Seeing as how after this two month hiatus, its kind of hard to tell what effects and stats everyone has, I want to propose doing away with the Stat's and Status Spoiler tags we currently have, and to get these values in the body of each post... Between the x's is a small example of the way I would prefer things to be formatted...
I'm using Dylans values for my example, but feel free to track whatever values you wish in your own posts.
Status: hp 56/56; 3/3 Harrow pts; 5/5 Inspire; 5/5; Strength Surge 5/5; Channel Energy 5/5
--------------------------------------------------------------
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
You should be able to just copy from your previous post and make any adjustments needed. It's not vital that you add bold and italics to the post, but it does help it become more readable.
Write your effects and duration left of said effect, and add these bonuses to your Stats inside parenthesis. (The example provided shows Shield of Faith applying to all 3 AC types. Dont modify the default number itself, just show the bonus is active by applying it inside the parenthesis.)
In an effort to simplify some things, I'd like to make a proposal.
Group Initiative wrote:
Group Initiative
Take the average of all initiative modifiers for each the Hero's and the Enemies, and make one roll for the group, and another for enemies.
One of the more difficult things I've had to deal with since we've started this is keeping rounds tracked properly when the initiatives are split up and you have some hero's at the top of the order and some at the bottom.
Making matters even more complicated is when having boss like enemies with separate initiative modifiers thrown into the mix. I already group up like enemies in an effort to simplify things, this would just be expanding that a bit further.
Granted, this punishes those with a focus on initiative, while boosting those who have lower scores. So that is one downside.
Not sure about rules covering this (except for the improved familiar), but in practical terms, does it often matter much? A familiar can just run away, and the wizard would no longer be able to "spy" on them once further than a mile, so for all practical purposes, it may as well be severed. And most wizards would then voluntarily sever it anyway so as to be able to get a new familiar.
Empathic Link is limited to a mile, however at level 13 a wizard can scry on their familiar once per day. You can also cast scry as early as 7th level if one was inclined.
So while you're probably right that it often wont matter in the majority of cases, this was one of those rare occasions where it could be considered useful.
Even more useful was one of the abilities of the eye.
Kingmaker spoiler:
Familiar farsight at will (if the user has a familiar or an
animal companion, he may use clairaudience/clairvoyance
to observe the world through his familiar, despite any
intervening distance as long as he and the familiar are on
the same plane)
Hence my desire to keep the familiar as a secret, unknowing spy.
Was he hiding his actions leading to evil from his familiar? That just seems odd, given the close nature of the bond. Not unreasonable, just odd. Seems like their empathic bond might tingle in some way.
Yes, anytime he needed to perform some obvious evil act, it was done so apart from the rest of the party and his familiar. Perfect example including the background on what happened is this:
Kingmaker Spoilers:
So, around level 8 or so, we destroyed a cyclops lich with a mysterious looking gem for an eye. My chaotic neutral wizard decided "What harm could it really do, I'm great with willpower" and picked up the gem... A Nat-1 later and my Diviner wizard wins initiative against the party, grabs a dagger to pluck out his own eyeball and places the gem in the empty socket, which heals around the gem immediately.
Granted, this didn't turn him evil immediately, however, upon research, he realizes that in order to get the most out of this new found gem for an eye, he would have to be of compatible alignment. The wizard then decides to dedicate his life to unlocking the secrets of the gem, and to discovering a way to prolong his life in the same manner as the Cyclops Lich.
He saves his money, sells a few items, and commissions a mind-blank ring from a helpful crafter.
With his mind protected, he moves to unlock the secrets of the eye by murdering innocent townsfolk. His alignment would quickly turn to Neutral Evil from these dastardly deeds.
Suddenly the power of the eye is revealed to him, and he can see with perfect clarity.
One of the eye's greatest powers, is haunting beckon. About a year later, he decides that the neighboring nation of Pitax needs to be taught a lesson after we beat back their army in battle. With most of the men of Pitax still returning home in defeat, the wizard decides to disguise himself as the head wizard of the nation of Pitax. He then uses the haunting beckon feature of his eye to lure roughly 50 women and children from their beds, to a small building inside the city walls. From there, every one of them was transported via teleportation circle to the wizards secret compound, where each and every one of them were devoured by servants of Abaddon and turned into soul gems.
Yes, each and every time I needed to do something overtly evil, it was done away from party and the familiar.
As a side note, as was alluded to earlier, this wizard is in the process of transforming to lich, and as this campaign is finally wrapping up, there will be one more final battle between the rest of the party (my new character included) and this lich and his planar army.
It really has been fun to keep his deeds a secret, and he's been one of the most enjoyable characters I have ever played.. It will be a shame to have to kill him soon :)
We finally let the other players in on all the behind the scenes things that had been going on, but were only alluded to. Things like; Cursing enemy combatants at a tournament causing them to struggle giving our nation the edge in competition, Luring many women and children to their deaths, The sudden disappearances of important officials in enemy kingdoms. Our kingdom really thrived under this wizards "subtle" influence :)
Prodigious daily use of Mind Blank spell from a custom item in a campaign that provides way too much wealth by level.
I'll let the GM know that we probably err'd but that it shouldn't effect the story all that much. Now that the cat's out of the bag, she will sever the bond.
However, since time is on his side, said wizard may end up trying to capture said familiar and use a helm of opposite alignment on her before acquiring a new familiar. Could make for another fun twist to the story.
Sorry for the late response, but thank you all for your help. It seems pretty clear that an alignment shift should break the bond.
Now that it's clear that the Wizard has turned evil, the familiar will sever her bond with him.
That does bring up an interesting question though. Up until this point, it hadn't been clear to anyone in the party, familiar included, that the wizard had turned Neutral Evil (He was evil for over 5 years in game). Should the bond have remained while the wizard was continuing his ruse of being the original compatible alignment?
It certainly made for an interesting plot twist, that's for sure.
Just a side note: how did the rogue sarcastically almost kill someone? I feel like the wizard may have been in the right to attack the rogue for almost murdering an ally. Unless this cohort was an undead of course.
My cohort is a negative energy channeling cleric. The Rogue went invisible (improved invis cast by his bard cohort. He shoots arrows). The cleric double burst hitting the rogue twice. He yell'd at her to stop that..
Cleric moves to a new location and single bursts.. This time Rogue is fine, he's no longer in the way. However, next round the rogue moves within her range again, trying to get his point blank shot bonus, and the cleric thinking she's fine, double bursts, dropping the Rogue unconscious and bleeding out. The battle is also finished at this point as the enemy also dies.
The Ranger (best buds with the rogue) heard the Rogue drop and was able to locate him and force a potion down his throat saving his life. Rogue gets up, fires an arrow while still invisible at the Cleric and says, "Oops, didn't see you there." (Invisibility also drops at this point). The shot took well over half her HP. Wizard didn't take to kindly to that, and decided to cast finger of death on the rogue.. He makes his save, but it does enough damage to drop him again.. Afterward there was a mini-battle between the Rogue, Ranger, and Bard Cohort, vs the Wizard, Familiar, and his Cleric Cohort, while the good cleric tried to make peace and keep people from dying.
It was fun, and people would drop dead, come alive, drop dead again.... Breath of life had to be used on the rogue once.. Yet nobody managed to completely die before the wizard decided to teleport out of there and seek his revenge by destroying the town.
As the title suggests, can a Familiar voluntarily end it's bond with it's Wizard master?
The background on this is my once Chaotic Neutral Wizard had a Chaotic Good Lyrakien Azata familiar. Partly through a magically evil eyeball, along with the wizards desire to soon become a lich (within the next week), the wizard is now Neutral Evil, meaning their alignments are no longer compatible.
Now through many years in this campaign, the Neutral Evil wizard has been doing unspeakable things without the knowledge of the rest of the party or the wizards familiar. Said wizard has kept everyone in the dark about his true intentions.
This all finally came to a head, when the wizard finally snapped and attacked the party. (He was provoked when the party rogue sarcastically shot and nearly killed his cohort).
As punishment for this deed, the Wizard left them all stranded in the woods (including the Familiar), and set up an elaborate trap for the soon to return party members, and even completely destroyed the parties home base, killing many townsfolk in the process.
The wizards evilness is now on full display, and even the familiar can see this. However, the wizard will not release his bond with the familiar due to an ability he has to see through the familiar (at will), causing the familiar to be a perfect spy on the party. The party has not ditched the familiar yet meaning that the familiar is still of use to him. (It was ruled that the familiar is unaware when the wizard is using her as a spy)
So, as it stands, what we need to know, is if a familiar can release the bond on their own. Because she will soon discover that he is a lost cause (soon to be a lich) and will not be able to be turned back to the side of good.
If you can point to a rule on it great, otherwise, I'd still love to hear opinions on the matter.
Bombs are fire damage (normally) and therefore they deal energy (fire) damage which is not subject to DR.
Therefore, bombs work normally against a gaseous target.
Although, I would say that the gaseous target won't break the bomb's container - throw a bomb at a cloud of gas and it will pass right through and break when it hits a floor or wall behind the gas. Not sure that's RAW but it makes sense to me. I would therefore expect the alchemist to bomb the floor where the gas is located or, if the gas is flying, it might be impossible to bomb (but alchemists can learn other ways to convert bombs to different attacks, like a cone effect, if they wish).
I think I have my answer after working it through a bit with what you mentioned above.. A gaseous form can still be attacked by weapons as the spell points out that they still have an AC and although the AC is lower due to no armor, they also gain DR/10 Magic. So even a non magical weapon can still do damage.
The alchemist bombs are considered weapons for the purpose of feats, and are SU weapons meaning they are considered magical. Even so, the fact that they are energy damage as you said, they would not be subject to the DR rule here anyway..
So if I worked this out correctly, they can indeed target the gaseous form and it will do full damage, and not just splash.
Hey everyone, I'm having trouble trying to find an answer to this. What happens when an alchemist trys to bomb someone in Gaseous Form?
Gaseous Form:
School transmutation; Level alchemist 3, bard 3, magus 3, sorcerer/wizard 3; Domain air 3
CASTING
Casting Time 1 standard action
Components S, M/DF (a bit of gauze and a wisp of smoke)
EFFECT
Range touch
Target willing corporeal creature touched
Duration 2 min./level (D)
Saving Throw none; Spell Resistance no
DESCRIPTION
The subject and all its gear become insubstantial, misty, and translucent. Its material armor (including natural armor) becomes worthless, though its size, Dexterity, deflection bonuses, and armor bonuses from force effects still apply. The subject gains DR 10/magic and becomes immune to poison, sneak attacks, and critical hits. It can't attack or cast spells with verbal, somatic, material, or focus components while in gaseous form. This does not rule out the use of certain spells that the subject may have prepared using the feats Silent Spell, Still Spell, and Eschew Materials. The subject also loses supernatural abilities while in gaseous form. If it has a touch spell ready to use, that spell is discharged harmlessly when the gaseous form spell takes effect.
A gaseous creature can't run, but it can fly at a speed of 10 feet and automatically succeeds on all Fly skill checks. It can pass through small holes or narrow openings, even mere cracks, with all it was wearing or holding in its hands, as long as the spell persists. The creature is subject to the effects of wind, and it can't enter water or other liquid. It also can't manipulate objects or activate items, even those carried along with its gaseous form. Continuously active items remain active, though in some cases their effects may be moot.
Are the bombs considered a magic weapon to bypass DR? Do they just do splash damage since the target is insubstantial or do they get the full damage of the attack?
Perhaps the disconnect here is I've always been trying to back my position from RAI.
I've made it perfectly clear WHY I think it should be the way it should be. We differ in what we think our priorities should be. I believe that all classes should apply the half level rule consistently based on Outcome as you said. You think the round rule should be applied consistently across all classes regardless of inconsistent outcomes.
To each his own I guess. I feel others have shown examples of inconsistent use of the round rule already up-thread, which makes me respect it a little bit less than you do.
I also feel as though RAW is vague enough on when to round and when not to, leading to the confusion here, which allows the GM to make a judgment call on this ability. I will judge conservatively.
As far as the "Screw you over" comments, they do carry a negative connotation that I feel is unnecessary here. At no point was I ever suggesting that the devs were trying to "screw the players over", and that's the words you were trying to put in my mouth. The rules of the game are always conservative on the half rule... Except Panache for some reason... The one exception I believe was un-intentional
Anyway, done arguing the half rule for now, as I've said my piece.
----
Jordakai wrote:
You misunderstood. A level 7 character fights CR 6 monsters to give the advantage to the PC's
On this tangent, isn't a group of L7 PC's fighting a CR-6 considered an "Easy" encounter? L7's should be fighting CR7 for an average encounter. Those CR7's likely have 8HD. Granted, the other aspect is that this doesn't take into account that there are supposed to be multiple encounters per day.
It's clear you don't understand what I'm saying. I'm positive others will understand my position without distorting my words. And re-wording myself, saying it a third time obviously wont help, so I'll just leave you with this as my final thoughts...
RAI trumps RAW. I believe RAI is to not round in this case, bringing it in line with EVERY OTHER ability in the game. Consistency, Amen!
If you say RAW trumps RAI, then I point out that RAW does not say you ABSOLUTELY must round in EVERY case. Quite the opposite. OCCASIONALLY the rules ASK you to round. Therefore I choose not to round in this case, since it does not ASK me to.
Either way, RAW or RAI I find this ability should not be rounded.
If I'm right, it should probably be Errata'd to clear things up.
If I'm wrong, a nice FAQ response would do a world of good.
Ah nicely done. Since you can't come up with any examples where you round up, you have to change the tactic and make me come up with completely irrelevant examples that have no actual bearing on game design, despite your claims.
I've never claimed anywhere that you round up, classical straw-man there. What I have done is provide evidence that satisfies my burden of proof that Panache/grit is the only rounding mechanic where rounding down is beneficial. Unless you can provide evidence otherwise, that argument stands.
Jodokai wrote:
Do you honestly believe this is how the conversation went: **Fictional Conversation Omitted**
No. I do not believe the conversation went that way. That would imply intent, I clearly stated that if anything, Panache/Grits Uniqueness to the general rule was UN-intentional.
My own made up conversation would go something like this.
Dev 1: Let's say they get Panache back if the monster is at least half their level.
Dev 2: Sounds good, lets do it.
... Sometime during testing
Dev 1: Ok, so my level five Gunslinger kills the monster, What was his HD?
Dev 2: Two
Dev 1: Dang! not quite half. Maybe that big guy over there will get me some grit back!
Jodokai wrote:
The Devs (some devs, probably way back at Gary Gygax) decided the general rule would be to round down.
Yes, that is the general rule.
Jodokai wrote:
Whether that benefits or hinders is completely and totally irrelevant, and I'm forced to wonder if you realize that, and are just trying anything to prove your side of the argument.
I'm suggesting it is absolutely NOT irrelevant. Consistency matters. And I fully believe that you were never intended to gain grit back on a 2HD creature at L5. It's an unintentional oversight.
In spite of ALL that, if you read the RAW in the strictest sense, you still don't need to round here.
Jodokai wrote:
EDIT: as far as CR, yes, it probably would be best to ignore arguments that disprove your interpretation of how the game was designed
I'm ignoring it because it truly is irrelevant to any of the arguments being made here.
So you're going with the "you don't round because the devs want to screw you over" theory? And you're asking me if I'm serious?
That's not what I'm saying at all. It has absolutely NOTHING to do with "screwing" anybody over, and everything to do with consistent game design... I'll try to explain again.
Panache/Grit, is the ONLY game mechanic involving half/level for ANY Class, Monster, NPC, ect, where rounding helps them instead of hinders.
More examples:
A Clerics Channel Save DC is hindered by the 1/2 rule
The Save DC's against Oracle Revelations is hindered by the 1/2 rule
Jodokai wrote:
@ Dr Grecko - So what if the monsters are hindered? They are NPC's so hindering them helps the people actually playing the game. The monsters were screwed when CR became level - 1... which was actually done to give PC's the advantage... Which goes against your "the devs want to screw us" theory.
Again, missing the point here.. This has nothing to do with "devs wanting to screw us" and everything to do with "devs being consistent in game design".
The CR = Level - 1 is irrelevant to the consistent 1/2 argument so I wont bother addressing it.
Again I'll say that Panache/Grit is the ONLY exception (that I could find) to the 1/2 rule.. whether it's Players or GM's controlling the character/monsters is irrelevant. Do you SERIOUSLY think this was intentional?
Rounding hit points helps players too, because a 1 HD monster has 4 hp not 5 hp. The evil monk's stunning fist save is 14 not 15. So no this wouldn't be the only time it helps players.
You mis-interpreted what I said. I'll try again.
In all cases I'm aware of, rounding down hinders the entity which is the recipient of the rounding. In both of your listed cases, a 4 hp monster is hindered by rounding. The evil monks stunning fist is hindered by rounding. Whether it helps or hurts the players is irrelevant to the discussion. It's the recipient of the rounding that is hindered.
It's the same with an Level 5 Undead Lord only being able to create 2HD burning skeletons.
The rounding rule always hinders the recipient of the round..
Why would you think that suddenly Panache should work any different?
Seriously, step back from the rounding argument for a second.. Does anyone here honestly think the intent was for grit to be recovered at less than half your HD?
As has been pointed out, yes I seriously believe that it was intended for you to get panache back if you are level 3 and defeat a level 1 monster.
Really? Presuming the rounding rule applies here (to which there is no conclusive rules support), Do you honestly think it was design intent for Panache/Grit to be the ONE ability where taking half your level rounded down actually helps you rather than hinders you?
Hmmn, how often do the rules actually ask you to round?
Actually, I agree now - the wording in the rounding section should be different. While I think it's pretty well accepted and established that you always round fractional values, this isn't what it actually says in the rules, thus is FAQ/errata worthy.
Anyway, you've made a good point, and I hope the wording gets fixed. Please tell me you're not planning to argue this in actual games tho, lol.
What I'll be planning to argue is for people to use common sense. This ability is clearly meant give Grit/Panache back only in cases where you take down a mob that is greater than or equal to half your level in HD.
The fact that people are trying to argue for and apply a vague game mechanic in an effort to squeeze out an unnecessary advantage that was never intended, is what I, and I hope any reasonable GM, would put a stop to.
Seriously, step back from the rounding argument for a second.. Does anyone here honestly think the intent was for grit to be recovered at less than half your HD?
Again, the general rule is more than what you suggest it is.
Rounding wrote:
Occasionally the rules ask you to round a result or value. Unless otherwise stated, always round down...
Are the rules asking you to round here? Not that I can see. You're assuming there is need here when logic suggests there is none.
Every time we round something, unless it specifically instructs us to round, we are making a judgment call on if we should or should not round. As you and I have both pointed out, there are numerous examples of times we shouldn't round, as well as times we should round. Each case we are making a judgment call based on common sense.
This is one of those examples where the rules do not ask you to round, and common sense says you should not round.
I eagerly await a Dev response. RAW is at best unclear, and I personally believe that the RAI in this case to not round.
First, Thank you for pointing out exceptions to the rounding rule.. These examples prove that you don't always round in every case.
In addition to HP, FC Bonus, My own example of half damage on a saving throw, I also found problems in the Massive Damage optional rule.
Massive Damage wrote:
If you ever sustain a single attack that deals an amount of damage equal to half your total hit points (minimum 50 points of damage) or more...
So if my HP is 101, and someone hits me for 50, does massive damage rule apply? I posit it does not.
After scouring the rules, I believe the problem lies in the way Panache/Grit is written. Nearly all cases where a character examines half his level, you are left with no question as to what it means..
The Undead Lord can create burning skeleton companion that cannot exceed half her cleric level... This leaves no question.. 2.5 or 2 does not exceed half her level, and she can make the skeleton
Panache should have been written as clear as other examples of half-hit dice. But alas, it is not. That ambiguity requires an answer. Until then, a little common sense will tell you that two is not half of five hit die.
*Edit - Fixed the bad info per Born_of_fires suggestion.
Okay then show me where the rules tell me "when I have to" because, and this has been said many times In the case of the monk, the DC of his stunning fist can be 14.5. You don't have to round, you can leave it like that. A save of a 14 is lower than 14.5 so the save fails. A roll of 15 his higher than 14.5 so it succeeds. See it works exactly like panache.
The rules have been quoted dozens of times. "Occasionally the rules ask you to round a result or value."
This implies that it's not always necessary. "When I have to" is an abstract I used to define when it's necessary to do so.
In the case of stunning fist, you are calculating out a save DC. Save DC's use whole numbers, ergo, rounding is necessary.
In the case of determining whether something is greater or less than half a given level, no rounding is required to make this determination.
Completely different scenario's. They are far from exactly alike, as you claim.
I've clicked the FAQ, and will await a response. The argument is one I'd like to see an answer towards, because I do understand and even respect your argument. I just don't agree with it, as there is far too much grey area in this matter.
Occasionally the rules ask you to round a result or value. Unless otherwise stated, always round down. For example, if you are asked to take half of 7, the result would be 3
These are instructions of how to round, on those occasions when you do round. Not instructions that you must round. The line 'Unless otherwise stated, always round down' is saying that when you round always round down! Not 'always round'.
And when it says, 'For example, if you are asked to take half of 7, the result would be 3', this is an example of how rounding works (there's a clue in the title!), not how division works.
I've had my share of arguments with Malachi before, but this time I agree with him, and this quote is spot on. There is absolutely no reason to round in this scenario. The rules explain how to round when you have to, but IMO, you do not have to here.
Simple. The rule is halve the 'damage' done, not halve each die of damage.
Damage has a particular number associated with it, which is the sum of the damage dice. I mean, this isn't even a difficult situation to adjudicate, it works exactly how it is supposed to work, and you round exactly where you're supposed to round.
What language would you even point to saying that you should round each individual die?
I see no such wording to support your supposition. According to the language of the spell fireball, the "damage" done by a fireball is 1d6 per caster level. Where in the rules does it state that you must add this damage together first before determining half value of a successful save? I could not find such a rule.
Yes, my argument is one of ad adsurdum, but I'm just pointing out that the rules on when to round are not as clear cut as it seems.
Wow, what an unexpectedly large number of posts for such a seemingly simple question.
Man, if I could take half of these posts (rounded down) and throw them in the trash, i would. ;)
Playing out the rounding aspect to the extreme. Why total the dice before halving the damage on a successful save? For example, if the total is 31 and the fireball damage was:
5+5+5+5+5+5+1 = 31
Could we not say, half damage is this?
2+2+2+2+2+2+0 = 12
Instead of 15?
I for one find no reason to round when determining Grit/Panache, but would gladly like to hear a dev weigh in on this.
What I am trying to get at, is the equation isn't asking us for a number, it is asking us for a Boolean yes/no value. Given that, I don't see any reason to round while trying to figure it out. The result of our equation isn't even a number (until the next step, in which we regain 1 panache point.
Was reading through this thread thinking this exact thing, and was glad to see Dave posted it.
There is no numerical value being calculated here, just a simple boolean value. In nearly every other case, there is a numerical result that one is looking for... Bardic Knowledge bonuses, Hitpoints of a familiar.
In this case, the result is a simple yes/no. There is absolutely no reason to round in this case.
A barbarian planning on taking terrifying howl should also have dazzling display...
The issue here is to get the two to work well together you would have to succeed the DD check by >5 otherwise the shaken condition will end prior to your next turn and TH will have no effect. If you can pull it off it would be amazing, but you'll really need to max intimidate as much as possible to pull it off. In addition, you'll also have to invest two feats to get DD, whereas you could just buy the helm of fearsome mien and only invest a single rage power for TH.
Terrifying Howl has a pre-req of intimidating glare, and I would have a hard time thinking the helm would qualify for that requirement.
Even so, I would think the Howling Helm would be the more logical choice of helmet. First round, use helm to intimidate everyone within 30ft. Second round use Terrifying Howl to render them panicked.
Of course, make sure you boost up your intimidate, which if you're going this route is a no-brainer anyway.
-------
Another option is to make friends with an inquisitor or bard who also has a high intimidate. Delay your action and have your new friend cast blistering invective. Immediately take your action to move in and terrifying howl.
in 1 round.. your enemies drop their weapons and scatter.. while on fire. Tis a wonderful picture.
I prefer sorcerers because you don't have the spell book weakness.
If you lose that as a wizard your stuck putting read magic in all your slots as that is the only spell that most wizards can prepare from memory.
The spell book weakness is overrated. If your GM is the kind of guy to go after your book, then he's a very spiteful GM. It'd be no different from stealing all the fighters gear.
Still, if it is a concern, there are ways to mitigate the risk.. Backup spellbook, bookplate of recall, secret chest, spellbinder archetype with Locate Object.
Basically, being afraid of losing something should never be a consideration when choosing a class to play. If a GM wants to screw you over, they will, regardless what class you are playing.
The comparing the difference between a wizard and a sorcerer is like comparing the difference between a Ferrari and a Lamborghini. Who cares... You're still driving a sports car while everyone else is stuck in hatchbacks.
One of my more interesting characters was an anger inquisition inquisitor with a 2 level dip in drunken brute / wild rager - barbarian.
Rage rounds were never a problem with the drunken brute, and I got access to rage powers via barbarian level 2 that I could later use the extra rage power feats for. The benefit of the anger inquisition is your barbarian level is level-3 vs the rage domains 1/2 level. This means you qualify for rage powers sooner than you would under the rage domain.
My shtick that I never got to fully try out would have been this:
Round 1: Move up and cast blistering invective. Enemies are now shaken.. and on fire. (the high intimidate on half orc inquisitors makes this a near guarantee)
Round 2: Use Terrifying Howl rage power - Watch as the now panicked enemies scatter from you.... While still on fire.
Quite honestly, he was a blast to play, but I never got to see how he played out past level 5 due to a heroic death standing his ground to save the rest of the party. I believe the combo I listed above would have come into play around level 11 if memory serves me.
In other words.. I vote anger inquisition. But only if you dip barbarian.. Otherwise, there is no real benefit to choosing it over the rage domain.
I've often readied an attack on the condition "when I have a flank." If an ally moves in to help, you get the bonus; otherwise, you're stuck in melee range on the enemy's turn. Seems like a fair trade-off.
Careful how you word that :P
Remember your action happens before the action which triggered it. So you actually attack before you have flank with the way it's currently worded.
Dr Grecko, GM's give ALL the enemies the SAME initiative by rolling once. That means that if they beat someone, then they all are not flat-footed, and all gain the benefits to attack certain people flat-footed and gain benefits. They also can all swarm up to gain super flanks, to just destroy you. This can be done legally, but it shouldn't happen with one die roll for all creatures. After the first round, the GM should if they want to, delay everything to even out, and have fun from there.
This is starting to sound more like a tyrannical GM rather than a problem with the combining of initiatives. If a GM is having a swarm of capable enemies all gang up and flank, it may be more of a GM going out of his way to try to kill you problem.
I say "capable" enemies, because my GM does this all the time, but it's always mooks who don't stand a chance against us, and are just there to eat up some of our precious action economy.
Human Fighter wrote:
My PFS is a wild west where GM's will openly state they are ignoring the rules, and doing things by what they want to do at their tables, so it's hard to police stuff, but I've been trying to keep on this madness. Recently I've had a hard time explaining that creatures are flat footed unless they have an ability that says no, or took their initiative order in some capacity. "They heard you in the other room, so they aren't flat-footed" is not a valid reason. This is all for a different thread/discussion.
Doesn't sound like that is a scenario in which I would like to game in if the GM is openly ignoring the rules, but you're right its a topic of different discussion
Human Fighter wrote:
The thread is to just explore what myself and my friends find interesting about this mechanic, and to understand what can and cannot be done. Just because something can be done, doesn't mean it should be done, but we would like to know if it can be done regardless. Knowing things about initiative numbers and stuff does have a time and place for when it matters when someone unexpectedly throws in an unexpected variable, then knowing such things is good. I sometimes have to battle prone modifiers and cover modifiers to be used correctly, because new players could be confused, and people could just add up their AC higher, while another player simultaneously gives their roll a penalty, and issues like that.
You certainly opened my eyes to a tactic I've never considered before. A simple word of caution though to others who might want to try it.. If your GM is not like HF's and actually gives flanks to his enemies properly, then I would advise against the tactic, as you will open yourself up for the same style tactic against you. And it's a tactic far more powerful in the hands of a GM than that of the players.
Anyways, the GM's like to have all the creatures move all at the same time, and then they preform their attacks! This is pretty screwed up, because the GM will have multiple targets 5ft step or a move action to all gain flank, and begin sneak attack full attacks, and single attacks etc. after they are in position.
Make sure to police the GM when he does this. Make sure that the GM is taking his moves and attacks with flank properly. It's a inconvenience thing that most all GM's are guilty of, just make sure they're doing it right.
But now I see where you are coming from. If you have player Bob and Andy and Monster Mitch. You could have Bob take a move action up to Mitch.. ready an action to swing when Andy attacks Mitch. Then Andy moves into flank and attacks Mitch which triggers your readied action. Therefore you both now have flank.
A bit cheesy, but probably legal.
Human Fighter wrote:
And for the record, initiative order can matter, because other combatants could enter and they will have specific scores that will determine where they'll be. I understand how it all comes down to who goes before who, but it's for reasons like this that it's important to keep track.
There should be no combatants whom haven't rolled initiative. If you're talking about people in other rooms who aren't aware of the combat when it begins, you should still roll for them, and they act accordingly on their turn (perception checks to hear combat in another room, ect..)
Bottom line, once initiative starts.. the numbers are meaningless.. the order is all that matters.
The phrase "IF the triggered action is part of another character's activities" suggests that the "action" being referred to isn't necessarily part of another character's activities. What "Action" (capital A game term) is not part of someone's activities? None. So we can tell from that it isn't using the word "action" to mean the game term "Action" but is being used interchangeably with "the condition under which you will take the action" whether that is actually an Action (game term) or not. So if I have an ally dangling from a cliff while being attacked I can ready an action catch my ally with the condition being "if he or she falls" which certainly is not an action in the game term sense.
I agree here that it doesn't have to be a capitol A Action as defined in game terms.. You may note that one of my examples included catching a falling baby as a valid example of readying an action.
The point I'm trying to make (poorly of course) is that a person occupying a threatened square is not a valid trigger condition. However a person entering or leaving a threatened square would be.
A small a action must be part of the trigger condition.
You could say "If Andy picks his nose, Bob attacks".... Perfectly valid. However the OP wants the condition to be, "If Andy is occupying a threatened square, I attack". This is not an action, and as such, an invalid trigger condition.
You certainly can decline and wait for a second triggering action.
On what are you basing this assertion?
On the basis that I didn't read it as closely as I just read it now... :)
Jiggy and OldSkool are correct. Once the trigger condition happens, your readied action happens. If you decline to take the action you get from that readied action, you do not get a second trigger.. The readied action has already run it's course.
The definition Diego quoted above does say, "anytime before your next action", so it's not actually clear that it can't be done on the second (or third...) instance of the triggering action.
You certainly can decline and wait for a second triggering action. In my previous example, "When the invisible guy becomes visible, I attack". You could certainly wait for the second, third, forth, ect, trigger before going.
I wouldn't recommend waiting too long or you might run out of triggering events.
However, it absolutely needs to be an action to respond to. you cannot ready an action to attack someone in front of you just because he happens to be in front of you. That is not an action in which you can respond to.
1) Character A chooses to use the Ready action. With a Ready action you specify another action and the condition under which you will take that action when the Ready action triggers. Character A chooses "attack" as the other action and "when an enemy occupies a square I threaten" as the condition
This is not a valid condition in which to ready an action. Your action must be in response to another action. A person simply occupying a square in front of you is not an action in which you can respond to.
Readying Rules wrote:
The action occurs just before the action that triggers it.
Examples of valid Readying Actions:
"If someone enters my threatened area, I attack."
"If he starts casting a spell, I attack"
"If the baby falls from the ledge, I catch it"
"When the invisible person becomes visible, I attack"
"When the earth elemental provides an opening, I attack"
These two conditionals overlap - one says "after your turn but before your next one", and one just says "before your next turn".
My point was that the readied action is triggered when the triggering condition occurs. If (for some reason) the triggering event occurred after you had readied an action but before your turn ended, it would trigger before your turn ended.
It seems clear that if one says X+Y and the other just says Y. I'd use the X+Y, as the just Y was an obvious omission.
After your turn but before your next one is the proper use for readied actions.
Besides, I'm struggling to determine just what valid triggering event could possibly trigger after you readied your action but before your turn was over.
The numbers can matter after just rarely. If bob and sue fight andy sue goes fist bob and andy tie init but andy has a higher dex andy goes before bob. On her turn sue casts haste. Bobs init now goes in front of andy because haste changed bobs init.
First, Haste does nothing to change anybodies initiative modifier.
Second, Initiative is checked only once. At the start of battle. Ties are addressed then and then only. If sue cast something that boost bob's dex AFTER initiative has already been determined, it has no effect on initiative order.
The only thing that changes your initiative after the first roll are special initiative actions (Delay, Ready).
*Edit - Ninja'd, but I'll add the relevant rules:
Initiative Rules wrote:
...In every round that follows, the characters act in the same order (unless a character takes an action that results in his or her initiative changing; see Special Initiative Actions).
I've given you my answer to your question in POST #26
No, you can not do a readied action in the manner you phrased it. A readied action must be a response to another action. "Being in a threatened square" is not an action.
I'm still confused as to your end-game with this thread. It seems you have an ulterior motive that you want this thread to validate for you.
What would be the point. Initiative scores are just used to establish what order everyone goes in at the start of the battle. Once battle has started, your initiative scores are irrelevant, you just go in initiative order. Otherwise you could do crazy stuff like: My hunter takes total defense this round, next round I delay until after Tom goes, my initiative is now one less than his. Then I switch my hunters blessing to Dex as a swift action, this raises my initiative mod by two, putting me one initiative higher than Tom, and I get to hit him again before his turn comes around...
So there really is no mechanical difference between "Bob goes on 20 before Andy on 4" and "Bob goes on 4 before Andy at 4."
In the PBP I'm GM-ing, I make the initiative number pretty much irrelevant.. It is only useful for determine the initial order of events.. Afterward, It never comes into play at all. If you delay and say I want to go after or before player X, you do. If you say I ready to attack when a monster comes into view.. guess what, your initiative is now before the monster.
The number only matters to set the initial order. People seem to take the initiative numbers too literally sometimes.
Jiggy, I am uncertain about the timing, which is why I stated the order number as an assumption. Could I choose exactly what number, even if it's the number I'm currently on?
I'm not trying to be rude, but seriously... What's the point? what you want to do is clearly already doable by Delaying your action to before Andy. There is no reason to do what you are asking.
Still, I doubt that the phrase "Bob moves next to Andy, and readies a standard action to attack a target that is in Bob's threatened area." Is a valid use of readying an action. There is no action by which to initiate a response action.
A better option would be "Bob moves next to Andy, and readies a standard action to attack Andy if he does anything."
At least with that statement, there is an observable action in which to respond to.
Granted a lot of GM's, myself included would force Bob to be more specific. "Does anything" is a little too vague by my standards.
To do so, specify the action you will take and the conditions under which you will take it. Then, anytime before your next action, you may take the readied action in response to that condition.
If you go just one more sentence further:
prd wrote:
"The action occurs just before the action that triggers it."
I'm still wondering what the point of what he's trying to do is. If his goal is to have Bob act just right before Andy.. Then, by all means just delay your action to the initiative right before Andy.
Why add the unnecessary layer of complication that probably isn't legal anyway?
Please excuse my de-composing your post above to highlight what I am trying to say in this thread...
"Search is one of those loose game concepts that really will depend on how each GM wants to play it."
Agreed. At this point I thought you understood what I was trying to say
"Per the rules, there is little defined other than simply taking a single move action to intentionally search."
ah.... a "search" doesn't take a single move action, as it is (in your words) "...one of those loose game concepts that really will depend on how each GM wants to play it...". Replace the word search with the works Perception Check in the line above and you have what the rules define. An active Perception Check is a move action...
Forgive me for being blunt, but "searching" for something is defined in the skill itself.
Perception Skill wrote:
Most Perception checks are reactive, made in response to observable stimulus. Intentionally searching for stimulus is a move action.
If you are "searching" for traps, all it takes is a move action per raw. I'm saying that I agree with you that it's in-feasible when you can't actually see something, like an item in a drawer. For that, I suggested a nice compromise. But, I don't play PFS so what I suggest means nothing for those people. (I didn't realize this thread was moved)
Bottom line, "Perception" is indeed "Search". It says so in the skill.
Search is one of those loose game concepts that really will depend on how each GM wants to play it. Per the rules, there is little defined other than simply taking a single move action to intentionally search.
Simply stating "I take 20 to search for traps" can be a perfectly valid option and potentially all one would need per RAW.
However, realistically, it would seem in-feasible to allow items hidden from general view to be found this way.
I would suggest that when confronted with a search check that does not simply involve looking around at visual stimulus to at least allow the person to search all squares within their reach. It seems a nice middle ground between the "it takes hours per room" and the "it takes a minute" crowd.
All I am saying is that concealment itself does not equal denied dexterity. The fact that we have to combine something like 3 rules to come to the conclusion that it does should be suspect. It would be such a short line that means so much. It is used in so many other parts of the book, yet left out here.
I disagree, the fact that we can find multiple rules to support the supposition that is lacking in the direct rule is the only way one can play this game with any sense of sanity.
If total concealment means you have no line of sight, and invisible states that you are visually undetectable. Then if granted total concealment, it doesn't take a genius to realize you are visually undetectable and therefore invisible.
Arguing otherwise is a logical breakdown that quite frankly I just can't handle. Play it your way if you wish, but the evidence is clear.
Would I love for it to be pointed out in bold letters in every applicable situation in the book, sure. But it doesn't need to be.
What about my sheet/curtain examples? They follow the same exact mechanics as the Drow.
Well, let me go find what you wrote...
Komoda wrote:
Imagine this:
A rogue stands behind a curtain 30' away. You know he is there because you watched him run there and you are having a conversation with him, but you can't see him. He sees you because he is looking through a hole 2" from his face.
This scenario pertaining to concealment is invalid.. And I'll tell you why,
You are no longer using concealment rules here and are instead using the cover rules. Anytime you put a physical barrier in front of you... Use cover rules, not concealment.
It would be a hard sell to convince me that those inside a darkness spell would not get SA against those who could not see them, regardless of if the targets are outside or inside darkness.
Darkness provides Total Concealment
Invisibility provides Total Concealment
The invisible condition states you ignore a targets dex to AC
The invisible condition states "Invisible creatures are visually undetectable"
Stated simply, if you can't see then, they are invisible to you.
Creatures inside darkness are invisible to those outside the darkness. Creatures inside the darkness who cant see due to the effect are in effect blind (another condition that denies dex)
Of course all the caveats of darkvision apply here.
