I used a name generator to name the rest of the NPCs.
I used a name generator to name the rest of the NPCs.
Gretchen Gurkengulper.
Omen, not to pressure you for a response, but you did see Ianna's funeral post, right?
I did, and I don't want to muddle it overlapped with combat so I will write up a response once this is concluded. It was very good by the way!
That's what I hoped. I just wanted to make sure.
Toramin, the boat is gargantuan. The turtle-sharks are huge.
I'm confused too.
Turtle-sharks (TSs) approached. Everybody got ready for an attack. TSs charged to capsize boat. Toramin got an AoO on one, the crew got an AoO on the other. TSs made a CMB check against the boat (or Bjorkus's profession (sailor), whichever is higher). They succeeded. The boat is now capsized. You need to make a DC 10 reflex save or have to spend your next turn swimming out from underneath the boat. Once you do that, or if you made the DC 10 reflex save, you can reach either TS is a single move action if you make your swim check, although they have reach.
Any other questions?
The difficulty to capsize a ship is 25, right? And you incorporated the -10 modifier for them being smaller than the ship?
I'm mostly surprised how things smaller than a dragon turtle could knock a boat over. So, I'm many confused if my understanding of the rules is incorrect.
Correct. They barely made the DC (the second one assisted the first).
These are the same size as dragon turtles.
If you guys don't like my turtles I have a different one you could fight. :D
If they can aid each other to make CMB checks, can we assist to the ship? Our +2s would cancel out?
I don't see why not, but I would put a limit to how many could assist (twenty people shouting orders doesn't really make sense) and you would need to raise Bjorkus's check by almost 20. So the answer is that mechanically yes you are allowed to do that, but the numbers would end up being insignificant.
Not his check, but the CMD of the ship itself in the same way that one can add to the AC of an adjacent friend.
If they can aid another to capsize the ship, then it seems that we should be able to do the reverse.
It seems like mechanically, I should be able to use Bodyguard to save the ship from the Aid Another rules.
My interpretation of the rules is that this is a special case where the ship has a static CMD, and if people want to actively make it harder to capsize the ship it is represented by a profession (sailor) check. In other words, any active attempt to prevent the ship from capsizing would fall under making or assisting the profession (sailor) check, not the CMD of the ship itself.
All CMDs are static but can be affected by things that add to AC. Just like combat bonuses effect CMB.
So, if one turtle shark supports the other's capsize CM, then by those same rules Toramin can expend one of his AoO to add to the CMD of the ship.
For example, the turtle-shark charges, but is knocked slightly off course by the dwarf's chain. (reflecting the +3 I can add to the CMD).
Bjorkus' sailor check is orthogonal to the CMD. He can make a check but there are two defenses for the ship, his check and the CMD of the ship itself. Bodyguard affects the latter. Bodyguard lets me use AoO to aid another AC/CMD. We use whichever is higher.
After reading the aid another rules to brush up, my ruling is that you cannot aid the CMD of non-active things (I would say non-living, but there's golems and the like to worry about). To help against them requires a special action, and in this case that action is a profession (sailor) check.
Then shouldn't you be unable to aid against non-active things under that logic?
To me, this is a case of what is good enough for the gander must also be good enough for the goose. These things are aiding each other against a non-active object. I have a special feat that allows me to aid another in combat in a special way. My feat, I strongly believe, should not be ignored, especially since it gives an unfair advantage to the aggressor.
However, if you don't find that logic persuasive, then I will post in the main thread. It's your game. You are the ultimate arbiter of the rules, but in this case I have not yet been convinced that the rules are being equally applied to both PCs and NPCs.
You said it yourself. They are not aiding against non-active things. They are aiding each other, active things. That is why you would be allowed to aid Bjorkus, and active thing, but not the ship directly, an inactive thing.
Basically, they are aiding in order to raise the check of an active creature's check, not aiding in order to lower the defense of a non-active thing.
That seems like a bit of sophistry that elevates CMB over CMD. If the non-active rule were being fully applied only active things could aid other active things against some third active thing, since non-active things are totally inert and cannot be affected by the actions for or against by active things.
I think a more logical ruling would be that it is all interactive. Making a category of thing that has a CMD, but cannot be affected by things that alter CMD seems on its surface unfair.
It's only the direct aid another that has to be with an active thing. After that whatever you're trying to effect is irrelevant, as long as the thing you are directly effecting is active.
My ruling is thus:
The ship has two kinds of defenses. One is its passive defense of being hard to tip over, for it was in fact designed to float. This is the defense of the ship is there was nobody on it to defend it. This is represented by its CMD
The other kind of defense is an active defense by the people on the ship, actively trying to prevent it from capsizing. This is represented by profession (sailor) checks.
The two kinds of defense are attempting to achieve the same thing (prevent the ship from capsizing), but one is active and the other is passive. The only way a person could add to the passive defense of the ship is to somehow make the ship more passively difficult to tip over, such as changing the actual construction of the ship. Anything done "in the moment" is an active defense, and therefore falls under profession (sailor).
Bodyguard allows for improvements to AC/CMD by using AoO. It creates a special case. Either the rules apply equally to CMB and CMD or they do not. My argument has nothing to do with the sailor check (which I agree with you on) and has everything if something can be quantified mechanically all abilities that affect that quantity must be equally applied under the rule of law (apparently, where I disagree with you).
However, I submit to your authority, if not your reason. :-p
One final question: if one was aiding the other, then why were there two profession sailor checks? Wouldn't only one have been needed?
The CMD of a person and the CMD of an inanimate object are different things. Toramin can use bodyguard to add to the CMD of a person, but not to the CMD of an inanimate object. In this case CMD is a misnomer because it is not truly the same thing that it is when it's being talked about in the context of a person. We could call it CSD (combat stagnant defense) to be more accurate.
I appreciate the sentiment, but since not everybody has posted we're in no rush to push the posting yet :P
@Bjorkus - Yes the crew is acting. I just specified Kal's actions a little ahead of time since it would effect Toramin's actions.
One final question: if one was aiding the other, then why were there two profession sailor checks? Wouldn't only one have been needed?
Huh, you're totally right. I don't know why I rolled the second one. Luckily they both came up the same result so it doesn't change anything :P
Gotcha.
If I ever get around to starting that house rules page I'll remember to include this scenario for future reference.
Well, it could matter quite a bit, if they both were doing individual actions and not aiding each other, then both individual attempts would have failed.
It almost seems that fate wants this ship to capsize.
Yes, Bjorkus, this would be important to note since all vehicles described by the game rules have a CMD.
Yes, but that's not the case, so it's neither here nor there.
I assure you I have no agenda against the PCs. If I did I would just send a CR 20 at you and have done with it.
I recommend Linnorms as grudge monsters.
Too soon.
I'll stick with my CR 84,431,558 star turtle. I would use Ouroboros, but since he's a time god you would just cease to exist because you wouldn't even comprehend him coming to kill you.
In a different game, Dalton, Bjorkus, and Toramin's (level 6) characters were grudged by a linnorm. It is now my gold standard of grudge monster.
Oh I thought it was a subtle reference to Targ spiting you from the grave with his linnorm death curse.
I think the worse grudge monster I've experienced is a particular undead creature that's name I can't remember, but is basically a living suit of evil necromatic armor that's about as hard to kill as a lich.
Also gold standard for how to not handle feedback.
I suppose it's time for me to invoke the Twitter.
Let's call one shark-turtle the one on the west side of the boat, which is the one Toramin is attacking. Let's call the other one the one on the east side of the boat, which is the one Rilka hit earlier. Just to keep their health pools strait.
Dalton, pleasure make sure you explicitly say what spell you're casting. I figured out that it was air bubble, but it's always nice to be completely sure.
Ooh, interesting. Can you use defensive stance while in the water? It seems a very convoluted idea. I'm not going to worry about it in this particular circumstance since you have magic helping you swim, but it's an interesting thing to think about.
Despite the thematic ties involved, Toramin’s defensive stance isn’t tied to touching the earth like Antaeus in the Hercules story.
As long as he doesn’t swim from his square he should be fine.
Right, RAW there's nothing that is explicitly against it. It just seems thematically inappropriate. Although I'm sure that on a regular basis it won't be a problem because Toramin will either be magically buffed to swim, or his massive doubled ACP will drown him :P
I agree it doesn't make sense thematically.
It's a good thing Greek myth isn't based in Pathfinder!
My two coppers:
I must agree with Toramin's assessment both of submission to rule 0 and of the perspective the aid another should work for both CMB and CMD or neither. However, I believe in this case, lack of preparation time (and potentially skill on some members' parts) would make the aid another check difficult to actually pull off, RAW standard action for a skill check in this instance seeming a bit too quick.
Regarding his stance, I always thought it was just a particular way of reacting to threatening lunges and the like; essentially, if he's not flat-footed, I'd think he could use it. I haven't actually read the archetype's ability though.
Sorry for not listing the spell title. Usually, I'm pretty good with it. Please note the air is only around my head, so people cannot gasp for breath around my toes.
Regarding the other game, I remember quite acutely:
1. Knowledge check of 40 about a relatively non-esoteric question getting "Hmm, you're not sure."
2. Some people play solitaire. Others play with their NPCs.
3. Weddings happen faster IRL.
4. Triple, Quad, or Octuple-postings from a significant other do not make you more significant to the gaming group - especially when they are in the OoC chat about if the DM is up to playing solitaire that night.
Also, you using orthogonal in a non-mathematical exercise makes me a little wet, Toramin - though not quite as much as Dalton.
Combat Reflexes allows for AoO even when flat-footed and is a requirement for Bodyguard (which allows me to make them as AoO). I'm pretty my reasoning is correct, but c'est la vie.
Omen, it was both brutal and abrupt.
I had assumed that my stance broke when I was no longer on the ship, which is why I'm doing three less damage in the second attack.
I always aim to please, Dalton. :-p
I actively try to forget about that game.
My big takeaway from it was twofold:
1) Don't ask for feedback if feedback stresses you out and makes you irritable.
2) Don't give feedback to people that refuse to follow point #1.
@Dalton - You can see everybody in the water, it's pretty clear.
@Toramin - Wow, that is pretty brutal and abrupt. I don't have the time to read all of the context around it, but yeah, that seems rough. I was filling in for a character a few weeks back (a level 8 TWF ifrit ranger) when a pit fiend appears from invisibility and crit me in the surprise round, killing me instantly. I wasn't even mad because of how completely powerless I was in the situation. If you could build a level 8 character to survive that, kudos.
I lied, I have more.
3) When a DMs says a campaign is ‘character driven’ they actually means driven by their NPCs.
4) When faced with the RPless combat slog or a six month (real life) wedding scene, I prefer former.
5) Never, under any circumstances, suggest a friend invite their significant other to join the game.
I disagree with 5, because sometimes a person's significant other happens to be a tabletop gamer. Mine is, and we've played lots of games together. Although she is notoriously racist against gnomes.
In light of how things developed in said other game I will never do it again.