The thing about darkness is that it's actually several effects wrapped up into one spell. From the spell you've linked to:
1. It causes the illumination level to drop one step.
2. Non-magical sources of light become completely ineffective (they "do not increase the light level").
3. Magical light sources only increase the light level (are only effective at all) in an area if they are of a higher spell level than darkness.
Let's start with #3. Our magical light sources are 0-level cantrips and ioun torches, which contain a 1st level spell (continual flame). None of them are "of a higher spell level than darkness," so they become completely ineffective.
This brings us to #2. Do we have any mundane, non-magical light sources? It doesn't matter if we do, b/c the spell renders them completely ineffective.
This brings us to #1, the illumination level. Given that our torches and cantrips aren't functionting, the only thing we're left with is the ambient light (dim light). The darkness spell drops that one level to darkness.
Just having fun here Wicked so feel free to discard.
If you apply your logic then casting darkness in bright light (daylight) would send the area to total darkness because the source of ambient light was not magical.
That's a pretty powerful spell.
I think your points #3 and #2 only apply to areas where darkness spell is in effect. As if we are within a darkness spell effect and we light a torch or cast a lower or equal level light spell. Then those two actions would have no effect.
However, I still think you take into account the starting light level before casting the spell and then take that starting light level down a notch.
Otherwise if you are in a well-lit room and you cast darkness then everything goes dark notwithstanding the initial light level and source unless it was magical and from a level higher than the darkness spell.
I go back to first point. A wizard is walking under sunlight and casts darkness. Does it go completely dark or does the area of the spell effect go down a level in light.
Thoughts?
If you apply your logic then casting darkness in bright light (daylight) would send the area to total darkness because the source of ambient light was not magical.
To clarify, that's not how I interpret the spell.
Casting darkness (or any other darkness spell) is handled thusly:
1. Locate magical sources of light and compare spell level.
2. "nonmagical sources of light, such as torches and lanterns," are disregarded (quoted from spell).
3. Consider the existing illumination (ambient light). Darkness drops it one level.
So casting darkness in bright light (full sunlight) would only result in normal light. Not so powerful, eh?
If you apply your logic then casting darkness in bright light (daylight) would send the area to total darkness because the source of ambient light was not magical.To clarify, that's not how I interpret the spell.
Casting darkness (or any other darkness spell) is handled thusly:
1. Locate magical sources of light and compare spell level.
2. "nonmagical sources of light, such as torches and lanterns," are disregarded (quoted from spell).
3. Consider the existing illumination (ambient light). Darkness drops it one level.So casting darkness in bright light (full sunlight) would only result in normal light. Not so powerful, eh?
Why would sunlight be NOT considered a 'non magical source of light'?
The issue becomes that the ambient light and source of light are dependent upon each other.
Where is the ambient light coming from? If it's not magical (spell level equal to or above) then you seem to disregard it.
So your steps could be:
1. Locate magical sources of light and compare spell level.
2. Consider the existing illumination (ambient light from step 1 only).
Darkness drops it one level.
I still think that the "nonmagical sources of light, such as torches and lanterns," and spells not of greater level than the darkness are not taken into account IF you are within a darkness spell effect to begin with. That is if the derro cast darkness and I light a torch, that torch will not have any effect.
But if the torch was lit and darkness is cast then the light provided by the torch is taken down one step.
And I know that the order doesn't make sense (why would torch + darkness be different than darkness + torch) but I also know that the photons provided by sunlight are the same photons provided by the torch. :)
Interesting conversation. :)
I should bring in Professor Lucius. I'm sure he knows about physics and photons. :)
Would Misfortune require line of sight? The description only mentions "creature within 30 feet".
Yazi, I'll say yes, based on this discussion about witch hexes that I agree with.
Pietro, do you have a link to support your interpretation? I'll look around and get back to you on your question tonight. I apply the rules the way we apply them in the local PFS chapter; I don't have a link handy atm.
I agree this is a fun discussion. It's made me stop and think hard about these rules.
Okay! here's a link to the FAQ stating that you "default to ambient light," including the sun, moon, stars, etc. So that's how I know the sun is ambient light and treated separately from torches and lanterns. That's how I know that there's such a thing as "ambient light" in this dungeon.
That ambient light is provided by a softly glowing fungus no one has noticed because of the light from your ioun torches. This is akin to starlight. This is what we default to after, as the spell tells us, we ignore the presence of torches, lanterns, and 0 and 1st level spells. This is dim light. And darkness brings it down one step.
Here's a forum post "tutorial" explaining this further.. Look at the number of likes!
Thoughts?
Yazi, I'll say yes, based on this discussion about witch hexes that I agree with.
Pietro, do you have a link to support your interpretation? I'll look around and get back to you on your question tonight. I apply the rules the way we apply them in the local PFS chapter; I don't have a link handy atm.
I don't have a link but I will look later if I get a chance.
I'm just reading and interpreting.
I want a spell that does the same thing with the same starting ambient light. A great hall could have enough windows to provide it 'normal light' during the daytime (from the sun) and it could be lit with enough torches at night to also provide it 'normal light'.
The way you interpret it, the darkness spell would have different effects on that room depending with the same ambient light depending on the time of day (and source of ambient light). it would take it to dim light light during the day and to darkness at night.
No worries though. For now we'll go with 'it got dark' and adjust later, if applicable/necessary.
Game on!
Congratulations on the baby! Regarding darkness, I'm afraid I can't chip in with a lot of information there.
Are there any plants around? Or does fungus count as a plant?
Yazi, you mean entangle? My first character was a druid, and I hated that the GMs would often negate that spell bc we were in a "dungeon." I'll be liberal with this--assume there are old tree roots reaching this far down that you can use.
I agree this is a fun discussion. It's made me stop and think hard about these rules.
Okay! here's a link to the FAQ stating that you "default to ambient light," including the sun, moon, stars, etc. So that's how I know the sun is ambient light and treated separately from torches and lanterns. That's how I know that there's such a thing as "ambient light" in this dungeon.
That ambient light is provided by a softly glowing fungus no one has noticed because of the light from your ioun torches. This is akin to starlight. This is what we default to after, as the spell tells us, we ignore the presence of torches, lanterns, and 0 and 1st level spells. This is dim light. And darkness brings it down one step.
Here's a forum post "tutorial" explaining this further.. Look at the number of likes!
Thoughts?
OK then. It looks like you did the searching yourself.
So we'll go with the photons from a torch/sunrod are different than the photons of the sun, moon, stars, etc. :)
This is a magic setting so why not?
A ruling is a ruling so I'm good.
Game on!
Question:
Since Pietro's assumptions (darkness takes it down one step, etc. and we would all cower in dim light next to our 'lights') are NOT true then I think we are woefully unprepared for the task of exploring/fighting underground against darkness-casting foes.
I suggest we retreat and figure out something else.
Thoughts?
I'll post a retreat and then we can figure things out.
Congrats on the baby boy! Best wishes to you and your wife :)
Darkness is a dangerous condition, and retreat is always an option, but it's a rather extreme one. If you run every time you face a higher level darkness spell, you're going to be fleeing a lot.
Realize that because Garvid can see, I'm not requiring you to pinpoint. So you know where the creature is. You only have to deal with a 50% miss chance (except Garvid).
The wicked GM in me is smiling at the notion that this encounter got the PCs on edge, but it's not all that dire... Is it?
Is it?
*ominous music plays in background* Dun-dun-
Darkness is a dangerous condition, and retreat is always an option, but it's a rather extreme one. If you run every time you face a higher level darkness spell, you're going to be fleeing a lot.
Realize that because Garvid can see, I'm not requiring you to pinpoint. So you know where the creature is. You only have to deal with a 50% miss chance (except Garvid).
The wicked GM in me is smiling at the notion that this encounter got the PCs on edge, but it's not all that dire... Is it?
When you effectively blind 5 out of 6 PCs, the situation is dire. :)
What if Garvid is incapacitated?
All I'm saying is that we need some other way than just rely on Garvid, at least some sort of last minute save. BTW, today I learned that humans can have darkvision, which is pretty powerful.
So investing on magic items that trump darkness is well worth it. There are also darkvision spells and potions.
I'm not advocating never go into dark places again, just that we be better prepared.
Given the footsteps outside, I doubt this will be the last derro we'll find here...
Mouse is pretty much ok with whatever - she's freaked that her ioun torch isn't working, but she knows finding Gaekhen, and quickly, is important. She trusts the more experienced of the group; if everyone stays, she'll definitely stay and fight, but if the ones she's come to see as wise and experienced say running's the better option, she'll take that advice.
Let's start with #3. Our magical light sources are 0-level cantrips and ioun torches, which contain a 1st level spell (continual flame). None of them are "of a higher spell level than darkness," so they become completely ineffective.
Um. Continual Flame is a 2nd level spell. It does seem odd that one 2nd level spell can basically trump two 2nd level spells that have expensive material components. I've always treated it like slow and haste, that they would automatically dispel each other, but I guess the wording is different.
Cal, Continual Flame is indeed a 2nd level spell. I typo'd. But, from the darkness spell description: "Magical light sources only increase the light level in an area if they are of a higher spell level than darkness." So I don't see that it makes a difference...
Re countering/dispelling, the relevant spell is daylight, not continual flame.
Do you have a source that suggests otherwise? Do you disagree with the links I provided?
Thoughts? Opinions from others?
FYI, I believe darkvision potions cost 300gp each and last 3 hours.