Thanks, GM.
HP: 6+0=6
BAB: +1
Saves: +1 Fort, +1 Will
Skills: 2 + 2 Int +1 Favored Class = 5
Diplomacy +1
Heal +1
Knowledge (arcana) +1
Spellcraft +1
Use Magic Device +1
Background Skills: 2
Appraise +1
Craft (jewelry) +1
Class Features:
Smite Evil
Lay on Hands 3/day
Yarnala +3 HP, +1 BAB, +1 Fort/+1 Will
Happy Father's Day to all you fathers out there!
Father’s Day is actually next week, not this week. Today is Flag Day.
But thank you for the early wishes!
hhhmmm, next week, does this mean we get to spend the whole week doing father day celebrations?
I've been getting all these emails from restaurant's trying to get me to eat there, I thought it was today. I've got the whole family conned into it too. I even got wished Happy Father's day this morning. That's the CRS syndrome setting in I guess. Either that or sitting at home with it not really mattering what day it is.
My apologies for being early, for once :)
I don't think Pathfinder has a mechanism for automatic id'ing of potions.
It probably doesn't help, but I think that Father's Day is on June 14th in Austria and Belgium this year.
On a more game related note, I feel like I'm getting slightly mixed signals about arrow usage. Based on the Fight with the Cave Lizard I got the impression from your description that I'd be using arrows if I fired after an enemy was down. The reason I tentatively held off on firing this last time was to avoid doing that again, though now you're saying not to. Possibly arrows are cheap enough that they don't count as a resource here (they are amazingly cheap,) but I'm tracking how many I use and have left because that's what we're doing at least for now.
Should I go ahead and make attacks with the understanding that if I see something is dead I can have the arrow back regardless of the flavor text? I'm not looking to quibble, just trying to get the expectations clear in my head going forward.
Thanks!
I'm not going to make you waste an arrow on something that is dead. I assumed you held off because you assumed the others killed it. I'd rather you didn't assume and act like it's alive to keep things moving. If it's in negatives before you shoot, I will not make you waste your arrow. Your arrow put the lizard in negatives and the chopping in half have made it dead. Once we get out of this book we won't track normal arrows as long as you're keeping a good number on you, 60ish or more if you want. There isn't a lot of opportunities to buy things. Neatholm was one, you'll have only one more I think before the end of the book.
Ok, sounds good.
Keep in mind that he's using a reach weapon (and a nonreach one - the helmet), and depending on where the enemy fires from, it might provoke an AoO.
I've got a problem with using a helmet to threaten squares, same with spiked armor. This caused me to do some research to see if I was going to be heading into house rule territory and I may be. I've found some posts from the designers that indicate that armor spikes don't threaten when using a two handed weapon. There is a FAQ that says you can't twf with armor spikes or a spiked gauntlet and a two handed weapon. I believe the intention is that you AoO with the weapon in your hands and that is a two handed weapon. You can not take free actions outside your turn (again in the core FAQ). Therefore you can't let go of your weapon (a free action) to attack with your hand and this applies to armor spikes as well and I am applying this to the helmet or any other non hand weapon.
If you feel the need to redesign or spend money differently, go for it
The dwarven boulder helmet is used to headbutt. The issue with armor spikes etc. is people trying to "two weapon fight" with it - it's not my intention. I'm not trying to do extra attacks on my full round action. I'm just equipped with a weapon that doesn't use my hands and allows me to threaten adjacent squares. There's nothing that would force me to use my hands for AoOs - monks can even kick if they so desire (like zen archer monks threaten the squares around them even though they're using a bow in their hands). The dwarven boulder helmet, as a weapon, does low damage, crits only at a 20 and it's just a x2 - honestly, it's nothing gamebreaking. Also, please notice it occupies the head slot - so, in theory, while using this weapon I wouldn't be able to equip anything in that slot. I'll wait and respect your call, but I ask that you reconsider.
Therefore you can't let go of your weapon (a free action) to attack with your ...
I'm not trying to butt in to the conversation, I'm just trying to understand. I had a similar discussion with a different GM about a cleric of mine who was using a longspear and a gauntlet. He made a similar ruling and let me know the conversation was over; but I really never understood the logic. So I'm only asking for my own understanding not to interrupt with what is going on here.
His point was you can't threaten with the gauntlet because your using the two handed weapon. But can't the cleric release the weapon to do the gestures to cast a spell? I don't understand what the difference is. Let go of the spear to cast, or let go of the spear to punch. Is there a difference or am I not understanding how the spell is cast?
Feel free to butt in, Ian. However, I believe it's a very different situation - gauntlets are truly using the same hands as a two-handed weapon.
You can definitely end your turn holding the weapon with a single hand - therefore being able to take AoOs with the gauntlets - but in this case you wouldn't be able to take AoOs with the two-handed weapon, because you can't grip it back to two hands (which is a free action and you can't do out of your turn).
It's different than the helmet - I don't have to let go of one hand to be able to headbutt with that weapon. I can keep my grip and still be able to headbutt.
Gauntlets, like armor spikes, don't even require a special slot to be equipped, they're just part of the armor slot. The dwarven boulder helmet uses the head slot by itself, preventing me from using items there.
I am not arguing about two-weapon fighting with the helmet (although I think it would be possible as well, albeit taking the -6/-10 penalties to primary and secondary weapon) - My sole intention with the helmet is to use it for either AoOs, out of my turn, or as the only weapon I use on my turn (in case I can only attack adjacent opponents for whatever constraint is happening).
Feel free to butt in, Ian. However, I believe it's a very different situation - gauntlets are truly using the same hands as a two-handed weapon.
You can definitely end your turn holding the weapon with a single hand - therefore being able to take AoOs with the gauntlets - but in this case you wouldn't be able to take AoOs with the two-handed weapon, because you can't grip it back to two hands (which is a free action and you can't do out of your turn).
Oh I know it's a totally different situation. It was just related to a previous discussion in which I didn't really get any closure for, so I was looking for help understanding.
So in simplest terms, using a gauntlet/pole arm for AOO have to do with releasing the pole arm, or grasping the pole arm which is a free action and can only happen on your turn not the AOO? So however the cleric ended his turn, grasping the two handed weapon or not, would determine what weapon he could AOO with, but it wouldn't be both.
Needless to say, I learned a few things while researching this. The common fix for pole arms and threatening right around you was the gauntlet. That however isn't allowed per the FAQs I found. I can link them when I have time if you want as well as what the developers have said on the issue. I'm more than willing to have a discussion about this, but I won't have an argument. In the end the decision is mine. I'll get back to this later, I've got things I need to go do and this is going to take some time and though. I have no problem with others offering opinions or questions. If this was a private conversation I would be PM'ing this. As this is a rules discussion that effects everyone potentially. I'm having it in discussion. I just ask that the game keep moving.
I will quickly address Ian's question. During your turn you can take as many free actions as the GM allows. Theoretically it's infinite but there is some guidance on common sense limits. Letting go of one hand from a "shaft" is a free action. Using that hand to cast a spell is part of a standard action. Grabbing the "shaft" is a free action. Your turn ends. Someone provokes 5' from you, you can't AoO as it requires a free action to let go of the "shaft" and attack. You do not get free actions outside your turn is the reason why. Your conclusion is correct. You can only AoO with the weapon that is "ready" two handed reach or gauntlet not both.
...You can only AoO with the weapon that is "ready" two handed reach or gauntlet not both.
Thank you, that actually makes sense, I appreciate both you and Donnen taking the time to explain it.
My problem with helmets threatening is how in the world are you going to get your head 5 feet in order to attack someone. I feel the same with armor spikes and the body. It doesn't make sense to be able to do this as a reaction to something. I have no issue with either being used to make a deliberate attack as part of an attack action or full attack. If someone is right next to you (5') and you can't take a 5' step to put them in reach, I have no issue with attacking using your helmet to headbutt them. I have no issue TWF with the helmet if you are not using a two handed weapon.
From the research I've done I believe that the intent of the rules is that if you are wielding a two handed weapon, of any kind you only threaten what that weapon threatens no matter what other weapons you may have. A two handed reach weapon 10 feet out only. A two handed sword 5 feet out only. A bow in both hands not at all; yes I believe that means a Zen archer monk doesn't threaten 5 feet out if it has a bow in both hands (simple solution, only hold in one hand when it is not your turn.) I think this is on purpose to force you to make a choice between the enhanced threatened area of a reach weapon or only those squares next to you, regardless of what other "weapons" you have.
I've links some of the stuff I have found about this and I will say I learned some things from this research. I didn't know you couldn't use free actions when it wasn't your turn and thus not being able to use a spiked gauntlet when wielding a two handed weapon for AoOs. The developers as link non-handed weapons with armor spikes. The FAQ talks about an "off hand" attack not, TWF specifically though it would be included, and that they are not allowed with two hands on a weapon. This would include a helmet or any other non handed weapon.
Post on armor spikes not threatening with two handed weapon
Post linking miscellaneous non-hand weapons to armor spikes
Armor spikes and off hand attacks FAQ
I hope I've made my thoughts clear so you at least can understand my reasoning. I think a dwarf headbutting enemies is totally cool and to me sounds like a dwarf thing to do. My issue is only that is seems ludicrous to me to be able to threaten 5 feet away with your head. The rules don't agree with me in general but I believe they do in the specific case of holding a weapon in both hands.
I am happy to hear your thoughts.
I understand and I will comply to your ruling, trawets. Just allow me to agree to disagree; no human occupies a full 5x5 square. The rules just adopt this measurement to simplify things. The assumption is that in combat a person is not static, but actually moving around a perimeter, lunging, these things. It's all in name of simplification (and gamification).
The boulder helmet is just another of these things, but in this game, a Dog bite reaches (and threaten) 5 feet as well, without it moving, as ludicrous as it sounds. Same for a little knife in the hands of a human child. :)
It does harm my specific build quite a bit - because advancing as a stalwart, my mobility will become very limited, very soon. As this type of combatant, I'm forced to be stationary, and battlefield control - long reach, combat reflexes, etc. - are absurdly important. I will study other ways to make it work and will respect your ruling; if we maintain it, I just ask for your understanding in case I have to shift certain things, and in advance I thank you and appreciate the openness to discuss it.
@Donnen, one thing that may help your Defensive Stance is that I get Enlarge Person as a paladin spell.
Large size is one way to threaten at 5' and 10'.
I've reread the Defensive Stance ability and I do no see how this harms your build. No one should ever be threatening 5' and 10' at the same time, (unless they have natural weapons and reach) it is a choice. If you want to threaten 5' take a hand off the weapon at the end of your turn as a free action and you can threaten at 5'. I think it's ridiculous for a helmet or armor spikes, but those are the way the rule work from my reading of them.
I'm not out to be a jerk. If I rule on something and it majorly changes something in your build I am going to let you fix it. We're all here to have fun and I want you to enjoy playing your character. As I said earlier I got an education when I started researching this and it definitely changed how I rule a few things.
As to enlarge person, it won't "fix" this. You will be able to threaten 15-20 feet out but not 5-10 as a large size character. If you want to threaten in that 5-10' range you'll need to take a hand off the reach weapon and have some sort of close in weapon, such as a helmet spiked armor or spiked gauntlet.
A humanoid creature whose size increases to Large has a space of 10 feet and a natural reach of 10 feet. This spell does not change the target's speed.
Reach Weapons: Glaives, guisarmes, lances, longspears, ranseurs, and whips are reach weapons. A reach weapon is a melee weapon that allows its wielder to strike at targets that aren't adjacent to him. Most reach weapons double the wielder's natural reach, meaning that a typical Small or Medium wielder of such a weapon can attack a creature 10 feet away, but not a creature in an adjacent square. A typical Large character wielding a reach weapon of the appropriate size can attack a creature 15 or 20 feet away, but not adjacent creatures or creatures up to 10 feet away.
Sorry, I meant that Enlarge Person with a non-reach weapon would let him threaten at only 5' and at 10'. It would be an alternative and hopefully legitimate way to get the 5'-and-10' threatened area that Donnen is looking for now. I wasn't referring to a 5'-to-20' area.
Threatening at 5' and 10' is useful for hindering enemy Withdraw actions, or hindering 5' step and cast.
Just completing what Leothar put - if I use a reach weapon while I’m defensive stance and an enemy simply 5-foot-steps to be adjacent to me, he basically forces me out of stance. If I use a nonreach one, then I’m basically an island and the same thing applies. While enlarge person helps this second case, at higher levels I was already counting with it to be able to cover 5-20 (or 25 with lunge during my turn).
Anyway, there are some ways of circumventing this issue and I’m working on redesigning it in this character to respect your ruling. Just give me over the weekend and I’ll bring some options here (or via PM if you prefer - I don’t want to disrupt the game anymore, as it has been very enjoyable).
Cheers
Donnen, I would say that Defensive Stance is going to work very well with even 5' or (Enlarged) 10' reach.
A well-coordinated party can use positioning and tactics to take advantage of your stance and funnel enemies towards you (or prevent them from getting away).
Let us know what we can do to achieve that coordination.
Stand Still is a good option that only works in adjacent squares. I'd be willing to take Stand Still also if it would help.
Backing enemies up to a wall is, of course, a great way to employ the Defensive Stance. Leothar will probably take Improved Bull Rush and can use it for that purpose. Shove enemies against a wall, then Donnen steps up and enters Defensive Stance.
Take our capabilities into consideration.
waell-coordinated party can use positioning and tactics to take advantage of your stance and funnel enemies towards you (or prevent them from getting away).
Let us know what we can do to achieve that coordination.
I Absolutely agree, if there are things we can do; feats or tactics I/we can use give us a heads up. I botched up using 'intimidate' so I will have at least one early feat to use for something.
So if the three of us are the 'Front line' we should be able to cover each other.
Seriously, I've played a lot of characters, but very few of the games I've been in have been intentional about 'tactics.' I would love to be in a game that helps me develop that gaming skill.
I see know how you feel it effects your build, you expected to be able to threaten 5 to 20 feet. I don't see it as that big of a difference, I do admit there is one. If someone is 10 feet from you they can 5' step toward you and attack you. On your turn you can attack them with your helmet. At the end of your turn you have a choice to make, to you want to threaten 5' or 10'. If you threaten 5 feet they can 5' step back; any more and they provoke from your helmet. There is a 3rd Tier Guardian Path ability, Cage Enemy, that makes 5' steps provoke in your threatened area. While it isn't what you were expecting I think it will still work well as Leothar said.
If you want to PM me changes that is fine.
Looks like we are waiting on the door to open this round in game.
Yes, Cage Enemy was one of the abilities in Donnen's plans, as well as stuff like Retributive Reach and Impassible (it's in my profile ;) ). And I agree with the team, we can try to coordinate accordingly, and I can invest in pulling strategies (via maneuvers) as well. There are some archetypes (unfortunately not for paladin, so out of the question) that let me switch the reach of weapons and other little things I can do, hopefully. I'll get it sorted through the weekend.
Happy Father's Day to all the fathers out there!
Thank you. And I repreat my Happy Fathers Day from last week.
Thanks, and happy Fathers Day to the other fathers as well! :)
yes, Happy Fathers day to all, hopefully the 'quarantine' hasn't kept anyone too far from family.
I think in this instance, risking the AoO in order to Reposition the Tiefling into the room might not be the worst idea.
The dice, they hate us.
Just as a thought, what if someone grapples her?
She doesn't threaten adjacent so you could try a combat maneuver.
Shield of Faith helps CMD (unlike Shield, Barkskin, or Mage Armor) so that would make it tougher.
I would suggest turning off PA against a 20 AC (or, in our in-character perspective, against a foe we cannot hit).
She doesn't threaten adjacent so you could try a combat maneuver.
Shield of Faith helps CMD (unlike Shield, Barkskin, or Mage Armor) so that would make it tougher.I would suggest turning off PA against a 20 AC (or, in our in-character perspective, against a foe we cannot hit).
Started thinking about dropping the power attack. As for the combat maneuver I think Ian would have to drop his shield to give it a go.
Well for Grapple that is true, but Trip, Disarm, and Dirty Trick are options with your sword and shield in hand.
Well for Grapple that is true, but Trip, Disarm, and Dirty Trick are options with your sword and shield in hand.
true, didn't think about that. I was trying to figure out if grappling her would slow her down. Those would work also.
I don't know who has played this AP before but you guys have a bit of a unique issue to deal with here. Radiance will take the form of any paladin's diety's favored weapon and that includes a bow. Most party's only have 1 paladin max so there is no real issue. You guys will have to decide who gets it however you wish. I will "warn" you, by the end of this book it will bond with someone.
I have not played the AP before....
I guess the question is; who was planning on using their deities favorite weapon, or could make an easy change to their deities favorite weapon...
Then do we roll for it?
My deity’s favorite weapon is a dagger. I’d suggest someone else take it.
I'll bow out for the weapon as well. It sounds like consensus is mostly that Ian takes it and that works just fine for me.
I've played the card game version of this AP but don't remember much.
My deity's favorite weapon is a kukri (which I use). Definitely fine with Ian taking it though.
I haven't played this AP and don't know what Radiance can do. Leothar could easily change to his deity's favored weapon but it sounds like it is supposed to go to an Iomedae follower, all else being equal.
As long as Leothar can get a cool weapon somehow. Maybe the Legendary Item mythic ability.
Like I said you have a unique issue here. Radiance is "supposed" to go to THE paladin. You have six. It becomes a powerful weapon if handled correctly (there are plot things that need done) but it will work the same for any paladin.
Like the GM said - it's not a weapon for Iomedaens only. It's a weapon for paladins. If the god's favored weapon works for you, you should roll it. It does work for me - with the issues I had with my reach weapon/helmet combination, using a warhammer with a good shield (since I'll be a Guardian) became very attractive.
I wasn't particularly fancy of a longsword, but now that I see how this works (turning into the deity's favored weapon), I like the idea. And considering what Ian said about the hammer he's using before - and how he refused to switch his backup weapon with Leothar - I'd like to be considered to use it as well. I'm okay with rolling for it (or, better yet, have the GM roll, once we know everybody who would like to use it).
Fley, Leothar and Petsha should also roll. Any of the five of us would be perfect to use it. Maybe only Ardriel doesn't really have much use for it, but if he wants to roll as well, fair is fair. If I roll and don't end up with it, I'm okay with it.
... And considering what Ian said about the hammer he's using before - and how he refused to switch his backup weapon with Leothar - I'd like to be considered to use it as well. I'm okay with rolling for it (or, better yet, have the GM roll, once we know everybody who would like to use it).
Cool, I'm happy to roll for it as well or let the DM roll.
Let me clarify on the hammer. I had asked a couple of different times if anyone else wanted it and no one responded. I had assumed that one of the followers of Torag would take it, but since we are 'charging' for items (ie paying half price) everyone else seemed tentative to select it, because it wasn't their preferred weapon.
Once DM trawets said I could use the alchemical silver process on it I decided it was worth the cost and pulled the trigger.
After we were given the morningstar the idea came up for Ian to take it. I had no desire to be saddled with a'magical' backup weapon that was going to cost me more than I wanted to spend for it; while giving up the backup weapon I would have purchased and used the whole game. So I declined.
If I handled that situation poorly I apologize. I normally play in games where we keep the gear we will use and sell the rest splitting the profits, trusting each other to not take advantage.
I am willing to be included and to roll for it.
My reasoning for saying that it seems more meant for an Iomedae follower (not Iomedans only, but leaning towards an Iomedan all else being equal) is strictly based on the fluff. Radiance, and Iomedae is a goddess of Sun and Light. I assume it may have some light-based abilities that are more thematically fitting for a follower of a Sun goddess.
I may be overthinking this. As the Champion, happy to be included in contention for the awesome weapon.
In retrospect, I would recommend DM Trawets list the players is alphabetical order, roll a six sided die and the person who wins does what he wants with the weapon.
I'll still pass on the weapon and would prefer not to be included in the roll. I don't think it's going to go to be poorly used if it's not in my hands. As long as it ends up in the hands of someone who regularly makes attacks with it I'm not too worried one way or another.
Now that I think about it, I guess I’m not. Here are Donnen's previous discussions about how to handle epic items.... And considering what Ian said about the hammer he's using before - and how he refused to switch his backup weapon with Leothar - I'd like to be considered to use it as well. I'm okay with rolling for it (or, better yet, have the GM roll, once we know everybody who would like to use it).Cool, I'm happy to roll for it as well or let the DM roll.
... It's not a perfect system but it keeps it on the fair side as some people have a trend to want everything for themselves. Of course it doesn't apply for artifacts, but in such cases we can all vote between ourselves if there's a dispute.
...Of course it doesn't apply for the artifacts and other items where (I hope) we can come to a consensus or some sort of voting.
Any time Donnen discussed an epic item he pointed out that we should vote on it. But when the epic item came up, after three other people said to give it to Ian, and Fley said he didn’t want it.
... And considering what Ian said about the hammer he's using before - and how he refused to switch his backup weapon with Leothar - I'd like to be considered to use it as well. I'm okay with rolling for it (or, better yet, have the GM roll, once we know everybody who would like to use it).
We found the hammer May 15th I had commented interest in it on May 22, and no one posted any interest in it until after Ardriel recommend I take the morningstar instead of the hammer.
I was dumbfounded that neither of the paladins of torag wanted a MW hammer found in his temple. But neither of them voiced interest in it or were using a hammer as there primary weapon; so I asked about it, knowing it would fill my secondary weapon role. Then when the + 1 Morningstar became available (presumably at a much greater cost than the hammer) all of a sudden the hammer was more attractive and I was the bad guy for not wanting to give it up.
So instead of voting for the ‘epic weapon’ which was initially Donnen’s idea, now we are rolling for it. How we split the wealth was Donnen’s idea, voting on epic weapons was Donnen’s idea. Now that it doesn’t work how Donnen wanted it to, it has changed. What else will change?
This game is fairly early in it’s progression. This is not the first time that strong opinions have been voiced, nor will it probably be the last. I have no desire to be the cause of conflict nor do I desire the stress of conflict.
Game Master trawets71 thank you so much for inviting me to play this game with you. You have a strong group who should carry you to the end. Sadly, I feel it is both the games best interest and mine that I remove myself from the game. Good luck and good gaming all.
Take care, Ian. I hope you find fun in your other games.
@GM: I honestly feel we don’t need a replacement; the group is fairly great already at this size, despite the dice apparently hating us. I will abide to my colleagues if they want to recruit someone to replace Ian, but I’d rather we keep our current numbers (especially when I think about high levels and some mythic stuff like Leothar brought up before that is too powerful).