Erez Ben-Aharon's page

How long should I give for downtime for keep management?

Is the AP on some kind of 'timer' for the events from book1-6,
or can the player just choose to complete all renovations + upgrades on their keep before even going through Huntergate?

How much time should I give for the rebuilding of the citadel in between adventures of Age of Ashes? Is there a 'timeline' for the AP (whereas by X number of days until book 6, etc.), or is it really wide open so that the characters could potentially complete upgrading the entire citadel in between book 1-2?

Your mileage may very, but I've ruled that you can't.

I'm basing it on the GMG guidance that a trigger of a Ready action is not the same as a trigger from items/feats/etc., as it has to be visible to the character in game. So 'when he targets me' or even 'when he starts attacking', 'when his turn starts', etc. none of those are legal for me.

Unless something is a Disrupt reaction, I consider it to take place after the trigger - this is somewhat in line with how Starfinder defines Ready actions.

It is possible if you engage in further conversation. I would say that further attempts at flattery would probably be adjusted up in DC somewhat to account for there only being so much flattery a given NPC can take. I would let the details of the fiction guide this and take a look at the DC Adjustments table on p. 504.

I would say yes. The idea of Make an Impression is to engage in a 1 minute conversation in order to improve someone's relation (likely in order to make a subsequent Request, once they are friendly/helpful).

The skill only says that the effects of the impression run out at the end of the social interaction, not at the end of conversation.

So the way it would potentially go is:
1) Enter a social interaction of any sorts (this could be actual roleplay where each character in turn (or out of turn) talk to the NPC.
2) At some stage during the interaction, someone may decide they wish to make an impression - since this is an Exploration activity which takes 1 minute, I would personally just hand wave the roleplaying part for this...(nobody wants to sit through 1 minute of one character roleplaying - too boring). After the player announce this is what they wish to do, make a roll for a change of influence.
3) Now you can resume the interaction (unless the NPC turned hostile or something)... if the NPC is now friendly/helpful - other characters can make a Request of them (this is just an action so ~2-3 seconds), or alternatively just continue the roleplaying - ask the NPC questions, use the Lie action (which takes a round or more), or whatever is requierd.
4) Now it comes back to some character who they want to try and improve the relation further... that would require another 1 minute of conversation... etc.

At some point however, the NPC has some s+*# to do...like the laundry or something, they aren't going to stick around for however many 1 minute duration, no matter the flattery.

Personally, I don't allow more than one check of anything in my game (1 disable device attempt, 1 recall knowledge attempt, etc.), in the spirit of 'failing forward'. There is nothing that kills the game faster than someone attempting the same check over and over again. So I've taken the approach of - it is either something that isn't optional (such as the NPC holding an important clue the players MUST know) - in which case they get it without any check and with minimal conversation. OR it is an optional clue/loot/whatever, in which case they get one attempt and if they fail I just let my players know it is time to move on. A bit metagamey - but it works, and much less frustrating.

It is possible if you engage in further conversation. I would say that further attempts at flattery would probably be adjusted up in DC somewhat to account for there only being so much flattery a given NPC can take. I would let the details of the fiction guide this and take a look at the DC Adjustments table on p. 504.

I would say yes. The idea of Make an Impression is to engage in a 1 minute conversation in order to improve someone's relation (likely in order to make a subsequent Request, once they are friendly/helpful).

The skill only says that the effects of the impression run out at the end of the social interaction, not at the end of conversation.

So the way it would potentially go is:
1) Enter a social interaction of any sorts (this could be actual roleplay where each character in turn (or out of turn) talk to the NPC.
2) At some stage during the interaction, someone may decide they wish to make an impression - since this is an Exploration activity which takes 1 minute, I would personally just hand wave the roleplaying part for this...(nobody wants to sit through 1 minute of one character roleplaying - too boring). After the player announce this is what they wish to do, make a roll for a change of influence.
3) Now you can resume the interaction (unless the NPC turned hostile or something)... if the NPC is now friendly/helpful - other characters can make a Request of them (this is just an action so ~2-3 seconds), or alternatively just continue the roleplaying - ask the NPC questions, use the Lie action (which takes a round or more), or whatever is requierd.
4) Now it comes back to some character who they want to try and improve the relation further... that would require another 1 minute of conversation... etc.

At some point however, the NPC has some s&*! to do...like the laundry or something, they aren't going to stick around for however many 1 minute duration, no matter the flattery.

Personally, I don't allow more than one check of anything in my game (1 disable device attempt, 1 recall knowledge attempt, etc.), in the spirit of 'failing forward'. There is nothing that kills the game faster than someone attempting the same check over and over again. So I've taken the approach of - it is either something that isn't optional (such as the NPC holding an important clue the players MUST know) - in which case they get it without any check and with minimal conversation. OR it is an optional clue/loot/whatever, in which case they get one attempt and if they fail I just let my players know it is time to move on. A bit metagamey - but it works, and much less frustrating.

It is possible if you engage in further conversation. I would say that further attempts at flattery would probably be adjusted up in DC somewhat to account for there only being so much flattery a given NPC can take. I would let the details of the fiction guide this and take a look at the DC Adjustments table on p. 504.

I would say yes. The idea of Make an Impression is to engage in a 1 minute conversation in order to improve someone's relation (likely in order to make a subsequent Request, once they are friendly/helpful).

The skill only says that the effects of the impression run out at the end of the social interaction, not at the end of conversation.

So the way it would potentially go is:
1) Enter a social interaction of any sorts (this could be actual roleplay where each character in turn (or out of turn) talk to the NPC.
2) At some stage during the interaction, someone may decide they wish to make an impression - since this is an Exploration activity which takes 1 minute, I would personally just hand wave the roleplaying part for this...(nobody wants to sit through 1 minute of one character roleplaying - too boring). After the player announce this is what they wish to do, make a roll for a change of influence.
3) Now you can resume the interaction (unless the NPC turned hostile or something)... if the NPC is now friendly/helpful - other characters can make a Request of them (this is just an action so ~2-3 seconds), or alternatively just continue the roleplaying - ask the NPC questions, use the Lie action (which takes a round or more), or whatever is requierd.
4) Now it comes back to some character who they want to try and improve the relation further... that would require another 1 minute of conversation... etc.

At some point however, the NPC has some s%~$ to do...like the laundry or something, they aren't going to stick around for however many 1 minute duration, no matter the flattery.

Personally, I don't allow more than one check of anything in my game (1 disable device attempt, 1 recall knowledge attempt, etc.), in the spirit of 'failing forward'. There is nothing that kills the game faster than someone attempting the same check over and over again. So I've taken the approach of - it is either something that isn't optional (such as the NPC holding an important clue the players MUST know) - in which case they get it without any check and with minimal conversation. OR it is an optional clue/loot/whatever, in which case they get one attempt and if they fail I just let my players know it is time to move on. A bit metagamey - but it works, and much less frustrating.

I agree... I would have thought this should be -2 until the end of his turn (not removed at the start of his turn). But it does seem to be only for reactions related to that weapon (at least as written).

The rulebook says:

"Your GM might let you reduce or negate cover by leaning around a corner to shoot or the like. This usually takes an action to set up, and the GM might measure cover from an edge or corner of your space instead of your center."

Assuming that I want to incorporate it (and I think it is a cool rule), would you say that if they want to attack twice the procedure is Lean->Strike->Strike->UnLean(for free),
or do they have to Re-Lean before the 2nd Strike (with the leaning being an in/out for only a single strike)?

Is this possible to do?

There is ambiguity in the Take Cover description:

1) It says in the requirements: You are benefiting from cover, are near a feature that allows you to take cover.
Now Im not sure what 'near a feature that allows you to take cover' mean, but I assume it means some small rock, or a chair, or something that wouldn't generally give you cover just by standing next to it. But does another person count (I assume so since 'you are benefitting for cover' doesn't specify it has to be Standard Cover...and how close would you have to be for them to be able to Take Cover?

2) Then it says:
"...If you would have standard cover....+4....Otherwise, you gain the benefits of standard cover (a +2 circumstance bonus instead). "

This suggest you can hunker down behind an ally (again how close do you need to be?) to get +1 --> +2.

Is this correct you reckon?

It seems that when falling off a cliff it is almost impossible to grab an edge without a free hand (unless rolling a Crit) , but Release action is not a Reaction (unless you Ready before hand, which no one is going to do for a Release action...)

That seems a bit too strict and would mean that anyone wielding a 2 hander is pretty much screwed when he is kicked off a cliff... or am I missing something here?

I'd agree with Captain Morgan here... there is no reason for ambiguity. As far as I'm concerned a Success which tells you how to activate the item would also tell you what it does, as in any case you would figure it out sooner or later.

I have a feeling a Critical Success was supposed to be just to detect if it is cursed. Reason is in 1st Ed. a success 10 higher than DC gave you just that, so it feels this should pretty much work the same (except for some reason with a lot more unnecessary verbiage).

I *might* make an edge case for magical items that are truly epic and have some really secret/obtuse function in additional to their regular one...but I don't even know if those exist yet.

Other than being able to detect a 'cursed' item, is there any difference between the result for critical success and a success on Identify Magic? The wording on the two entries are really confusing, but when I deconstruct it / reword the entries for Critical/Normal success - it seems to be saying the same thing.

Anyone cares to chime in?

If you 'Follow the Expert' in an activity that is proficiency level gated (Requires Trained, Expert, etc.) - can you make the check at all? The rules say you get to add your level even if Untrained, but it does not make a suggestion on whether this check is possible for you.

In other words, are you considered 'Trained+' for that purpose because the expert experience rubs on you, or is it just a +level bonus for activities that you would be able to perform regardless?

OP here...

Ok I think we derailed the conversation enough from my original question.

I think the best answer I got (and the most logical one for me) is that I simply ask the other players to look away and point at the square. This was the most elegant answer.

I was more concerned with the mechanical applications of it on the table than purely a discussion about metagaming because personally I don't believe metagaming can be avoided. I mean, we all know as players Trolls Regen, Contstructs are resistant to precision damage, Skeletons are to be bludgeoned etc, from years of gaming. To pretend that years of encyclopaedic gamer knowledge can just be hand-waved at the table is just unrealistic (and as a bit of an OSR guy, I actually find no fault in good ol' player knowledge and rules/game mastery).

I was more interested in some innovative mechanical applications of this and I think I got my answer.

What is a point of listing a Hazard with a (TRAINED) Stealth DC?

This imply you need a minimum of TRAINED perception to detect, correct?
But I thought all characters start with TRAINED in perception anyways, so....?

OP here... I don't think that the table acting on that is cheating, and I'm not sure it plays out as some have pointed out here. I'll give a more concrete example.

P1,2,3,4 - creature is undetected to all, sneaking behind some barrels.
P1 - seeks the creature and manages to change it's status to Hidden.
P1: "So do I find anything out"?
GM: "Yes, the creature is now Hidden to you, but not Undetected."
P1: "Hidden?, so that means I know which square it is on and won't have to randomly target squares to find out?"
GM: "Correct".
P1: "So...which square then?".
GM: "Err... here" -> points to the square.
P2,3,4 - now have to pretend they didn't hear the conversation at all.

If P2,3,4 originally INTENDED to hit that exact square behind the barrels (just because it seemed a logical place), they now can't do it without being suspect of cheating/metagaming by the internetz.

The alternative solution would be to take P1 to the side and tell him in secret without anyone else knowing ("it is the 3rd square to the left of the barrels"), but that just seem tedious.

Another solution would be to house rule that an Undetected creature cannot be target at all (rather than RAW that square can be 'guessed'), but I guess this doesn't really solve it because there is still the issue of AoE spells targeting the area.

What is the point of the 'Point Out' action? All it does is make an enemy that is 'Hidden' to you, but 'Undetected' to the other players into becoming 'Hidden' for all players. But the only difference between the two statuses is that an 'Undetected' enemy square is unknown (and has to be guessed), whereas a 'Hidden' enemy square is known. All the other penalties (50% miss chance, etc.) are the same. Why wouldn't I just go to the enemy that is 'Hidden' from me and attack it, or just yell (as a free action) which square the enemy is occupying - so that my other party members know to attack it? Why would I waste an action to 'Point Out' the square?

Moreover - how would the GM even be able to keep the square location hidden from all but one player? Say one player did a 'Seek' action and made the 'Undetected' enemy 'Hidden' to him only. The GM would have to point out to that player the square the enemy occupies - and the entire table would know (even though the enemy is 'Undetected' to them).

Is this a skill/mechanic whose purpose is only for online table games (FantasyGround etc.), where the GM can easily reveal information on the grid selectively to individual players? Or perhaps to 'Theatre of the Mind' play where the information (squares occupied, etc.) isn't laid out so precisely as it does in a battlegrid?

Looks like after the last errata changes the Pinned condition reads:

Pinned: ...A pinned creature can take verbal and mental actions, but cannot cast any spells that require a somatic or material component...

But under the Concentration rules:

Grappling or Pinned: Casting a spell while you have the grappled or pinned condition is difficult and it requires a concentration check (DC 10 + the grappler's CMB + the level of the spell you're casting). Pinned creatures can only cast spells that do not have somatic components

With no mention of the 'no material components' restriction above.

What gives? Can I cast V/M spells at all when pinned or not?

The point of the FAQ I quoted was to streamline the game, instead of making multiple checks every round to pass through multiple threatened square of a single enemy you instead would roll once and that roll would determine the outcome for the entire movement.

Otherwise very strange things happen, like the +5 rule doesn't ever come into play on large size or larger creature because you would've already made the check to move through their threatened area and then just move through their square as a continued part of the movement without taking the penalty.

The Rules and FAQ aren't supposed to read legalistically. They're supposed to be guidelines used with common sense. What you're asking to do would in effect negate the entire point of even putting the rule of increase the DC by 5 by moving through another threatened square before you move through the enemies square.

You make one check per opponent. Only one. You make it with the worst possible modifiers for the movement you intend to make.

Well, if sidestepping was just gaming the system I would agree - but it can have its drawbacks. For example - if you sidestep first, the square you sidestepped into might be threatened by new enemies adjacent to the new square (enemies that weren't adjacent to your origin square from which you could have just gone through your target enemy). Also - sidestepping cost an addition 5', which means that only extremely agile and unencumbered characters can pull it off (5'+5'+5'= 15') without having to do a full movement and get an additional +10 to the DC.

Erez Ben-Aharon wrote:

MurphysParadox wrote:

Well, that's one option.

Another is that the sidestep is one use of the Acrobatics, and the tumble through the square is a second use of Acrobatics requiring a second check because it is a different situation that the original roll.

Actually that isn't true, RAW (FAQ including) - you only make acrobatics roll once per enemy per round - so even though it is a different situation (moving out of threatened square, moving through opponent square) you still only make one check and that check happens as soon as you move out of the threatened square.

You make one roll. Doesn't say anything about making one check.

I'd rule that you get to make ALL the acrobatics checks you incur from one enemy to the same roll, no matter how low or high that roll.

Actually it does...it is in the FAQ - only once per enemy (don't have the link the the Core FAQ now). Btw, I am the GM of the group, but just wondering whether it is a viable option as a sort of a 'feint' for acrobatic characters.

Well, that's one option.

Another is that the sidestep is one use of the Acrobatics, and the tumble through the square is a second use of Acrobatics requiring a second check because it is a different situation that the original roll.

Actually that isn't true, RAW (FAQ including) - you only make acrobatics roll once per enemy per round - so even though it is a different situation (moving out of threatened square, moving through opponent square) you still only make one check and that check happens as soon as you move out of the threatened square.

I'm not sure I understand why you're trying to explain here. Can you clarify?

Quote:

Acrobatics: How does Acrobatics work when you use it to avoid attacks of opportunity? When do you make checks? How many do you make?

Acrobatics allows you to make checks to move through the threatened area of foes without provoking attacks of opportunity. You must make a check the moment you attempt to leave a square threatened by an enemy, but only once per foe. The DC (which is based of the Combat Maneuver Defense of each foe), increases by +2 for each foe after the first in one round. The DC also increases by +5 if you attempt to move through a foe. In the case of moving out of the threatened square of two foes at the same time, the moving character decides which check to make first.

For example, a rogue is flanked by a meek goblin and a terrifying antipaladin. The rogue move away from both of them, provoking an attack of opportunity from both, but uses Acrobatics to attempt to negate them. She must move at half speed while threatened by these foes and can choose which to check against first. If she fails a check, she provokes an attack of opportunity from that foe. If she makes it, she does not provoke from moving through that foe's threatened space this turn.

But since you are attempting during the course of your movement to pass through the enemy's square I would still give +5 to the DC despite trying to skirt around the rules by doing somethign funky. That's what a GM's job is.

Yes, but RAW (at least from the FAQ), you make the check IMMEDIATELY as you leave a threatened square, so as soon as you sidesstep - you will make that check (of leaving a threatened square (at CMD), if you then move through that opponent square (the one you rolled against a second ago) - you have already made the check against them. No where does it say that you have to predesignate your entire move. I will give an example:

A (player)
B (enemy)

If you do:

_A (side stepped, taking the acrobatics check at CMD)
B

the check must be done there and then, because the enemy doesn't know you are trying to go through him in a minute, for all he knows you may be trying to reach another enemy far off to the horizon. So you roll across...and then:

__
A (diagonally stepped through opponent B)

Now you don't have to make the check because you have made it against B earlier, you essentially 'feinted' a move through B.

Hope that makes it clearer (sure I know as a GM I can make any ruling I want, but I am interested if RAW that can be done).

I couldn't find an answer to this anywhere in the forum (used the search button).

1) When trying to tumble through an opponent square it is CMD+5, but through a threatened square it is only CMD (let's ignore additional opponents nearby for now...), since the FAQ clearly states that the check is only once per enemy (not square), and that the check my be done immediately upon leaving the threatened square - why couldn't you just do the following:

Side step opponent (5'), take the CMD check for leaving threatened square.
b) go diagonally through the opponent's square (5') then leave it through the other side (5'). You have thus moved half your movement (15' assuming you had 30' to begin with), and prevented the opponent from forcing your acrobatics with a +5 modifier (since the roll had to be made when you first sidestepped, using only the regular 'out of threatened square', rather than the +5 modifier for 'through an opponent's square'.

2) This is just a clarification - does the +5 only apply to the opponent through square you are moving, or also to any adjacent opponents (meaning, is it CMD + 5 for opponent square, and then CMD + 2 for opponent adjacent to opponent square, or is it CMD +5, and CMD + 5 + 2)?

Many thanks.