Its "A" Dungeon (Inactive)

Game Master Terquem

Ah missed that post ty lol

Funny, and I will try to post an update to the game today, but funny that Keltos PM's me and said he was still interested in the game, that was a week ago, so maybe he is just busy and will be here soon.

Periodical Table: 1d20 ⇒ 8 - There is a Door. Determine the number and location from Table I. A., and then go to Table II.
Table I.A.: 1d20 ⇒ 19 - 2 Doors – Always on the left and right, passageway continues straight 30’
Table II Left Door: 1d20 ⇒ 3 Stone, (locked 1-4, trapped 1-10)
Table II Right Door: 1d20 ⇒ 19 - Simple Wooden, (locked 1-8, trapped 1-4)
I am presuming we roll d20s to determine locked and trapped...
Left Door Locked?: 1d20 ⇒ 17
Left Door Trapped?: 1d20 ⇒ 18
Right Door Locked?: 1d20 ⇒ 7
Right Door Trapped?: 1d20 ⇒ 10 - Isn't this Niversal's job?

hmmm what difficulty is that lock?

Lock DC: 1d20 ⇒ 8

DC 29

Roll'n! Roll'n! Roll'n! Keep this game a Roll'n!
Table II. C.: 1d20 ⇒ 13- A Room with a view! Go to Table V.
Table V. Room Size: 1d20 ⇒ 4- Hmmm...10’x10’ (-5 to Number of Exits roll)
A bit small but maybe something cool awaits us!: 1d20 ⇒ 16 - A Treasure and a Trick or Trap, go to Table IX. And Table VII.
Roll'n on Table IX: 1d20 ⇒ 8- Sorry lads, only 25 gpv per Character (x APL)
Keeping the rogue busy by Roll'n on Table VII: 1d20 ⇒ 11 - A Trap with a CR equal to the DL +2

Hey guys what are the lines you type to get bold italic and blue for ooc?

look at the bottom of this page where it says

"How to format your text" and then there is a clickable button with the word "Show" all the details are there

but it is basically bulletin board code (brackets around certain letters) before and after the text that create the formatting

What's behind door #2?: 1d20 ⇒ 6 (Table II. C) - A Passageway perpendicular to the Door, extending 30’ ahead
How wide?: 1d20 ⇒ 10 (Table III.A.) - 10'

Each character receives 925 experience points

(800 for watching Niversal get sliced, and 125 for finding treasure in the form of a valuable flagon)

Just rolling to see what's ahead. Is the Wandering Monster a 1d6?
Periodic Check: 1d20 ⇒ 17 - There is a Stairway. Go to Table VI
Climbing a Stairway to Table VI: 1d20 ⇒ 3 - Down 3 Level

I am having a bad day, but I will update the game tomorrow

I am having a bad day, but I will update the game tomorrow

Bad days suck, sorry you're having one. Hope it improves

Welcome to my world, or at least my working world :P Everyday is has become a bad day lately but at least I can come home to Paizo!

Periodic Check: 1d20 ⇒ 13 - There is a Chamber. Determine the number and location from Table I. B., and then go to Table V.
Table I.B.: 1d20 ⇒ 2 - Straight ahead
Table V. for Chamber's size: 1d20 ⇒ 8 - 30’x60’
Contents of Chamber, Table V.B.: 1d20 ⇒ 15 - A Monster and A Treasure, go to Table VIII. and to Table IX.
Monster Encounters or Threat Table VIII: 1d20 ⇒ 2 - CR = APL + 2
[dice=Table VIII.A. "Enter the Matrix"]1d20[/dice] - Consult Table 2
Consulting Table 2 of the Matrix: 1d100 ⇒ 18 - Animal – group
And lets not forget about the Treasure listed on Table IX: 1d20 ⇒ 13 - 100 gpv per Character (x APL) + Magic Item!

Hope I did that right :) Over to you Terq!

You forgot to apply a -2 modifier to the CR determination, because the APL < Dungeon Level (5<8)

which moves the roll to a 1, CR = APL+3 so a CR 8 encounter, how about a couple of Dire...something or others

2500 gold piece value treasure and a Magic item, woo hoo

I know I sort of promised a light hearted game, but at the same time I am trying to improve as a serious Pathfinder GM, so I want to open a discussion about the Lion encounter, help me out please

I think that when an encounter begins, normally, you can try to use diplomacy to adjust the attitude of hostile creatures (as long as they can understand you). A Druid is allowed to use Diplomacy to adjust the attitude of an animal using the Wild Empathy class trait.

Are you with me so far?

Now the way I understand it, using the Handle Animal Skill to “Push” an animal doesn’t specifically say it cannot be used on a wild animal you just encountered, but I am confused as to how to allow the skill to be used if the animal’s attitude is Hostile (I am thinking it would add to the DC, but I don’t know how

What do you guys think?

Oh by the way, the map has been updated.

And should I be forcing Zae to control her animal companion in this situation?

My thoughts...

You cannot use handle animal on wild animals. That is exactly what wild empathy is for. Handle animal allows you to handle trained animals only.

Also, and unrelated, I would not be allowing actions before initiatives are rolled. Casting spells etc.

yeah the weird thing is, Handle Animal has this one ability that lets you raise a wild animal - so, as long as the wild animal is not a new born, I would say I agree with you

If the lion's were young, she could attempt to rear them and then train them... but that wouldn't be something accomplished with a standard action. ;)

As much as I hate being eaten alive, the handle animal skill would only work on a trained or domesticated animal. Wild adult lions would not care about the handle animal skill. If I had cast speak with animals prior to the skill check, then maybe a diplomacy check would be ok first before a handle animal check but I'm digressing.

I was hoping that dungeon lions did have some training because they are outside of their ecology and would have died a long time ago without a handler, but let's find out.

I like Zae's point. Asking how they got here naturally leads to who put them here and if so what sort of handling experience do they have?
Course, Ballar was teleported here by an evil wizard and summonings are common occurrences in these realms...

If the lion's were young, she could attempt to rear them and then train them... but that wouldn't be something accomplished with a standard action. ;)

Awww, kittens! That would be so great to find some and raise them and be like a crazy den mother. Maybe I can buy some when we get back to town.

I like Zae's point. Asking how they got here naturally leads to who put them here and if so what sort of handling experience do they have?

Course, Ballar was teleported here by an evil wizard and summonings are common occurrences in these realms...

Its hard for me to keep logic from creeping in, but I would do better to remember 9 times out of 10, a wizard did it.

a dire animal is still something out of nature, and charm monster isnt out of the question for a wizard to do, but a summons wouldnt keep them here waiting for us for any duration.

so I am betting charm monster along with some meat and produced by summons on a regular basis to keep them in their spot.

so if it was charm monster one could tell that with sense motive to see that the animal isnt acting naturally or knowledge nature perhaps, up to Terq.

Either way three 60 hp monsters is gonna suck lol

last but not least it could be a programmed illusion that we would have to disbelieve (there's no place like home, there's no place like home)

My wife went to the ER last night, not a big scare, but still had to be there for a few hours last night. I'll try to update soon

Cripes! Hope she is doing ok.

Jenni-mac! Keep it tageth'r man!

If it's anything like our system up here Terq, you will just be heading in to see the doctor about now...

We were in the patient room, after seeing an RN, for an hour and forty five minutes before the doctor showed his head. My wife, who never gets nose bleeds, started bleeding from her nose and after an hour of it not being able to be stopped, I dragged her to the er (she hates doctors and hospitals). She is going in to have it "fixed" on Thursday. The ER gave her an Affrin block, and a nose clamp to get her through the week.

Got home at 3 am Sunday mornig

I have updated some of my games today and hope to get to this one soon.

Update current map please?

It's on my to do list, on a bus right now, about an hour from home

-Posted with Wayfinder

map is updated, I'm not sure how to show the smoke effects

Don't forget Kamastra has a bite attack as well as the two claws.

And speaking of which, I think we discussed I would be running Kamastra in combat, it would probably be easier for both of us

You know I was going to ask you to run the attacks for Kamastra and got distracted by something else, also, I've always had trouble understanding animal attacks, the whole full round, and regular attack mechanics, if Kamastra moved in the round would he still get the bite and both claws?

No, only a single attack.

These rogue rules are always so convoluted. It's not that I don't like Pathfinder, it's just that I know I am not smart enough to grasp all the technicalities, and terminology is the key

so, the lion is not flat footed, and tanglefoot bags do not deny the creature affected their dexterity bonus to armor class (yes they have a reduced dexterity, a dexterity penalty, but it is not specifically an effect that denies the bonus to AC from dexterity). Also, you would not have total concealment from the lion, as it has scent and you are within 30 feet of it.

there are a couple of threads here about this sort of thing, and they sort of make my head hurt with all the back and forth

But my take has always been that rogue bonus damage is pretty great, and should not be one of those things that a player is denied due to a technicality, but also should not be one of those thinks that a player tries to make available at every opportunity because of a technicality.

In this situation, I would say that it is not an opportunity for a sneak attack

alright, so even though I am in stealth in a misty cloud of concealment I am not getting sneak attack? Seems then the only way I might get it is to flank with the tiger

that's the problem with having too many rules. The lion's scent sort of negates the whole concealment thing, as soon as you are within 5 feet, it knows exactly where you are. You can always try to get into a flanking position with Kamastra, however, this is a pretty peculiar situation with a large creature in a ten foot wide passageway

DM Note
slow: -1 to hit, AC and reflex save, one move or standard action, per round, no full round action - six rounds beginning with round 2

tanglefoot bag: -4 penalty to dex, -2 on to hit rolls, move at half

duration: 2d4 ⇒ (4, 2) = 6

glitterdust: (other two lions) blind, can attempt save at end of their turn

I disagree with that ruling based on lions need to see. Scent is not see invisibility or blind sense. Just because the lion knows which square a stealthy rogue is in, does not negate the fact that Niversal has total concealment, can't be seen, and therefore would be granted at least one sneak attack as if he had invisibility cast on him.

Kamastra only gets one attack if he moves more than 5ft. When he gets pounce at 7th he can make a full attack after charging.

see, I struggle with this on these boards. I am an old guy, my roots are in OD&D, was DMing when I was 13 years old in 1976. I'd prefer to just throw out an interpretation and hope my players like it, but this Pathfinder gig has so many deep intense rules interpretations, it boggles the mind. So, I go looking for threads where these kinds of questions have been asked before and the discussion are intense to say the least.

And then I find myself falling back on the letter of the rule, and for scent it clearly states that when you are within 5 feet of a creature with scent it knows exactly where you are.

But, when I really think about this situation, I am inclined to say, yeah he should definitely get sneak attack, the Lion is entangled, and confronted by another animal, and smoke, he should be able to get in a sneaky blow

But I stand by the flat footed thing, which by the way, I hate the different AC variations, much prefer 5e's one AC for all attack rolls. Flat Footed is always confused with the condition of being denied your bonus to AC from dexterity, they are not the same. When you are flat footed (which only occurs before you have acted in the first combat round) you are denied your AC bonus from dexterity, but being denied your AC bonus from dexterity does not make you flat footed. I've read this one on the forums here many times.

In conclusion, after calculating what the Lion's AC is with both entangled and slowed, if Niversal's attack hits he will be allowed to roll additional sneak attack damage

...and then the lion will eat him

okay?

Honestly we can just run and I will play a character who is a front line damage dealer tank who has disable device and trapfinding so we dont have to worry about this damn frustrating rule set which is none of our faults

Just giving my opinion. I'm not running the game and I'm not a rogue so its the GM's call always.

So we are running away in this fight? Because we could totally take these guys.

I think we can take these guys too
and I will just go with the ruling as is and finish this out!
lets kick these lions butts

I think we can take these guys too

and I will just go with the ruling as is and finish this out!
lets kick these dire lions butts edited for accuracy ;)

Big difference. I am not nearly as optimistic as the two of you. How do you plan on doing 180 hp of damage before some or all of us are eaten? :P

Further to the discussion above, while scent allows the lion to pinpoint the exact location (ie square) that an unseen enemy within 5' is occupying it does not overcome the disadvantage it would have by not being able to actually see the enemy.

Or in other words, if Niversal was invisible and approached to within 5' of the lion, it would automatically know which square he was in and could attack him on its turn (with a 50% miss chance). However, Niversal's attacks would still benefit from the +2 to hit for being invisible and the lion would lose its Dex bonus to AC meaning that Niversal could sneak attack it.

[Side note: even tremorsense and blindsense do not overcome invisibility with regards to attacks and sneak attacks. For that you need blindsight. Scent does not equal blindsight.]

Bringing this back to the situation at hand, stealth requires at least concealment and the smoke stick grants 20% miss due to concealment (at 5') meaning that unless the lion's perception roll overcomes Niversal's stealth roll, Niversal is for all purposes invisible to the lion when he makes his attack.

Whether the second dagger attack is eligible for sneak attack is not clear and quite a debated topic as you have noticed. That I will leave to you Terq. :)

see this is what I hate - the actual rules are clear and we all get wrapped around interpretations

concealment does not equal invisibility, nowhere in the rules does it say this

Invisibility is listed as an attack roll modifier (table 8-5) but concealment is not

concealment, is listed as a modifier to the defenders armor class (table 8-6)

Invisibility states that as part of the attack modifier, the defender IS denied their bonus to AC (and this is the condition which allows sneak attack damage), therefore an invisible attacker, who is a rouge is allowed sneak attack damage, but again concealment is not invisibility, as far as attacking goes, it does state that invisibility grants total concealment, as a defensive modifier (remember concealment and total concealment are listed in table 8-6, not table 8-5). This makes it abundantly clear that Invisibility is Total Concealment (for defense) but total concealment is not invisibility for attacking modifiers

rogue sneak attack damage is only allowed when the defender is flat footed (which is also clearly defined) and when the defender is denied their bonus to AC from dexterity, and only invisibility grants this to an attacker (per table 8-5) and some spell effects state in their descriptions that a target affected by the spell is denied their bonus to AC from dexterity

The final piece of this puzzle is stealth,and this skill is where it really gets messy, because nowhere in the skill's description is it explained how stealth and attacking are supposed to work, nor is sneak attack and stealth addressed as a combination. Stealth even states that it cannot be used while attacking (which seems obvious if you imagine that stealth is supposed to allow you to sneak past an opponent or sneak up on an opponent so that they cannot attack you or alert others before you attack them, but once you do attack them, stealth ends). And it even has this mistake about enemies when it says "if people are observing using any of their senses (but typically sight), you can't use stealth" so how does this apply to Non people observing you? obviously it is meant to say that other senses can be used, but only if the observer is a person, very stupidly worded

and last but not least, scent does not use any language regarding "squares" and actually says this , "when the creature is within five feet of the source, it pinpoints the source's location" (which is pretty clear, pinpoint is not ambiguous)

Look at it this way. Is it more fun for the rogue to be given his sneak attack ability when he tries to use it or is it more fun to deny him his class ability? The prior is making it more fun for the player, the later is not.

Why get all hung up on the particular's of the rules and the definitions of the words such as people and pinpoint? Rogue has concealment, he can stealth, he attacks from stealth, so he gets at least one sneak attack unless the lion is immune to sneak attack. Scent doesn't say it denies sneak attacks from attacks 5' away, so why look for that explicit explanation somewhere else?

:P

as I said i can get trapfinding from another class like barbarian and get disable device from a trait from mummys curse

I agree Zae,

however think of it this way, if the DM is going to allow Sneak Attack Damage every time the player thinks he or she should get it, then there must be a balancing of monster hp to match this, right? And this can lead to two different game creation problems (one of which is directly connected to this kind of game).

Monster HP not adjusted for more often application of Sneak Attack Damage than was expected - encounters are too easy, DM could feel like it isn't worth his effort to even have encounters

Monster HP adjusted for more frequent application of Sneak Attack Damage, and rogue hits with regularity, game could be balanced for everyone's enjoyment, or rogue does not hit with regularity, encounters are too hard, player's feel like the whole group is being punished in order to make the rogue player feel like he gets to use his character the way he wants

Making the game fun for everyone is the challenge, if we limit the rogue to only getting sneak attack damage against an opponent who has not acted yet in round 1, or who has been denied the AC bonus from dexterity, only, might make a lot of players unhappy with playing a rogue, but on the other hand, letting a character have Sneak Attack Damage in any situation where they can concoct a reason why it should be allowed, might make other players feel that they don't get loop holes that benefit them, it's a hard line to walk.

and maybe we should move past this

I am allowing the Sneak Attack Damage against the lions because the rogue is either in smoke, or the lions are blind

Now, will you run away, or stay and fight - two lions are blind, two lions are slowed, one lion is entangled - you have six rounds before these effects begin to wear off

Niversal - I do not want you to create a hybrid character that can do these things. I do not massage the encounters (fitting them to peculiar builds) and the challenges of the monsters and traps (with very few exceptions) are straight out of the prd. I asked, originally for players who wanted to play basic fighter, cleric, rogue and wizard, characters.

If you are unhappy playing a rogue, you can create a fighter, but only from the rules in the PRD (with minor modifications), because we already have a wizard and a cleric (additional character classes were permitted when the first four were filled and more players showed interest)

I'm sorry for all this, it's supposed to be a bit on the silly side, and I took it too far.

concealment does not equal invisibility, nowhere in the rules does it say this

I'll be honest, it is too late to read and reply to everything above as I need to get up early in the morning. With that said, I will leave one comment for now.

You are right, concealment does not equal invisibility. However, a successful opposed stealth (vs perception) check does though. In fact it is even better than being invisible as it also means your target does not hear you. That is also why being invisible only gives you a bonus to stealth and not the other way around.

Concealment (the smoke) allows for the stealth check. A successful stealth check means the lion does not perceive Niversal. Therefore he is for all purposes "invisible" to the lion. Sneak attack is allowed. Scent is irrelevant for the purposes of this attack as it does not circumvent stealth/invisibility. (As for the definition of "pinpoint" look up the rules regarding attacking invisible creatures.)

And as an aside, I would rule (in my games) that only the first successful attack would benefit from sneak attack. After that, another successful stealth roll would be needed, with significant penalties (something akin to the "sniping" rules).

As always, it is your game and we will abide by your decisions. Just trying to help. :)

...if the DM is going to allow Sneak Attack Damage every time the player thinks he or she should get it, then there must be a balancing of monster hp to match this, right? And this can lead to two different game creation problems (one of which is directly connected to this kind of game).

Sorry if I'm not being clear in my point. I never meant to imply the rogue should get sneak attack whenever they think they do. I'm suggesting keeping it simple by not denying sneak attack unless something explicitly says it does deny sneak attack like with concealment, elemental, oozes, and the like.

So just to be clear on the unclear answer, are we running round 2 or staying and fighting?

I am staying and fighting