Search Posts
Based on this page I'd say you can track him, though you take a -5 penalty to move at speed while doing so. Essentially you'd move as far along the last track he moved on as you can at your speed. If you don't make it to him, you'd need to continue following his speed as you move (so if he took a double move for example it'd be difficult to catch up).
Perhaps we should just set up randomizations more often? Meaning if there are two people sitting around both able to fight, they just get randomized up together. This certainly makes fights more frequent, and also gives less choice of opponent.
<3
THAT'S NOT HOW YOU ARBITRATE, YOU NEED NO APPROVAL FROM YOUR LESSERS. SIT YOURSELF DOWN ON THAT THRONE OF JUDGMENT AND RAIN DOWN RULES UPON YOUR SUBJECTS.
Challenge Bout
End of Bout Four
Challenge Bout
End of Bout Five
End of Bout Five
End of Bout Five
Rumples is not a very good goblin. He nearly had a pony, he prescribes to notions such as honor, and he even uses apostrophes. If you're actually concerned, all player characters are automatically literate as far as I know, and what better way to intimidate a goblin than WORDS :D
Woops! I swapped you out for Rumple in pit 2. My mistake. Is Shigeharu in the running? I was basing the ready people off of Eben's list.
Bout Five
End of Bout Four
Bout Five
Bout Five
End of Challenge Bout
Bout Five
Bout Five
End of Challenge Bout
My vote is for going today, I'll check out those two you mentioned Eben.
I'm just going with an entertaining character to start with, he's about done, would you like me to send him to ye Eben?
I was aware of the response from Pathfinder devs/rulings, but I felt that they had dumb reasons for their rulings considering that in D&D 3.5 it was doable and the scroll rules themselves did not change from 3.5 to Pathfinder, only the opinion of the guys in charge. That said, I am fine disallowing the scrolls, it makes a certain amount of sense that Paladins/Rangers just don't have the ability to channel any magic until a bit later on in their careers. I think it is certainly more balanced that way, so we'll just rule along with the Pathfinder devs. I third the Friday idea, and should have character done today, though now that the scroll question is resolved I'm unsure who I want to throw in... Should I go glass cannon or tank?
I believe it has been mostly ruled no in the past, but I'm not sure that it should be. Obviously the Paladin doesn't have a caster level until 4th, and this is not the same as caster level zero. The UMD example seems to give some amount of precedence for rolling a caster level check w/o a caster level, however, and the fact that the spell list is described as the "class spell list" (as well as the fact that a 1st level Wizard can cast 9th level spells from a scroll) makes me think that the potential for casting is there even if the "spellcaster" doesn't have true magical ability yet.
I've encountered a rule issue in my character creation that I have been unable to get a particularly clear answer on. The question is whether or not a Paladin/Ranger of levels 1-3 is able to use a scroll containing a spell that is on their spell list, despite not being able to actually cast spells yet, and without having an actual "caster level". This is pretty important question for the arena, so I'd like to show you my thought process on it, some previous discussion, and my intended ruling. Further Information:
Here are a few discussions on the topic: It seems pretty obvious that the Paladin/Ranger can meet the initial three qualifications to be able to cast the spell, which are (from the PRD) as follows: • The spell must be of the correct type (arcane or divine). Arcane spellcasters (wizards, sorcerers, and bards) can only use scrolls containing arcane spells, and divine spellcasters (clerics, druids, paladins, and rangers) can only use scrolls containing divine spells. (The type of scroll a character creates is also determined by his class.) • The user must have the spell on her class list. • The user must have the requisite ability score. There has been a small amount of argument that a 1-3 level Paladin/Ranger has no spell list, but this seems about as foolish as saying a 1st level Wizard has no 9th level spell list (from which he can obviously use scrolls despite not possessing the ability to cast the spells himself). See also the rules of spell trigger items, such a scrolls, which Paladins/Rangers can use with no problems. "Spell trigger items can be used by anyone whose class can cast the corresponding spell. This is the case even for a character who can't actually cast spells, such as a 3rd-level paladin." This is obviously about spell trigger items only, but the phrasing makes me more convinced that a Paladin/Ranger who cannot yet cast spells is still considered to have a spell list. With those three requirements fulfilled, we come to the final requirement for casting a scroll with no checks, which is "caster level at least equal to the spell's caster level". The Paladin/Ranger (having no caster level whatsoever, like a Fighter or Rogue) does not meet this requirement, and thus in order to cast a Paladin/Ranger spell from a scroll they need to make a caster level check. This is the part where the arguments tend to diverge. A caster level check is made by adding one's caster level to a d20 roll and comparing it to the DC. The argument against Paladins/Rangers being unable to use scrolls until 4th level rests on the assumption that a character with no caster level is unable to roll a caster level check. The only official stance of any Paizo developer I have seen agreed with this, though someone elsewhere cited Skip Williams as having said that in this case the caster level would be treated as zero, and the check is rolled normally. I feel that Skip's opinion on this is should be taken into consideration since the Pathfinder scroll rules were copy-pasted from 3.5. Under the rules for activating a scroll using UMD: "Use Magic Device allows you to use a scroll as if you had a particular spell on your class spell list." There is mention of faking an ability score to fulfill the initial requirements, but there is not any mention of faking any sort of caster level, so it is my assumption that a character would still need to make the caster level check or risk a mishap. In this case a character with no caster level would make a caster level check. It is my opinion that a Paladin/Ranger would be able to roll the caster level check and cast a spell from their spell list at any level, adding nothing to their check since they do not yet have a caster level.
Let me know what you think, I'd like to rule this into the arena.
Well let's have a full sound-off, I'll try to have a character somewhere in it :D I also am in favor of the suggestion to attempt a particular day of the week for randomization, though this might cause some people to have to wait longer if their fight goes over time. Anyhow, anyone who wants in on this round's randomization, post away.
I'm here as well, I'll be working on creating a gladiator today, just to see how that goes. Also I believe Elmer will be rejoining somewhat shortly. Eben/Choon, let me know if you need or want anything from me in terms of arbitrating things. Would you prefer me to do randomizations?
For another reason I would call it in that way, the text of Fog Cloud says "A creature within 5 feet has concealment", emphasis mine. I don't think the difference in wording was intentional, it seems like the two spells are meant to be analogous short of size and shape.
End of Challenge Bout
End of Challenge Bout
End of Bout Four
My take is that a creature any distance away has concealment, but beyond 5 ft. there is no visibility whatsoever. I base this on the line "The vapor obscures all sight, including darkvision, beyond 5 feet". I am fairly confident that since this "5 ft. away" clause is the only addendum to the blocking all sight thing that it applies when closer than 5 ft. RAW I think anyone in the cloud always has concealment.
I am very excited by this gladiatoring idea. I only had a few moments to check in right now, so if anyone wants to get randomization up before tomorrow evening they are welcome to, otherwise I'll do it then. It's my last night here with an old friend and I'm time-crushed. I shall return, but not tonight.
Alrighty, I am back to the internet though still away from my home base. I'm very glad you guys have kept this going while I was MIA. You may have all noticed that I go missing more frequently than I probably should. This is the only place on the forums that I'm currently active, and since I'm not involved in the gameplay myself I sometimes totally forget to update things (as I did last week before I left the internet. Anyways, in terms of the future of the administration of this pit, I am completely willing to either continue being in charge, to give some of the load to Eben/mbauers/someone else, or to give up all administration and join back in as a player. I am here to try to make this an enjoyable and illuminating sort of PbP, and whatever you guys feel is good I am completely down for. I would be fully willing to share the access information for the Pit Administration account if necessary. I'll check back in later, things seem to be rolling here for the moment and I have many things to go do.
Woop, just read the PM from Eben, seems like people are keeping things going without me. I will figure out things when I return, hope you're all well.
Guys, checking in, I'm alive, I am several states away from where I live and have been unexpectedly without internet for several days now. I am back to civilization but am headed back out tonight. I have not read the new posts here yet, but will read through when I'm back tonight and will update things that need it. Sorry for delayz.
Challenge Bout
Arian vs. Liane, going up in Pit Four.
End of Bout Four
@ spell-storing armor discussion, I agree that the rules are poorly worded (or it wouldn't say swift action), but I also feel that the way it is meant to be used involves sticking touch spells in there (ranged, melee, whatever), and having it smack your enemy around with them. @ tripping activating a magus's held touch attack, I have spent a pretty decent amount of time looking at this one, and it's one of the gnarlier rule questions (here's a fairly well-articulated phrasing of the questions involved and why it's not super clear-cut). The ruling I've made (that it does indeed discharge a held charge) is based on the magus's weapon being analogous to a hand holding a charge, as seems implied by the errata on the magus page here, though not spelled out explicitly anywhere.
imimrtl, in general I've been allowing weekends to be more dead-time, especially if I've put it up during the weekend (as long as this is okay with the opponent). It looks as though he's just posted, so I'd say just play from here.
Okay though, I think I'm caught back up now. Let's get some randomizin' goin' on. OFFICIAL ROUND FOUR Level 3:
Alistar vs. Sleepy Pete // Pit One Vironus vs. Rafiki // Pit Two Choon vs. Arian // Pit Three Gnasher vs. Johnny // Pit Four Jezebel vs. Vatale // Pit Five Level 4: Elinora vs. Rolg // Pit Six Basha vs. Shigeharu // Pit Seven
Bout Four
Bout Four
Bout Four
Bout Four
|