DM YRRAH SINNED's Shattered Star Campaign (Inactive)

Game Master Dennis Harry

Natalya's Lair

Initiative!:

Ikit [dice]1d20+5[/dice]
Ran [dice]1d20+4[/dice]
Zhai [dice]1d20+1[/dice]
Granite [dice]1d20+6[/dice]


201 to 224 of 224 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>

8/9 hp

And that's why I don't believe in marriage for love. Changing why people get married is probably the biggest reason marriage doesn't last.

Also, not sure what happened to my post,
but Ran, I didn't intend my actions before to be an all out assault, buf there wasn't time to talk about it because that'd be too late, exactly as happened. I know I've said it before as well. It was not a case of choosing to ignore diplomacy, it was a case of trying to act swiftly to avoid a danger immediately and then diplomance why she had to act after the fact.

To compare, if you were about to step off a cliff, would you rather I grab you and keep you from falling followed by pointing out the edge, or yell over the edge after you went over about how there was an edge there? Zhai, and I for that matter, found the case with the cursed shard to be the exact same thing. Better to try to keep you from falling to a danger first, cause by the time I start trying to explain, you'd have already fallen over the edge.


Shadow's Status
Zhai Tamaki wrote:
And that's why I don't believe in marriage for love. Changing why people get married is probably the biggest reason marriage doesn't last.

Well, that's the MOST interesting part about my Marriage.

I did not marry my wife for Love. I don't think I've been in wide eyed love since my first Fiance'. I married the Wife (soon to be Ex-Wife) because on paper the numbers seemed to work and because we seemed to have a substantial amount of "big picture" future visions in common. Plus we both were willing to have kids (no kids has always been a deal breaker for me).

Despite marrying practically it STILL didn't work.

So whether for companionship/practical partnership OR for love, I think Marriage does not work. For child rearing two parents is best so I've been trying to be as amenable as possible in the Divorce for the good of the Kid.

It's just a dead institution from an era and social framework that is dead and continues to linger on as something we "should" do.

That was my one time around, I'd not do it again.


Male Human
Spells:
1st: 3/3
Adept Godling 2 HP: 22/22; Sickened, 2 Wis damage | AC 18 T 14 FF 14 | Fort +5 Ref +6 Will +4 | Init +6 | Percep +5

Aww, that's too bad about the divorce.

Also, marriage serves the important purpose of granting legal benefits and possibly tax benefits. It's why when I went off to college, my dad joked that I should marry my roommate.


My Announcements

Marriage was never intended to be anything other than a contract between families, and was never about jndividuals at all until recent times. That dedication and commitment was about politics between extended families.

Also, who evef told two parents was better for kids dither lived out in thd boondocks or was a complete idiot. What kids have in life as a child has a massive impact on thdm later in life, and of the more important things a child needs is responsibility and that almost never happens in the stereotypical family unit, but kids of single parents usually must be resposnible and mature because it is practically a requirement of living. That tends to mean such kids grow up without hating and shirking responsibility as adults, and indeed, most such adults I know just don't feel right not being responsible.

The self sufficiency and understanding of the importance and value of money are also major benefits most children of single parents get as well.

And while I've seen plenty of exceptions, only once did I meet a single parent who's kids were not mature and responsible by age 7, and that lady had several kids and was gaming the system to get plenty of cash to live at home and not do anything.

Nothing I've learned in psychology nor education has contridicted this as of yet, so in my above average, though perhaps not expert, opinion is that two parents in a steretypical household does not make a good home for raising a kid.


My Announcements
Granite Ward wrote:

Aww, that's too bad about the divorce.

Also, marriage serves the important purpose of granting legal benefits and possibly tax benefits. It's why when I went off to college, my dad joked that I should marry my roommate.

But yea, this. Always a hard thing to go through, and the legal issues around marriage are kinda silly but beneficial.


HP: 57/57 | AC:19 / T:14 / FF:15 | Fort: 7, Ref: 8, Will: 2 | CMD: 21 | Init: 3 | Perception: 8 (Darkvision 60ft)

@Zhai: I understand that, but I tried to present a sufficiently elaborate answer to that to proof that I am not under the objects sway, and if I was, it was very possible to talk things over. I even suggested going to Sheila(believing to be completely fine).
So, it was more of a 'some person standing on the bridge threatening to jump'-situation. Where you try and talk them down. Not rush at them and try to grab them, as that could very well push them to do something hasty.
As said, I understand your intent, I'm just saying the delivery was in a way that Ran would not have taken kindly. *shrug*

@Marriage: I'll abstain from that discussion. I have one side of the family where all marriages failed, and another side of the family where none of them failed. It can be great when it works, awful when it fails, and everything in between.
Obviously, my hopes and wishes are not unbiased, as such, I'll only say that I hope everything will work out for you on your choosen path.

@Family: Oh, but psychologically, it IS true that having multiple roles filled in the family and multiple interaction partners tends to lead to more well-rounded and mentally balanced children.
Interestingly, AFAIK it's not a matter of the traditional family unit or structure. 2 same-sex parents with different roles, or even a significantly older sibling qualify, but the multi-facetted approach does enrich the psychological development of kids.
(Source: several people in my family(with varying academic degrees) work with children, of different ages, both troubled and 'regular', in small towns or large cities - and we recently had a very interesting and long discussion about this topic - basically just summing it up.)
YMMV of course, and maybe there is a strong regional difference between central europe and wherever you are based (as many 'universal truths' only hold in certain cultural and geographical areas).


8/9 hp
Ran, the Masked wrote:

@Zhai: I understand that, but I tried to present a sufficiently elaborate answer to that to proof that I am not under the objects sway, and if I was, it was very possible to talk things over. I even suggested going to Sheila(believing to be completely fine).

So, it was more of a 'some person standing on the bridge threatening to jump'-situation. Where you try and talk them down. Not rush at them and try to grab them, as that could very well push them to do something hasty.
As said, I understand your intent, I'm just saying the delivery was in a way that Ran would not have taken kindly. *shrug*
...

Except for two things, I didn't rush at you, I was already in the same grapple as you were (so more like we are standing together and I pull you back from the edge), second, your suggestion of going to sheila was after some misunderstandings already that I was simply trying to keep things smooth without calling for a retcon, I basically had to make it fit with what you falsely assumed I did, and your suggestion of waiting till later could easily have been nothing more than a stall tactic, so hardly counts as evidence of anything, not even reasonableness.


HP: 57/57 | AC:19 / T:14 / FF:15 | Fort: 7, Ref: 8, Will: 2 | CMD: 21 | Init: 3 | Perception: 8 (Darkvision 60ft)

That is literally not true.
This was the last post before you started shouting.
You were standing off, letting me grapple. You literally said before then that you were waiting to see how the grapple goes and not getting involved.

So you were waiting until I succeeded in subduing her and taking possession of an object, then came at me telling me to drop it and approaching trying to make me drop it.
You were NOT part of the grapple, you were NOT helping me in that struggle. You waited until I was done, then tried to give me orders. When I did not inmediately comply, you screamed at me and tried to force me to do as you demanded.

All that said, all that I meant to express is, once again, that Ran does not take kindly to orders. He does have a rather big ego, and does not easily submit. That does not mean he won't listen to reason, or go with a superior plan. But you will be more likely to cause him to do the exact opposite by trying to scream orders at him.
That remains true. You want him to do as you suggest, use reason, not force. When I was talking, I did so to give you that option, to let you do what you wanted to do in a way that Ran would accept.

Also, if you haven't seen it, you may want to take a look at the Shifter Base Class. It may or may not be interesting for you, but I could imagine it would synergize well with your second nature.


8/9 hp

Ahem, to quote the GM,

Quote:
[Natalya] attempts to struggle once more but Zhai is prepared, she slides down the chimney and secures Natalya's feet. Her struggles thereafter are in vain.

In any case, I get and fully understand that Ran is very egotistical, which can be a bit fun as we go along.

And as I've said a few times, that scene didn't go anything like I'd wanted it to, not least of which is how Zhai had been perceived (particularly with the mild godmodding) and it became a mess. Everyone seemed to forget that her immediate action was to yell (in a "look out! It's a trap!" type of yelling) and make him drop the necklace. That was forgotten , and my attempt to remind folks was taken as a later action instead. Then you posted what you'd do if I took that action, but that was entirely described as if I would you after we'd been yelling back and forth, which was entirely wrong and assumed the potential attack would come well after the fact.

This all indicates a very different idea between what I tried to do and what you thought I was doing. Considering you still think I don't get that Ran won't respond well to orders just simply confirms that we are not communicating very well. The entire issue is one of poor communication and assumptions, nothing more.


HP: 57/57 | AC:19 / T:14 / FF:15 | Fort: 7, Ref: 8, Will: 2 | CMD: 21 | Init: 3 | Perception: 8 (Darkvision 60ft)

The point is that ran does have combat reflexes. You cannot simply surprise him by sudden action. No previous talk was needed, even if you inmediately(without time to realize in-character that Natalya, still grappled and restrained, acts differently, and magically realising that it is not deceit/a bluff/anything other than some magical curse being lifted from her) - even if you act in the split second ran took possession, without pausing to talk, he would get to react.
Since ran did not feel any different, the logical assumption in character would have been that zhai was acting under some compulsion or attacking for reasons her own. Ran would have defended himself, and the whole thing would have been messier. It was the right call to handle it that way, even if you feel unhappy about aspects.
I only posted the reaction after you insisted on sticking with your plan, because I dislike pvp. Not because I misunderstood the timing. But I wanted to try and talk, rather than post an AOO as first reaction to your plan. Which I can take during your surprise round action, and things could have gotten worse depending on initiative for regular actions...


HP: 57/57 | AC:19 / T:14 / FF:15 | Fort: 7, Ref: 8, Will: 2 | CMD: 21 | Init: 3 | Perception: 8 (Darkvision 60ft)

@Grapple: Just to clarify, I went by your stated intent, since you seemed to dislike the implored actions.
Neither you nor GM provided a roll for Zhai, and your intent seemed to only get involved if I failed to restrain her, not actually provide aid in what I was doing.
@Combat Reflexes: Also to clarify that: Ran was an Arena Fighter. Mock gladiatoral combat is still combat. All his combat abilities are based on that - taking advantage of distracted enemies(Sneak Attack), not being caught by surprise if alliances shift(e.g. team up to take someone more powerful down...there will still only be one winner), using Dexterity instead of strenght to wield his spear with accuracy, and dodging other people trying to use reach against him to avoid his spear...in this case, the blank page approach clashes - you belief your course of action has a chance to succeed, I belief it has no chance, so mechanics is needed to resolve that stalemate, and I have mechanical backing for my reasons - hence why I asked if you have means to do what you mean to do without provoking - as you say, poor communication and assumptions made. Takes two or more, for that. ^_^ *smiles* Luckily, it's all in the past...lets face the future.


Male Human
Spells:
1st: 3/3
Adept Godling 2 HP: 22/22; Sickened, 2 Wis damage | AC 18 T 14 FF 14 | Fort +5 Ref +6 Will +4 | Init +6 | Percep +5

Granite was too far away to notice Natalya's change in demeanor. Or even see that there was a necklace until Zhai was yelling at Ran to drop it. Then the two were arguing, and he wasn't really sure why or how the idea that the necklace had been cursed had even come about since no one ever mentioned any kind of context around it.


My Announcements

Combat reflexes won't allow aoos during a surprise round. You are ff in a surprise round because you can't act, not the other way around, and in fact, it dven mentions that you can't act before it tells you about being flat-footed, which is simply in addition to being unable to act.


Male Human
Spells:
1st: 3/3
Adept Godling 2 HP: 22/22; Sickened, 2 Wis damage | AC 18 T 14 FF 14 | Fort +5 Ref +6 Will +4 | Init +6 | Percep +5

I sense a rules fight a'brewing... So I'm going to make a pre-emptive strike and say that instead of arguing about your respective interpretations of the rules (because I kind of suspect that neither of you is going to convince the other), just ask the DM for a ruling and go with that.


8/9 hp

I don't think it really matters right now. Not like we'll go retcon anything.

But as that is raw, best to pre-emptively point out the possibility so no one gets taken by surprise should the gm favor an opposing interpretation. Whether the gm decides now, or waits till it ever actually matters, is up to him.

Interestingly, should it come up, we'll both need to know since I also have combat reflexes. :)

There are lots of small things like that, that get missed. I.E. if you have more than 3 ranks in acrobatics, defensive fighting and total defense grant higher bonuses. I just saw a thread recently about some people who didn't know despite have played for years.


HP: 57/57 | AC:19 / T:14 / FF:15 | Fort: 7, Ref: 8, Will: 2 | CMD: 21 | Init: 3 | Perception: 8 (Darkvision 60ft)

Combat Reflexes does allow AoO during a surprise round.
I am flat-footed and do not get to act regulary.

Flat-Footed wrote:

A character who has not yet acted during a combat is flat-footed, unable to react normally to the situation. A flat-footed character loses his Dexterity bonus to AC and Combat Maneuver Defense (CMD) (if any) and cannot make attacks of opportunity, unless he has the Combat Reflexes feat or Uncanny Dodge class ability.

Characters with Uncanny Dodge retain their Dexterity bonus to their AC and can make attacks of opportunity before they have acted in the first round of combat.

Oh, also take a look at
Surprise wrote:


When a combat starts, if you are not aware of your opponents and they are aware of you, you’re surprised.
Arguably not true. I was very much aware of you. Just not of your hostile intent. But an argument could be made that your hostile action could still trigger normal initiative, or an opposed check(bluff/sense motive) to determine if there even IS surprise. Not like you were waiting in ambush or invisible, I was very much aware of you.

Determining Awareness
Sometimes all the combatants on a side are aware of their opponents, sometimes none are, and sometimes only some of them are. Sometimes a few combatants on each side are aware and the other combatants on each side are unaware.
Determining awareness may call for Perception checks or other checks.
Basically what I said above.

The Surprise Round
If some but not all of the combatants are aware of their opponents, a surprise round happens before regular rounds begin. In initiative order (highest to lowest), combatants who started the battle aware of their opponents each take a standard or move action during the surprise round. You can also take free actions during the surprise round. If no one or everyone is surprised, no surprise round occurs.
So, lets assume that there IS a surprise round, and I would be 'unaware'...

Unaware Combatants
Combatants who are unaware at the start of battle don’t get to act in the surprise round. Unaware combatants are flat-footed because they have not acted yet, so they lose any Dexterity bonus to AC.
I do not get the standard or move action during surprise. I am flat-footed, and lose my Dex-Bonus.

"Do not get to act" is not a condition. It is a explanation that those unaware do not get to act on their initative order. It is not something like Stunned, Paralyzed, Dazed etc. that carries additional aspects(like being helpless, dropping something, etc...). My only condition is 'Flat-Footed', and the added fact that I have to skip my initiative spot during the surprise round if deemed unaware.

Now

Combat Reflexes wrote:


Combat Reflexes (Combat)
You can make additional attacks of opportunity.
Benefit: You may make a number of additional attacks of opportunity per round equal to your Dexterity bonus. With this feat, you may also make attacks of opportunity while flat-footed.
Normal: A character without this feat can make only one attack of opportunity per round and can’t make attacks of opportunity while flat-footed.

pretty clearly states that I can make AoO's while flat-footed. Which is, by the above definition, the time in a combat before I act. It nowhere excludes the time I am flat-footed during a surprise round.

Note that even immediate actions call out they are impossible to do while flat-footed.
Flat-footed is a very defined term of a participants state before their first regular action. It does not distinguish between surprise or regular round. There is no "superflatfooted" where even those abilities fail that work if you are flat-footed.
All being unaware changes is that I am incabable of taking an extra action during that surprisé round, if it would have happened at all.

---

Even if you want to technically interpret Unaware to forbid all action, Pathfinders terminology is that specific trumps general.
If Unaware forbids action in general, it is trumped by Combat Reflexes specifically allowing AoO while Flatfooted, which is a condition one has while unaware.
Since Unaware does not(being general) address Combat Reflexes in any way, the "specific" part of the Feat is the rules-relevant aspect, meaning AoO during Surprise Round are a go.


8/9 hp

Not really, ff is not defined as the time before you act in combat, it is a condition gained during that time, not defined by that time. You can be ff in many other places, times, and ways.

You can't act during surprise, and that is based on surprise, not ff, and aoo is an action.

Don't forget, you would be able to use combat reflexes on the first regular round before your first action.


HP: 57/57 | AC:19 / T:14 / FF:15 | Fort: 7, Ref: 8, Will: 2 | CMD: 21 | Init: 3 | Perception: 8 (Darkvision 60ft)

What I posted was a quote from the Paizo Rules as posted on D20PFSRD / Conditions.

You can also have the quote from the paizo page itself: Here, in the section Initiative, close to the top.
Flat-Footed: At the start of a battle, before you have had a chance to act (specifically, before your first regular turn in the initiative order), you are flat-footed. You can't use your Dexterity bonus to AC (if any) while flat-footed. Barbarians and rogues of high enough level have the uncanny dodge extraordinary ability, which means that they cannot be caught flat-footed. Characters with uncanny dodge retain their Dexterity bonus to their AC and can make attacks of opportunity before they have acted in the first round of combat. A flat-footed character can't make attacks of opportunity, unless he has the Combat Reflexes feat.

Flat-footed is very much defined as the time before you act in combat.
You can be denied your DEXTERITY bonus in many other ways, such as by a successful feint, or being attacked by an invisible attacker. You are not, however, flatfooted at that time(but for many characters, the same AC applies in both situations so it is commonly mixed up - since you generally list regular AC, touch AC and Flat-Footed AC).
It's a very important distinction as a number of abilities only work against flat-footed opponents - simply causing them to lose their dex-bonus is not sufficient to make them valid targets for abilities targetting flat-footed creatures.

Rules-wise, there is no further distinction between wether you are flatfooted in surprise round or flat-footed in a regular round.

The term act is also established in Initiative:
Characters act in order, counting down from the highest result to the lowest. In every round that follows, the characters act in the same order.
Since there is this little gem(so people don't re-roll Init after being brought back from unconsciousness and similar stuff):
Inaction: Even if you can't take actions, you retain your initiative score for the duration of the encounter.
it seems prudent to point out that unaware opponents do NOT actually act on their initiative score during surprise round.
Also note that:
Unaware Combatants: Combatants who are unaware at the start of battle don't get to act in the surprise round. Unaware combatants are flat-footed because they have not acted yet, so they lose any Dexterity bonus to AC.
it actually points out(bold mine) that those are flat-footed because they have not acted yet. Which is the literal definition.

Also note that the use of "act" as perform an action on your initative count is persistant...look at the Battle Oracle Mystery(or similar abilities in other classes):
War Sight (Su): Whenever you roll for initiative, you can roll twice and take either result. At 7th level, you can always act in the surprise round, but if you fail to notice the ambush, you act last, regardless of your initiative result (you act in the normal order in following rounds)....

If that was a 'universal' logic overriding all other abilities and conditions, and "don't get to act' means you cannot do anything regardless of what your other abilities say, then "you can always act" would override things the same way. The oracle could die in the surprise round by failing a save-or-die spell...but he could still act normally despite being disintegrated after everybody else moved? Because the ability states he can ALWAYS act in the surprise round?

Those terms only make sense as general statements regarding taking a turn in the initative order. An absolute reading does not work.
Plus, as elaborated above, with Pathfinder, specific trumps general.

So a General "you cannot do this" can never override a specific "but you can do it if".
The rules themselves state that the unaware combatant is flat-footed. Combat Reflexes states you get to do AoO's when flat-footed. That means you get to do AoO's while unaware, because your combat training kicks in before you even realize what is happening, letting you instinctively defend yourself.
Since the specific stuff says it works, it overrides, by default, any generalization. :)


Male Human
Spells:
1st: 3/3
Adept Godling 2 HP: 22/22; Sickened, 2 Wis damage | AC 18 T 14 FF 14 | Fort +5 Ref +6 Will +4 | Init +6 | Percep +5

I see I rolled a natural 1 on my pre-emptive strike....

I will, however, reiterating that based on previous arguments you two have had, I really don't think think either of you is going to convince the other one that you're correct. As such, I would prefer to just drop the topic and move on because honestly, the constant OOC fighting this group seems to do is starting to feel really demoralizing for me.


8/9 hp

Crazy stuff:
Wow sir, you have an odd way of looking at things.

The surprise round is defined as having a specific effect, which is your inability to act. It is not actually defined as you being flat-footed, but naturally you'd be flat-footed for other reasons and a clarifying remark to that end is put in place so no one tries to use their normal ac during surprise (because you know someone would try, and probably is mentioned because someone did).

Also notice that oracle ability,

Quote:
you can always act in the surprise round,

Notice how it mentions the surprise round, but not being flat-footed.

Also, while the Flat-footed definition mentions start of combat, but it is when the condition applies and not part of the condition itself. Basically it says "At this time you will suffer this effect. This is what that effect means." ANd don't forget that you can become ff in other ways at other times even without confusing it with losing one's dex bonus.

Also note, that the time frame mentioned is more than just the surprise round and the alterations made from both combat reflexes and uncanny dodge are mentioned without regard to a specific part of that time frame.

However, the surprise round is only a specific part of that time frame that only happens in special cases, not the whole period all the time. It also gives an additional effect that applies only to the specific time period that is the surprise round. It is a case of the specific (the surprise round) over the general (before first regular turn in combat).

Also, in that general rule of before first regular turn (which thus includes all aspects as being part of the general rule), is the more general case cause it covers all combats, but a surprise round does not occur in all combats, making it the specific case and thus overrides the general case.

Kinda funny thinking about it, cause these rules, regardless of your take on them, are so not realistic at all. But realistic wouldn't be fun, so say la vee (don't ask me how to spell it. It isn't english.).


8/9 hp

Oh wow, I got ninja'd by two hours. That's crazy.


Shadow's Status

It’s pretty late at night as I am writing this. I’ve been through a significant amount of struggles through the past two years (actually through the past 41 but especially the past 2). I’ve had worse stretches of time before but I believe that these past struggles were due to my own lack of maturity and self-awareness at the time those events took place.

Likely those events were necessary for me to experience to survive the events of the past two years and get through them as well as I have. Physical ailments, getting older and requiring more sleep, bankruptcy, and ultimately divorce. You know life is not going swimmingly when going to work feels like a vacation.

Regardless, when I first started getting involved in PbP on the boards it was a chance to play, finally! I’d been DMing for the bulk of the time that I’ve played table top that I was enjoying being able to be a player for once. Then with so many damn flaky GM’s I just started running games and well, things snow balled from there.

Life was fairly stable at the time the normal ups and downs. Then about two years ago, I started getting into PbP as a way to escape reality. Sort of the same ways drugs were casual and enjoyable for me as a teen and ultimately led me as close to suicide as I ever want to get again.

I am not saying that PbP has made me suicidal but I am saying that I recognize that I was using PbP as a coping mechanism to avoid a bad marriage. PbP did NOT lead to the failure of my marriage but it did contribute to my ability to tune it out.

I make a decent living but between bankruptcy and divorce I’ve little to show for it (well except for this killer book and RPG collection ). I could point the finger at my soon to be ex-wife but when you point one finger at a person, three more point back at you. I could have prevented things from becoming this bad and I chose not to. I did it, ironically, because I believed that if I had the marriage would have ended and ended badly, so much for best intentions. I am not going to second guess myself, what happened happened. As divorces go, this one has been rather amicable as we have put our daughter first and ourselves second.

Being married to someone who makes as much if not more money then you (depending on sales that year) places one in a position to “take it easy” when it comes to being aggressive about making money (well it placed me in such a position anyhow perhaps because making money does not move me).

Early on in my career I had an opportunity to become a premiere M&A Financial Services Tax Attorney in a Big 4 Firm. It’s a big deal and potentially a lot of money but I did not really want it because I knew I would be working a lot and traveling a lot. My ex agreed that I should turn it down as she did not want to be married to a workaholic and that was not who I wanted to be anyway. Nor do I want to be that person now. (In yet another twist of irony, she has become a workaholic, funny how things turn out).

I do not regret the decision though I do lament the loss of income that such a decision would have brought to me.

All of this rambling nonsense is leading to the point of this post, I need to work more. Not at my current job nor do I want to get a new job, I actually like being there as odd as that sounds (to me). I need to get a second and perhaps a third job, side gigs. At 41 about to turn 42 with no retirement and no savings for my daughters college, I can no longer hope that the ex’s business will come through as an investment plan. Even if it does, I will not be the beneficiary of that largesse. I need to make up for 11 years of being “comfortable” simply working.

Thus, it is with heavy heart that I am announcing that I will need to close down a number of the threads I run and withdraw from a number of the games I am a PC in.

I suppose this decision will not be a surprise to many of you as my posting rates have been abysmal since these events took a turn for the worse (in some respects the better to be honest) since Thanksgiving of 2017.

I am not generally a person that feels remorse or guilt but I do feel a level of disappointment with having to make this decision. I apologize for disappointing many of you who put work into PCs relying on my consistency as a GM/DM over the course of the past several years.

My plan had always been to run a hardcore dose of RPG’s until my daughter was a teenager and then, spend my free time writing the novel I had been working on since before she was born. I had hoped that over the next 9 years or so I could wrap up most of these campaigns and the few that remained would be more manageable.

Life has not worked out that way.

The good news is that I will still run several games but the current load is too much for me to handle in this transition. The further good news is that I believe this will allow for those games to move along much more quickly.

By tomorrow I will have made my decision as to which games I will keep and which I will shut down.

Thank you all for taking the journeys with me despite the lack of length or resolution of so many of them.

I will still be around just in a diminished capacity so this is not goodbye just a “be seeing less of you”.


HP: 57/57 | AC:19 / T:14 / FF:15 | Fort: 7, Ref: 8, Will: 2 | CMD: 21 | Init: 3 | Perception: 8 (Darkvision 60ft)

Not at all a odd way of looking at things, if you are used to interpretation of rule systems.

The surprise round has the specific effect of your inability to take an action when your initiative count is up. This needs to be pointed out because when your initiative order is reached, you would normally take an action.
Since you have no condition that prevents you from doing that(such as being dazed) it needs to be specifically pointed out as an exclusion from how it would normall be handled.

You also saw the rules-definitions of flat-footed. Flat-footed is exactly the condition you have BEFORE your first regular action in combat.
You seem to disagree with this notion, but have so far failed to point me to some rules text that you base this disagreement on, while I provided both the Paizo and the D20PFSRD - definitions that very clearly state exactly what I claim: You are flat-footed before you act in combat. And, sans an exception(specific trumps general), only then.

Regarding the Oracle Ability: If you fail to notice the ambush, you act last. That means by definition the Oracle is flat-footed until such time. Just as it would be in a regular combat round if it went last based on initative.
The point was that the definition of the term 'act' is synonymous with 'take whatever actions you are capable of taking during your initiative count'.

Being flat-footed is based on the start of combat. It is the trigger, not the effect. The effect is clearly defined, but for this discussion, not relevant.
You seem to believe there are other ways you could be FF. There ARE ways, such as distracting attack rogue talent specifically pointing out that it inflicts the flat-footed condition.
It does not change anything about that condition.

You will find that the time frame is mentioned in that it lasts until the character acted in combat...which is because you could make them lose their action during their round, prolonging their condition until such time as when they actually do get to act.

The surprise round is one part of the time frame, indeed, with the additional effect of skipping your initiative count, not letting you act, the same way as if you had lost your action.
This is very specific to the surprise round. But nothing there in any way shuts down the fact that you are flat-footed. Or the way that combat Reflexes allows you AoO while flat-footed.

Say you have a regular round, no surprise. Someone moves past you, and you take an Attack of Opportunity thanks to combat reflexes. Next up is some enemy mage that Dazes you.

Dazed wrote:

The creature is unable to act normally. A dazed creature can take no actions, but has no penalty to AC.

A dazed condition typically lasts 1 round.

Next up, your first iniative count - but you do not get to act. Does that invalidate the AoO you took earlier? Since, you know, you would not actually get to act during this turn?

Wether you get to actually do something when it's your turn or not has no influence on wether Combat Reflexes is online or not.
If the ONLY condition that prevents you from performing an AoO is being Flat-Footed, then it is ignored/negated.

The surprise round only points out that you do not get to act on your initiative count, and that you are flat-footed if unaware. No other effects or conditions apply.
So nothing prevents an AoO.
You can see it as a specific thing, but it does not add extra phantasy riders such as making a character dazed simply because that would be a convenient interpretation. If that had been the intent, they would simply have added such a condition to those affecting you during a surprise round.

Besides, it's not a case instance. The point is language. Surprise round uses general terms and conditions to defined what happens and what effects it has. Act/Flatfooted.
Combat Reflexes calls out a specific exception to the normal handling of a Term(namely Flatfooted).
As said, the "specific trumps general" is a terminology rule. Not a "what usually happens versus what happens sometimes" rule.

If something describes it's effects and meanings in general terms, it is general. If something adds a specific distinction, calling out the exception, then it is specific.
The fact you get to act or don't get to act is not a surprise-round specific terminology, it's the common wording for doing something on your initiative-count. It's a extra to skip a few people during surprise round, but it's not a specific exception that overrides, in the specific example, Combat Reflexes, which specifically state giving you the ability to do something(AoO) while flat-footed. Which is a condition the surprise round points out you have.

Regarding realism? It's a sequential turn order rather than simulatenous action, so yeah, no point looking for realism in the combat rules.

@Granite: I appreciate your pre-emptive strike, but this is very basic - I gladly invite Zhai to head on over to the rules-board and ask if Combat Reflexes let you take an AoO during a Surprise Round, as I am absolutely certain on that one.
If it was in the slightest ambigious, I would have asked GM for a call - but it's not.

That said, it was fun with you guys.

It seems very likely that this game, being rather 'fresh', will not make the cut compared to some long-running ones.


Shadow's Status

Unfortunately, this is one of the games that I will need to close.

As this is an AP, you may be able to find a replacement DM,

Good luck and good gaming all.

201 to 224 of 224 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Online Campaigns / Play-by-Post Discussion / DM YRRAH SINNED's Shattered Star Campaign Discussion All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.