After this fight, if we manage to kill it before reinforcements show up, I think we should disappear back down the hole and wait for an hour or so. Our cover was probably blown. We might need to wait out an investigation.
We might be able to use the trap door as a bolt hole to stage a series of ambushes though. I guess we'll have to see how many reinforcements arrive.
Well Nahia brought up some valid reasons to not use Alchemist's fire. All of which Seren is about to ignore!
@Seren, Yeah, it is very likely that you missed. Don’t forget, chances are good that he has “soft cover” from either your zombie, or one of our other companions, so he has an additional +4 to AC, making his touch AC something like 16 if it had a 10 Dex before the advanced template.
So you probably need to make a misdirection roll and see who you really did hit.
I never did like the +4 soft cover AC plus the -4 to range attack in melee range. the +8 to AC for attacking into melee from range has always seemed crazy to me. I know RAW it's that way but I always felt just the -4 for attacking into melee should be enough of a penalty.
I've got no problem if I missed with Aku rolling the misdirection roll, and I sorta promise that Seren won't just break into chuckles if it hits her zombie.
Eh, it's rough, but it is why those abilities that ignore cover are way better than people believe them to be.
In my groups we got rid of the AC bonus from soft cover, but if you missed your attack because of the penalty from firing into melee then we would check the attack roll against the other creature as well.
ya I've never played with the soft cover from shooting into melee. It just seems overly harsh, especially as you can't get rid of it till lvl 11 as an archer which seems like a rather harsh penalty.
Yeah, but you can get rid of the shooting into melee penalty before that, bringing it down to a total penalty of 4.
I don't know. It is harsh, but I've just always seen it as a balancing factor to the fact that you use the same stat for to-hit and for AC (and a saving throw, and a number of skills), plus being able to keep a safe distance.
It also becomes less of a problem once you can fly, or if you get creative with your positioning.
Indirect fire weapons don't do sof tcover. You can lob them over.
@Nahia:
Totally true, I guess I'm slightly biased as well cause I notoriously play low level games, where that effective -8 to hit is nasty to deal with, basically forcing any archer to be human so they can start with precise shot or they'll never hit anything till level 3.
@Rose:
Don't think that is RAW, it's very similar to our houserules we play with, but strictly by RAW soft cover counts
Indirect fire weapons don't do sof tcover. You can lob them over.
Where do you see that in the rules? I mean, conceptually, it makes sense, but lots of things are kind of odd in the rules.
Cover comes from things being in the way of your attack. If you are throwing someone over people's heads, they aren't in the way at all.
I have no idea where it is in the rules, but it makes zero sense to apply cover to attacks that are specifically designed to ignore cover.
True, but on the practical side if I really want to hit something I throw it with little arc not lob it. As soon as I lob it to go over people's heads, then my accuracy starts to fade a bit.
throw a ball directly at a spot 20 feet from you versus lobbing it at the spot. the ball that follows the direct course with little arc will likely be far more accurate.
Not if something is in the way of the direct arc it won't. ;)
I have spent some time on grenade training ranges. Tossing things over walls, through windows, around corners, down holes and other forms of "cover" is really, really easy. It isn't somehting that requires a huge amount of training (feat, proficiancy, etc). It's something you can teach to fourty 18 year old kids in about two hours. It's pretty much exactly as hard as learning to play something like horseshoes. The hardest part about teaching people to use grenades is teaching them to throw them far enough away that they aren't in danger themselves.
In a case like this, where Seren clearly isn't concerned about collateral damage, it really doesn't get much easier than tossing a grenade into the middle of a crowd. That's exactly what they are designed for.
I'm not exactly sure if the rules reflect this (I know the catipult and trebuchet rules discuss it, which is way more complicated), but frankly, if the rules think that things in the way effect grenade-like weapons in just about any way, the rules are definitely wrong about that. I would be really surprised if the rules didn't make cover exceptions for grenade like weapons.
I think the problem is that you are thinking of a real grenade. Yes, it is easy to hit a location, but the rules want you to hit a creature.
To attack with a splash weapon, make a ranged touch attack against the target.
...
You can instead target a specific grid intersection. Treat this as a ranged attack against AC 5. However, if you target a grid intersection, creatures in all adjacent squares are dealt the splash damage, and the direct hit damage is not dealt to any creature. You can't target a grid intersection occupied by a creature, such as a Large or larger creature; in this case, you're aiming at the creature.
So, basically, you can just target the location vs AC 5, but because the thing doesn't actually explode (no reflex save, no real area effect), and it just kind of splashes everywhere, it is far less effective.
- - - - -
So, if I'm on an open field, and a wizard puts up a wall of force, why can't I arc an arrow over the wall? Or over any cover, for that matter?
What about other thrown weapons? Darts as designed to fall point down, and flachettes dropped out of planes were heavily used in the past. And throwing hammers are just heavy, so why not arc them over a wall?
In a lot of ways, I agree with you, but the rules just don't support it.
- - - - -
Now, if I were to create a house-rule, I would probably let someone do it, but count the entire traveled path for range increment penalties and require a symmetrical rate of rise and fall (basically, trying to make it take as realistic a path as possible).
Arrows, darts and flashettes aren't explosives. If they were, I would say sure.
(Using that exact tactic with an explosive arrow or dart sounds pretty awesome).
Alchemist fire isn't explosive either. There is a reason that the name was changed from "grenade-like" to "splash weapon".
ya but alchemist fire isn't explosive either... It's just a flask filled with a highly oxidizing fluid. It doesn't actually explode at all. It just kind of covers a person, with a bit of spare liquid hitting people around it, same idea as if you drop a glass of water. Most of the water is right around where the glass shatters, but you do get some splatter a bit further away.
[EDIT: Beat by Nahia to the punch. Oh well I'm keeping my post anyways]
Shrug. It still doesn't make sense to me from a real world perspective. Throwing water balloons over people to hit people behind them is something children are able to do. Stacking blanket penalties on simple actions seems like bad game design to me.
oh totally agree on that point, which is why in most games I play in we just ignore the penalty/bonus for soft cover from other people in combat
Eh, sometimes you gotta take the good with the bad. How often have you had to roll for hitting your allies while shooting into melee? How often have you crushed your own splash weapon in your hand? How often have you been told that a bottle didn't hit hard enough to break? How often have have you taken a penalty to being disarmed from hands slicked with blood or sweat? How often have you had to replace your bow because you left it stringed all the time and ruined the wood's shape?
You say the penalty is harsh, and it somewhat is, but I think we'll have to disagree on how easy the task is in real life. Children may lob water balloons, but they also miss much more often than they would using the game system, they may hit someone other than who they intended, and the balloons are often either filled to the point of breaking in hands, or not enough and they might just bounce off.
I'm all for a realistic game, and in the ones I run I put in lots of home-rules or make changes on the fly to the situation. But not everyone likes waiting for the DM to figure out if the flask hit with enough newtons of force to shatter the 2 mm thick glass if the ledge they wanted to hit with it is three meters higher than they are, and two meters lower than the maximum height of the parabolic arc.
At some point the designers have to find a balance between realism and playability. From a game perspective, I think this one is ok, and to some extent, provides a needed balancer for ranged attacks. Of course, splash weapons are weak as is, but that is mostly because of that "only one per round" thing more than anything else.
From a realism perspective, it isn't the penalties that bother me, because the penalties seem accurate for if you tried a straight throw. Hence my "let it follow a natural path" method I posted earlier, which makes more sense realistically, and works well with the current rules.
I guess I just feel like the cover rules are oddly implemented. They apply to Polearms too, which are designed specifically to attack past other people, but for some reason the rules don't reflect that.
I've always felt that the Firing Into Melee rules were enough of a penalty. Allowing people to count as cover is just double jepordy.
Polearms were designed to give distance, and were sometimes used to fight past people, but it is hardly an easy task, and it severely limits your ability to maneuver. Honestly, if you're trying to use a polearm past through someones square, that person should get a penalty also, because they wouldn't have full use of their space.
And it doesn't even make sense to allow axe-type or hook-type polearms through another creatures square, since you would need quit a bit of swinging space.
Of course, ignoring the grid for a moment, you should be able to stagger between your allies in front of you, which I would argue allow you to ignore the "soft cover" penalty (since you have a full line) or reduce it to "partial cover" since over half of them is exposed to you.
Also, note that polearms and reach weapons do not suffer the "firing into melee" penalty.
Off-topic but because oyu mentioned it. You brought up the How often have you crushed your own splash weapon in your hand? Actually had a Ifrit alchemist who was notorious for smashing Alchemist's Fire in his hands, and letting his Fire Resistance/Fire in the Blood handle the damage, while the splash damage hit everyone around him, was an amazingly fun tank to play.
Huh. We had a Paladin in a group I was DMing that would often get hit by the party rogues mis-thrown alchemist fires and get set on fire... and then use it for a circumstance bonus to intimidates as he just kept on swinging his hammer around.
ya the bonus of hitting myself was that I never had to actually roll an attack roll, so no misses!
Polearms were designed to give distance, and were sometimes used to fight past people, but it is hardly an easy task, and it severely limits your ability to maneuver. Honestly, if you're trying to use a polearm past through someones square, that person should get a penalty also, because they wouldn't have full use of their space.
And it doesn't even make sense to allow axe-type or hook-type polearms through another creatures square, since you would need quit a bit of swinging space.
In my experience (martial arts, military riot control training and SCA stuff) the opposite is true. I found it *much* easier to employ a polearm of pretty much any sort from behind another person. When using a polearm against someone directly, the moment they get inside your guard you are on the defensive. Polearms were designed to (either) attack people who are on horses or from the tops of walls (or) attack people from behind a handy line of sheild weilding friends.
When fighting in front of someone with a polearm, you just crouch a little. You work with them. You keep the enemy engaged and they attack over/past your head. It seems complicated and difficult, but it is actually surprisingly easy.
In my experience (martial arts, military riot control training and SCA stuff) the opposite is true. I found it *much* easier to employ a polearm of pretty much any sort from behind another person. When using a polearm against someone directly, the moment they get inside your guard you are on the defensive. Polearms were designed to (either) attack people who are on horses or from the tops of walls (or) attack people from behind a handy line of sheild weilding friends.
When fighting in front of someone with a polearm, you just crouch a little. You work with them. You keep the enemy engaged and they attack over/past your head. It seems complicated and difficult, but it is actually surprisingly easy.
I do SCA and martial arts as well, and have not quite had the same experience you have. Sure, someone can't get in your face if there is a barrier between you and them, but that is still true in the game too. And while the entire "fight" may have been easier, I wouldn't say that the act itself of striking an enemy is easier.
Two of your listed situations are just about needing reach, not attacking through someone else's space. The last one (from behind a shield line) took training and was such an advancement in military concept that it redefined the entire understanding of military structure.
And your entire bit about "working with them" and "crouching a little" sounds a whole lot like something that you need to practice and train for, kind of like a feat or class feature.
But just removing the soft cover rules would be the same as saying that any two people that have never been in a fight in their lives somehow can do it without any training or practice, which is just patiently wrong.
hmmm, time to test this! Let me find someone to fight, I'll get back to you when I find an accomplice and a victim. May also need a polearm... Perhaps a broom handle will work.
I can't wait to hear the report on how this goes. :)
I'll update tomorrow. Promise.
Those last days have been hard to me.
You are currently at 23/26
You shut your face hole. --.--
So, just waiting?
-Posted with Wayfinder
I'll wait on the others to confirm, but I think so.
Well, we could ambush them, but at this point that would be loud, and I'd worry about runners.
I'm willing to go for it if we think we can hold the door and stairs.
I think just listening to them for a second is a good idea regardless.
If we can get some one in between them and the doors we could. Rose's idea of just sussing them out for a second is a good idea.
LOL. Well so much for stealth, should have kept my breastplate on.
Death or Glory it seems.
I could grapple him down and we beat on him in the basement
@Mysty said: if he is in reach move pass him into the room, flipping through the hatch. Mysty uses her skill to dodge blows and parry attacks.
The captain is in reach, but you are climbing and trying to move avoiding an AoO. That would make you move at 1/4 of your speed, then 1/2 of it. You don't have enough movement to perform this action and attack. it would be if you only moved in this turn.
Anyway, since Nahia initiative resolves before yours, I’ll wait for her.
Well, you are, but think of this: You move 20ft per turn. Climbing, even with the ladder help, you still move 5ft per turn 1/4 of your speed.
Now, to avoid AoO with acrobatics, you need to move at half of your speed.
So, that would make you move at 2,5ft per move action. You need at least 5ft to finish climbing the ladder.
Also, there's this one more thing:
You need both hands free to climb, but you may cling to a wall with one hand while you cast a spell or take some other action that requires only one hand. While climbing, you can't move to avoid a blow, so you lose your Dexterity bonus to AC (if any). You also can't use a shield while climbing. Anytime you take damage while climbing, make a Climb check against the DC of the slope or wall. Failure means you fall from your current height and sustain the appropriate falling damage.
@DM Aku, Does the hatch have any kind of way to bar it from our side?
Also, how tall is the ladder?
Hatch question:
Your side? Nops, it opens toward the forge. Someone in the forge would be able to put something heavy on it, do prevent it from opening.
Ladder:
15ft tall
Isn't Mysty at the top of the ladder, listening?
If she has initiative on the captain, wouldn't that mean he wouldn't get to take an AoO if she moved past him? I don't think she needs to tumble yet because they are flat footed. She's just moving before they are ready.
Isn't Mysty at the top of the ladder, listening?
If she has initiative on the captain, wouldn't that mean he wouldn't get to take an AoO if she moved past him? I don't think she needs to tumble yet because they are flat footed. She's just moving before they are ready.
I'm not saying that she cannot.
She, however, described as climbing, and trying to trumble.
I'm just commenting on her actions.
Hmm, this could be interesting. We might be able to make a stand in the tunnels, especially if we can take out the captain. And we're still all in disguise, so we have that going for us.