AlaskaRPGer's page

Organized Play Member. 198 posts (208 including aliases). No reviews. No lists. No wishlists. 3 aliases.


1 to 50 of 198 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>

Oyabun_Kyuubi wrote:
AlaskaRPGer wrote:
Oyabun_Kyuubi wrote:

Well the fight wouldnt be unbeatable unless it has heavy damage reduction.

Iirc the rules for incorperal creatures is that all damage done that isnt magical or because of the undead part positive energy still deals 50% damage. So while a 2d6+4 weapon maxes at 8 damage before criticals that doesnt mean its immune.

Edit: just read up. I would talk to your dm about possibly getting some holy silver in the future. Otherwise douse your weapons in holy water and have a cleric in the back blessing some more.

Theres always the option to run away and you could also dispel the antimagic field as a option.

In this case I was/am the DM and just changed the spell the specter cast.

It was an interesting situation where the party was a powerful 15th level group in a situation where retreat wasn't an option, and didn't have holy water (who carries holy water when you have 7th level spells and +4 weapons?).

Non-magic weapons (silver or not) don't affect it. You can't DISPEL MAGIC an AMF, but you can Mage's Disjunction it....which they didn't have access to.

Ahs see more things ive stumbled around on. As for the holy water theoretically you dont need to "carry holy water" on you all you should need is an area outside the AMF and then use create water and bless water.

Im like 50% sure that the therein blessed weapon would at least hold its blessed holy status for at least 1 round to deal damage. Might be wrong tho.

This was discussed. They were in a smallish contained area, and BLESS WATER takes 1 min to cast.....and as soon as the specter gets to ya with the AMF on it, you're out of luck.

So yea, I just changed the spell it cast and we all agreed I stumbled upon an inadvertently powerful combo that I agreed not to use again until the party has access to the hard counter of MAGE'S DISJUNCTON.

Oyabun_Kyuubi wrote:

Well the fight wouldnt be unbeatable unless it has heavy damage reduction.

Iirc the rules for incorperal creatures is that all damage done that isnt magical or because of the undead part positive energy still deals 50% damage. So while a 2d6+4 weapon maxes at 8 damage before criticals that doesnt mean its immune.

Edit: just read up. I would talk to your dm about possibly getting some holy silver in the future. Otherwise douse your weapons in holy water and have a cleric in the back blessing some more.

Theres always the option to run away and you could also dispel the antimagic field as a option.

In this case I was/am the DM and just changed the spell the specter cast.

It was an interesting situation where the party was a powerful 15th level group in a situation where retreat wasn't an option, and didn't have holy water (who carries holy water when you have 7th level spells and +4 weapons?).

Non-magic weapons (silver or not) don't affect it. You can't DISPEL MAGIC an AMF, but you can Mage's Disjunction it....which they didn't have access to.

I had a circumstance occur in my game today (which I DM) and I had to revise due to unintentionally creating a potentially unbeatable encounter.

So a specter (or any incorporeal undead, really) for whatever reason has the means to cast AMF on itself. Two questions:

1) Can it fly? It's flying ability doesn't seem to be magically based, so it should IMO.

2) How do you kill it? Spells that would normally affect an incorporeal creature won't work in an AMF. Magical weapons are suppressed. Summoned creatures can't hit it in the AMF. Only thing I can think of is lots of holy water.

3) Does its incorporeal attack work? I ruled that it could attack and do the 1d8 damage, but the energy drain couldn't work as that is an SU ability.


Mako Senako wrote:

Yes that all sounds fair, and I would agree with that if it was the situation, but that's not what happened and im now conflicted whether or not to correct the DM for future encounters or just ignore it and continue on.

As a DM that makes mistakes, a 1-on-1 convo saying "Hey, I don't think it should have worked like that, but I didn't want to argue or slow down the game, and I definitely am not asking for any "take backs". Here's my reasoning, let me know if you agree.".

I've made mistakes before that the players later brought up, and we all agreed that it worked the "wrong way" once, but for the future it wouldn't.

Or, the DM might rule "ok but my hydras work differently" which is valid as well.

If the wand was in hand, I'd make it a Concentration Check vs CMD. So it's possible but difficult.

Quickened True Strike when you must land that touch attack of the next spell.

If it was my game I'd rule that you created a non-alive-flesh-shaped-like-a-human (untyped), as the pebble wasn't previously living. Similar if you used stone-to-flesh on a stone that was never alive in the 1st place, you'd get a hunk of meat.

So yea, a dead human, who can't be brought "back to life" as there was never a life for it to go back to. No reincarnate/raise dead/resurrection...etc as it has no soul. Ideal for a flesh golem or getting bodies for necromancy I suppose.

Again, that's me as a GM ruling at my table.

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Least complex character played, in a serious manner - two-handed fighter with the two handed archtype.

I either double moved/ran, single moved and attacked, or full attacked. The rest of the party essentially either healed me, buffed me or restored me. I didn't ask them to, they actually offered to - they were all casters and wanted me to take all the damage, and my character happily would.

My feats were either save-improving, luck improving (the human luck feats), or attack-bonus/damage improving.

My skill points were in perception and Profession (Soldier).

He was LN leaning LG, played like a soldier who lead his squad into battle. He WANTED to be LG, but under the difficulties of war and survival tended to be more practical.

At one time in the game, after I dropped mid-battle, there was a huge tactical effort to get the cleric to my body safely through enemies to cast breath of life on him. It worked, and I stayed prone and killed the enemies around me.

So mechanically, was he simple? Very. Other then for when I needed to re-roll saves, there's no times-per-day abilities, no spells, no temp abilities. Just go up to things and hit them. And it was fun! I've played witches, inquisitors, paladin-monks, sorcerers, wizards, bards...etc...and they were all fun. I knew what I was getting into with my one-trick pony and he was fun to play. Would play again.

Current campaign over-powered as they are a 3-4 person party (periodically one player can't make it) and I am running Rappan Athuk. If it was 5 persons, consistent then I'd just have them slightly over-powered (25 pt buy and some player-supporting house rules).

If I was running an AP I'd do 20 pt buy and be more restrictive in races, and remove most of my player-supportive house rules.

Quintain wrote:

The GM (with the support of myself, and the other players) have a "dungeon exception" in place regarding Hallow due to the link between these temples and the big bad at the bottom of Rappan Athuk that this particular tactic won't work.

If this were the case, we'd have been up and gone 30 hours ago (game time) -- we've already disconnected the Temple from the BBEG, what we are trying to do now is re-consecrate it to his Arch Enemy -- and destroy one of his minion's minor artifacts to attain mythic status.

This seems to have angered him (the BBEG) for some reason.

Makes sense.

I'm currently running RA myself (I'm the GM), and that sounds like something the party would do.

_Ozy_ wrote:
They are holding off the invasion while Hallow is being cast.

Dang it I missed that. Forgot the long Hallow time.

Wait wait wait - They have access to WISH (and limited Wish), just use that to mimic Hallow, so it's 1 round to cast, not 24 hrs.

However I acknowledge that's cheating the spirit of the concept.

Hallow + Dispel Evil.

Ravingdork wrote:
However, using limited with to sub for geas adds an additional cost to make up for it, so it's still balanced in my book.

Only 1k diamond dust though. If the dust and/or funds are limited then that's one restraint, but are there other 7th level spells with Save:No that's comparable?

That being said, it's not valuable for THAT fight....more of a hit and run tactic I guess.

Douglas Muir 406 wrote:

The only thing that limits it is its casting time: 10 minutes.

I'm going to cite Anzyr as a reference for this one, as one of his replies to a different thread brought this fact up. I forget what specific reply, but this was his point.

Geas *CAN* be a combat spell.

Limited Wish.

D20PFSRD wrote:

Casting Time 1 standard action

A limited wish lets you create nearly any type of effect. For example, a limited wish can do any of the following things.

Duplicate any sorcerer/wizard spell of 6th level or lower, provided the spell does not belong to one of your opposition schools.


Use this table for more options!


For more wildness, have his entire lair be infused with chaos so every spell sets it off.

Claxon wrote:
Murdock Mudeater wrote:

Here's the thing, you say suicide is allowed in the game.

So your party is exploring the dungeon. And your CN rogue goes through the dungeon quickly, trying aggro every mob at once. Then they suicide, leaving the remaining party members to fight the entire dungeon at once. And now the GM has to rescue the party, or allow the TPK to happen.

I would be opposed to allowing intentional, non-productive suicide in my games (productive suicide would be being a martyr when it was needed to save the rest of the party). If a player doesn't want to continue, they don't have to come to the session.

If you want to play a semi-suicidal character concept, I don't mind that, and there are even some neat build options there. That said, I am strongly opposed to players that purposely suicide after I figure in the CR of encounters based on a full party of living PCs.

I suppose if the player just wanted to play a character concept where the character died in every session, that could be fun, but only if I, the GM, was notified ahead of time.

I think this is covered by the "Don't be a dick" clause of the game. The problem here isn't the character committing suicide. It's getting everyone else killed on purpose in the process.

In this case the character was doing it to prevent being used as a tool against the future parties. He made the right call...however he should have just attacked himself, not CdGed.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

So....uh...phonetically and typing-wise, what's the correct way to say and type it?

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Klorox wrote:

if you're helpless, you can't perform a coup de grace

but if you are able to take a full rd action, and not balking at it (some people have mentioned a will ST?), you could perfom a suicide coup de grace on yourself, since you're not resisting... note, I think there are fortitude STss tied to surviving the thing, you can't voluntarily fail those, since will to live is an instinct, and the effectiveness of your attemps can't be assessed as waiving those.

Correct, if he could have completed the CdG, then there's the Fort save vs death, which I would have had him roll.

Kileanna wrote:

I'd rule as Klorox is saying.

By the way, I've been trying my best not to give way to my correcting obsession (specially as, not being a native English speaker I probably need a lot of correction too) but it's too hard to me to resist!!!
Coup de grâce.
I'm sorry. I couldn't resist.

Ah, there's the accent. Thanks, I knew there was an accent but for some reason I thought it was on the last e.

Ciaran Barnes wrote:
Bizarre s~+! like this is why game masters are allowed to ignore the rules. Given this very specific set of circumstances, what the rules allow became secondary to the story. There was no loophole being exploited, nothing that helped the player "win".

Agreed 100%.

My players have been very good of not abusing loopholes, and even ask me if I am ok with loopholes they find when making characters (99% of them have been OK, 1% was OK-for-now-but-lets-see-what-happens-don't-abuse-it, and they don't).

That being said, it was a very entertaining encounter, and everyone at the table had fun (from what I can tell).

Rub-Eta wrote:
I don't think you can perform a coup-de-gras while helpless

I didn't even think of that.

See the character wasn't actually helpless, he just wanted to CdG himself, and my thinking was:

1) You can CdG someone that's helpless
2) You can voluntarily be helpless (or be considered helpless to someone)
3) He's not actually helpless, so he can perform the CdG

Therefore I allowed it.

Cavall had a great point regarding the willingness to live, which would normally be applicable.

Cavall wrote:

Can you kill yourself? Yes.

Personally I'd have them make a will save not to. Wanting to live is an instinct.

Normally I'd agree, but due to the unique circumstances (worshiper of a goddess of suicides, knowing that death is preferred to the alternative) I didn't see the characters mind being unwilling.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

All - in this instance the PC was Warpriest of Naderi (Goddess of Suicides) and was adjacent to a strong enemy that was intending to capture him alive for its own uses (player suspected that enemy had access to Dominate Person).

Player said he'd try to Coup-De-Gras himself.

I ruled that it could work, as you could be voluntarily helpless, even to yourself (Character had previously shown he was looking to go out in a means that would please his goddess.) I tend to rule in the players favor in the heat of the moment to keep the game going, but if I later (after the game) determine I was wrong the next session I let the players know and that my previous ruling was a one-time-only thing.

However, player forgot that a CdG triggers an AOO, and you can be knocked out in the meantime by an AOO.

So by the end of the session, the character tried to kill himself 3 times and failed. Good times.

In a game I am running, one of my players wanted his character to perform a Coup-De-Gras on himself (due to circumstances, it made perfect sense). I ruled that you could voluntarily make yourself helpless, and as such ruled that he could make the attempt. Due to something else he failed to do so, but that's beside the point.

I know it's my game, but strictly RAW, can you perform a Coup-De-Gras on yourself? Can you voluntarily be helpless (including to yourself)?

TOZ wrote:
kyrt-ryder wrote:
For what it's worth Walsh, that sounds more like a 6 round encounter to a tactical well-optimized team. At the first sign of Channel Energy [or with a successful Knowledge Religion check, since you allow enemies to identify the PC's classes by Knowledge checks or similar] I'd have dogpiled to take down one support clerics one at a time.
The change to Channel Energy should also be noticed, since the dhampir is targeted as an undead rather than a living creature, preventing the clerics from harming the PCs at the same time.

Sorry to slightly detail - I thought channeling energy (regardless of + or - energy) can either harm or heal, not both, at the same time.

Am I wrong?

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Dotted for pure awesomeness

I miss the WLD and look forward to see what the next group(s) do. Too bad we weren't able to handle Mag'og, but we did take care of Jerkall, Thoradin and Grehennox.

And Fyrsil got the final laugh, so that rocks. Lil guy was found on our....second? Third? Session. Good to see him happy at the end(?).

Also love how Soon Bim was handled.

In this case I am the DM!

I think I'll allow it.

Got the following question:

If you have Spell Focus or Elemental Focus, and you cast a spell that those affect, and that spell has a secondary effect with a DC, do those feats raise the DC of the Rime-Blooded Arcana effect?

"Whenever you cast a spell with the cold descriptor, you may select one target of the spell to be slowed (as the spell) for 1 round. A Fortitude save (DC 10 + the level of cold spell + your Charisma modifier) negates the effect"

I can see the argument both ways.

Agodeshalf wrote:

Just to be clear the vampire entry states that it triggers only once per round.

Energy Drain (Su): A creature hit by a vampire's slam (or other natural weapon) gains two negative levels. This ability only triggers once per round, regardless of the number of attacks a vampire makes.

So I think the answer to #1 is it depends on the monster in question.

Ah, I think that's what it really was.

I'm actually thinking of a Wight. Re-reading their description, I thought the save occurs 24 hr later, like the vampires.

Also, thanks for the info regarding the cold ice crystals.

Jeraa wrote:
it depends. If the ability that gives the negative level requires a standard action to do, then the monster can inflict only 1 (or more, not all energy drain attacks only deal 1 negative level) negative level per round. Multiple monsters could inflict multiple negative levels.
Chess Pwn wrote:
1) yes, though poison while similar behaves differently. Maybe that's what you're remembering.

I think it's a combo of these two...."standard action" versus "if hit", and poison.

And regarding 2 and 3 - thanks for the reality (ha!) check. the goblin didn't make the save with the +2 so it didn't matter, but I'll let the players know that I made that call in error. I didn't let the water freeze as I thought if it did that, it would state it.

Thanks a lot!

I have some rule questions I can't find definitive answers for. Some might be my mind filling in blanks from house rules and/or 3.5 and/or other games. Thanks in advance.

1) if you get hit multiple times in a round from something that level drains (say, a vampire) do you get 1 negative level each time?

2) Monster is under water (lets say 10 feet under). PC in on shore, right above. PC Casts cone of cold. Does:
a) Monster get the benefit of evasion/bonuses to save?
b) Water freeze?

3) Monster is under water (lets say 10 feet under). PC in on shore, right above. Monster casts cone of cold. Does:
a) PC get any benefits?
b) Water freeze?

RAW answers and "no RAW but I would rule....." answers both welcome.

I am the DM, and this is my take:
1) No, that ability from a specific creature can only affect a PC once per round. Multiple vampires can each use it to apply multiple level drains. I forget why I think this way though.
2a) +2 circumstance bonus
2b) No

3) Hasn't happened yet so I haven't needed to rule it.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Unimportant wrote:

Given all the inherent problems with continuing to level spellcasting classes with no spells available past 4th level ones, you may want to consider just going the full Monty and capping *all* classes at, say, 6th to 8th level...

IOW, why reinvent the wheel when "E6/P6" has already been done and hashed out in thorough detail?

Apparently because I forgot about it. http://p6codex.com/


Ok, so basic idea:

Start with Golarion/similar world and Pathfinder as it currently is.

All spells level 4 and higher no longer work. All abilities that use those spells no longer function (replace with a lower level spell MetaMagicked in general, others will be on a case-by-case basis. For instance, major hexes would have to be looked at on a case by case basis). So no teleport, plane shift, raise dead, restoration...etc.

Items that need those spells to be made can't be made anymore.

Classes still get the spell slots, but can only fill them with meta magic.

Now other then the obvious issues created because of this (no means to get back negative levels, no plane shifting) what's the effect on the more martial classes?

The setting would be 1000+ yrs after the "no spells above 3rd work" went into effect.

Negative and positive input welcomed.

Ridiculon wrote:
If one wizard on the material plane co-located with another wizard on the shadow plane and they both cast Create Pit on a third caster who was shadow walking between them could we all go outside and get some fresh air?

It's times like this I wish some comp sci/physics major would make a physics model based on Pathfinder rules. So when a question like this occurs, all you have to do is open the model, set up the situation, and see what happens.

To: All that replied.

Huh - I am happily corrected! Thanks all.

Zarius wrote:
Barkskin is entirely negated by touch attacks, luckily. As, actually, is Mage Armor . So, I only have to worry about it if the fight lasts more than seven touch attacks. Though, hopefully, he'll either surrender or be taken out by then. Most likely, the runt will be on his ass by then.

Have to disagree with the Mage Armor. It's a force effect, so it applies to touch AC.

"“The paladin is right,” Morg asserted. Giants were chief among the goblin’s favored enemies, and he’d had more than his share of painful, personal dealings with these giants in particular. “The gaints won’t wait for us to explain why we broke into their hall. They’ll definitely want to eat the ratfolk and me, but you two might be taken alive for ransom back to The Barrows…Of course, that’s not what’s going to happen,” the goblin hinted nocking an arrow into his bow to ensure he’d made his point."

It's more accurate to state that Gaints were Morg's favored enemies.

CBDunkerson wrote:

Given that the odds are exactly the same, why should it be necessary to roll more dice?

My players love rolling dice.

When I am a player I love rolling dice.

When I GM, and the player OR the enemy has concealment and/or blink, I do the two-rolls way, and I prefer to have the player roll.

I find I get more player involvement if they get to roll the percentile to see if what they did worked.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Paul Griffith wrote:
Guys we can stop. The primary question already answered. Thanks.

hehehehe welcome to forums, my friend. Valiant effort.

Chess Pwn wrote:
Now there are people that wont be focused ever.

This too, 100x. In the one game I alluded to before there was one player whose every line had to be a joke, every act had to be funny, the more absurd and immature the better. No one else goaded him on, but that's what he did because that's what he liked doing *shrug*.

Lobolusk wrote:

can you walk me through the Mechanics of being flippant to NPCS? ie Intimidate fails diplomacy fails ect..

ie what are the in game consequences? i have a few characters that try to smooth things over with his High Diplomacy.

I hope none of my players are reading this....

....when they are "joking" and I want to get things going again, and they are in presence of an NPC, I just play it straight. When they try to fix things (Intimidate/Diplomacy), I have a simple set of DCs in my head, in general:

PCs did what? vs DC
Minor Misspeak DC 10
Major Misspeak DC 15
Minor insult DC 20
Major Insult DC 25 to 40, depending

Or I just do diplomacy Vs Sense Motive (does the NPC realize the PC realized they messed up and they have the advantage)....etc.

For intimidate it's similar, again VS sense motive ("You joked about my infertility and NOW you're trying to threaten me? Things aren't going to well for you...").

As for in-game consequences, I just imagine being the NPC, and it's the real world. Someone said/treated me the way the PCs did. What would I do?

Walk away and not talk to then again?
Insult them back?
Let them know they aren't welcome here?
No longer offer my services?
Offer my services at 10x the usual rate, and let everyone in the town know the party are full of jerks?
Be suspicious?

Make the person feel real. Think if you and three friends came to a small town, met the local sheriff, and insulted them to their face. What do you expect would happen?

From my past experience at a table where something similar occurred, there are the main things that could contribute to it (I am not at your table, and I don't know the people, so I am making generalities).

1) The players don't want a serious game. The people making the jokes/acting up are having fun doing that, and they are playing the game the way they want to. There's also the possibility they are playing the game the way they *expect* others want them to play. My advice if you think either of these are the reason, before the game starts tell the players that you want this to be a more serious game, tone down on the silliness. If the players wanted the silliness, this could be an issue.

2) The setting/GM is playing things silly. I really don't think this is a factor in your game, but it was in the game I was part of.

Orfamay Quest wrote:

Maybe, but what it actually says is that the manifestations of the spell are obvious. (Even if the spell has no visual effect.)

I'm thinking of this type of thing here (look at about 0:55) when the wizard casts a spell, and the narrator helpfully says "Rock Shower" as he does it, just in case you missed that a huge shower of rocks are falling from the sky. You get the same effect if you're under an invisibility spell in that game -- the narrator still says that someone cast Rock Shower, but it doesn't break invisibility.

Maybe it's more like getting the heeby jeebies/goosebumps?

A weird feeling/sensation that "everyone" gets when a spell is cast in the general area (5 ft? 20 ft? 100 ft radius?).

Doesn't have to be an unconformable feeling, but that's the best way I can explain it.

I get it, I just don't think that was the intent. But I ain't the FAQ-response-writer, so what do I know? Maybe it was.

wraithstrike wrote:

I think the FAQ does intend to say who cast the spell, but it says nothing about overcoming invisibility. That is the question at hand. It is clear that the FAQ won't let you sit in a bar, and cast spells while drinking tea, and nobody will notice.

Well yes, I get that, and I get that the FAQ stated that the reason why you know a spell was cast was because of manifestations.

The question is "Are the manifestations created by a spell caster casting a spell visible if the caster is invisible?"

At my table I ruled "Yes" because that seemed to fit with the flow of the game, and felt consistent with the rest of the rules (granted i thought about it for a total of 5 seconds, but it was a gut decision and it still feels right). I could easily go with a "NO" as well if my players want it that way.

The FAQ just gives us this undefined "manifestations" which I tried to extrapolate from a meaningful answer to, in the case of the invisible caster.

Orfamay Quest wrote:
AlaskaRPGer wrote:

I see it similar to if someone casts a still, silent spell/SLA that has no material components, can you tell they are casting a spell?

As per the FAQ, you know a spell has been cast.

That's not the same as knowing who cast the spell.

FAQ wrote:

Although this isn’t directly stated in the Core Rulebook, many elements of the game system work assuming that all spells have their own manifestations, regardless of whether or not they also produce an obvious visual effect, like fireball. You can see some examples to give you ideas of how to describe a spell’s manifestation in various pieces of art from Pathfinder products, but ultimately, the choice is up to your group, or perhaps even to the aesthetics of an individual spellcaster, to decide the exact details. Whatever the case, these manifestations are obviously magic of some kind, even to the uninitiated; this prevents spellcasters that use spell-like abilities, psychic magic, and the like from running completely amok against non-spellcasters in a non-combat situation. Special abilities exist (and more are likely to appear in Ultimate Intrigue) that specifically facilitate a spellcaster using chicanery to misdirect people from those manifestations and allow them to go unnoticed, but they will always provide an onlooker some sort of chance to detect the ruse.

(FAQ is above for reference)

Huh. I didn't take it as "you know a spell was cast in the general area", but "you know a spell was cast by this person".

Well, personally that's how I ruled. I'll see if the players want to change it. I don't mind it one way or the other, just want to be consistent with my players.

Doting because I am interested where this leads.

I see it similar to if someone casts a still, silent spell/SLA that has no material components, can you tell they are casting a spell? The implication from the FAQ appears to me to say "YES". I'm not saying that it's consistent with any other rule or ruling, or that it doesn't make feats useless, just that's what I get out of it.

As a GM, I ruled that casting a spell, unless you have something special, does have a visual manifestation. The only time it came up was when the party was fighting imp-like creatures, and the imp previously cast invisibility, and then 2nd round cast greater teleport - they saw a flash of magical light in the square it was, and they got to make spellcraft checks. The question "Would the party see anything?" came to me and I decided "yep". No one argued against it.

I think I'll bring it up to the table next session and ask if they want to keep that interpretation. It made sense to me at the time.

Snowlilly wrote:

Fun and games in Rapan Athuk

** spoiler omitted **

...my players brought a certain item back to Zelkor's Ferry to investigate further, and said something they shouldn't, and it was quite the interesting encounter.

I thoroughly enjoyed both Cowfinder posts, but the original posts are gone? That happen to anyone else?

Dotted for future interest (sorry, I don't feel like playtesting)

If it came up at my table I'd allow it after the hit was known (and if it's a possible crit), but before damage was rolled.