Gaterie's page

If someone else casts collaborative thaumaturgy as you cast a spell that'd do it. This is obviously a difficult thing to arrange on a regular basis unless you take the leadership feat, and you say you can't spare any feats.

It works with Familiar spell (not available until mid-level, but it's ok). I have to think about it (the cost is heavy, but i think there's something to do with this). x)

Note: i *could* spare a feat on leadership since it's the best feat in the game(ie, it's a better feat than any of the feat I'll ever take), but I *won't* do it because it's too cheesy. I have no problem with Improved familiar + Familiar spell: my "cheese limit" is at improved familiar with UMD cheese (I don't know if it's inside or outside my limit; Familiar spell has a real cost, so it's inside the limit). Leadership is far outside this limit.

Edit: I suppose if you dump your mouthful as a move action that works without taking your swift or standard actions. Maybe your familiar can grab the dumped item and run.

That, or an Unseen servant...

I already though about the Unseen servant, but in the end it's the same as having the unseen servant holding some stuff and no cheek pouch...

Note: I have still one Trait to choose, and i'm considering Accelerated Drinker. The combo with cheek pouches is obvious... If i can actually use my cheek pouches x) . Or maybe I shouldn't take this trait at character creation (and take Magical lineage + Accelerated drinker at level 15+... i guess it's worth a feat, since magical lineage is worth a feat all by itself x) ...)

The other trait I'm considering is Sleight of hand as a class skill. Not very useful, but the idea of stealing something and hiding it in my mouth is a lot of fun at least. x)

So I play a ratfolk witch with the cheek pouches traits:

Some ratfolk have developed stretchy cheek pouches that they can use to hold and carry small loads up to 1 cubic foot in volume and 10 pounds in weight, such as light weapons, potions, scrolls, and similar objects. Such a ratfolk can transfer a held object to his cheek pouches or extract an object from his cheek pouches as a swift action. As a move action that provokes an attack of opportunity, the ratfolk can instead massage all of the items held in the cheek pouches onto the ground in the square it occupies. As long as the ratfolk has at least one object in its cheek pouches, its speech is difficult to understand, and it has a 20% spell failure chance when casting spells with verbal components. This racial trait replaces swarming.

I'm looking for a way to make this trait useful. I need my swift action at beginning of fight: the GM decided my prehensile hair activate as swift; and I play a (winter witch)³, so my swift actions enhance my spells. Hence I can't simply take the item I have in mouth in my hand at the beginning of fight. I don't have enough feats to take Silent spell, and a rod of Silent spell doesn't make much sense if I want to hide rods in my mouth. Is there another way to remove the drawback from cheek pouches?

There’s absolutely nothing evil about sharesister. In fact it’s typed as a “harmless” spell since the caster is choosing to take the negatives and the target only gets benefits. Cheesiness, on the other hand. . .

There's nothing evil about casting Sharesister. Forcing someone else to cast it, in the other hand...

Sharesister looks like a reverse Death knell: Death knell absorb the life force of someone to give you a buff, while sharesister gives away your life force to give someone a buff. At the moment you force someone to cast sharesister, it becomes a double-reversed Death knell...

(I don't consider my witch will force her familiar to cast it; as I explained, I see it more as an amine moment. But I'm not the one to convince: maybe my GM has another view on it.)

My familiar is a rabbit (an arctic rabbit), so no vocal component.

... But I think I'll change my build a bit: no Prestigious spellcaster (There isn't any full caster in our group, I'll be the best caster anyway x) ), but a pooka familiar. Because I just discovered the pooka can take the form of a rabbit, so PLOT TWIST! my rabbit was a pooka since the very beginning (and she has white fur instead of black, but hey, it happens). And another reason is that Favored prestige + Prestigious spellcaster is powerful but boring, while Improved familiar + Extra hex isn't (... I won't play a boring cackling witch, so there are many non-boring hexes).

I'll take Familiar spell instead of Quicken (as a winter witch, I have other uses of my swift action... My goal isn't to have the best action economy in the world, but casting two spells per round is quite "standard" at those level; and it's more fun to enhance my spells with my super-special-witch-power that to Quicken a spell like any caster. I don't think I'll use UMD abuse with the pooka).

At appropriate level, I'll ask the GM how she feels with Sharesister + Familiar spell; if it's too cheesy for her or if it's too evil for her (given the duration of Sharesister, and given the fact I don't want to lose my familiar x) , it's only for the very important fights. I see it more as an anime moment: "my friend, give me your strength! We can do it!"). At least, now I know it's legit this way.

In the other hand, the fact the Spell storing amof casts the spell itself means I don't lose my frostbite or touch of blindness when it delivers the stored spell... Say hello to my ill omen spell storing amof! :)

However you could use Familiar spell, in which case the familiar would actually be the one casting sharesister.

That's a great idea... Except I don't have enough feats to afford an Improved familiar (...and the Familiar spell feat...), so my familiar won't ever be able to cast any spell (at least not before level 17 x) ). :/

(And actually, this feat seems very powerful to break the action economy - more powerful than the usual UMD-familiar. And a raven familiar is enough for many spells...)

... As per raw you are right. :/

... This means a stored Vampiric touch doesn't give any hp to its wielder. And that's very strange because no one plays it like this... :/

an amulet of mighty fists should have the caster get the penalty once the spell is delivered.

I strongly disagree. How do you handle Vampiric touch in a spell storing weapon? Who get the temp hp: the caster or the striker?

At my table, it has always been the striker.

So there's a witch spell called Sharesister; you take 1+ negative level, and your target gain 1+ CL and DC on all her spells.

As a witch, I have a familiar with the Deliver touch spell ability: my familiar can deliver touch spells for me.

What happens if my familiar delivers Sharesister on me?

Note: same question arise with Vampiric touch. Who gains the temporary HP? The witch or her familiar? If the witch gains the temp hp with Vampiric touch, I guess she gains the negative level with Sharesister.

Subsidiary question: let's say I have an amulet of mighty fist with the spellStoring ability (I play a prehensile hair winter witch, so with may proves useful ;) ); can I store Sharesister on the amulet, give it to my familiar, and have him attack me and deliver the spell?

Edit: and I'm looking for a way to put Beguiling Gift on use and force an opponent to cast the spell on me... unfortunately, I can force the opponent to wear the amulet, but I can't force him to deliver the spell... :/

This is why there's "uncommon" and "uncommon" and it should be two tags. How about "restricted" for the stuff that you can get access to via class feature?

Is Inspire Courage more "restricted" than Barbarian's Rage or a Shield Divine Ally ?

I have no idea if you're serious or trying to mischaracterize my position, but this deeply mischracterizes my position to the point of appearing as a really obvious straw man.

I'm simply trying to understand the rarity system. Uncommon stuff is available if the character works for that, except if there's a rule preventing that; eg, focus spell can be acquired through feats.

OK.

Right now, I just can't understand why focus spell have rarity, since they can only be accessed through class features, and the GM isn't supposed to ban those spell - hence the rarity tag it doesn't seems to be a warning. It's just a rarity tag on a normal class feature - but neither Rage nor Graceful Poise have rarity. What does that mean ? It's easier to find a champion with shield paragon than a wizard with Force Bolt ? I don't know.

And how do those rules works with cantrips like Inspire Courage ? Cantrips aren't focus spell...

I sincerely envy the people who understand the rarity system. For me, it's just too complex. Having some uncommon things that are "impossible to get, ever" (eg uncommon cantrips) and others that are "obtainable by anyone with a bit of work" (eg uncommon non-focus, non-cantrip spells), having to know every feat ever published to know if there's a feat somewhere allowing some uncommon stuff (which may, or may not, means the stuff is impossible to obtain without the feat. I don't know), it's a bit too much for me. And yet, there are so many people who seems to understand how rarity works, so many people knowing that the intent of "uncommon" is that every GM give it to the PC at some point...

The Core Rulebook is really explicit that GMs should allow Uncommon things by default if the PCs work for them.

I'm looking for a GM allowing my cleric to get the uncommon cantrip Inspire Courage, as well as a lot of focus spell. I'm OK to work for this, but I don't want to spend a feat - the fighter doesn't spend a feat to get an uncommon shield or weapon, the wizard doesn't spend a feat to get the teleport spell. Do you know any GM allowing that? Are you looking for players (since you seems to allow that)?

Anything you do has an action/gold/etc. cost. Its not like the alternatives are free.

Therefore, you need to look at the returns relative to that cost.

I'm not talking about cost anymore, I'm talking about downside; you should reformulate your post to consider downsides instead of costs (as you explained, costs and downsides aren't the same thing).

Gaterie wrote:

Cyouni wrote:

Removing the HP of shields leads to level 12 shield fighters ignoring 26 points of damage with 0 downside every turn. On top of getting +2 AC.

How do they do that without spending action, reaction, magic item, feat nor free hand, just by being level 12 fighters ?

None of what you listed is actually a 'downside' (which is what was actually said, not 'no cost'), that's just the cost of getting unreasonable returns on the investment of those actions.

Its made reasonable by virtue of being limited by the item being used, and the fact that it can't reduce damage forever.

How do they do that without the downside of not spending their action in something else than raising their shield, not spending their reaction in something else than shield block, not spending their wealth on something else than a shield, not spending their feat on something else, and not using their free hand for something else?

edit: you're right, my answer is far more concise that way.

Removing the HP of shields leads to level 12 shield fighters ignoring 26 points of damage with 0 downside every turn. On top of getting +2 AC.

How do they do that without spending action, reaction, magic item, feat nor free hand, just by being level 12 fighters ?

And finally, the action cost of Shield Block is just a Reaction. You don't get to count the action to Raise Shield, because it actually already gave you its benefits, which are as significant as blocking with a Sturdy Shield on their own - thanks Megistone for doing the research!

You're totally right. If I raise my shield, then the shield block feat magically appears on my character sheet and I just need a reaction. That's how the game works.

Look, when I wrote "nobody would break a sweat" in my last post, I actually meant "nobody, except a few number of gardian of the temple (like you or the drake) who think everything in the game has reached a perfect balance". I'm not interested in your opinion, since I already know it - everyone knows it. I'm interrested in other's people opinion, especially people who didn't envisage the simple possibility of simply removing the HP of shields. Maybe someone will explain why "infinite-except-it's-limited-on-a-per-round-basis" 6 damage prevention is too powerful, and why it should be "once per day". Maybe someone else will say that spellguard should only prevent 3 damages if it becomes "infinite-if-we-ignore-every-cost". Maybe, just maybe, some people will look at the shields, at the effect of shield block, and say I'm right, a shield should just do its job like a sword or an armor. But yout opinion? Look, there are already 15 pages filled with your opinion, your opinion again, and your opinion again and again and again, although this opinion didn't change in any way. Thanks, but I'm already full, I don't need it any more.

Just the concept that is is the first RPG I've sever seen (and probably ever) where shields are not meant for blocking attacks is silly. This goes beyond game mechanics and more about the theme of Pathfinder: The most heroic high fantasy game with no grittyness, but shields break in one hit if you try to use them. I realize the shield mechanics were to make them more interesting, but it just doesn't mesh with the rest of the game. Everything should be breaking, then? Or maybe items should be used in the same way they are in any other game/movie/story.

^ this

Shield block is so odd, it seems to be a house rule coming from another game - from some gritty game where the PC must repair their equipment or see their sword and armor break.

So in a game of unbreakable weapons and armors, in a game with very precise WBL rules, shields are consumables priced as permanent items. Wait; what?

At least, they break for an awesome effect, like... preventing 6 damage, in a game where any level 1 character has more than twice this amount of HP? I mean, sturdy shields are so awesome, a level 20 sturudy shield can literally be replaced by a few level 1 minion and the ability "human shield: you throw a minion in the way. The minion suffers the damages of the attack up to his full HP, you suffer the remaining damages."

Oh, and it doesn't only cost the shield, it cost also a feat, one free hand, one action, and one reaction. To prevent a few damage. That's probably the least cost-effective way of gaining a few HP in the whole game. And it costs micro-management (counting the HP of the shield), because micro-management is awesome?

And we're here with 15 pages explaining how preventing 6 damages is so awesome, it would be the only viable build in the whole game if the shield didn't break. OK, what about the following fighter build:
- dueling dance.
- bandolier
- 800 level 6 healing potion (they cost as much as a max-level sturdy shield, and heal 23 hp - more than one shield block with such a shield).
I guess this is the build used by every fighter, since he gains the bonus AC and regains 23 HP per turn at the cost of one action. He could even use more powerful potions, or use other alchemical items - but hey, this would be so good, it would totally break the game, let's not do this.

... Just give infinite HP to every shield (or more precisely, shield block, has a normal use of the shield, doesn't make it lose its HP - as a strike doesn't damage your sword, even when you're attacking an earth elemental, an iron golem or an adamantine door). No one would notice a difference in term of balance - non-shield users would notice the shield-user has some cool defensive abilities, instead of just laughing each time the shield breaks and each time the character uses his body to protect his shield ("you had your shield raised, you had your reaction ready, why didn't you block the blow? - it's easier to resurrect me than to repair my shield"). You know what? Shield builds being the best defensive builds is what everyone expects - right now, I'd rather play a fighter with a free hand and a bandolier.

If everyone would prefer a reflective shield in such a case, then the problem isn't that shield block is too powerful - the problem is that reflecting shield is too powerful (or the sturdy shield doesn't prevent enough damages). Right now, there are lots and lots of characters who can use a reflecting shield at no cost: any character who without the shield block reaction. If everyone of them uses a reflecting shield (or even worse, a spellguard shield because they don't think the reaction of the reflective shield is worth 17750 gp), this means the reflecting or spellguard shield is too good.

TL; DR: make every shield non-destructible (like every other equipment in the game), nobody would break a sweat.

Lawrencelot wrote:

Captain Morgan, if there were no rules for lying, I think all of your arguments could also be used to argue that it's not necessary to have rules for lying. "Just use Society to pretend you know the host of the party" / "Just use an Arcana check to convince them you knew the specifics of the dragon". It seems like a logical fallacy to me, though I don't know which one.

I do agree that an extra "convince someone of the truth" mechanic is not necessary. But I am looking for clear rules in the current ruleset for the situation, just like we have clear rules for lying.

I think the best we can do is keep coming up with scenarios until we find some sort of pattern.

Let's say the evil twin brother of one of the PCs stole something from a merchant at the market. The merchant saw the evil twin run away, lost him, then found the PC, who looks just like him. The merchant accuses him of being a thief and demands his stolen goods back. The PC says he did not steal anything. Maybe it was his twin brother?

The merchant wouldn't believe him.

... except, of course, if the PC doesn't have any evil twin. In which case, everyone believes him if he succeeds at Deception.

Maybe as an example, let's say the PCs have slain a dragon. They don't have any proof, but they try to convince the king that they did this. Another person tries to convince the king, also without proof, that the dragon is still alive. What kind of checks are used to try to convince the king?

It seems you should use Diplomacy, hence it's easier for some character to convince NPC of unbelievable false facts than unbelievable true facts.

So, let's say you play a character with high Deception/low Diplomacy, you know the king offer high reward to dragon slayers but he's not easy to convince. What you should do is not slay a dragon, and try to convince the King you did; if you make the error of actually slaying a dragon, it will become a lot harder to convince the king.

Gaterie wrote:

SuperBidi wrote:

Also, walls don't have to follow the grid directions, so they can go through multiple squares.

I don't think you can, since the rules don't say you can't. It's linguistically the same as saying you can't.

Yeah, but the rules don't say you can follow the grid either, so you can't position them at all!

You're right.

But look around yourself; I guess you're surrounded by 4 walls, and those walls are perpendicular one to another (and are touching themselves). Hence, a wall spell has to be cast adjacent and perpendicular to an existing wall.

Since existing walls usually follow grid directions, the wall you create using the above rule (which is totally the official rule) will usually follows grid directions as well.

Also, walls don't have to follow the grid directions, so they can go through multiple squares.

I don't think you can, since the rules don't say you can't. It's linguistically the same as saying you can't.

I’m aware of the rules, that comment wasn’t about the rules but using the other poster’s own logic and view of play they were touting against them.

If you were aware of the rules, you'd know the rules already answer you. Why would you try to trick another poster in this case? He will simply quote the rule.

Instead of polluting the thread with your useless messages (or your "awesome tricks that are already answered in the rules"), go read the rules. Now.

Gaterie wrote:

Themetricsystem wrote:

Scout is explicitly listed as one of the Exploration Mode activities

Hey guys, our first cheater in this thread!

"Yes, I can totally do any exploration activity I want while having a permanent +1 to initiative because my pet rock is scouting, that's common sense, familiar are totally intended to break the activity economy".

Thats a harsh reading for someone who doesn't agree with you.

Hum, no. Using a false reading of the rule to justify a permanent +1 to anything is cheating.

Anyone can be wrong when reading the rules. But at the moment you starts to think "with my reading of the rule, I can get a free +1 bonus at no cost", you should question your reading of the rules - or you shouldn't be surprised to be treated as a cheater. Permanent +1 bonus are awesome and everyone wants some, but the game doesn't give it for free: if you get some for free you're cheating.

By your “Economy” reasoning no one can attempt any activities unless they remain perfectly still, since Striding is an action. “No one gets to ignore Actions”, remember?

... If only the rules stated it's possible to do an alternation of two action...

Risky, I think you should read the rules before posting. Right now, you look... I'll say "ridiculous" to use a nice word: posting about rules you don't know or understand doesn't make you look clever. And talking about "common sense" or "bad faith" while being proud of your false paradox doesn't either.

Scout is explicitly listed as one of the Exploration Mode activities

Hey guys, our first cheater in this thread!

"Yes, I can totally do any exploration activity I want while having a permanent +1 to initiative because my pet rock is scouting, that's common sense, familiar are totally intended to break the activity economy".

Or just continue arguing in bad faith extremes, okay.

Seriously? That's your only "argument"? "Mommy, there are people who disagree with me and its can only be bad faith". Who old are you?

But if this kind of "argument" allows you to cheat at your table... More power to you, I guess ?

Minion rules for animals aren't common sense either (I can buy it for summons), but we apply them because it's the rules, set there to ensure balance over realism.

And, according to common sense, if action economy is so important it has to be enforced over realism, then action economy has to be enforced over realism during encounter mode, exploration mode and downtime.

Would anyone allow a character to perform two downtime activities at the same time ? two exploration activities at the same time ? If not, then a wizard with a familiar shouldn't break a activity economy "because he has a familiar".

According to common sense, if it requires constant supervision during a fight, chances are it requires constant supervision outside of a fight - at least to do anything useful.

Look at a child: during a fight, he requires constant supervision or he'll get killed. According to your "common sense", can he scout without any supervision?

Is Exploration Mode measured in Rounds and Actions? No.

Exploration mode is measured in exploration activities. A character able to perform two exploration activities at once performs more activities than another, and break the action economy (or the activity economy, if you prefer).

You can use things that are Actions in Exploration Mode, that doesn’t mean Exploration Mode is measured in Rounds and Actions. Or do you also scrutinize player’s actions in Exploration and Downtime Mode, going over single move “action” and the like?

Do you allow a character to craft several items at the same time while performing a jog, or do you limit every character to only one downtime activity at a time?

In the latter case, there's a downtime activity economy - and most players use this economy.

Flier only as far as I know....where does it say it requires darkvision?

Don't owls see in the dark ?

Yup it should be able to do that easily if you give it speech and flight as it's familiar abilities.

Isn't a owl familiar required to take flier and darkvision?

Rysky wrote:

Or we play with GMs who have opponents go after the bigger threats to themselves (the PCs) rather than ignore the Barbarian introducing the greatsword to their face in favor off going after Smoog the party mascot.

I fling a fireball, or line up a dragon's breath into the middle of the party, where the familiar is standing beside their wizard or whatever, in the middle of all the other targets I would normally attack. RAW, the familiar rolls a save and takes damage like everyone else, so I'm not sure that's what people are worried about.

No, because [insert here any houserule protecting the familiar]. Since any DM who doesn't use this houserule is the worst DM ever, there's no need to include this houserule in the rule.

Anyway, the only consensus here is:
1/ the best familiar abilities are the pet rock abilities (the abilities that doesn't involve familiar's senses or familiar's move or even familiar's existence).
2/ a pet rock in your backpack isn't affected by AoE.
3/ if your familiar does anything a pet rock can't do (like delivering spells our moving around), then it's fair play to kill it.

Hence, choose any familiar, put its eyes out and pull its legs off, now it's a pet rock and you're golden. I think everyone can agree on this.

The question if it's an awesome game design or not is unrelated.

A lot of people seem to be missing this, but PF2E is not, and was never meant to be an economics simulator, nor a physics simulator. It is an adventurer simulator. The rules are designed to accommodate and encourage adventurers doing their thing.

NPCs do not function by the rules in the book. They do their crafting and make their money and go about their lives, and the rules neither address nor care about how they do so. The rules only care about adventurers doing adventure.

You would be right if you weren't plain wrong.

The rules are designed to force the PCs to have a level-appropriate equipment or be tpk-ed. Thus, in order to allow the adventurers to do adventures, the rules have to provide a way for the PCs to get level-appropriate equipment. Since the DM may decide there's no level 15 sword to sell in the wasteland where the PCs are, the rules should give a way to craft the level 15 sword.

So as a question do we still have distance modifiers on Perception, and if so do those modifiers or any others such as from precipitation effect perception rolls for initiative?

Using circumstance penalty on init roll doesn't make a lot of sense since characters may use other skill for init.

DM: "There's a lot fog and..."
PCs: "We all use the avoid notice tactic."

A blind, deaf, stuffy-nosed character still rolls initiative in encounter mode, and can still beat others in initiative. Even if such a character can't perceive threats, they can still take combat-viable actions, such as summon a monster or drink a potion, before the opposition acts. I find this bizarre.

Moreover, this kind of character may have a very high initiative. He probably have an abysmall Perception, but who cares since he may use the avoid notice activity or any other tactic allowing him to roll init with something else than Per?

Ubertron_X wrote:

One party, the one acting aka setting up an ambush or surprise attack, does a skill check versus a fixed value, usually Stealth (but maybe Deception or even Athletics in our case) versus passive Perception mostly and this roll is also used to determine the acting partys initiative.

However once the GM calls for initiative, a new roll - ranked roll as they call it - is made and it may easily be that even if the prior skill check was high enough to beat the passive DC, however is not high enough to beat the active initiative roll of the opposition.

Which for an ambush or surprise attack can lead to situations where one side is not aware of the others whereabouts or intentions, they just know that things are about to happen and need to act to their best knowledge and ability, e.g. using a seek action in order to detect the ambush or shouting a warning for everybody to stay put in case of negotiations.

And with true surprise rounds out of the equation the principle of "you can't punish people for rolling high" must be applied to both NPCs and PCs, which simply means that if a NPC guard can react to a PC "surprise attack" simply by being faster, then this principle also needs to hold true for a PC character that spurs to action before an ambush actually happens.

I don't really agree with the "Spidey Sense" description, as others have put it. It isn't that the character is reacting to a feeling something is going down. It is that they initially didn't notice the concealed character (or deception, or whatever), but did as the attack was beginning. They notice the bow being pulled back, the person getting in position to jump, the bead of sweat that gives away the lie, etc.

I do agree that initiative should work the same for PC and NPC alike. This is one of the reasons I dislike the proposals for a free turn for whoever decides to attack first. PF adventure paths are full of areas where NPCs will attack on sight. The typical, non-murderhobo, PC party wants to...

"Spider sense" is a derogatory to talk about the situation where you know you're in a fight but you have no idea where the enemies are.

Maybe you heard a bow being pulled back - but you don't even know the direction this sound come from. Maybe you see a black cat running the street and you know it's a bad omen - but you don't know what this omen is about. In the end, you are in a fight, you know it, but you have no idea where the danger is - and we use the generic concept of "spider-sense" to designate this situation, because that's what spider-sense is: a perception of danger (without any clue where the danger is).

Because in the end, this is how the system works per RAW : you know there a danger but you don't know where. Maybe it's an ambush, maybe the guy you're talking with will stab you in the next few second, maybe a bulette will come out of the ground, etc.

Note: the tutorial given by RavingDork gave a new piece of information: rolling one stealth roll for init and to remain unnoticed is a special rule of the avoid notice activity. When you roll Perception for init, you don't uncover your enemy, no matter how high your roll is - and this make sense: since a Seek action affect only a small area, how could a non-action init roll be a Seek action on the whole battlemap? (while being a Sense motive action on every character you can see at the same time). Hence, in the end, going first while not noticing any enemy is a very common situation.

You know what though, if you applied the stealth initiative vs perception DC concept to deception, you might wind up with someone beating you in initiave but doesn't realise your intentions due to beating their perception DC. Interesting. Your GM could use the Spidey sense solution again, but I guess they'd be using actions to Sense Motive instead of Seek?

Which is exactly what I already explained. It's so sweet to be always right...

Except for one more detail: stealth isn't automatic. Hiding intentions is (except if a lie is involved). Hence, while hidden people have to beat Perception DC with their Stealth check in order to be actually hidden, people who are hiding their intention don't have to succeed at any roll to actually hide their intention (except if a lie is involved). But then it works like Stealth : a hidden character (resp hidden intention) may be detected using the Seek action (resp. the Sense motive action).

The normal state of people is "not hidden", they may use the Stealth action to be "hidden", hidden people may be detected with the seek action. The normal state of intentions is "hidden" (except if a lie is involved), hidden intention may be detected using the sense motive action.

Gaterie wrote:

Ubertron_X wrote:

Gaterie wrote:

Because the barbarian isn't doing anything requiring a deception check: he isn't Creating a Diversion, Impersonating nor Lying.

if someone else gain init, that person may ask the barb if he intents to attack - forcing the barb either to lie (and make a deception check), either to keep silent (which could be interpreted as a confession). But at the moment the barb decide to be hostile, there isn't any deception involved.

Please keep in mind that the skill actions listed under a skill are not meant to be all there is.

Except, at the moment init is rolled, the barb didn't do any thing at all - he has just some intent, but there isn't any rule saying every character must state every of his intent at all moment or roll deception. There is a rule about lying, and there is rule about sense motive (this costs action to the person who's sensing motive - and he can't do a "general sense motive", he has to spend an action for every person. If there are 4 PCs, there's no way a character may sense the motive of every one of them within 1 round).

Since the barb isn't lying, what is the rule that makes the most sense to use?

Note: you may allow some sort of "passive sense motive". But remember: everyone is trained (or more) in Perception, while only a few numbers of characters are trained in any skill - including Deception. If you allow "passive sense motive", you should clearly state the intents of almost every character at every moment. "The merchand intents to buy your item even if you raise the price by 25%", "your prisoner intents to be a brigand once you'll release him", "your employer doesn't intent to pay you", etc. It's possible to play that way (this is how Malk plays), but this isn't the usual way.

The barbarian, if they want to get a drop on people who are standing right in front of them. Needs to be hiding their emotions, this is a form of deception, quite analogous to non verbal lying in this situation...

You're right, except the game handle it the other way around: the barb doesn't have anything to do to hide his emotion, other people may spend action to discover those intents.

Gaterie wrote:

Because the barbarian isn't doing anything requiring a deception check: he isn't Creating a Diversion, Impersonating nor Lying.

if someone else gain init, that person may ask the barb if he intents to attack - forcing the barb either to lie (and make a deception check), either to keep silent (which could be interpreted as a confession). But at the moment the barb decide to be hostile, there isn't any deception involved.

Please keep in mind that the skill actions listed under a skill are not meant to be all there is.

Except, at the moment init is rolled, the barb didn't do any thing at all - he has just some intent, but there isn't any rule saying every character must state every of his intent at all moment or roll deception. There is a rule about lying, and there is rule about sense motive (this costs action to the person who's sensing motive - and he can't do a "general sense motive", he has to spend an action for every person. If there are 4 PCs, there's no way a character may sense the motive of every one of them within 1 round).

Since the barb isn't lying, what is the rule that makes the most sense to use?

Note: you may allow some sort of "passive sense motive". But remember: everyone is trained (or more) in Perception, while only a few numbers of characters are trained in any skill - including Deception. If you allow "passive sense motive", you should clearly state the intents of almost every character at every moment. "The merchand intents to buy your item even if you raise the price by 25%", "your prisoner intents to be a brigand once you'll release him", "your employer doesn't intent to pay you", etc. It's possible to play that way (this is how Malk plays), but this isn't the usual way.

Just a quick question from my end: What is limiting us to treat a Deception initiative check like a Stealth initiative check when transitioning from Exploration to Encounter mode?

Because the barbarian isn't doing anything requiring a deception check: he isn't Creating a Diversion, Impersonating nor Lying.

if someone else gain init, that person may ask the barb if he intents to attack - forcing the barb either to lie (and make a deception check), either to keep silent (which could be interpreted as a confession). But at the moment the barb decide to be hostile, there isn't any deception involved.

In the barbarian/balor example, I'd let the barbarian change his declared course of actions, but not to cancel the fight. It would be obvious to all that he intended hostile action.

He could change targets, course, actions, or even try to de-escalate (as Malk stated) with some seriously hard checks, but he could not cancel the fight like it never happened. That would be meta gaming. Kind of like walking down a hallway, springing a trap, then saying you actually are going down the other hallway.

Let's say there's a corpse with some loot in the trap. What you're advocating for is to apply the effect of the trap, while not allowing the PCs to see the corpse and the loot - the detrimental effect without the benefit, just to punish the players.

Again, this is not how the game works: when you decide to resolve an action, you have to apply the benefit of his action. The barbarian can't be the one who broke the peace if you deny him of his action.

Anyway, look at the rule quoted by Mark : at the moment the barbarian gets the idea of being hostile, you have to roll init. This is automatically before he does anything - he can't have done anything hostile before the moment he had the idea. And normal people don't express all their idea at the moment they get it (only Mark's character does that).

You roll init, every character gets his spider sense and may use the sense motive action (with the risk of crit failure, especially if some character have high deception: "ho no, the negociator decided to attack!") or something else (or you can deny of their actions as your tutorial explains - what you can't do is deny them of their action while applying the detrimental effect of the action they intended to take) etc.

Page 498 states to roll initiative "when a creature on one side decides to take action against the other." So the barbarian player declaring hostile intent is by RAW when you roll initiative. That the barbarian regretted after the fact doesn't change anything.

Yes, "when a creature decide to [something]". And how do the other creatures know who decided what?

Other creature gaining init means nothing more than "their spider-sense activates".

I think the whole issue is that some of us believe that a player saying "I want to charge attack him" is really saying "I'm interested in starting hostilities" and in character that can be displayed many ways, without actually taking any actions (in the mechanical sense). The character can yell, pound his fist on the table, start to draw a weapon, etc. Exactly what is done is left to the GM and the table to describe.

No, the problem is that some people are so committed into trapping the players and preventing them from doing anything, they want to apply the detrimental effects of the barbarian's action (he broke the peace) while not applying the beneficial effects of his action (he attacked and maybe dealt some damage).

But this is not how the system works. The system is designed to punish the players and prevent them from doing anything (as someone explained somewhere, PCs don't get any benefit from surprise, but it's a feature of the system, not a bug), but not to that point: when you resolve an action, you resolve the whole action, with the detrimental effects and the beneficial effects. You can't just give the penalties of the action and not the benefit. You can't say "you activate your rage? wait, your action is interrupted, and while we resolve the interruption you have the AC penalty but not HP bonus" : either the action of the barbarian is resolved and he get the full benefits and penalties, either it isn't and he doesn't have any benefit nor penalty.

The scene is thus resolved the same way as the example 4 in the video: combat starts, the first guy to act knows he's in combat thank to his spider sense but he doesn't know why. He notices the barbarian, but the barbarian didn't do anything hostile at that point - maybe the actual danger lies in some hidden goblins?

Now let's use example 4 from the video once again; let's say Merisiel, wining init and using her spider sense, summons a Balor - showing your power and summoning a powerful ally for the next few turns is a sensible thing to do when you know there's a danger but don't know what. The goblin 1 sees the demon, and think it's a bit too powerful for a level 0 goblin: instead of attacking, he decides to stay hidden. The other goblins do the same. Now the situation has suddenly changed from example 4 to example 1 - combat doesn't happen, the group pass, the end. Why should it be different from the king's wizard summoning a Balor and discouraging the barbarian from doing anything hostile long before he gets to act?

---
Now, lets imagine another scenario:
1/ the wizard says "I cast a fireball".
2/ roll init, wizard goes last.
3/ at his turn, he doesn't cast a fireball because we can't burn his foe without burning his friend. instead he casts a magic missile.

At this point, would you ask him to remove his Fireball slot?

If yes, then I think you're using some houserule - but hey, maybe you're right, maybe the wizard should be punished because he said "I cast a fireball" and you randomly disrupted his action.

If no, then you agree with me: the wizard didn't even start his incantation. If the spellcasting activity had begun before init is rolled, then the fight would have interrupted and disrupted it (rules p. 461), and a disrupted spell consumes the slot (rules p. 302). Hence, if the slot isn't consumed, this means the spellcasting activity never started is the first place - thus this non-existant casting can't be the peacebreaker.

Gaterie wrote:

Malk_Content wrote:

I mean that a player can retain their stated intent to make the rules look silly isntba rules problem, it's a player problem

He doesn't retract anything, he just follow the rules: he didn't act (because the rules say so - and obviously a lot of people agree in this thread), and the thing he wanted to do 10 minutes ago doesn't engage him now.

This is a very common thing in d&d/pf: a PC falls, the cleric say "I'll heal at my turn", the situation change, at his turn he can't heal the PC, he does something else. The fact he said "I'll heal you at my turn" doesn't consume a spell slot or trigger an AoO or anything: the heal spell never happened. This is the same with the barbarian: since it didn't get to act in the first place, his hostile action never happened. This is the same in example 4 described in the tutorial: since the goblin never get to act in the first place, he didn't give away his position by attacking. When his turn comes, maybe Merisiel used some high-level ability at her turn and the goblin knows he shouldn't attack such a powerful foe - so he stay hidden as in example 1.

There is a difference between changing what your combat action is going to be and changing that you wanted to fight in the first place. The second one only happens if you are purposefully trying to make the rules look silly.

I already gave a sensible example of this kind of behavior beforehand (with the goblins of the tutorial). But since you don't read the thread, I'll give another example, just for you:

If the barb can do the latter, then he never did anything hostile - since he didn't act before his turn and didn't act during his turn.

Is this example simple enough for you?

---
Anyway, I fail to see where people have a problem.

1/ people don't get to act before their turn. That's actually what most of the people here are arguing. (I think there are two people who disagree).

2/ At your turn, you do whatever you want - you aren't tied to what you wanted to do 10 minutes ago when the situation wasn't the same.

Are people disagreeing with point 2/? Can you reference the rules you're using (page ref etc) instead of talking in the void?

I mean that a player can retain their stated intent to make the rules look silly isntba rules problem, it's a player problem

He doesn't retract anything, he just follow the rules: he didn't act (because the rules say so - and obviously a lot of people agree in this thread), and the thing he wanted to do 10 minutes ago doesn't engage him now.

This is a very common thing in d&d/pf: a PC falls, the cleric say "I'll heal at my turn", the situation change, at his turn he can't heal the PC, he does something else. The fact he said "I'll heal you at my turn" doesn't consume a spell slot or trigger an AoO or anything: the heal spell never happened. This is the same with the barbarian: since it didn't get to act in the first place, his hostile action never happened. This is the same in example 4 described in the tutorial: since the goblin never get to act in the first place, he didn't give away his position by attacking. When his turn comes, maybe Merisiel used some high-level ability at her turn and the goblin knows he shouldn't attack such a powerful foe - so he stay hidden as in example 1.

beowulf99 wrote:

Jared Walter 356 wrote:

RAW combat begins when the barbarian decides to attack, and everyone rolls initiative. But run it however you want.

Sure. But what information does anybody but the Barbarian use to decide what actions to take?

The barbarian is taking hostile action. Full stop.

Of course not, lol. x)

You should look at this video, at the 16th minute (example 4): while it's not a great video, it's quite clear on that point: before the goblins act, they remain unoticed - as if they didn't act at all. Even if their intent is to become noticed at their turn. Would they have already taken an hostile action, they wouldn't be unoticed anymore - I don't think there's any hostile action allowing you to remain unoticed.

It's the same for the barbarian: before he acts, he hasn't acted - hence he hasn't taken any hostile action.

When encounter mode is initiated from exploration mode by the barbarian player saying "I charge the boss", the player reveals information to the GM about his plans. Once we are in initiative order, how the GM-run NPCs at the top of the initiative order act on this GM knowledge is very much a matter of GMing style. Many people here on this thread believe in this case the NPCs are able to tell the barbarian's plans by him "telegraphing" his intentions somehow. And thus can use their turns to prevent him doing that, even by killing him.

Actually hz aren't telegraphing anything - when his turn comes up, he can just raise his hands and ask why the opponents are attacking him.

I guess the intent is to allow the PCs to force the other to initiate the fight. Saying "I draw my sword" doesn't mean you draw your sword, it means the encounter mode starts so the opponent attack you first.

Anyway, I have no idea how people would handle the situation if it was inverted: PCs are negotiating with a group of NPC, at some point init is rolled because maybe one of the NPC will draw his sword and attack - right now none of them did anything and none of them is committed to anything, but hey, one of them may do something at his turn. It's your turn, what do you do?

Surprise Example

Player: "I'm going to hide in this doorway and attack the first enemy that comes along with my sword" [Ready Action set as a Reaction]
 
Enemy: Enters hallway but out of range of player [To notice: Stealth vs Perception; player wins so we continue]
 
Enemy: Unsuspectingly walks within range of the hidden player
 
Player’s Reaction is triggered so the Readied attack occurs vs flat-footed target
 
Both: Roll Initiative / Start Encounter

This is not how it work.

1/ there isn't any "Stealth vs Perception" roll in the game; you can roll Stealth vs perception DC, or you can roll Perception vs the Stealth DC, but you can't roll Perception vs Stealth.

2/ if you allow to ready an attack out of combat, then every character will do that, and it's exactly the same as the old surprise round : every PC get one attack before combat start, then roll init. Except surprise rounds have been purposedly removed from the game: it's very strange to argue they are still here in another form although they were removed.

3/ the roll determining if the ambush was a success is the initiative roll : if the Stealth as init roll beats the perception DC, while none of the Perception as init roll beats the Stealth DC, then the ambush is a success. or something like that. So you start by determining if the ambush is a success, then you roll init (at long range if you decided the ambush failed, or at short range if the ambush is successful), and this roll determine if the ambush is successful. If the ambushed people gain init but don't see anything, no one knows how it work.

3) Can your allies gain the benefit of "Follow the Expert" to their Stealth checks? By RAW, I'm not sure they can, but that seems exceptionally weird given the flavor of the feat.

Note : "follow the expert" has the auditory trait. I have no idea how it works with stealth. I guess it means a character may use auditory actions like singing or using a power word without breaking from stealth? Whatever, who cares.

and how easy is it on average to guess the right save and have an appropriate spell on hand to make use of it ?

usually it's a 50% guess. It's easy to determine the highest save (big -> fort, smart -> will, small -> ref), but there's no way to determine the smallest one among the remaining two. Eg, it's obvious the highest save of a white dragon is fort, but there's no way to know its smallest save is will.

Depending on your degree of metagame, you may have better results.

graystone wrote:

RexAliquid wrote:

What were you doing that your flame oracle had to deal with concealment?

I'll thank Cole for getting the quotes for me. It's part and parcel of playing a flame oracle that's used any revelation spells in the day.

Yes, but why did that impact you? It’s the easiest curse to mitigate

That's very strange since, as explained by Graystone, you can't mitigate the penalty.

Anyway, I guess the actual answer is "'mitigate' in the rules doesn't mean 'mitigate', it means 'remove or reduce'. Hence the rules state you can't 'mitigate or mitigate' the penalty and it makes perfect sense. And you can mitigate the penalty even though the rules say you can't because it doesn't mean the same thing".