The racial trait Elven Immunity does exactly what it says and nothing more...
Seems to me that it's fairly open to GM interpretation whether "elves are immune to this effect" is based on a trait called Elven Immunities and not just because they are somehow magically immune by way of the fact that they are an elf, completely disconnected from the trait that grants them their immunities. Maybe if the ability was based on the fact that the creature in question does not WANT to paralyse elves. But if it's because of elf biology, I'd say the trait is the reason.
How do you report a scenario that was not finished? For example, a group that completely wiped in the first encounter. Two of the characters are dead and not able to raise, one died but was able to raise.
Will each of these players be able to play this scenario again because they didn't complete even a single encounter?
If so, and I report the game online, won't the system be upset when someone tries to give them credit for the scenario again later?
Do I get full GM credit?
Because one of the characters was raised, am I right in thinking I would not tick the "character died" checkbox on the reporting screen?
Any assistance appreciated. Thankfully this rarely happens!
Thought I should come here just to mention that the website has changed domains - we're now using http://www.pfrpg.com.au in the hopes of attracting more people looking to play Pathfinder and PFS online. We're not just for Australia, though; we have a number of people playing from the US, Canada and Singapore. I think there was a post on the boards here from a Venture-Captain who played with us - yep, found it: http://paizo.com/forums/dmtz5es3?Pathfinder-Society-on-IRC#2
I'd suggest that the concensus is that the core rule is subject to interpretation and that the scenario is providing some guidance to indicate when the rule comes into play.
Spoiler:
I guess I'm surprised that the common interpretation of "while in battle" and "in combat" (the phrases used in the Core Rulebook while describing when the Ride check is required with an untrained mount) is only melee. It makes sense that if the archer is on a horse 100 feet away and shooting then the horse may not be close enough to the fray to be spooked, but if they're only 30 feet away I'm sure the sight, sounds and smell of combat would be enough to frighten it.
Having said that, for this particular scenario a Ride check only on the charge would have been enough to prevent it being a guaranteed killer. This particular GM interpreted "melee" as being only when making attacks with a 5ft reach, and not the reach of the lance.
As the GM had ignored all the trees/undergrowth (I'm told she did it to make things less complex, although she alternatively suggested that she thought they were "just eyecandy"), there was no issue with getting exact angles for Ride-by Attack. Also, again because of the lack of difficult terrain or anything hindering charge, the captain never ended his turn anywhere near another character. Unfortunately no serious ranged attackers and people were using all their actions to just survive with that many lanced charges to be able to ready an attack against the horse (although, without reach weapons and the lance being reach, that would have been hard too).
Two casts of grease on the lance was the only thing that saved the day.
Ride checks only apply if they are in melee combat
So the consensus is that the scenario is intentionally making a new rule for these mounts even though it refers specifically to the rule in the core rulebook? And not that the scenario mistakenly used the word "melee" when summarising the official rule?
ZomB wrote:
Spoiler:
It also means the charge by the captain has an extra chance of failing to hit which is good as that charge with a lance can kill a low level character.
That's something. The last time I saw it run, that didn't happen.
Spoiler:
Also, as you mention the path, that suggests that you don't allow movement through the green leafy sections of the map? Or that you consider them shrubs/undergrowth and therefore difficult terrain that can't be charged through? The last time this was run, the GM allowed the captain to charge through the 150x150 ft area without restriction, no ride checks, and was therefore doing 2d8+6 damage every round at tier 1-2. Hence the questions.
Apologies if this has been asked before, I did a search and wasn't able to find specifically this being mentioned. Please point to a post that has addressed it if it exists.
Spoiler:
In the first encounter, at tier 1-2, the Aspis Consortium mercenaries and the captain are riding mounts not trained in combat. The core rulebook says that controlling a mount that is not combat trained requires a DC 20 ride check. The scenario, although pointing to that rule, uses the term "melee combat". I have seen more than one GM run this as being only when the mounts are within 5 feet of an opponent wielding a melee weapon is the check made. This seems to make the encounter incredibly difficult, almost always resulting in at least one death, especially when they are fighting 8+ mercenaries along with the charging captain.
Having said that, assuming the captain must make a ride check every round as long as he is in battle, which uses a movement action, can he still charge? I have had debates before over whether you are using the mount's actions or the character's actions when you charge.
Also, does anyone add difficult terrain to this encounter? This was almost suicide for one party (one character did die), and I felt the GM was a little liberal in the captain being able to charge from one side of the map to the other every round, using ride-by attack, without any form of hindrance. This may have only been an issue with the lack of ride checks though.
tl;dr - dot points!
SCENARIO refers to controlling untrained mounts in combat, referring specifically to the core rulebook section on the Ride skill. However, while summarising the rule, uses the term "enter melee combat".
The CORE RULEBOOK, specifically referenced by the scenario, uses the term "while in battle". Further, the Mounted Combat section of the rulebook is quite explicit about untrained mounts being frightened in combat and requiring a DC 20 Ride check.
I would suggest that the intention for this encounter is for every opponent, mercenaries and captain alike, to make the ride check every round of combat as appears to be the case RAW in the core rulebook, and not just while a mount is within 5 feet of a melee combatant.
If the above suggestion is indeed the case, can the captain still charge as in his tactics? He uses a movement action and charge is full-round. It seems to me, according to the Mounted Combat rule of the core rulebook, the mount makes the charge and the captain is just using a standard action at the end of it to make an attack. Therefore, he could control his mount with a movement action and still charge as per tactics.
Should this map have difficult terrain? Or, as someone just pointed out to me, are those TREES dotting the landscape and therefore completely impassable? The last GM I saw run this ignored the trees (which I thought might have been bushes causing difficult terrain) and just charged right over them.
With the PFS changes in 4.1 I understand that tier 1-2 sanctioned modules can be replayed. If I'm not mistaken that means that Crypt of the Everflame can be replayed. The rules state that you can play it through one time on a level 2 character, but all other times must be a level 1 character. How would this affect Crypt of the Everflame? The CotE chronicle sheet allows you to apply it to any character up to level 11. If you are able to replay it (which may not be the case - maybe it's counted as a tier 1-11 module because of the nature of the chronicle sheet), can you only apply subsequent credits to a level 1 character? For example, my players play it through one time and apply them to characters of level 5 or 6 or whatever they have, but after that they can only apply it to level 1 characters?
I tend to agree on the mercy bit though to me it depends on the situation. I've never been one to softball players but I also don't kill them if I don't have to.
Yeah, this is only times when it's possible or even likely. There's often no option for mercy - outsiders or animals etc probably won't accept your surrender or stabilise you if you all start dying.
If characters surrender, they will get the same treatment as when NPC's try to surrender: continued combat. Only against the most lenient of foes (such as town guards) would the NPC's surrender. If a common band of thieves ambushes the party and knocks them out, why leave witnesses behind? If they surrender, how do you know one isn't a wizard, about to blow up the entire alley with a fireball? Players might be able to bribe their way out of combat before hand, but I would be quite leery of handing my players a full on eject button in combat.
Why can't NPCs surrender? I've accepted the surrender of NPCs before, and so have my players. And there are often unconscious NPCs at the end of combat that are revived instead of executed. Am I missing a rule here that says an NPC can't surrender?
There are plenty of IC reasons why someone might not execute a party who has surrendered or been knocked unconscious. Real life thieves don't kill everyone, seems a bit flawed to assume all thieves will kill. Just because someone might be a wizard isn't really enough reason by itself to summarily execute them. As a player I've handled known enemy spellcasters who have been made unconscious or surrendered; confiscating divine foci and/or binding hands, gagging, removing component pouches, etc are pretty good ways to be (almost) certain that a spellcaster won't be a threat to you anymore.
Anyway, my question isn't should I allow players to surrender - unless there's a PFS rule I've missed that specifically mentions surrendering/unconscious characters and says that they must be killed, then I think it's a GM discretion. And for the sake of these questions, assume the discretion has already been made on the side of mercy.
Seems almost harsher than killing them. And how do you handle the gold they have? Do they have to have told you at the start of the scenario that they're keeping the 8k gold at the Lodge or their usual accommodation? Or do they only lose all their expensive equipment?
Quote:
There is a set amount of gold you get as a reward for accomplishing each encounter. There are even criteria for what players need to accomplish to get that reward. "If the players find the safe under Bob's desk, reward each player with 250 gold".
Any mission you miss, you miss out on gold. If you only play two encounters you don't get exp and miss out on the final PA (which also has a success criteria).
I'm aware of how the gold (and PA) is usually handled, but do they still GET that gold if they've surrendered or been robbed? Why is it "two" encounters? Is it using the death rule or is there another rule that I've overlooked?
So can a GM do that? Strip players of their gold and equipment because they surrendered or got knocked unconscious? I kind of think as a player maybe I need to be specific about exactly where all my gold is!
What about the rest of it, though? Say you surrender two encounters into a scenario. Do you get XP for it? Do you get any gold? What if it's three encounters in? Four?
I have an IRC channel where we play PFS a few times a week. Every now and then the players can get into a serious mess - sometimes because they're outgunned, sometimes because there are newer players who make really silly tactical mistakes (like running away from an encounter by running further into an area, and into the next encounter).
The other day a game was being run where the players had found themselves in a fairly improbable encounter (by making the abovementioned tactical error), and they could have potentially surrendered.
First Steps 1:
Similarly, while running First Steps 1 earlier this week, my players were completely rolled in the final encounter. By the third or fourth round every one of them was below 0hp. My logic was that, not wanting to be murderers as well as thieves this early in their career, the NPC opponent cleric stabilized the group and then, I guess, robbed them.
I don't know if a GM can really strip characters of their equipment/gold like that, though, so I ruled that they lost the artifact from the last task.
If your characters surrender or fall to a TPU (Total Party Unconsciousness) and there is no logical reason to believe the NPC opponents would summarily execute them, how would you handle it? Do they lose any of their equipment? Is it scenario over? Do they still get XP, or is it dependent on a success condition/total number of encounters played?
[4:49:38 PM] <@DM> they look at you
[4:49:38 PM] <+Ballig> "Caution does not mean a lack of confidence."
[4:49:57 PM] <@DM> and ready their quarterstaves
[4:50:02 PM] <+Cleric> they look at him?
[4:50:25 PM] <@DM> yes
[4:50:43 PM] * +Rogue swears under his breath
[4:51:10 PM] <+Ballig> is he within their torchlight?
[4:51:24 PM] <@DM> have you seen the modifiers to hide after attacking
[4:51:27 PM] <@DM> it's a -20
[4:51:31 PM] <+Ballig> er
[4:51:32 PM] <@DM> and yes
[4:51:35 PM] <+Ballig> who did he attack
[4:51:41 PM] <+Rogue> Is chucking a pebble counted as attacking?
[4:51:48 PM] <+Ballig> he didn't throw anything at them
[4:52:02 PM] <+Ballig> it's a misdirection
[4:53:24 PM] <@DM> yes
[4:53:30 PM] <+Ballig> er
[4:53:32 PM] <+Ballig> that makes no sense
[4:53:39 PM] <+Ballig> you can't just interpret "throwing a pebble" as an attack action
[4:53:45 PM] <+Ballig> and then insist he gets a magic -20 to his stealth because of it
[4:53:47 PM] <@DM> sure I can
[4:53:50 PM] <@DM> and I just did
The names have been changed to protect the innocent.
Yeah, there was no attack roll made. One of the other players suggested it should be a bluff roll, but the DM insisted that the rules clearly state an attack action causes a -20 to your stealth and that is why the guards were looking directly at the rogue.
Honestly, it was because he knew the guards were a low CR (he even said it afterwards) and he just wanted us to kill them and get on with it. He doesn't really like it when we're cautious because he feels it slows down the game. Of course, we don't really like it when we all get killed, and we're not privy to the CR of an encounter ahead of time. If he had just pushed us to continue on instead of trying to pull out some crazy rules interpretation (and then tell me that *I* was misinterpreting the rules when I suggest a distraction like this shouldn't cause a penalty) I would probably have been fine with it.
He has a bit of a history of crazy "by the wording of the book" interpretations that end up with people having some kind of magical penalty or disadvantage bestowed on them for no real reason. He's also a rules lawyer when he plays, so it's not entirely surprising. Sometimes it ends up feeling a bit more like a computer game than a tabletop RPG, with far too much rigidity in the rulings and not enough DM discretion.
Thanks for your input, guys. At least I know I'm not completely crazy with my interpretation if a few others agree, and the one guy who was leaning on the side of my DM probably wouldn't have gone with a gung-ho -20 penalty.
I don't know if I'd apply the full penalty for an attack, just because he didn't have to use sufficient force to injure an adult human. Otherwise to a large extent I agree with your GM.
I probably harp on this too much, but I dislike the use of "stealth" as a verb. You can deceive yourself very easily if you focus on what dice you rolled, rather than what your character physically did. He moved silently and then he hid.
First, it doesn't matter if he was "behind some guards" as there's no facing in Pathfinder. Was he behind some cover? If the guards could see him, he certainly should have had a problem and needed an immediate new Stealth check if he made a sudden movement.
If he was hidden from their view, that's a little bit better. He just had to control the noise of picking up the pebble, then possible noises from his gear, shifts of his feet, expelled breath and so on when making the afore-mentioned sharp hand movement.
He didn't remain still and quiet. He threw something. He needed exceptional skill to complete that physical effort without giving himself away, which apparently he failed to do.
I say "behind" only as an indication that he passed by the other side of them, not as a reference to facing. The whole stealth thing is abstract, of course - the same as facing is abstract. The idea being that if you "stealth" then you are making all efforts to be out of the sight and hearing of any potential observers, whether you do so by avoiding the way they are facing or whatever. While I agree that doing an action would cause a new perception check for any potential observers (because, as you say, he had to prevent his equipment making sound and his sudden movement being noticed), I still don't see why it would attract a -20 stealth penalty. I'm pretty sure the spirit of that penalty is meant to be when you are attacking someone (or sniping, as specifically mentioned in the stealth rules).
"Throw a pebble to cause a distraction while stealthed" is a fairly cliched move. Still not convinced that ruling a -20 penalty on it is realistic.
Playing a scenario today and our rogue stealths to the other side of a room so he is behind some guards. He then throws a pebble to the side of the room he just came from to cause a noise down the corridor in the hopes of distracting one or both of the guards to go investigate.
The DM ruled that throwing the pebble (not /at/ anyone, just down a corridor) counted as an attack action which gave him a -20 to his stealth check and caused both guards to immediately look directly at him.
Obviously I disagree. Can anyone explain this interpretation to me in a way that makes sense?
