Was also waiting on a post from Riceak. Whoops. Knew I'd screwed something up. :P
Okay I have a potion of haste. I'm trying to figure out how long it'll last and if I'll be able to run up the stairs (actually charge up the stairs) and shield slam the elf who just shot me.
A potion of haste lasts 5 rounds.
The problem with charging up the stairs, however, is that you A) don't have line of sight to your target and B) can only charge in straight lines.
(Unless you have some wacky feat I've forgotten.)
Sorry for the slight delay. I'll get a post in tomorrow.
In other news, I got the pdf of the new CotCT! I just want to say that I promise that I will not use it to metagame.
Sorry to be the bearer of bad news everyone, but my iPhone is acting up, so I'm trying to get it fixed (could be a software issue, or worse the battery is messed up). This will impact my posting rate some, but I'll still try and post as often as I can from my laptop before work.
So, keep y'all's fingers crossed. And I apologize about this. I'm concerned that my phone got messed up during the hurricane when I had numerous power surges prior to losing power when Matthews came through.
Okay....
Crisis averted! After looking online, I found that sometimes if you let your iPhone's battery drain to 0% (which you're supposed to do occasionally), the battery may not have enough juice to charge back up. According to what I found online, simply using a blow dryer to warm the phone up enough for say 5-10 minutes and then immediately plug your iphone into a charger, the iPhone starts right back up. Phew! Glad that's over.
Glad your crisis was averted, Riceak! :)
On another note, since it's been nearly 24 hours I'm just going to go ahead and bot Korriban this round...not much to do other than head upstairs in any case...
Sorry about that, Norv.
Okay now I'm confused. So my attack doesn't count?
Random question: even though I made my move, could I still try to make a Perception check?
You can make a perception check without an action! :)
Riceak: Gah, sorry, this is my fault for not explaining myself sufficiently earlier...
When you ran up the stairs, you didn't move your token. I moved it, and noted (but it probably got lost in the shuffle) that you'd have to take two move actions to make it up the stairs to where you could see the top. I mentioned that you had some movement remaining so you could adjust your position if you wanted to--instead you posted an attack roll (I'm assuming you thought you had an action left).
By the time I saw that, it was time to move the round forward, and I (rather arbitrarily) decided to wrap that action into this round on the grounds that you were still next to the same zombie, the main target had gone invisible, and Korriban's roll wouldn't have killed it by itself. So I did count your action, I just did so in this round--make sense?
This is one of the drawbacks of PBP grumblegrumble Sorry for the confusion! ^.^ Everyone should have their full turns set to go now, we just got thrown for a loop by map/stair movement confusion.
Ah okay. I think I get your meaning.
So I can keep on attacking right?
Yes! Please do. :)
Sorry, I should've been clearer earlier--was just trying to keep the game moving.
It's cool. I'm just trying to make sure I understood everything.
Riceak: spiders have tremorsense. Heh heh heh
So yesterday I learned in my RL game I've been using the invisibility rules wrong the whole time I've been playing Pathfinder...whoops.
Enjoy the lower DCs to pinpoint her! She still has total concealment, of course... ^.^
BTW, if she's located near the railing...what kind of DCs do I have to beat to knock off the stairs so she'll go splat, while Riceak grabs (actually thrust his sword into the wall to keep from following her on that one-way trip to the first floor)? I'm thinking charge would work on knocking her off the railing while a climb check would tell me whether or not I keep from falling down as well, right?
I'm not the GM, but knocking someone backward is a Bull Rush. If she's standing ON the railing, you could use bull rush to knock her off of it. If she is standing next to the railing, it's up to the GM to interpret whether the railing counts as a sufficient obstacle to hinder a bull rush--you can't bull rush someone into a solid obstacle like a wall, there has to be an empty square behind them (but the empty square with no floor can totally be acceptable).
ETA: I'll also note that if you knock her onto the stairs, she'd take at most 1d6 falling damage and then would be in a position to run away again. On the other hand, it'd be freaking hilarious.
Hm...Wait...how much damage does she take if I bull rush her off the railing onto the ground below and land on her? I'll probably take some damage but she'll take some additional damage from me landing on her right?
Railings are something of a grey area in bull rushes, but I'd allow an attempt! (At a higher CMD; she's standing behind the railing, not ON it.) You don't need to make any check to keep from falling, but yes, if you fall on her she'd take more damage.
Also crap! Forgot that first glitter dust was still active! Sorry, Callie.
So, first things first: I had always played in games where glitterdust only affected people the moment that it was cast (and then continued to blind them if they failed their save, and continued to illuminate invisible creatures regardless). When Callie said that the dust lasted for five rounds, though, I looked the spell up and thought, "Huh. Guess she just knows better than me."
Seeing how insanely difficult a 5-rounds glitterdust makes things for relatively low-level martial characters, though, I began to wonder if the version I had seen was in fact right. The short answer is that it's not clear but I think so...I just want us to pick a version and be on board with it!
To me, it seems on research that glitterdust is only expected to affect creatures in the area when it's cast, and then continues to affect them for the duration. This is the weight of popular opinion, here and elsewhere. One good point raised in those threads is that if glitterdust lasts 5 rounds, it becomes essentially an AoE (though rds/level) invisibility purge + blindness, which seems a little brutal for a 2nd-level spell. Not content with that, I (reluctantly) cracked the CRB open...
Looking at p. 214-216 of the CRB (on how to read spell entries) we see the following. Glitterdust is an "Area: creatures and objects" spell, which is defined as:
Creatures: A spell with this kind of area affects creatures directly (like a targeted spell), but it affects all creatures in an area of some kind rather than individual creatures you select...
Objects: A spell with this kind of area affects objects within an area you select (as Creatures, but affecting objects instead).
Great, but does it affect creatures that enter the area after it's cast? That's the real question. Flipping the page and looking under "Duration," we find:
Subjects, Effects, and Areas: If the spell affects creatures directly, the result travels with the subjects for the spell's duration...If the spell affects an area, then the spell stays with that area for its duration.
Creatures become subject to the spell when they enter the area and are no longer subject to it when they leave.
This seems contradictory in the case of glitterdust. But! I put it to you that the intention of glitterdust seems to be that it affects creatures, regardless of whether they stay in the area or not, and that this adds up with a strict reading of the first quoted CRB text, which says that spells of this type "[affect] creatures directly (like a targeted spell)." The salient difference seems to be between a spell like glitterdust and stinking cloud, which (as an Effect spell) creates an effect that lasts for the entire duration. Obscuring mist and similar spells seem mostly to be Effects as well; I actually can't find, off-hand, spells that are Areas and endure for multiple rounds (I'm sure they exist, though). Most that don't get qualified by the creatures/objects designation are also of instantaneous duration, ie. burning hands and color spray.
TL;DR: It seems to me that glitterdust should only affect creatures in the area when it is cast, but Paizo's system for writing spells requires you to read the manual very technically. I am open to other readings, I just want to pick one and settle the question once and for all moving forward. :P
I've always seen it played like this:
1.) Bust goes off
2.) Determine what is affected
3.) Does the affected see? If yes 3a, if no 4
3a.) Will save vs blindness, if fail blinded and roll next round, if succeed not blinded
4.) Target outlined for the duration
This does mean that the glittery dust is all over the place and coating everything for the duration but as it coats everything for the duration it's not floating around any more to coat new things. I think it also is kind of "sticky" but it's an insta dry adhesive that makes it stick to what ever it first touched until the stuff naturally (or is that unnaturally) dissipates when the spell ends.
My take is if it only affected creatures fully upon initial casting, the duration would be "instantaneous," not in rounds. To me, the wording is pretty clear* regarding effect and duration: the effect covers a 10 foot radius. Anyone in the radius at any time is affected for the duration of the spell. Notably, the spell description says, "causing creatures to become blinded and visibly outlining invisible things for the duration of the spell." The "and" suggests to me the "for the duration" applies to BOTH the blindness AND the duration.
Also the next sentence: "All within the area are covered by the dust, which cannot be removed and continues to sparkle until it fades." The "sparkling" is what causes the blindness, and that sparkle continues "until it fades" (i.e., when the duration expires). The dust covers all within the area also "until it fades," so, again, you enter the cloud of glitter, you get covered. I see nothing in the spell description that indicates it doesn't work like any other cloud or area-covering spell (e.g., obscuring mist or grease). ETA: Okay, NOW I see the distinction between "creatures and objects" in an area versus just describing the area itself, that you referred to in the CRB magic section. I was just simply reading it as they were clarifying that it affects both creatures and objects (not say, just creatures, etc.). But I see the conundrum now.
I have also never played the spell working in any other fashion that what I've said--the interpretation that it only bursts off and then doesn't do anything after the initial casting has never been used in any groups I've played in. This may well be a difference of group play/houserules/other versions of the d20 system influencing things. I may well have it wrong.
I don't want Korriban to risk being blind, to be clear--but I just expected folks to target the elf with ranged attacks until she moved out of the area (she would remain sparkly per the spell description for the duration).
I know there are some messageboard discussions of the spell here, which the Norv may want to view for others' opinions on the matter (though they are also differing).
All that said, you're the GM, the Norv. If you choose to reinterpret the spell, please let me know your final ruling.
If you do decide to change it to how you are interpreting it, I would appreciate the opportunity to trade out the spell for something else (probably see invisible), as my choosing the spell was based on how I have understood and played it to work. (Not instantaneously retroactive of course, but say next time she gets to rest.)
---
* Where I said it wasn't clear in the game thread was on whether it fully negated invisibility by outlining the invisible creature.
In other news, I got my contributor copies of the anniversary hardcover! Yay!!!!!! It is a truly GORGEOUS book. I promise I won't read the bits we're in. :)
I may read chapter 1 just to catch up with what's going on in Korvosa (but I would not have Callie know things she shouldn't).
Blargh I just hate this kind of rules question. This is why I went to theater school, not law school! :P
There are a lot of threads on glitterdust (I have 6 open at the moment) and most of them seem to come down on the Norv/Lantressa school of thought. (I can link a bit later if people are curious.)
This post seems like the most succinct, all-purpose explanation of our particular question. Why it hasn't been FAQ'd is beyond me, since people do seem to ask it frequently...I guess Paizo thinks that the text is clear enough. :P
Will let other people weigh in if they have thoughts, but leaning toward it just affecting creatures in the area at the time of casting.
Also yaaaay new version!! I'm planning to order mine today or tomorrow.
My PDF...because I'm poor...and can't justify spending the money on the hardcover of an AP I'm only running online at the moment.
*bitter tears*
Yeah, it's odd it's not in the FAQ. If you are going with the instantaneous burst with dust sticks to those affected, understood (better not to have Korri be blind) but do let me know if it's okay if I can swap out the spell during downtime. I wanted glitterdust for a battlefield control spell, and this reading negates it as such.
Were I editing the spell, this is the suggested correction I'd make:
GLITTERDUST
School conjuration (creation); Level bard 2, sorcerer/wizard 2
Casting Time 1 standard action
Components V, S, M (ground mica)
Range medium (100 ft. + 10 ft./level)
Area creatures and objects within 10-ft.-radius spread
Duration
Save Will negates (blind only); SR no
That is indeed a good summary of how I am going to rule the spell to work. Not having heard from anyone else and wanting to move the game forward, I am going to say that that is my ruling: the dust does NOT affect creatures who enter the area after it is cast, and Korri is not blinded.
And of course you can change the spell! I'm not gonna force you to stick to something that's not doing what you intend. :)
I'll have a post later today after 6 pm est. At work at the moment.
Well, I was going to say that I am okay with going with how glitterdust is originally written. However, I am okay with how it has been decided.
I'm good with whatever y'all guys decide.
Also, modifying my plan a bit. We need to catch the elf right? Well, softening her up some before Riceak grapples her and struggling with her, sends them both to the floor below. Riceak's damage reduction should lessen the damage he receives from the fall, although she'll take a good bit of damage when she hits the ground..and cushions his fall. :)
I'm just rusty on my grappling rules.
Well, that plan went sort of okay. Not the result I was expecting but at least I'm right next to her now.
Um...Sorry for all of the crazy combat rules questions, GM. My memory of combat rules is a bit rusty (okay very rusty). Also, what do I have to do roll if I want to do a dirty trick, say, cut her belt causing her pants to fall thereby entangling her...I think that would be the condition she would get since dying of embarrassment isn't a condition (although it sort of is)?
Well, she's wearing a dress, not pants, but... :P
That would be a dirty trick combat maneuver. Again, basically CMB against her CMD. Note that without a feat (Improved Dirty Trick), attempting such an action provokes an attack of opportunity.
No worries about combat questions! I like people to play creatively, so I'm always willing to adjudicate on the fly if need be. :)
Korriban, I don't know if your character would know this or not, but another thing to bear in mind is elves get a bonus to saves vs charm spells.
I completely forgot about the bonus that elves get and I didn't know about the +4 due to being in combat. My bad. I'll change tactics.
You realize you need to get me off if you want to really tie up the elf don't you?
And yes, pun fully intended.
;-p
Or you could just pin and tie her up yourself. She's unconscious so it's just a matter of making the Dexterity check for tying her up.
ETA: Missed that Teodor was doing it. I'm sure he can grab her arms and tie them regardless.
I've been meaning to post but work has been busy lately. I'm okay with you rolling my AoO GM so it's cool.
I love the RP, but gentle reminder to all to make sure you keep the gloves on and find ways to work together. I think we're fine on that front, so far. ;) Let me know if you feel otherwise.
Also, I finally have my (digital) copy of the updated CotCT! It is, indeed, a gorgeous book...congrats, Callie! I love a lot of the little changes made to the story (Rolth has one of them, so we'll see if that comes up). I love a lot of the new artwork, too--Paizo's done a good job moving away from cliche and toward more realistic/reasonable depictions of a lot of the characters. The elf in this encounter, for example, isn't quite so much of a stereotype/Harley Quinn deadringer. :P
Only new artwork that makes me like the old better is Devargo Barvasi...he looks much younger and scruffier. Which is fine, but I kinda miss gray-haired, clean-cut crime lord Devargo. I also understand why they got rid of his "slashing gauntlets" (from a physical standpoint they make no dang sense)...but I loved them and am probably gonna keep them. :P
Also, straw poll!
There are indeed a few more undead scattered around this building but they are not likely to pose a serious threat/challenge to you guys in isolation (if she'd stayed upright longer the elf would, indeed, have tried to lead you into their chambers, thus "triggering" various rooms all together). Are we ok handwaving the rest of these fights? I am, but if people think it's more fun to play through, that's fine by me.
I would be very happy to handwave the rest of the zombie fights. I'm even willing to take some cursory damage to reflect the ordeal (though others may not appreciate the volunteerism :) ), but while the initial conflict was fine, I'm good with focusing largely on exploration and RP otherwise for the time being.
Definitely enjoying the banter and hoping yes, it leads to good character relations not PVP. I knew when apping Callie I was apping a CG character into a largely neutral party and would have to be sure I managed balancing her own morals with getting along with a somewhat amoral (but not immoral) group. Especially as you are the established group and I am the interloper--it's not really fair for my character to try to suddenly dominate (though Callie is chatty as hell so forgive her--oocly--for whatever she rambles on about). Personally I enjoy the challenge. The last game I played her in, nearly everyone was self-righteously good OR lawful and this very different group has its own interesting and refreshing dynamic.
One thing that's easy to bear in mind is at least for the time being, we're working together because Kroft asked us to, and I think we're in the process of developing the joint goal of stopping the cult of Urgathoa. United reasons for getting and being together are always key to party togetherness, and we've got that. While we the players know that we are (hopefully) in it for the long haul, the characters can think, "I can put up with this for the current job" and then hopefully as we work together they will learn to get along and develop loyalties. Anyway, that's my thoughts on it.
Teodor is a prickly old bastard, but he doesn't seek to harm his compatriots despite any moral differences.
Oh I think we're definitely moving in a good direction, roleplay-wise. Just wanted to make a precautionary reminder. :) I think shared goals will quickly turn into friendships, so things should move pretty slowly.
The upper crust is kind of a "thing" for Teodor (and her fiendish heritage is for Lantressa), so this encounter was particularly fraught with topics for good, juicy conflict. The coming days will see less divisive confrontations.
I'm good with handwaving zombie fights in the manor. I would be okay with doing actual combat. But, if it makes thinks go smoother, then I'm all for it.
I am enjoying the banter between all of us. It really builds a camaraderie between the PCs. Callie, bringing a CG character to a mostly CN party does add in more variety. Glad you're enjoying the banter so far.
Korriban, despite being CN, has his own set of morals and his own sense of what is good. In fact, I'm thinking that he might be slowly shifting to CG. He also has a goal of defending the city, particularly the smallfolk. A cult of disease worshippers seems to endanger them. So, he's in this for the long haul for sure. He's also the type of guy to make friends easily. Unless they are a*****es or try to kill him. Another aspect to him is the fact that he's quick to try and get vengeance. Prime example: Devargo Bavarsi. Started with Korriban getting knocked out and starting a grudge. Then, tricking him to give up Majenko. Now, the grudge is even deeper and it may be coming to a point where we may need to deal with him. Especially after the threat to Lantressa.
I also have a pdf of CotCT (nice job, Callie) and I do like some of the new art, character designs, and new ideas. I do like the art on Kroft, Trinia, Vencarlo, and Blackjack! I also enjoy the new art for the elf in this manor. I will admit Devargo's look is a bit odd. I'm used to seeing him as a bald middle aged guy. I have opinions on some other things, but I'm afraid about spoiling things. Also, I am not going to use this to metagame. I want to keep things fair.
I should remind that all I did was edit chapter 4 so I can't claim credit for anything other than if you see that the punctuation and mechanics text in that chapter is correctly formatted, I DID MY JOB! (WOOOO!) Okay, I fixed some descriptive text here and there too. It was definitely awesome to be part of that team though.
The artwork is incredible overall. I liked Trinia and Kroft's especially too.
So if we see an error in those sections we know to harp at you then, good to know.
;-P
I'll likely not be getting a post up until later today, if it's slowing things down then assume that I simply follow along with the group consensus for now.
Absolutely, it is the gamer way. :)
Duly noted. :)
Teo, Lantressa, Korriban: I'm pretty sure y'all sold the stuff from Girrigz's den and I can erase it from the loot sheet, right? I seem to remember it, but I don't have time to skim the thread right now. If one of you can confirm that (and confirm that you've got your gold recorded), I'll wipe it clean so we can start anew with this encounter.
Thanks!
I'm pretty sure we sold it, as for gold recorded, I don't think I've recorded any since I joined. I know there has been some that I've gotten, just not sure how much. I'll try and get in a reply in a bit, had a really rough day yesterday, been exhausted today.
I'm sure we sold the stuff. I also believe that I had my share of the gold recorded.