GM Giuseppe. I had Regin take a skill rank in climb for just this sort of situation. I figure, as a cat, Regin would be able to climb stuff and I wanted to make sure he could do it well, or at least decently.
Should I not have done that?
Yes, it's always an useful skill to have. But I usually imagine a cat climbing up a surface, especially when it has some sort of "handholds". But as far as climbing down goes, I've personally never seen a cat or similar creature being able to climb down a perfectly straight surface. Can you provide me with some examples, videos, etc. to change my idea? In that case, I would be more than happy to allow Regin to come with you.
Oh, also, Serolt, please specify where you cast light. Not that it matters that much, but still I care for such details :D
Hrm. If down is always going to be a problem, I'd like to change that skill point from climb to swim please. Regin won't be joining us in these sorts of encounters I guess!
Oh, and the light will be on my belt buckle for now.
Hrm. If down is always going to be a problem, I'd like to change that skill point from climb to swim please. Regin won't be joining us in these sorts of encounters I guess!
Oh, and the light will be on my belt buckle for now.
No problem about that, since Regin has not used that skill yet! I'm sorry about that, but I've never actually seen a cat climb down a perfectly straight surface. Apart from the rule question, did you ever see one doing that? I'm really curious about it, I've got not that much experience with cats and the like :D
As an owner of three cats I can assure you that they can climb down, though not head first they can reverse their way down a wall. It's not graceful by any measure but they can do it in a pinch.
If we really wanted to get into the physics of it many cats have a non-lethal terminal velocity so Regin could theoretically just jump down and take the fall damage.
Yeah, my cat wasn't much of a climber, up or down. :) I'm fine with the ruling, Regin will be like my own... a bit tentative when it comes to heights. hehehe.
Late night over here guys, will update the Gameplay Thread tomorrow. I'm too tired to do it now (it requires several rolls on the GM's side and involves the creation of the map, so I'd rather do it tomorrow when I'm fresh).
No problem. Sleep well good sir.
Enjoy your rest.
No problem. Sleep well good sir.
And good day to you gentlemen :D
GM Giuseppe, could you please describe Rok’s blow in more detail? What do you mean by ‘strangely her swing is not able to finish the creature’? Is it resistant to our attacks in some way ? Or is it bull headed and just won’t go down?
I don’t need chapter and verse on the rules or anything like that. I'm just not sure what my character just saw from your description.
Maybe I just think they’re tough little guys? Let me know, thanks.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Let's just say that his body appears to have partially resisted to the blow...
Sorry for the 1 post/day rate guys, but my work has been hard of late. I should be able to resume our usual posting rate starting tomorrow ;)
Totally cool. Everyone has slow downs. :)
Sorry for the 1 post/day rate guys, but my work has been hard of late. I should be able to resume our usual posting rate starting tomorrow ;)
Yeah, no need to apologize. It's plenty that you are considerate enough to let us know.
Game on!
Serolt tries to follow the mite as fast as he can, but when he arrives adjacent to the slope, he curses his decision to cast his lighting spell on his belt, because the current position of the light doesn’t allow him to see neither the mite nor what’s going on below at all.
GM Giuseppe, I'm a little confused. I don't want to hang us up - so do not change your ruling, but I want to know more about this so I can plan going forward.
You seem to imply that the Light (link) spell is omnidirectional. And that because it's on my belt, it doesn't shine down into the hole.
"This spell causes a touched object to glow like a torch, shedding normal light in a 20-foot radius from the point touched, and increasing the light level for an additional 20 feet by one step, up to normal light (darkness becomes dim light, and dim light becomes normal light)."
The text seems clear to me - it sheds light in a 20' radius. Then another 20' with dim light. That should mean that the light extends down as well, not just forward. The mite, at 30' away, should have been in dim light to me - so I should have seen him with concealment applied.
Again, I do not want to go back. I just want some clearer picture of your ruling so I know how to apply light. Thanks!
- - -
Also, Kryolani, remember you can only have one light spell going at a time. So if you recast light on another pebble, the previous one expires.
Serolt, it's very hard for me to explain you my ruling, because as you know English is not my native language...I can only say that I think that if the light is in your belt, it won't lighten the shaft unless your belt is perpendicular to the shaft. Otherwise, the ground will just block the light from lightening the shaft. I'm sorry, I can't find any other words to explain myself better :(
Do we see anything with Kryo's light down there. Is it a 30' shaft?
I see. So you're saying that there is a directional aspect to light. Not sure I agree with you there, but I'm fine with it and will plan for that. Thanks!!
Well we got the description of what Rok saw and it was just a 30ft shaft, I imagine the light just makes it so the rest of you can see, Darkvision doesn't cancel out any details other than color.
GM are we good to post the next round of actions?
GM are we good to post the next round of actions?
Yep.
I'm sorry about the light problem Serolt, I can't explain myself properly without miming the situation. As a matter of fact, it would be wiser to cast light on something you can actually move around should you need :)
As far as taking 10 goes, you could take 10 on the Climb checks, assuming that you think your character are enough calm to do that.
I need both hands to weld my bow, and I can't imagine casting it on my bow, so I'm a fixed point in space until I can afford an ioun stone of light (though that will be soonish if these mites have any cash!).
Cool on the take-10 ruling. As I just did two twenties in a row to hit, I think Serolt is pretty clam just now. Very focused. :) But yeah, I stand by my rolls this round, lame as they are!
If my rope tying action sounds like it would take longer than a round to perform, that's fine, I'll happily spend a few rounds making sure we can get down safely, and escape quickly.
Curses! Stupid meeting ran WAY over! oh well, we'll catch up to those little buggers sooner or later.
LIGHTS
OK, you guys had me wondering today so I did an experiment. I had always ruled that light was blocked by a solid surface so it was 'directional' sort of speak.
So today I lit a candle in a completely dark room and I then blocked the candle from my sight.
Guess what? I could still see! Albeit, not as good as if the candle was 'unblocked' but I didn't need to have the candle 'uncovered' for it to light up the room.
There's of course, no need to change any ruling but I will definitely take this into account for my games.
Just thought I share. :)
Taking 10: When your character is not in immediate danger or distracted, you may choose to take 10. Instead of rolling 1d20 for the skill check, calculate your result as if you had rolled a 10. For many routine tasks, taking 10 makes them automatically successful. Distractions or threats (such as combat) make it impossible for a character to take 10. In most cases, taking 10 is purely a safety measure—you know (or expect) that an average roll will succeed but fear that a poor roll might fail, so you elect to settle for the average roll (a 10). Taking 10 is especially useful in situations where a particularly high roll wouldn't help.
Since we're in initiative, and thus in combat, I couldn't allow you to take 10 Jacobus. Please roll for your Climb checks ;) Don't forget to specify if you're attempting a normal climb or an accelerated one.
What's the deal with the false knots? if this is something that we are not aware then you should just roll the dice and tell us what happens. Which I'm perfectly fine with, BTW.
However, if you want us to roll the dice, you need to tell us of any special circumstances that apply.
When you use a false knot you fall down unless you succeed at a DC 12 Reflex save. There's 50% chance of using a false knot as you climb up the wall.
Oh that's tricky. Probably put in there to make it harder to run away if you fell in on top of the centipede.
Serolt focuses his attention* on the head mite and tries to drop him.
____________________________________** spoiler omitted **
[dice=Scimitar]1d20+3-2+2 (ceiling, focus) [dice=damage]1d6+2+2 (focus)
Serolt, I think there's a misundersting. My previous post was addressed to Jacobus only. I will use your post for Round 4 if you're cool with that :)
No, not at all cool with that as many things have changed. I'm deleting my post and will repost.
Strange as it may seems, Rok, your great 1 on the Climb check is not enough for you to fall down. The DC is only 5, and you only fall if you fail your check by 5 or more!
Honestly, I think we did pretty damned well for our first foray into the mite lair, if we can get out of here intact.
OOC:
Giuseppe:
Don't take this wrong way but you have to slow it down some. We all agreed to post several times per day (and we all do) but you can't expect everyone to be able to post several times in the span of a couple of hours like we have been doing today (and other days).
Please be more considerate about time differences; I am sure I'm not the only one working during this time so I don't always have the time to dedicate to the game. I wish I did but I don't.
I know I'm not the fastest out there but you have to make sure I understand what's going on and please don't pass me over a round if I haven't posted yet. it's not like I haven't posted in days or anything like that.
IC:
OK, that being said, where is Jacobus and Rok during this round as I would like to heal her if possible.
Thanks,
Ok guys, I'll take some time to think about this crazy situation before it turns into a TPK. I've already discussed the matter with Euan in private, but I would like to share some thoughts with you as well.
As you may have noticed, I tend to follow the rules quite strictly. That's not because I love the rules, actually I don't. I think that stems from the fact that in my face to face group we're used to take the APs as challenges. We alternate in GM duties, and we take the whole thing as a challenge, trying to overcome the difficulties the adventure poses without the GM's intervention. Sometimes characters die, and when that happens we go on and either resurrect them or have the player create a new character. But I'm perfectly aware that sometimes one grows attached to his character to the point that he's not willing to continue the campaign without it.
In my home games, when a character dies, that character's player usually becomes very attentive about the way the GM handles the rules. The player wouldn't like if a GM helps the group altering an encounter to help the party or to prevent a PC from dying, especially because he's died before and the GM didn't help him in that moment. As a result, I usually tend not to help my players, because I'm used to the fact that my players don't like when I help them at all. If they somehow discover that I was helping them, they suddenly lose interest in the game because they feel the challenge posed by the adventure was somehow altered. Now, the thing is made even more complex by the fact that you, as individuals, know almost all of the APs very well and would be likely to detect any undesired help I may give you.
Of course, there's a completely different view on this matter, and it revolves around a different concept of fun in RPG. Some believe that RPG is about fun, and for "fun" they mean being able to play their character and feel the satisfaction deriving from overcoming an adventure and the threats that it poses, regardless of how much the GM has been saving the day. My F2F players usually have fun when they feel like they've managed to overcome the adventure without my intervention as a GM instead.
These are two different views, and my goal here is not to determine which one is the best one. I just need to know which one do you prefer.
Until now, I was operating under the assumption that you, as my players in real life, wouldn't like if I helped you out of a dire situation altering the encounter, ignoring some rules or simplifying the combat. My players just hate that, because they feel like I'm letting them win regardless of their actions, and won't put that much effort in combat anymore because they would take for granted that even if they fail, I would be there to rescue them.
Now, this is all about what you do like. Maybe you're used to play very differently in the U.S., that's just likely. Maybe you would like to see your characters succeed no matter if the GM has to come into your aid several times in order to achieve that goal.
As a matter of fact, I usually appreciate greatly the chance to receive feedbacks from as good players and GMs as you are, so I'm willing to know your thoughts about this subject.
OOC:
Giuseppe:
Don't take this wrong way but you have to slow it down some. We all agreed to post several times per day (and we all do) but you can't expect everyone to be able to post several times in the span of a couple of hours like we have been doing today (and other days).
Please be more considerate about time differences; I am sure I'm not the only one working during this time so I don't always have the time to dedicate to the game. I wish I did but I don't.
I know I'm not the fastest out there but you have to make sure I understand what's going on and please don't pass me over a round if I haven't posted yet. it's not like I haven't posted in days or anything like that.
IC:
OK, that being said, where is Jacobus and Rok during this round as I would like to heal her if possible.Thanks,
Jacobus I think that your criticism is very unnecessary, because I've not skipped you not even a single round :) You've acted in every single round, so I can't see the point of this discussion, really :(
And of course, as usual, I would like to keep critics in private, especially when one is not completely sure about his claim. Only praises in public, please :)
Jacobus I think that your criticism is very unnecessary, because I've not skipped you not even a single round :) You've acted in every single round, so I can't see the point of this discussion, really :(OOC:
Giuseppe:
Don't take this wrong way but you have to slow it down some. We all agreed to post several times per day (and we all do) but you can't expect everyone to be able to post several times in the span of a couple of hours like we have been doing today (and other days).
Please be more considerate about time differences; I am sure I'm not the only one working during this time so I don't always have the time to dedicate to the game. I wish I did but I don't.
I know I'm not the fastest out there but you have to make sure I understand what's going on and please don't pass me over a round if I haven't posted yet. it's not like I haven't posted in days or anything like that.
IC:
OK, that being said, where is Jacobus and Rok during this round as I would like to heal her if possible.Thanks,
In your post #536 you describe actions for every other character except Jacobus.
And then in your post #540 you have Jacobus acting for both Rounds 2 and 3 in the same post. I'd say that means Jacobus was skipped for Round 2.
Anyway, the above is not criticism; it is feedback from an engaged player so you would do well to listen to it.
I'll repeat the IC question because I never got an answer...
Where is Jacobus and Rok during this round as I would like to heal her if possible.
I suppose, as we talked for about a half hour, I should mention where I come from.
Oh, and let me state at the outset that I don't care what Giuseppe does. It's his campaign... I'm just along for the fun. :)
I routinely change the AP to suit my players. I make some fights easier and some harder (usually the latter depending on the AP and the group). I add NPCs and remove them. I add and remove treasure (though I keep a pretty strict eye on Wealth By Level). I tend to be soft about death when it means the end of a character, and harder when it's just cash (raise dead).
I do this for a story line I'm trying to create with the characters in my campaign. I do this for the fun of the players primarily, and my own secondarily. I feel we're building something together, and the AP is just a skeleton - we're the flesh.
So in this last encounter for example I would not have had Jacobus encounter knots after the first time. Otherwise I'd worry about marginalizing his contribution to what was already shaping up to be a tough fight.
Secondly, I would not have had the mites come in from the other room. I know they're in the AP and all, but clearly the party is already fighting for their lives - the tension is already there - no need to pile on and the risks are real.
That's how I would have 'helped' the party in this case. I would not have changed the rules, or suddenly had the bad guy 'miss'. Just the nature of the trap/environment (knots) and opposition (extra mites).
So in this case I'd have run things differently. Like I said, I totally fine if GM Giuseppe runs things strictly by the book and we end up with some extraordinarily easy fights and some impossible ones. That's his campaign and I'm along for the ride. :D
Just thought I'd share my viewpoint.
Ok guys, I'll take some time to think about this crazy situation before it turns into a TPK. I've already discussed the matter with Euan in private, but I would like to share some thoughts with you as well.
As you may have noticed, I tend to follow the rules quite strictly. That's not because I love the rules, actually I don't. I think that stems from the fact that in my face to face group we're used to take the APs as challenges. We alternate in GM duties, and we take the whole thing as a challenge, trying to overcome the difficulties the adventure poses without the GM's intervention. Sometimes characters die, and when that happens we go on and either resurrect them or have the player create a new character. But I'm perfectly aware that sometimes one grows attached to his character to the point that he's not willing to continue the campaign without it.
In my home games, when a character dies, that character's player usually becomes very attentive about the way the GM handles the rules. The player wouldn't like if a GM helps the group altering an encounter to help the party or to prevent a PC from dying, especially because he's died before and the GM didn't help him in that moment. As a result, I usually tend not to help my players, because I'm used to the fact that my players don't like when I help them at all. If they somehow discover that I was helping them, they suddenly lose interest in the game because they feel the challenge posed by the adventure was somehow altered. Now, the thing is made even more complex by the fact that you, as individuals, know almost all of the APs very well and would be likely to detect any undesired help I may give you.
Of course, there's a completely different view on this matter, and it revolves around a different concept of fun in RPG. Some believe that RPG is about fun, and for "fun" they mean being able to play their character and feel the satisfaction deriving from overcoming an adventure and the threats that it poses, regardless of how much the GM has...
I am very OK with characters dying as long as it was fair and we all know what's going on (the GM style).
I also expect the player whose character has died to have a chance to keep playing (not necessarily with the same character).
In my own games, I am sometimes lenient with players especially if they show inventiveness and stay IC when dealing with an obstacle (be that a combat or anything else). I'm more interested in the story aspect of the game rather than overcoming challenges.
However, I understand that this is not your style but I'm perfectly fine with it. I'm having fun. :)
While as a GM I may pull a few punches in early levels I have sat at tables with very strict GM's who follow rules to the letter and had just as much fun. My opinion is that at the end of the day it's the GM's call as we all agreed to play under their interpretation of the rules.
Losing a PC sucks but it's part of the game and if it happens as a result of dice rolls and scripted encounters then so be it. The only time I would object is if GM seems out for blood, which is not the impression I get here, or of there is a significant misinterpretation of the rules.
@Jacobus, from how I read it, at the start of this round you are 15ft up the wall and Roksana is at the top, attempting to climb down on her action.
In your post #536 you describe actions for every other character except Jacobus.
And then in your post #540 you have Jacobus acting for both Rounds 2 and 3 in the same post. I'd say that means Jacobus was skipped for Round 2.
Anyway, the above is not criticism; it is feedback from an engaged player so you would do well to listen to it.
I'll repeat the IC question because I never got an answer...
Where is Jacobus and Rok during this round as I would like to heal her if possible.
Ok, so, let's see if I can make things clearer for you Fabian. In my post #536 I described action for every other character except for Jacobus. I think I've not skipped him because he was prone and on the bottom of the chasm, and there wouldn't have been any way for him to climb up in a single round. I just moved things forward while I waited for your answer. That's not something disrespectful I think.
As you can see, in my post #540 I have Jacobus acting for both Rounds 2 and 3, in the same post. He wasn't skipped in Round 2: he actually tried to climb up the chasm and failed during that round. The he tried and failed again in Round 3. Even though he has not succeeded, I think that doesn't mean that I've been skipping his turn. He got the chance to make his actions in both of these turns.
I hope that's enough for you to understand my point.
Roksana is currently at 5 feet from the bottom of the chasm and climbing. Jacobus is currently at 15 feet from the bottom of the chasm, so you would either need a Climb check to climb down for at least 5 feet or simply let yourself fall in order to reach the bottom of the shaft and heal her. In this last case, you can attempt a DC 15 Acrobatics check to convert all the falling damage in nonlethal damage.
@Jacobus, from how I read it, at the start of this round you are 15ft up the wall and Roksana is at the top, attempting to climb down on her action.
Yep, forgot about the fact that Jacobus acts before Rok, so Rok is essentially right here.
@Jacobus, from how I read it, at the start of this round you are 15ft up the wall and Roksana is at the top, attempting to climb down on her action.Yep, forgot about the fact that Jacobus acts before Rok, so Rok is essentially right here.
Again, sorry for being a little hard-headed but doesn't Rok act before Jacobus?
If so when it's Jacobus' turn, Rok would already be at the bottom?
for my two cents, as a player I tend to want to play in whatever style the GM prefers. Being a GM is (for most people) the more difficult task, so I try to let my GMs run games however they prefer to, as I'm going to enjoy it either way.
This does sometimes lead to getting my ass kicked, in game, but I'm cool with that. I do hope we manage a retreat though. That's why I set out a rope to help us climb back up the shaft we entered through.
When I GM, it's different. I've got a terrible head for rules, so I tend to run a lot of stuff on the fly, and play fast and loose with any rules. It's not a playstyle for everybody, and it's why I don't run stuff on paizo.com
That all being said, I'm enjoying the game thus far, and look forwards to murdering these little buggers after our characters get a good night's rest.
Assuming we escape.
@Jacobus, from how I read it, at the start of this round you are 15ft up the wall and Roksana is at the top, attempting to climb down on her action.Yep, forgot about the fact that Jacobus acts before Rok, so Rok is essentially right here.Again, sorry for being a little hard-headed but doesn't Rok act before Jacobus?
If so when it's Jacobus' turn, Rok would already be at the bottom?
Don't worry, it's my bad now. Read my previous answer. Roksana is currently at 5 feet from the bottom of the chasm and climbing. Jacobus is currently at 15 feet from the bottom of the chasm, so you would either need a Climb check to climb down for at least 5 feet or simply let yourself fall in order to reach the bottom of the shaft and heal her. In this last case, you can attempt a DC 15 Acrobatics check to convert all the falling damage in nonlethal damage.