31 Dec - 2nd Jan I'll be out of country. Minimal posting then.
I like Background skills because they play into your background... that's why I thought you weren't supposed to change them, not the first time I'm wrong, not going to be the last.
I wouldn't call it changing them. You aren't moving the skill ranks -- once invested they stay in that skill.
You aren't forced to put max ranks into the same skills every level. You get a certain number of ranks (dependent on class and Int modifier) for skills, and an additional two ranks that can only be spent on background skills. Some people will specialize while others will spread the points around.
Not all skills need max ranks in order to be useful. As an example for background skills, once you have +10 in appraise you can accurately appraise items any time you can take your time. With something like Sleight of Hand, since it is opposed by Perception the skill isn't quite as useful if you don't have max ranks in it.
---
Switching back to the topic of leveling, I didn't hear anyone volunteer to put ranks in Knowledge: Religion. Guess I will put one rank in it so we at least have some chance of identifying undead.
That gives us at least one person who can roll on each of the Monster ID knowledge skills.
Beaches, hornbills, boatrides and generally relax.
I hope they don't have dead fish on their beaches....
I have now updated my profile.
Free spells added: Grease, Shield
Skills: Diplomacy +1, Kn: Arcana +1, Kn: Planes +2, Kn: Religion +1, Spellcraft +1, Craft: Alchemy +1, Linguistics +1
Language added: Aquan.
Ziva says(by PM) she has already levelled, just yet to update sheet, so lets get moving.
Since Crummock took Sylvan, I don't think it will make a large difference either way. Choose based on which your character would be more interested in.
Both good reasons. Hallit it is.
You guys have sort of thrown me a curve ball, I'm going to have to read other ROW threads and see how they handle it.
I was thinking we all tie a rope around us and that way we don't get lost and can still fight together but it cripples out movement speed and doesn't solve us getting kited out (I guess I'm working on a so far baseless assumption that these enemies have a ranged attack) while we play Pin the Tail on the Moss Troll. It also utterly screws us if there's another one of those lethal cold traps - if there is and we are huddle up, its probably an instant TPK.
Ha, ha, ha.
On one hand I can sympathise on you being reluctant to fight blind, but on the other hand...this is what the mod says, "Heavy snow blows from ****** as well, obscuring all sight (including darkvision) beyond 5 feet, and granting concealment to creatures 5 feet away."
Still thinking. Would they pursue? Would they not?
Also I recommend none of you go play Emerald Spire. They love to do this kind of thing to players. Without warning. At least I gave fair warning....
They pursued. You have the battleground of your choice(in a way). Continue.
Watching a movie now,
Its still considered throwing into melee...because both of you threaten each other.
Seeing Ziva land a grievous blow onto Crummock,
I think you meant "Seeing the troll land a grievous blow onto Crummock, ..."
Mort,
Could you please edit the post?
Nope. Mort is correct - Ziva hit the troll for 18 points of damage!
I just edited! Sorry!
Shouldn't we be getting passive Perception rolls to figure out where the caster is? They are trying to avoid detection, which would normally be Stealth. They are furthermore casting spells while doing this, which has a pretty high hearing perception.
Mr. Whiskers knows what the approximate distance is (he has the spell after all), but from your description I have absolutely no idea where they are.
Isn't there driving snow preventing us from seeing further than 10'?
Remember, one of the voices could apparently see just fine through the driving snow - presumably, it is the one who is doing the casting...
You'll probably get to deal with a recurring villian after this...
And yes, our lil sneaky b@stard can see through snow perfectly.
I got the impression from this post that we could see better now. Specifically, it said "...and stumbles upon a clearing as the snow clears."
Clarification on this would be good.
Ah well, in that case, maybe it is Invisible? If so, there would be nothing for us to spot...
I have faith that the GM isn't deliberately trying to screw us over :-)
And yes, our lil sneaky b@stard can see through snow perfectly.
Yet we were specifically forbidden from playing this sort of trick. I had to go back to find the loophole about weather effects.
Oh, and Invisibility gives a bonus to stealth. It does not prevent the ability to do the perception check.
To be fair, if it is a one-off monster doing it, I don't mind.
I think the GM prohibition on us doing it, was to stop us pulling that sort of trick *all of the time*.
Regarding Perception checks, I agree, we can make them, but if it is Invisibility, it gives a +20 bonus to stealth, (or a +40 if yit doesn't don't move), so even if it *doesn't* have ranks in it, realistically, none of us could spot it on a 'Take 20' provided it doesn't move (and spellcasting doesn't count as movement).
I said some very few. This is the only time I am going to ever do this(for this book - I have not read the rest - so I can't honestly tell). If I let you play with this kind of thing I might get it EVERY encounter. Which would be a nightmare to adjudicate.
Clarification on clearing. Part of clearing is still snowy(black boxes), the rest is fine.
How I feel about vision blocking is this:
Deeper darkness lasts 10 min/level. You cast it(extended) at the start of the dungeon, it has a 60 ft radius spread. Any enemy spellcaster without area of effect spells/dispel magic is instantly rendered ineffective.
Melee mooks: I can have them close in with you. The result is that you are granted the effect of displacement, that lasts 20/min per level if you're using extend rod. You may even accuse me of meta gaming, because how can anyone find you in a huge patch of darkness they can't see through? As GM, of course I can find you, because I see all, and know all. But that is metagaming, and if I were to RP the monsters properly, honestly, they wouldn't be able to find you, you could snipe at them at range with impunity.
I picked the team for activity and cooperation. I'm pretty sure you can cooperate enough to pull what I've mentioned off. That is my rationale for banning vision blocking effects.
I am going to leave the discussion of vision blocking alone for the moment.
It still feels like we are not getting information that we should have.
The villain has cast spells twice now, and I don't even know the direction from which it is coming. Casting a spell requires that you speak in a clear voice, and we can hear them cast and speak.
So, when are we going to get some indication of where the voice is coming from?
Even an invisible caster has to worry about casting spells since it can give away the area they are casting from. Even worse with Summon spells (assuming these are full round summons), since they have to speak in that clear voice a whole round in order to do one.
The explanation about the black areas does help a little bit since it tells me that the caster could just be back in the snow somewhere.
In the direction of the snow. I'll tell you right off the bat that the creature has +20 to stealth on its stat block. So I'm not sure what kind of information you'd like to receive.
If you are using something you can take weapon focus for(i.e Weapon focus ray), like ray of frost, scorching ray, then yes it works. It doesn't work for stuff like acid splash.
In the direction of the snow. I'll tell you right off the bat that the creature has +20 to stealth on its stat block. So I'm not sure what kind of information you'd like to receive.
Thank you for letting me know it is in the direction of the snow.
I don't think Stealth should cover hearing someone speaking in a clear voice. It is the skill of hiding and moving silently.
Adjudicating this sort of thing can be tricky. It is very easy to miss details or have legitimate disagreements in how something should be handled by the rules. Go too far one way, you severely hurt stealth skill. Go too far the other way and you make the invisible summoner (who is already powerful) much more powerful.
This doesn't appear to be an invisible summoner, but they do have total concealment against us while we evidently have none against them.
Back to the topic of missing details, how did the eagle nip at Einar given that Einar is 10' to 15' away? Did it move, and was that flying or ground movement?
Also - if you want to know the location of someone spellcasting even if you cannot see them - there are consequences.
Firstly - it negates the application of the invisibility spell. It is a perfectly fine tactic to use as a summoner, you cast invisibility on yourself, then fill the battlefield with summoned small earth elemental (augment summoning included).
Would you like me to have the BBEG caster instantly know where to use the glitterdust spell, because you were summoning(while invisible), thus he knows where you are exactly?
Or have the melee mooks eat the 50% concealment and come for you instantly, because 'casting reveals your location even if the enemy has no way of seeing you?'
I would think not. I do not know what kind of information I can give you honestly, I think in the snow is as generous as I can be, already.
BTW - I do NOT expect PCs to cakewalk over everything(though cakewalking through some things, like every melee encounter, is to be expected ;)). I do try to run an as challenging fight as I can, to the best of the monsters tactics and intellectual capacities allow. Should PCs have some way of negating the said tactics of the monsters, as per PFS Guide, I'll come up with my own.
And I am LN. That means I will not go out of the way to kill you (trying to run the module as written), but if you happen to die in the process, too bad.
Mr Whiskers - I denoted with the gray line, Einar's orginal position. Since it is impossible to 5 ft step in this terrain, he basically provoked an AOO as he moved out of it.
On the AoO, I'm completely baffled. It may be that the map isn't updating correctly for me. I'll poke at it a little more, but assume you did it right.
On the invisible summoner, I did say "Adjudicating this sort of thing can be tricky." Right now, I don't understand where you think the boundaries should be.
At the same time, I'm trying to figure out tactics to deal with a combat where I don't know a lot of what is happening.
I am also trying not to make this into a long rules discussion. At that, I fear that I'm failing, :(
Guess it is time to just drop the subject. You appear confident that you have given us all the information that we should have. Since I don't know a lot of the situation, time to trust you are doing it right and move on.
To the west of your token was Einar's previous position. South West of your position is the summoned eagle. Einar moved northwest, but could not 5 ft step out, as it is all DT. Moving into and out of threatened space (north of the eagle) provoked, so Einar got AOOed.
E X X
Z O W
X F X
Basically above is the drawing of the map. E denotes Einar, Z for Ziva, X the empty squares, O as Einar's original position, and F the fiendish eagle. When Einar moved from O to E, he provoked from the Fiendish eagle at F. W denotes your position as Mr Whiskers.
Eh, is anyone else having problem with the map?
I don't mind talking rules, as long as its not slowing down gameplay, and I'm free at that point of time. Since it isn't(for now), here's my take on it.
The FAQ does not state if invisibility hides spellcasting. Lets say in the worst possible interpretation, it does not. Sure, there would be manifestations, glowing blue runes in the air, but can you see them? Since you can't see past 5 ft in driving snow(everything more then 5 ft has total concealment), that point is moot. You still wouldn't see anything, so there's no way you can pinpoint the square.
You earlier requested:
Shouldn't we be getting passive Perception rolls to figure out where the caster is? They are trying to avoid detection, which would normally be Stealth.
And after I told you it had a +20 off the bat:
I don't think Stealth should cover hearing someone speaking in a clear voice. It is the skill of hiding and moving silently.
Be consistent :p Yeah, I know its uncharitable of me, but what were you expecting from a law student? (They do enjoy a good debate).
My personal interpretation of invisibility is that it conceals all visible signs of spellcasting (otherwise, what combat application does it have?) That being said, there's nothing to stop you from hearing the general direction the spell is being cast from, which I did give.
O.k so I'm back now and entering this discussion
RE Vision Effects
Lets bring up Deeper Darkness. Its countered by Dispel Magic, and light spells of an equal or higher level (IIRC True Seeing does as well but o well). Deeper Darkness also only shuts down Darkvision when cast in area's of dim light and / or darkness. Anyway, you might be correct that its tricky to counter - each to his own. Of course, there are monsters that can see through deeper darkness as supernatural abilities as well as monsters with detection based abilities such as Tremorsense / Blindsense, however the key thing is that Deeper Darkness also happens to affect your own party - unless PC's have a way to see through supernatural darkness themselves (and its really not that easy), it screws them over as well. Still, if you want to adjudicate it as unbalanced, thats fine.
So what do we have in Reign of Winter? We have an environmental condition, always in effect, across a massive range and area, and up against enemies acclimatized against this weather (ie creatures that can see through it, and occasionally there to communicate with creatures who cannot). This is in effect as early as Level 2. Like, this sounds almost exactly like Deeper Darkness, except 3-4 levels earlier, and with less counterplay. Lets not forget as well, you STILL need higher levels to actually see through Deeper Darkness as well, its much harder for a PC to abuse, whereas this critter has an equivalent ability at a silly early stage. The irritating thing, is that we have a creature right now benefiting from this environmental effect and furthermore abusing it with invisibility. I can understand banning the combination of Deeper Darkness + See in Darkness - if you feel its tough to balance then fine. What I dislike is then an enemy pulling the same tactic - if not even worse, and everything being A-OK. Whats the counter-play to this? Run away? Its not like you can cast a spell to counter it like you can Deeper Darkness, you basically have to "Suck it Up". The fact that enemies are using this tactic as early as in Book 1 underlines a cause for concern that its going to be abused by enemies later on.
Lastly:
Oh of course you can see through fog and mist and darkness, even deeper. I don't care. Should you create vision blocking effects, I want it to be used for evasion of combat only.
Ermmm, isn't this guy using this offensively. I don't see what hes doing as an evasion tactic. Like, at the end of the day, its your call, and I understand some of your reasons. Its just hard seeing some consistency though.
RE Invisibility
I don't actually see what the issue is. The spell itself, calls out specifically that YOU ARE NOT MAGICALLY SILENCED. It then repeats this, in the core rules for invisibility. Its why I'll pick up silent spell purely if I want to do an invisible caster (or just play a psychic class hue hue) to get around this.
My personal interpretation of invisibility is that it conceals all visible signs of spellcasting (otherwise, what combat application does it have?
Its not meant to have combat applications. Its a 2nd level spell with a min level duration. Its bigger brother, Greater Invisibility - does have combat applications,and it has a round level duration - by this time its far easier to handle, and stalling it out is a viable option. You don't stall out invisibility really - a minute in combat lasts an age so its more for practical purposes, such as running away.
Invisibility blocks somatic components (because if I'm invisible and waving my arms around you don't see jack), but it doesn't silence you, so verbal noises are heard.
Invisibility in combat is treated in a few different ways. Firstly, anyone is entitled to a DC 20 Perception check to notice the presence of an invisible creature, if they are within 30 feet. The key words here are "sense presence", so you know its in the area.
To pinpoint an invisible creature, its a DC 20 Perception check modified by the situation.
-If you are an invisible stationary wizard casting spells its a DC 20 check to notice you (read: NOT pinpoint your square) provided you are within 30 feet.
-If try and pinpoint that wizard's square its DC 40.
-If that wizard decides to move and cast then the DC drops to DC 20 to PINPOINT that spell again.
I tend to think its cheesy claiming that something is invisible and also stealthing while speaking in a loud voice (as per verbal components. I know my home GM would throw the Core Rulebook at me if I played a rogue, and told him I take no penalties on my stealth check while singing loudly - but each to his own.
I'm going to have something to eat now and come back and post in gameplay, because I'm rly hungry.
Deeper Darkness - what's stopping the entire party from being owls? If they want to, they can. That way it's always darkness when there's fighting to be done. Not to mention, traditionally, dungeons generally have no lights. Not to mention I specifically asked the party to work their characters around each other at the start. If everyone wanted to start as a tiefling and take fiendsight twice, sure, it'd DEFINITELY be possible. So Deeper Darkness would not harm the party at all (if they chose it that way).
The problem is it is written into the module. I can't change that. Its like asking the PFS GM to let you change the environmental effects when they are SPECIFICALLY WRITTEN into the module. Can you ask the GM – say for a PFS scenario like ‘Sniper in the Deep’ can I not do this fight underwater because I don’t like the underwater combat rules? Clearly no.
Also, there's a PFS scenario where you encounter deeper darkness - and its level range is 1-5. That means you could possibly be encountering deeper darkness at level 1. Irks me, sure, but what can I say? I'm not paizo, I don't vet their products.
If the GM adds in additional stuff, sure, that is the GM's fault. If there is anyone to blame - ask the person who wrote the mod - I am only following instructions. Like people who write shadows to be in a level 1 evergreen with no magic weapon in sight. Or for that matter, a creature in a level 1 evergreen that can 1 shot a level 1 PC, if it hits. No save. You just die. Unfair? Certainly. If I were running it for PFS credit, would I need to run as the mod it is written? Yes.
The spell ends if the subject attacks any creature. For purposes of this spell, an attack includes any spell targeting a foe or whose area or effect includes a foe. Exactly who is a foe depends on the invisible character's perceptions. Actions directed at unattended objects do not break the spell. Causing harm indirectly is not an attack. Thus, an invisible being can open doors, talk, eat, climb stairs, summon monsters and have them attack, cut the ropes holding a rope bridge while enemies are on the bridge, remotely trigger traps, open a portcullis to release attack dogs, and so forth.
This spell functions like invisibility, except that it doesn't end if the subject attacks.
Note that both spells have exactly the same description except greater invisibility does not end when the subject attacks. Note also that the spell specifically states you can happily summon monsters while still remaining invisible. So why would you be stating that Greater Invisibility has combat applications while invisibility does not when the wording is essentially the same?
I agree verbal noises are heard. That’s why I give spellcraft checks to let you know what’s coming, and I let the party pinpoint the general direction where our little bugger is casting. I never for once pretended that he didn’t exist or the party didn’t know about his presence.
Realistically, I don’t see the party ever managing to catch him if he doesn’t want to be caught, which is fine with me. The party just needs to wait till he shows up in someplace that he doesn’t have environmental advantage(if he does).
Also, if you do not mind emerald spire spoilers...
The GM deliberately took a full non dark vision team into Emerald spire. Needless to say, it wasn't pretty...
That's every fight that they have to deal with it - all you've gotten so far is this one, and only(for this book).
I have no issues with the mod. I'm not asking for it to be changed, I don't even have an issue with how you run the mod (I actually think you're doing a pretty outstanding job) but I just don't see how it isn't a double standard to ban something (out of fear of an abuse case), with the knowledge and foresight that very same tactic is going to be abused to such an extreme extent against the party.
No problems with you banning the tactic GM, I just expect if a GM bans something, (like say, Synthesist Summoners) out of fear of high optimization or abuse - they don't then plan on using highly optimized Synthesist Summoners against the party.
So why would you be stating that Greater Invisibility has combat applications while invisibility does not when the wording is essentially the same?
Because you gave the impression that invisibility hides_all_spellcasting - and that if it didn't, then it has no combat applications. I was pointing out that Invisibility's primary use is for escape and evasion - to hide. You can use it to summon. Yes. This is a combat application. Yes. That said, compare that to Greater Invisibility that gives greater combat applications (ie allowing direct attacks) and yet has a round/level duration - more indication as to the slight differences between the two spells, one with more defensive benefits, vs one with slightly wider combat applications.
To be clear though, I'm not asking for auto pinpoint. I was supporting your post, with evidence from the rules, that you can attempt a DC check to know the general direction (ie not the exact square), of the spellcasting, and that its a slightly higher DC check (usually) to then pinpoint the actual square.
The discussion started after you made a post mentioning "someone is casting in the snow", and we asked "great, so the entire area is covered in snow, can we roll perception as what would be the general direction?. which you eventually gave.
To be aware of his general location, its a DC 20 Perception check (within 30 feet). If the caster is moving, and casting summon monster, then we only need a DC 20 Perception check to locate his square. If this caster is staying still, and casting Summon Monster, then its a DC 40 Perception check to locate his square.
That's every fight that they have to deal with it - all you've gotten so far is this one, and only(for this book).
You have the book, we don't. If its like a one off then great, its a non issue. I'll be annoyed as heck though if enemies repeatably abuse this, after you specifically called out not wanting PC's using a similar (and arguably more balanced) tactic themselves.
The snow = the black area covered by fog of the war.
Oh I always tell the PCs the truth, to the best of my ability - just ask Robert =)
If my post on the general direction (the snow) was not clear, I apologize. To me it was clear, but I guess there's always a difference in perspective between GM and players.
Ziva, you're up...back to my ROTR mapmaking session...