Not quite correct - I would like to point out that if that first arrow, the confirmed crit, hits Mel, she would go down. Behind the low wall.
With 5+8 less damage, because the second arrow would probably be aimed at Túrion who is still standing at that time(but drops down from readied.)
In that case Mel would be at -5 damage and I could administer the potion she handed to me.
But waiting on GM input on targeting correction/priorities.
Just saying it makes little sense to aim that second arrow at someone in full cover already down. That would be overkill, and usually the goal is to get one side of the battle OUT of the battle ASAP, by knocking everybody into the negatives. There's a select few cases in which attacking someone already out of the fight makes more sense than attacking someone still standing, and this does not seem like one of them.
Because as in regular war, it's good having wounded. Stabilizing or healing takes actions from the enemy. Dead people don't. So by spreading fire, they may not kill her inmediately, but shut down both me and her for the round, at least.
The other question, of course, is wether the confirmation was even successful. You list the 20 AC you have regular, but haste gives at least 1 more(dodge), and you have low cover for another +2, placing you at 23 AC, technically +4 for Soft Cover(often disregarded - and not affected by Precise Shot - may not apply due to positioning though) - the 11 rolled may not be sufficient if the Orc does not have a +12(or +16) or higher modifier.
I'd say it's up to the GM -- the second arrow was fired by a different orc, I believe, and might well have been in the air more or less simultaneously. It's a little hard to tell since GM rolls all the d20s for attacks in a big clump.
Fyrtor, you're stable but not up. Kelian used his last Lay on Hands to heal you, but came up with +11 when you're at -13, leaving you stable at -2.
EDIT: Oh, and I moved Fyrtor's icon into the wall because Kelian moved into that space and they didn't stack well. He's still in the same space though.
Thanks Mel. I'm going to wait and see what GM thinks about the hits Fyrtor received and my supposition that only two have actually landed before updating Fyrtor's HP further.
As long as Muse is where he is, the archers still carrying ranged weapons should have a difficult time firing. If they leave, I can try disarming them with AoOs. Speaking of AoOs, I'm pretty sure I can survive the one I'll be eating for disarming the leader, presuming it isn't a crit. Which might be a bit presumptuous, seeing as one in four attacks is a crit-threat . . . but I didn't see that I had too much of a choice there, this guy's full attacks are too devastating and they had to be stopped somehow.
It's hard to form a strategy when we're waiting a DM adjudication on how many of our party members are conscious/alive, but. Let's talk options. This fellow has at least 25 AC, which means that no one but Kazador will be hitting him with any regularity, he's probably got at least ~80 hitpoints, considering his level, possibly more or a lot more. We've done about fifty damage to him.
Do we run? Now's probably the time for it if we're going to, now while we have enough people sensate to make a getaway, now while he's carrying a shield (move action to doff) and his bow's on the ground (standard action to retrieve). But if we do, we'll probably have to fight this guy again some time, after he's healed and requisitioned more minions.
Even if we can beat him in another round or two there's still the reinforcments coming as well. That said, I don't know that there isn't a reason for him to follow us so running might not save us anyways...or well, those that aren't dead yet... :(
While we are theorycrafting:
You should not assume he is disarmed. The trip with CMB 29 would have failed against him if it were triggered. That's meta-knowledge, but if his CMD is equally high against disarm, then he is still going strong with full armament.
My original plan was to shut him down for a round, reduce him to a single move action. If Nelly is extraordinarily lucky, she may be able to trip him.
(Even if the attack connects, she only has +17 on her CMB when flanking - something that should reliable send most level-adequate humanoids to the floor...but not this guy as she likely needs a 15 or so to get him)
So yeah, I can debuff him into not attacking and try to debuff him into a -4 melee penalty for attack/defense(plus provoke standing) - one more round may bring him down which also makes things safer if we retreat.
But we need to check who is and who isn't with us or able to move under their own power.
I can ask Nelly to pick someone up and carry them(her Strenght is quite high), but that's only a valid concept as long as I remain conscious.
Fyrtor, I should have narrated this more clearly. First scimitar hits. First shield hits and bashes you into the wall, knocking you prone. Second scimitar misses despite prone. Second shield misses. Third scimitar hits because prone.
Mel, the damage against you (a favored enemy) is 1d8+4. So the crit damage is 3d8+12. Another arrow hit bringing it to 4d8+16. This is what you guys get for trying to interpret my GM screen. ;) It's there for me. Nice try, Mel. Trying to convince me I killed you again.
Regarding hitting Mel, no soft cover applies because the archers are firing from on top of the wall, not fighting down in the breach. Since they were two different arrows, I'm going to keep them simultaneously on Mel.
Did I miss any questions or points?
Ah I will agree that the wall grants partial cover, keeping the crit on Mel from being confirmed by 1. That reduces the damage to Mel by 17.
Ah, makes sense then. Thanks GM
These battles are tense! And we aren’t even in the city center yet!
Mel, the damage against you (a favored enemy) is 1d8+4. So the crit damage is 3d8+12. Another arrow hit bringing it to 4d8+16. This is what you guys get for trying to interpret my GM screen.
Well, when an attack takes me from just over half health to dead or dying in one turn, can you blame me for checking the math?
And your notation is weird. I could see writing the dice expression as 3d8+12+1d8+4, with the two hits rolled separately and then totalled. Or as 4d8+16, with everything in one lump. Either of those would make sense. But you wrote 4d8+8+8. I saw that and though, "Oh, he forgot to multiply the static damage on the crit because it's identical to the static damage from the regular hit."
Ah I will agree that the wall grants partial cover, keeping the crit on Mel from being confirmed by 1. That reduces the damage to Mel by 17.
Well, that's good. You know, I did have partial cover listed in my status line. :-Þ
@Trying to interpret GM Screen: It's fun to theorycraft :)
@Mumbo-jumbo: I also use weird annotation and wrong designators on my GM screen rolls. I also sometimes add pointless rolls at the end.(but don't tell my players) Often also without added boni, just the raw rolls. So I can see the 8+8 making sense.
@Status line: aye, but that requires GM to check all stati for potential effects on other aspects of your statusline and do the math - I think it's easier if you just add the haste/cover bonus to your AC listings.
Apart from that: That could have been a successful assault on the guy :) If he is down, he hopefully provokes trying to stand(at -4 AC) giving people a chance to maul him. And even so, that should consume his move meaning he'll stand around to let Kazador bash his head in and get his revenge.
IF my theorycrafting works out this time, that is.
I think it's easier if you just add the haste/cover bonus to your AC listings.
I do too, but the GM told us to just list the statuses and that he'd do the math.
Ah, ok. Mainly I'm glad you're alive.
There are a couple more talks I would like for us to have -
And aye Kazador, I concur that the battles are tense. Hopefully, tomorrow we will be able to assail fortified positions more effectively and coordinate our tactics even better.
Me too! I like being alive. I was pretty miserable all last night because Mel was dead.
I've ended up passed out in more than half the battles so far, and been on death's doorstep more than once. It's been fun, crazy, dangerous ride :) GM isn't pulling punches that's for sure :)
Yes, pulling punches is not generally his style.
It should be noted that there's precedence, e.g. with Dimensional Savant, to provide flanking while only in the space for a moment. Same with one person circling around a large enemy with 2 move actions, then others taking full attacks against the flanked guy(even though technically, their flanking partner only even arrives at the end of his turn, not even having time to attack himself).
The arrows thing was concurrent as well, simultaneous attacks during their turn. *shrug* Just trying to make a point for also considering our actions simultaneous when advantageous.
But honestly, I had hoped the result of 30 would be sufficient.(That would easily have floored Kazador - a stable dwarf - with buffer remaining)
I guess not - we should definitely take a lessons learned thing from that regarding combat maneuvers at orc leaders. *glances at Brolin and smiles* :)
I'm just surprised that his CMD is higher than his AC! He's been hit on a 30 before, hasn't he?
The guy could plausibly take us on solo. We would win, but he'd make us work for it.
I guess BAB+DEX+STR might well be better than armor+shield+DEX for a two-weapon-fighting fighter with 11+ BAB, if he isn't using a ranger fighting style or something to reduce the DEX requirements. On the plus side, that means that his STR+DEX is at least +9 together (less if he has more BAB), which means his CON might be a bit lower . . . if he's on an array, that is. If he's built like a PC, there's no reason to assume he isn't rocking a five in all three mental stats.
It should be noted that there's precedence, e.g. with Dimensional Savant, to provide flanking while only in the space for a moment. Same with one person circling around a large enemy with 2 move actions, then others taking full attacks against the flanked guy(even though technically, their flanking partner only even arrives at the end of his turn, not even having time to attack himself).
I figure that's because the whole idea of a flanking bonus is that they're distracted paying attention to people on either side of them; for instance, if they shield bashed someone that was behind them that means they aren't using their shield to guard in front of them. But that's up to the DM.
Right now I have AC30, a boat load of HP and 28 CMD vs trip. We’d be doing better if he would just focus on me instead of fighting smart and taking down squishies.
Going forward, Kazador will be using glammered to make it look like he is wearing leather armor with a hood. That way enemies will mistake him for a squishie and will attack him more often.
It's probably not your armor. I suspect he's targeting his favored enemies. Which definitely includes humans, and probably elves, but I'm guessing dwarves are not on the list.
But hey, a little misdirection never hurt. They'd probably get a Will save versus the illusion as soon as they hit steel instead of leather, but if it eats up their attack so much the better.
Nope!
“Upon command, a suit of glamered armor changes shape and appearance to assume the form of a normal set of clothing. The armor retains all its properties (including weight) when it is so disguised. Only a true seeing spell or similar magic reveals the true nature of the armor when it is disguised.”
Paid for this on his hammer and armor so that it wouldn’t be stolen. Sleeping next to a pile of rocks? Really his armor and hammer. Take that thieves. But I see now that it can have combat potential
Likewise, the GM's comment asking whether Mel was disguised as a human or not makes me think I should put that back on. It can be very useful to be mistaken for a different kind of creature than you are.
Which raises an interesting rules question: if a ranger with Favored Enemy (elves) fails to recognize me as an elf, and then attacks me anyway, do they get their attack and damage bonus?
If they have both elves AND humans as a favored enemy, and think I'm human, do they get the human bonus or the elf bonus or neither?
It reveals it for what it truly is. But that is not necessary if faced with proof to the contrary.
You can make stoneplate look like a linen shirt all you want. If my sword can't pierce it I'll not for a moment belief it's because my sword went dull since morning.
I may blame magic rather than a glamer but if I see you hit people with a fish and they go flying left and right from the impact, while you seemingly can't be hit yourself despite wearing khakis and a hawaii shirt, then I'll call magic and assume trickery - true seeing or not.
Very true! But that might take more than a round.
Round 1: Stab the dwarf. It...didn’t go through the leather? Gonna have to stab harder!
Round 2: Wait, why is my sword chipped? Is there something under that? Is it magical?
Round 3: I’m going to attack the elf.
That’s two rounds spent attacking the tank. And pathfinder doesn’t have anything else to make enemies attack you.
Well, thats the question. If you seem to want to go all up in their face, you could easily be a brawler or a monk or any of a number of other classes that are lightly armored and still a pain to hit. If they figure you are pushed by magic, all the worse.
Don't get me wrong, I love deception and I am totally in favor of trying to use it to our advantage, but we should probably not expect to get free rounds out of that where they try to hit the tank and failing. I'd expect one round - more if you act the part(e.g. stand back, maybe pretend to cast something traditionally while using your actual casting ability)...say if you were an actual monk, all unarmored, but defensive and almost impossible to hit and possible retaliating(with Crane or Snake Style - or both) - how long would they be fooled by the appearance before deciding that other guy is easier to bring down?
The problem is fulfilling your role while not acting the part...that is, tank while not seeming like you actually want to tank. That's tricky.
@Mel: AFAIK Table variance. Some claim you instinctively use techniques advantageous against them, others say the training only applies if you know what you are facing(i.e. can put things into context).
Well, there's the Antagonize feat. And I have a vague notion there may be a spell that has a similar effect someplace. But yeah, Pathfinder has never really bought into the "aggro" mechanic common in many video games.
All very true. But it’s my only option aside from murdering everything, which I plan to do anyways :)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Aye, and they had to fix antagonize -_- before it was melee only which made it far too good.
Amusingly, I did consider that very Feat for a different kind of shenanigans, but decided against it in favor of #redacted Feat#, and really want you to meet #redacted# for that reason because you kinda inspired that change of course.
@Kazador: True that! :) As said, I'd totally go for it - just saying we should be on the save side and not actually expect much mileage from it...if it works better than expected, we can be happy, but we won't be caught with our pants down if it works worse than we hoped - if that makes sense :)
Really! I always liked #redacted# feat, because it #redacted#, especially when you take it on a #redacted# PC.
^_^
GM, for Kazador’s Background Skills I have him Craft Arms and Armor. That was before I finished writing all the Kazad Gravr information along with the guilds. In retrospect it makes 0 sense for Kazador to have those craft skills.
As they never came up before, could I change them? Specifically:
* Lore: Dwarven History And Nobility
- This is because as Nobility he would be expected to know the history of his people. I figure that as History and Nobility are both background skills, it would make sense to make the lore cover both as it relates only to dwarves.
* Lore Dwarven Religion
- So all together this would make Kazador very knowledgeable about his own people, but not the outside world. Which, I think, would fit his character very well.
Kazador, I'm fine with you re-specing your background skills.
Turion, dimensional savant is very specific magic. Can you point me to the rules precedent on circling around and flanking? The reason I didn't count that as flanking is because, while we don't move in strict init order, our actions should be able to resolve as if in strict init order. I think there are complications that could arise if PCs were allowed to time their full attacks as "I hit, you hit, I hit, you hit."
Mel and Kazador, agreed. That's the tricky thing about being a tank. Getting enemies to attack you.
Mel, you got it. The archers have favored enemy: elf. I'll have to think about the disguise interaction... Maybe half bonus or something like that if they don't see through your disguise.
Oh and regarding simultaneous arrows, I'll think harder about that next time. In this case, it didn't matter. Also, putting one of those arrows to Turion instead wouldn't exactly help you.
So, right now we're just waiting on Brolin's standard action right?
Correct. He may as well attempt that disarm against an adjacent orc? If he doesn't post by later today, I'll bot him and update, time allowing.
@dimensional savant: Technically Magic, but e.g. Flickering Step Conduit Feat qualifies a pure Fighter to take advantage of the Chain as well :)
But then, it DOES take an extra Feat(specifically Savant) to actually provide that Flanking, so it's not without cost - it is just another example I meant to provide.
rules precend on circling and flanking:
thats exactly the point. By raw, in a situation like this:
Init:
Cleric Tank with a Reach Weapon
Fighter
Rogue
Troll
(Troll just moved up and hit the fighter once)
Cleric can now, outside range of troll, spend all his movement to circle around, ending his movement on the opposite side of the troll, stepping into range to threaten it with his Longspear.
Both Fighter and Rogue can now 5-foot step forward - the Troll is flanked since the Cleric threatens it from the opposing side.
The Fighter does his Full Attack, and the Rogue Sneak Attacks with both his Kukris using Two-Weapon-Fighting plus iteratives.
That is RAW, and it's good raw. Because otherwise, with concurrent turns, things quickly turn ugly. Basically, same reason Pathfinder does not generally have "facing" except for very niche aspects(such as Tower Shields used for cover).
But purely logical? The cleric spent all 6 of those seconds hustling around the troll trying not to get smacked by an Attack of Opportunity, barely making it into a position on the other side of his team-mates.
The fighter and rogue effectively stepped up and started their assault when the Cleric was, in real-life-time-based logic, still behind them, on their side of the Troll.
Even more interesting is if the situation of Fighter posting first.
So the fighter steps up and does not get the benefit of flanking. The rogue posts after the cleric, and does get the benefit of flanking(and sneak attacking) because he waited. Even though their turn happens at the same point in time.
Don't get me wrong, I don't want people to mix-and-match, each turn is a discrete unit. What I mean is that effects happening during such a turn are hard to time discreetly.
So saying he is flanked, but only for a brief moment...becomes problematic. Because then we don't have absolutes any more, no discreet turn, but a fragmented one. Either the Enemy is distracted or he is not. Saying he is distracted by the flank but only for 2 seconds out of the 6 the turn lasts does not work out right.
I recently had a mobility-based character using Spring-Heeled Style that run into similar problems - in that HE got to take advantage of flanking, but his allies did not - in this case it was easy to solve with a dip for the "Distracting Attack" Rogue Talent - which did not provide flanking but offered the flat-footed debuff which opens a number of options as well.
Now, obviously, it is tactically sound to remove flanks - 5 foot stepping out of them, using combat maneuvers, focusing one flanker down etc.
But assuming Nelly's animal intellect does not allow her to formulate the necessary strategy, Brolin could simply have moved up next to the Orc Captain and readied an action to disarm him the moment his flanking allies all acted.
Basically, it boils down to a formality of trying to act efficiently, where players double-check their actions to see if they could unwittingly give up some tactical advantage. Considering the high CR of the encounters we run into, missing such an advantage could have disastrous results.
I do understand that in the flow of the game, Brolin outright attacked, and was pushed back, away. Smart move by the Orc, but it's equally easy to say that during those 6 seconds of the turn, he could not fully focus on both sides - shield bash-bull-rushing Brolin on one side(reacting to one of the players outside of his own turn) means he may lack that defense on the opposite side.
That is fully within the rights of table variance, though.
To be perfectly honest, I suppose I was simply frustrated that even with such a high roll we stood no chance to overcome the orcs defense - and despite there having been a window of opportunity during which it SHOULD have worked(if this guy has more than 34 CMD we'll come back to this Dwarven city at a later time) it was decided(by a roll, not direct fiat) that no luck.
@Arrow directed at Túrion: Kinda, I did present myself as a target with the ready action to drop back down if attacked.
I figured either I save the move action to stand from prone(if not attacked) and can cast and move next turn(something I ended up not doing). Or I draw fire and evade it with the readied action thus helping allies not targeted :)
I'm confused. Didn't Brolin have to spend his standard action to attempt the disarm in the first place? The fact that the Bull Rush knocked him away wouldn't give him that action back, would it?
I believe Brolin was pushed away by the AoO provoked by attempting the disarm before he could complete it.
I'm not sure that's how it's supposed to work, but I think that's how we got to here.
Aye, he wanted to disarm the guy but he is no longer a valid target so his action got semi-nulled. Basically he can still do his disarm, just against someone that is still a valid option.
I guess I'd just have ruled the action lost. It sucks, but sometimes these things happen.
I wouldn’t. Move action then standard. Move was interrupted so couldn’t take standard.
It's messy, That's why in starfinder they changed it so only purely defensive AoO happen before an action that provokes, with the exception of interrupting spellcasting.
Action lost is the least favorable outcome.
There's also something to be said for the interrupting action to resolve inmediately, but only come in effect after the offensive action took place.
That is, the Disarm would continue regulary, fail, and then he is pushed away.(the outcome of bull rush already on the queue after the interrupt was handled, but only coming into play after the interrupted action is completed.)
In the current scenario, that's equal to ruling action lost - so allowing him to pick a different target is actually nice.
Unless I'm terribly confused, his motion didn't provoke from the orc leader. He closed to melee with the orc leader. That may provoke from the other orcs (the ones who have melee weapons out, anyway), but the orc leader -- who is fighting with a scimitar and shield -- lacks reach, and thus none of the squares that Brolin exited were part of his threatened area.
What provoked the attack from the orc leader was the disarm attempt, because Brolin doesn't have Improved Disarm. You have to make the attempt in order to trigger that AoO; hence, he got to try, but it didn't work because the action was interrupted.
You're right Mel, but because he provoked he was pushed way BEFORE attempting the disarm, and then he couldn't attempt the disarm. It creates a paradox. GM is resolving the paradox in a way that's nice for us that's all.
Muse's shopping list for when/if he sees sweet civilization again:
nets
emergency scroll(s) of invisibility
a beefy healing potion (to replace the one I'm liable to drink soon)
a scroll of gaseous form
spiked gauntlets
hopefully an item of all-day longarm (4,000 gp by the custom item making rules, if the DM lets me commission one)
Agile for my effortless lace terbutje
Page of Spell Knowledge: False Life
enhancements for my armor/shield if I can afford them
Runestones of Power
Muse's shopping list for when/if he sees sweet civilization again:
nets
emergency scroll(s) of invisibility
a beefy healing potion (to replace the one I'm liable to drink soon)
a scroll of gaseous form
spiked gauntlets
hopefully an item of all-day longarm (4,000 gp by the custom item making rules, if the DM lets me commission one)
Agile for my effortless lace terbutje
Page of Spell Knowledge: False Life
enhancements for my armor/shield if I can afford them
Runestones of Power
Given that a blue swordmaster's flair costs 2500 and has way more restrictions and shorter duration I doubt a longarm all day item would be anywhere near 4000. Just sayin