GM Fez's Hell' Rebels (Inactive)

Game Master Nathan Hartshorn

Well, I'm a 24-year-old teacher's aide from South Australia, heavily invested in Pathfinder with no intention of switching systems any time soon. I'm a PFS regular, and spend perhaps too much time on the boards. I'm playing a paladin in Meliandri's Kingmaker game; a cavalier in another game we're both playing in; and a sickly, 9-CON wizard in a game with Aerodus. I haven't played with the rest of you yet :P

I've been playing for about four years now, with no real off periods but some spaces of low activity. On that note, I am currently battling depression, so if I go quiet for a couple of days, don't be alarmed. I might just be unable to function. I'm in enough games, someone will always know whether I've vanished or just can't work up the strength.

Right now, though, things are alright. So it looks like it's time for me to post again!

I guess I'll take my turn, I'm 26 years old and currently with out a job. Lost it a few months ago and haven't had much luck finding a new one (though I"m hoping for seasonal work since it's that time of year). I graduated college with a bachelor's in english - creative writing and a minor in religious studies, two things that are really helping me find a job right now.[/sarcasm]

I've been playing rpgs for the better party of five, six years i think. like 99% of the time i'm the DM. Started with 4e and then moved to pathfinder. I'm always looking for a new rpg to test out (Currently i'm obsessing over Fantasy AGE) but no one in my group wants to learn a new system. I've done a couple pbp before, two i ran on my own and one i volunteered to take over once the DM vanished. This was on top of two other rl games i was running on top of my heavy work load. I kinda fried and hadn't played in what feels like almost a year, rl or pbp. But i feel better now, want to play again, and here i am.

I feel you, had GM burnout a couple of years ago and had to take a break for a few months.

I haven't written about my system preferences.
Started with D&D 3.5, had a brief liason with 4e. but moved back to 3.5 as it was to combat-focused for my tastes. Then Pathfinder came out and I fell in love again ^^
Beside that, I love GMing Call of Cthulhu as well as horror-themed Pathfinder games and the occasional casual round of Fiasko. That system is a blast.

Okay, so, looking at everyone's skills, we're really missing a knowledge-monkey. Starting next level, I'll be allocating most of my points there to compensate, but in the meantime, I can make them untrained at +2. I'll be able to pick up three new ones in-class.

Yeah, I built Izzy to essentially be the spymaster. I think she has nature but that's it.

the bard going for knowledge skills? a novel idea! ;)

I'll put some ranks in history, aristocracy and religion - but that's about it.

Just a quick heads up: I have not forgotten about the game, I'm just waiting for the first (1 hour long...) round to be completed. The idea is that every one does something, so Meliandri spends an hour rabble rousing, Aerodus spends an hour silencing undesirable elements (the thrune loyalists), Izzy watches the crowd and Abigail listens for rumors.
Once Veccio acts I'll resolve the first hour and tell you what changes you have wrought...

Heads-up: This weekend (19th-20th) I'll be running PFS tables at ConCentric, and may not be able to post much. The Sunday also happens to be my 6-year anniversary with my now-fiance, so I most likely won't be posting then. Bot me as needed.

Have fun at the Con! ;)

No problems there! Thanks for telling us. Have fun! :)

I'm away this weekend and will probably be unable to post. Please bot me as needed.

Hope you guys have fun.

Nice that you didn't make me waste the spell ;)

PS: We need to print T-shirts with "WE WANT MINT!"

I'm just glad I failed now instead of during my last check. I'd hate to have the crowd to turn on me when I'm still kinda solo. The rest of you have at least met each other. Isn't paranoia fun!

Nice that you didn't make me waste the spell ;)

PS: We need to print T-shirts with "WE WANT MINT!"

Well, yes, there were no one worth using it on. Generally speaking anarchists don't work that way. And used on SOME elements of that crowd it could actually cause you some problems as your instructions went against their nature and what they knew.

As for the t-shirts, later in the AP you could probably be interessed in a different kind of mint... ;P

yeah I figured the part about "against their nature" - tried to word it as vague as possible, but it will have to be deployed more strategically.
Nevertheless, I'm eager to use Inception-spell in the future, should have some fun consequences.

Also: Can you make tea from that "other" mint? I hope so ;)

Isabella (can I call you Izzy here), did you select spells? You should have 4 0-level spells and 2 1st-level spells, of which you should be able to cast as many 0-levels as you want per day and 2 (1+1 for your Wisdom score) per day.

Personally, from a filthy metagaming perspective, it'd be great if one of those spells known was Cure Light Wounds, for your dog wolf.

If you already have spells and they're just somewhere I can't see, please ignore this post!

Izzy's fine here. I completely forgot i got spells... I think I treat spellcasting like druids and don't have to prep them each day... i'm gonna double check that though.

actually druids have to prepare spells, but hunters don't ;)
Have fun with gravity bow!

Also: Cure light wounds would work well outside of metagaming. Being a loner that sees the state she is living in as an enemy, she would surely have learned healing magic for herself and doggy.

@Gameplay Aerodus: Well, Aerodus, it's more a disgust-filled scream, so I think it's okay! Also, if Gunslingers can draw 18 pistols in a round a free actions, I can shout speeches and scream.

Add in a few creative insults and some dwarven humor and you might get the same action economy :D

I'm back! Con was fun, but tiring (I played Between the Lines, and ran Scions of the Sky Hey pt. 3) and I think I came down with something. Thanks for botting me, but I should be good for the next round!

Between the lines is awesome :D
Played it a few weeks back. Now starting the Scions of the Sky Key trillogy on Play-by-post gameday here.

Don't wanne be a rules-lawyer, but lemme just throw this out:

"The vapor obscures all sight, including darkvision, beyond 5 feet"
It would therefore be impossible for somebody 10ft away to have only 20% Concealment, as the target is completely obscured by mist.
And with your interpretation (5 ft: no concealment), that would mean there is no area with 20% concealment, jumping directly to total at 10ft.

Also, I think "5 ft away" means adjacent when read by RAW.

BUT: It's your game, so we will play it your way ;)

this mist should be interesting. I seem to be playing it that when Izzy channels animal spirits, she takes on traits of the animal as well. So yeah, she's probably going to draw her sword and go try to flank with Mel if blue's still alive on her turn since she's going to be pissed she can't see to use her bow anymore.

@ Aerodus: I count "adjacent" as "0 ft away", an opponent 5 ft away is an opponent standing one square away from you so you have no concealment miss chance in cc, 20% miss chance when using ranged or reach weapons against someone standing one square away and 50% miss chance against everyone else. I think it makes more sense this way (no matter how thick, a fog cannot make you miss someone you are fighting with hand to hand imo)

So we are making it into a horror movie for the enemies? A crazy animal-woman striking them down suddenly from the mist (which sprung up shortly after she did a tiger-scream) ;)

@GM: So a weapon with reach 10ft would have reach 5ft in your games? Basically all distances get 5ft substracted? Or am I misunderstanding something?
I'm just slightly confused and need a clarification. :/

Also: just realized that this invalidates Obscuring Mist as a rogue-neutralizer in melee. Sad turn of events, the cleric getting slightly nerfed in favor of rogues [/sarcasm]

If we minus five feet doesn't that mean dimunitive creatures have a reach of -5 ft? Sorry if that cones off a bit smart but 0 ft. Mechanically speaking is the targets own square.

@ Aerodus: no problem, questions are more than legit and I have no problem answering and explaining my reasoning. In this case things are pretty simple imo: with my interpretation obscuring mist doesn't work in melee. A reach weapon with 10 ft reach allows for total concealment and one with 5 ft reach allows for a 20% concealment. I see no problems with this ruling. Yes, it may be a slight nerf to the spell, but remember I warned you I was going with different interpretations/house rules on some spells. For example exect nerfs to teleport, scry and enervation in the future, and remember these changes hit you as hard as they hit NPCs.

@Isabella: I used the "0 ft" expression to mean "in melee".

As a side note I'd like to hear your prospective on this, the letter of the rule aside, do you think it would make sense for obscuring mist to work in melee?

I do think it would make hitting difficult. Concealment is triggered by many things, including dim light, dense forests and fog, as well as some spells (blur etc).
Actually, any fog effect - natural or magical - includes concealment in this way. See rules:

Whether in the form of a low-lying cloud or a mist rising from the ground, fog obscures all sight beyond 5 feet, including darkvision. Creatures 5 feet away have concealment (attacks by or against them have a 20% miss chance).

You do see the target (otherwise it would be total concealment), but you are unable to be as precise as usual (thick fog makes outlines unclear and you sometimes don't see a hand or a shoulder at all for example).

I'm still slightly confused: do I correctly understand that you see it the following way instead of as written?
longsword = 0 ft reach = adjacent square;
Glaive = 5ft reach = two squares away;
whip = 10 ft reach = three squares away;

A reach weapon with 10 ft reach allows for total concealment and one with 5 ft reach allows for a 20% concealment.

I actually don't completely understand that :/

I really see no problem in nerfing the spell (and the fog weather rules?), but I see many unforeseen consequences and confusions in houseruling the reach and distance rules without a good reason. Tiny and smaller creatures being one of many possible topics that might spawn a discussion.

Therefore I would propose to keep distance rules as written and go with the following version of obscuring mist (emphasis to show differences):

Also, be aware, that this is not simply a nerf, but could be actually used as an improved spell in some instances.
(going into melee with a caster, casting this -> you can destroy the caster without intereference of others while they don't even gain concealment as a defense)

Also: I suppose this nerf would apply to all simillar fog-creating spells?

damn that was quite the wall of text :/

Ok, check the map. On the left lower side side you can now see 3 chelish thugs and 3 "economic conservatives protesters".

The ones near the pavement are "in melee" -> there's no need for concealment checks

The ones just below them are not "in melee" but are 5 ft away from each other -> If the thug was using a reach weapon or a ranged weapon his target would have 20% concealment

And the two near the lake are 10 ft apart -> The economic conservative attacked with a whip or a ranged weapon would gain 50% concealment thanks to the mist.

So, yes, the way you translated this works for me.

As for fog creating spells, it depends on the text, I reserve the right to change my mind if the wording implies something different. We'll proceed on a case by case basis.

Gah, I'm so primed to the usual way of determining distance in Pathfinder, that it's really hard to wrap my head around you take - but I shall try my best ;)
Just need to get it defined enough that corner cases are dealt with before they explode the game.

I'm repeating stuff now for completion's sake:
You measure in full squares between two points, where 5ft means there is one full square in between.
Pathfinder as written measures in squares away from one's own, meaning anything that is beyond the own square's border is at minimum 5 feet away, while something that stands so far away that there is one full square in between would be 10 ft away.
(basically your idea of distance +5ft)

So how would you call it out that a creature has a (traditional) reach of 0 ft (this includes for example tiny creatures; meaning they don't threaten adjacent fields)? In your system a reach of 0ft already means that you threaten adjacent creatures.
There is a source of confusion here that for example may lead you to attack adjacent fields with squirrels because it says reach 0ft in the stat block (while actually the squirrel would need to enter a creature's square to attack)

Also: Is a 5 foot step still a 5 foot step, or do you call it a 0 foot step? And what about speed? Is a speed of 30 feet 7 squares instead of 6?

Using different measurments for distance between two points and travelling speed is really a bad idea.

A medium creature without a reach weapon threatens all adjacent squares. What I'm saying is that if your target is in an adjacent square you don't need to roll for concealment miss chance. If your opponent is one square away, then you roll for concealment (20% miss chance) and anything farther away than that gets total concealment (50% miss chance).

I'm not changing the way distances work (although I may have given you that impression, and I'm sorry for that) I'm just saying you don't get concealment if you are adjacent to an opponent and vice versa.

Is this a nerf to the spell? Yes it is. I hope this does not upset you too much but as I wrote before, I warned you I would have been changing a few things (especially concerning spells).

Don't worry overmuch: magic will still be very powerful, but some things will get nerfed/changed (but I must warn you, I've never allowed people to use wishes to create diamond to fuel other wishes, or wizards to build "demiplanes of diamonds" for that matter... XD)

I have absolutly no problem in you changing spells - you are the DM and this particular change is not even really a nerf (depending on the circumstance it would even be a buff) ;)
But feel free to nerf and ban spells as you see necessary.

The concealment distances don't worry me at all here. But severeal times you used a different language to describe distances than the one normally used in Pathfinder and I already saw combat getting super confusing in the future with you misunderstanding us and vice versa.

Examples:

The ones just below them are not "in melee" but are 5 ft away from each other -> If the thug was using a reach weapon or a ranged weapon his target would have 20% concealment

The correct way of measuring distance here would be 10 feet. Let me just quote the description of the reach weapon quality here:

Reach: You use a reach weapon to strike opponents 10 feet away, but you can't use it against an adjacent foe.

You gave the example regarding two creatures that would correctly be able to strike each other with reach weapons -> seeing the above quote about reach, they are 10 feet away from each other.

And the two near the lake are 10 ft apart -> The economic conservative attacked with a whip or a ranged weapon would gain 50% concealment thanks to the mist.

Just as above, correctly applied weapon reach (3 squares) for a whip, but you gave a distance of 10 feet instead of 15 feet. Let me quote the Quoting rules again:

The whip is treated as a melee weapon with 15-foot reach

I really don't wanne be grumping around and questioning your ways of playing Pathfinder - but I think it would really be good for the clarity of all future battles if you stick to the official measurement whenever you describe distance.

SO, how are we going to get that wolf out of there?

Once Isabella goes all "Not without my dog!" on Aerodus, he will use his scroll to heal it, or Isabella heals him herself.
But I'm not sure if that works, as the wolf was taken off the map once it fell unconcious.
Is it adjacent to any of us?

Once Isabella goes all "Not without my dog!" on Aerodus, he will use his scroll to heal it, or Isabella heals him herself.

But I'm not sure if that works, as the wolf was taken off the map once it fell unconcious.
Is it adjacent to any of us?

The dog is UNDER the thug, it was't taken off the map.

As for distances that's fine by me, believe me when I say we won't have problems on this, this is mostly my fault, I should have been clearer from the start, but I hope it's solved now.

ARG! This guy has like two hp left! Why can't i hit him!

It's his superpower! "Extreme annoyingliness" XD

ah - under the thug. That explains all :)

Does that mean the dog on the map is only one square to the left because of space reasons? If the thug actually moved to the right, my post doesn't work because there are no 5 ft. steps in that crowd ^^

I think you're last post is wrong because I meant to move Izzy and forgot to during my turn so DM moved the thug on the thug's turn. I miss either way, but if i move Blue gets another attack against me since i provoked an opportunity attack. I rather retcon the move to do that so i provoke (i'll take the risk), thereby making it safe for Aerodus to heal Varro and Varro to stand in an adjacent square and run.

if Varro lies 10 feet away, I cannot heal him this turn. drawing scroll: move action, and thanks to difficult terrain I can't make a 5 ft. step :/

But let's wait for GM clarification here.

The dog is exactly where it was when the thug dropped him. And you are right, no such thing as a 5 ft step with dificult terrain.

Izzy didn't move and the thug moved in to attack her, in so doing he stepped away from the prone body of the wolf (yes, he was fighting on top of him, poor animal!). If Izzy wants to retcon movement the thug will attack the nearest opponent, which could be Aerodus anyway... too much trouble to rethink everything at this point imo.

Let me be frank here: your safest option is to take care of the dottari and thug THEN heal the wolf OR if you run away you have better leave the wolf. Because giving them free attack of opportunity on top of regular attacks seems a tad too risky.

Let's make a decision here: Izzy's action stays the same (she stands and shoots, missing), Aerodus CAN RETCON.

I can tell you this, Izzy's not leaving without Varro, or until her minute is up on her animal spirit channel ends. it's only been two rounds so i think she has like four more before she calms down.

Well, then you have better start working togheter to defeat those dottari and the thug.

The other option could be to flee and see if Varro survives. I dare say he could be mistaken for one of those "noble hounds"... but maybe not...

Either way, your choice.

I'm trying, this thug just won't stand still long enough for me to shoot him in the face.

Alright, going to retcon ;)