GM Poisonbladed Hollow's Last Hope (Inactive)

Game Master Ross Hearne aka poisonbladed

I think Quayon actually has a turn coming. He has gotten a little left behind. I will wait for him to get caught up, and posting a full action, if he wants otherwise I think its to round 4.

Yes?

** spoiler omitted **

** spoiler omitted **

** spoiler omitted **

I will have minimal (likely no) posts from December 13 through December 20th.

GM, let me know how you want to handle that.

Thanks.

Mranchi your not thinking it through here. It goes off turning its readied action and then again on its turn for the fourth round in its new order. Your movement moved you down there in the third turn, which would have triggered its action. Then it still gets to go in the forth round.

They do not go before spirit or makvor, I merely posted it before he did. His post takes precidence over that, just like the spiders would over yours if you had posted before there turn. We can go back to posting in order. Its much clearer, but also slower. I frankly like it better.

Fox they do hit your DEX is down because you are blinded against them. Two hit you for 9 or 10 hp. Not sure how much, I posted that this morning, and I remember reading that two hit you. AC is Dex +2, Shield +2 - Normally 14, but against them you get no Dex cause you cannot see them.

Zat - your guy will just fade to the background. Present, but cannot affect or be affected by what is going on.

Before we dig ourselves any deeper in confusion we will now be posting in order or initiative for every combat. This will start effectivly round 5. If we wait a day for your post, you will be skipped and we will move on.

I am not upset, it just seems better this way.

GM, my suggestion, which might help combat time, would be to use an average initiative for PCs and NPCs.

Then everyone can post and you can post. clearing up confusion.

I read that system on another thread.

got a link with that?

One system I've seen work is to have separate initiatives, but then post a list whenever there's a GM update, with who's gone marked off.

I can't remember where I read it but I just did a little google searching and here are some of the posts referencing the idea:

"Put all the enemies on the same initiative count. That way you don't have to post and/or update maps all the dang time: only once per round, just like the players. Makes things so much easier. Usually I will just pick the lowest initiative modifier in the group and roll that."

Another one that I just skimmed suggesting a similar idea.

I'm just throwing it out as a suggestion. Take it for what its worth. :)

Wouldn't those options make any initiative feats and traits, and to some extent a high dec pointless?

Its cool Zat and if there is a better way to handle it I am all for it. I like posting in order simply cause it works well, it is slow but there is no confusion (aside from misreads or forgetting stuff). I am all for putting similiar creatures in the same order, but dislike to when its a Boss or Named NPC.

correct me if I am wrong. The example is that you all post then I post. So two rolls for initiative.

Those feats and traits would be completely useless for sure, but thats not a bad thing, seeing how we could refund them for alternate selections.

I don't really like the idea of all the players having the same initiative, but I think for me it'd be easiest if either there's one initiative for the baddies or else multiple posts for them based on when they go. For players, things generally proceed fairly close to "in order" even if it's not specified; someone's waiting on X to do Y, for example. In-character conversation for the PCs also seems to help us keep a pretty good idea of who's where.

For me, the confusion arises when there's one post with multiple initiative actions in it without any indication that we're moving around in the initiative order.

Good point on different posts for baddies.

Ten four there, and no problems here. I was getting a little confused myself. I know that if we put our heads together will figure something out that works for everyone. Posting in order works well, but takes long and can add a different sort of problem.

So far this has been a riot and a half. I like everyones characters and they seem to mix well together....or not well at all which is the entertainment for me.

If I see a problem coming I always like to head it off at the pass if I can. A big combat, with two confused players is just the sort of thing to head off asap.

One thing that has worked in another PbP I'm in, is that initiative is rolled separately for each player, etc., and the GM lists that order.

All players that are before the top baddie can post in whatever order they want - obviously, actions will be resolved in order. Then the baddies that are before the next player(s) will be in a post. Then the players that are before the next baddie(s) will post in whatever order. Repeat ad nauseum.

It's a little less restrictive than each post in order, but still keeps the players and baddies posting more or less separately.

Other than posted NPCS in there own posts that doesn't sound a lot different than how we are doing it now. Or at least how its shaking out.

I like that.

In addition to that I am going to break up my posts. I will post a header each time of those that have took there actions prior to my post. I may or may not post an updated map each post. It will depend on how much has changed. Monsters going on similiar initiative will be grouped together. Example the Spiders in one post, the Kobold in another, the goblins in one, Giggleman in another.

I think with that and each of us comparing the actions and the constant turn list will solve any issue, or degrade the confusion a bit.

Can anybody extrapolate this into a rule for the campaign info?

I am new to PbP playing in general. But my opinion is that the best option is to have end of round/beginning of round posts. Then everyone, baddies and players, can take their actions. When everyone has acted a new end/beginning post is posted (with maps or initiative lists as necessary).

If players post actions outside of the current round they can be ignored, perhaps with a note that it has been done. I for one like every participant having a separate initiative. I think it gives more 'realism' and allows all the rules around combat to be used effectively (such as the "Initiative Consequences of Readying" rule discussed earlier <http://www.d20pfsrd.com/gamemastering/combat#TOC-Ready>)

Could someone please find the reference that says that shooting from stealth means your target is flat-footed? I've tried, and have had no luck.

To clarify, I was under the impression that flat-footed *only* happened in the surprise round (or in the first round until they act).

It's not technically flat-footed... it's if you're unaware of an opponent, you're denied your Dexterity bonus to AC (and whenever you're denied your Dex bonus, you're denied dodge bonuses as well, so it's your FF AC).

Unfortunately, it's not written anywhere as a single, cohesive rule, it's just one of those things that's commonly understood and accepted. This is a good thread on the topic, and basically explains that while the Devs tried to make it clear that this is the intention, it was an oversight that it was never really spelled out.

One of the better quotes is from the Perception page...

Perception has a number of uses, the most common of which is an opposed check versus an opponent's Stealth check to notice the opponent and avoid being surprised.

Short version is that it's an understood RAI.

Hrm. That seems odd. That would imply that if I'm engaged with someone in front of me, then any number of rogues could be sneak attacking me from the rear at range...and there would be nothing I could do about it.

So if there's a group that has one kickass defensive monk/fighter/whatever that can dodge anything and everything, the rest of the group could just about be ranged rogue sneak attackers. The fighter could overrun the opponents so they're all facing him. The 2-3 rogues could concentrate fire on each of the targets, and each one would getting sneak attack damage because they're behind the opponents, and each opponent is unaware of them.

That seems game-breaking to me. After combat starts, and you're engaged in combat, you are no longer surprised...which is what, I think, the quote you mentioned is going for. If you perceive them when they're stealthed, you won't be surprised by them - that relates to the surprise round only, or at least that's what I thought.

first, shooting from stealth means that the creature who fired now has a -20 to his stealth check against you (see sniping).

Secondly, the creature firing would be considered invisible to you (assuming a perception check was failed) and that is where the rules come in. +2 to hit and you are denied dex.

As for the "behind the target," that is no longer in effect as the game does not using facing for combat anymore. If the targets are in the open and you know they are there they do not get the bonus. The only exception, IMO, would be if a new person enters the combat. In my home game I had a rogue come into a room behind the PC's, no one heard him approach, no one saw him. He got sneak on three players simply because none of the PC's warned each other. The cleric got hit first, said nothing so the players did not realize, the ranger second and still said nothing. The fighter third... Finally everyone saw him there, but by that time the goblin and the rogue were flanking the fighter. Fortunately for the players my dice went cold at that point.

Not quite... you get a nasty penalty (-20) to re-sneak after attacking, for one thing. There's no "facing" in Pathfinder, so there's no behind/in front of... it's all Stealth vs Perception.

Edit: Ninja'd by a bard! Man.

Forget about hiding. In one of my home games we have a Arcane Trickster with Greater Invisibility. He sneak attacks the crap out of bad guys in hand to hand because they can't see him even though they know he is there.

As already mentioned. Sniping is much more difficult.

Heh... my rogue recently picked up a Decoy Ring, which allows her to sneak attack, move-withdraw, sneak attack, move-withdraw, ad infinitum. No full-attacks, unfortunately, since the Devs haven't yet clarified whether the ring's supposed to confer greater invisibility, but it's pretty awesome even as simple invisibility.

My girlfriend is playing a ranged rogue in PBP, I had to thoroughly investigate the possibilities, and it intrigued me enough to make my ranged rogue build, Glyndon on my Aliases. Key is to always be near cover as cover always a stealth role and if you move after (which stealth is apart of the move action) you can get the full benefit (-5 if you move full speed) but it is not sniping then. However you can never full attack doing that, but you can always get sneak if there is cover and you move. Not as good as flanking + two weapon, but it is a lot safer.

well, actually, just looked a little more and apparently in sniping you only get one attack as well and a -20 to stay in position where you are at. That seems broken there.

Yeah, my rogue is a killer flanker as well. Literally. ;) She's a goblin (reincarnated), so has +29 or 30 to Acrobatics to move through enemy space (as long as it's a larger enemy), +25ish otherwise.

Combine that with the maneuver* a party member and I just worked out last week, and you get a rogue who gets into flanking position REALLY easily.

*Party member is a halfling cavalier who rides a dog... due to some unfortunate circumstances, my rogue was hiding her face in the dog's fur when the cavalier decided to charge. DM gave her a Reflex save to hang on, she did, and that's how we discovered a great way of getting into flanking while preserving actions. :D

So where are we at in the round? Everyone take an action for number 4?

I have not acted in round 4, aside from speech, I was waiting for Zat to finish his action, he asked a question about the burning wood.

I've posted an action, in hopes that you'll rule that it works... though I think my character would try it unless he knew for a fact that it wouldn't work.

Yes, I saw your action, which I think may backfire and really not make the druid happy. I look forward to the ruling!

Heh, we'll see. There should be plenty of time to get the wolf out before the fire spreads, if it even works.

I've posted round 4.

I missed the double move part of your post, my action is now posted, delaying

I posted for round 4 probably at least twice :P (lul)

OOC: Why am I messing around with torches? No one has a 0-level light spell?

I do not have it, will get it next level (if I get a 0 level).

Also, I am on a delayed actions and intend to act after Zat, assuming he hands me the torch (he did ask about the burning logs in the fire) or his pack to get one out.

Yep they are not as good, not being torches but should suffice.

I don't have light either... I can light your torch with spark, but... yeah.

Btw, the Fortitude DC for spark would be 14, so they made it. :(

Makvor, don't forget that two rogues could flank you and still get their sneak attack bonuses as well. It can be scary to have two two weapon fighting rogues in a group for that reason.

But defensively, you could take a class with the uncanny dodge class feature or you could put fortification on your armor.