My group decided to tie up a goblin, place him in a wheelbarrow, and roll him down the stairs....essentially making such a ruckus to awaken Tsuto. Of course, Tsuto promptly woke up and investigated. <evil grin>
Also, the party sorcerer decided to steal a 360gp glass dragon from the gift shop (promptly earning himself...and the party Cleric that saw him do it....a greed point). Not sure how to handle this type of behavior. The Cleric said it was OK because it was for the benefit of the "party". /shrug
My understanding as well. But I was hopng for more clarity on the way DR is worded in the core rules. IIRC, there is a sentence tehre reading "touch attacks are not negated by DR"....or something to that effect. What is the intent? My understanding is that if you get hit with a touch attack, you don't apply DR.
As the DM, I mistakingly rolled two attacks with a creature that had a touch attack, but called for normal AC. Which, in the case of a plate mail wearing paladin, the normal AC is much higher than his touch AC. Both "touch" attacks missed due to the mistake on my part, but would have hit if we were using his touch AC.
Is it wrong to reduce the CR of the encounter due to it (because of said mistake) being an easy encounter?
The black raven wrote:
I certainly agree that the players intent was to not kill the baby. (Keep in mind that this player has a history of interpreting the rules contrary to both what I understand and what the rules say in <mostly> plain English...and is not afraid to get into heated debate.) :-)
The spell is very clearly written, and both the player and character should be fully aware that it affects Neutral creatures. Therefore, even in the event that I didn't warn them, it's on the player/character for being careless. At the very least, knowing that the spell affects NEUTRAL creatures, other steps should have been taken both by the player and the character. At the end of the day, it boils down to a careless player.
This is pretty much how it played out. I was told I was being dumb, and the player even lied to an absentee player about how things went down. Specifically, he stated that he wasn't warned and I wouldn't allow him to take it back.
When he declared that he was casting Holy Smite, I looked at the rules and declared that the infant was in the AOE. I was then told that I was being dumb and that if the baby died, it was an evil baby. I declared that it was neutral. I looked at the AP and checked the stat block of the parents, which said they were neutral. Then I read the entries for the various alignments and it was a no-brainer to declare NEUTRAL. It was repeated that if the baby dies, it is evil. Dice were rolled, and things got really ridiculous. I then questioned myself as to why I would play in/DM for such an immature group of players. Seriously.
All of the listed examples are RAW legal. It makes sense IMO and reflects real world combat pretty efficiently. Might I ask why this needs discussion?
It is my new understanding that the latest printings have cleared this up, but the fact that the footnotes were in the first printing in the first place lead me to rule this differently. So, I was seeing if others were playing it the same way I was.
The rules are fuzzy on this and I'm just trying to get clarity from the community.
I am referencing the first printing of the core rules.
The rule basically states that you can draw a weapon (or ready/drop a shield) as part of a "regular" move as long as you have a BAB of +1 or higher.
The sentence is confusing in that "regular" is undefined, although I have always played it as the act of moving from one place to another i.e., not as a move equivalent action. (My logic is that there are no "irregular" move actions).
The "MOVE ACTION" table on page 183 even contains footnotes to clarify which move actions qualify (draw a weapon or read/drop a shield).
So, if I start my round with a potion in my hand and want to move to an enemy and draw a two handed weapon on the way, my understanding of RAW is as follows:
Move action - stow the potion
Is this correct?
If the answer is no, then the following scenarios (starting the round empty handed this time) should be possible:
Move action - open a door and draw a two handed weapon as a free action
Move action - move a heavy object and draw a two handed weapon as a free action
Starting the round with a light crossbow in one hand)
Move action - mount a steed and draw a two handed weapon as a free action
See a pattern developing here? Please discuss. How do YOU rule this? What is the intent of the rule?
THIS! Very well said, mdt! Likewise, I would add that in the PF/D&D world, the gods have no inclination to care that the infant is in harms way. Why would they make an exception? The gods themselves are not concerned with that minutiae. It is incumbent on his followers to uphold his mantra lest they suffer the consequences for stepping out of line. They wouldn't step in and make exceptions for the careless cleric to go about smiting in the presence of "innocents".
Maya Deva wrote:
RAW states "all creatures have an alignment". And it just so happens that NEUTRAL suits an infant perfectly. For purposes of determining spell effects, this has to be in place.
Likewise, the cleric (player and character) has to know that the spells they cast have an affect on specific alignments and should act accordingly. To my way of thinking, it really is that simple. If in doubt, don't cast it....do something else instead.
For the record, my player knew that there was a chance of killing the infant. I warned him just after he said he was going to cast the spell. He did it anyway.
Zog of Deadwood wrote:
The infant was in the same 5 foot square, lying on the floor. But, I think the intent of the games rules are fairly clear in that if it affects one person in a 5 foot square, it affects everything in that same square. These rulings where "I place the spell just so it affects him from the nose up, thereby saving the baby he is cradling in his arms" is stretching the intent and making things overly complicated. That's just me.
No, I am not a monarchist. And I do agree with the premise that Goblin babies are not inherently evil. I also realize that I made a global sweeping and statement implying that they are, but I still maintain that in my game (for the sake of simplicity and in the interest of not bogging down the game in metaphysical discussions regarding morality) are evil. Therefore, to be clear, a Lawful Good cleric does not risk losing favor by smiting the little bastards. ;-)
Now, having said that, this thread does not question the alignment of goblin babies, and I'm really not interested in discussing that issue any further.
Let me put things into context as they happened in game:
BBEG is taking innocent babies from poor/delusional/misguided villagers under the guise that he is holy and performing good. The villagers willingly give the children to him because they have been fooled and believe they are doing the right thing. Enter the PCs.....who know the evil, nefarious plans of the BBEG and are completely aware of the situation. PCs encounter BBEG with an infant. Any rational person would immediatley assume that the infant is innocent and should be protected. Cleric PC spams HOLY SMITE anyway, claiming "If the baby dies, he is evil!". Paladin in group says nothing and lets it happen because PLAYERS say that infant human NPC's with Neutral aligned parents are GOOD and should not be affected.
Thats fine. But this thread is about HUMAN infant NPCs with NEUTRAL parents. The Goblin discussion is not something I'm interested in.
My response was based on my game. If you encounter goblin babies in my game, they are evil.
So the player can get the spell off and not kill the infant? That's the only rationale I can muster. And all four players agreed that the infant was GOOD and should not be affected by the spell HOLY SMITE. /smh My players are munchkins.
Spell = Holy Smite
Big Bad Evil Guy standing in the same square as infant is targeted by Holy Smite = dead infant.
I think that is what you are asking.
"All creatures have an alignment. Alignment determines the effectiveness of some spells and magic items.
Animals and other creatures incapable of moral action are neutral. Even deadly vipers and tigers that eat people are neutral because they lack the capacity for morally right or wrong behavior. Dogs may be obedient and cats free-spirited, but they do not have the moral capacity to be truly lawful or chaotic." - from SRD
I maintain that infants are NEUTRAL.
This came up in game when determining a spell affect that was alignment contingent, and the table was divided. Therefore, I am reaching out to the community for clarity.
First let me define two important considerations that must be accounted for:
1. Infant = completely dependent on others for basic survival, and for our discussion, let's assume that this infant is 6 months out of the womb.
2. Parents = stat blocks clearly indicate NEUTRAL alignment.
Secondly, the table was divided into the following two groups:
Group 1 - claimed that the baby was clearly of GOOD alignment.
Group 2 - claimed that the baby was clearly of NEUTRAL alignment.
Ok, so a certain AP has a certain critters tactics written to cast Lightning Bolt while underwater. Seems that the electricity would harm everyone in the vicinity, whether they were targeted or not. I know this is going to become a bone of contention with the players, so I'm reaching out for clarity and rulings. Thoughts?
Destructive Smite (Su): You gain the destructive smite power: the supernatural ability to make a single melee attack with a morale bonus on damage rolls equal to 1/2 your cleric level (minimum 1). You must declare the destructive smite before making the attack. You can use this ability a number of times per day equal to 3 + your Wisdom modifier.
If I declare the destructive smite and miss, do I lose one use of the ability?
Checking with the community to determine what the general consenus is regarding the Hungry Ghost Monks "Steel Ki" ability. The player wants to steal ki from unconcious opponents (for instance, an opponent that was nocked below zero HP by another party member), justifying it by the fact that a coup de grace is a critical hit. Technically, as per RAW, this is true. RAI? Probably not so much. Thoughts?
I have a player that wants to take subject feat. Rolled a half-orc, and wants to get the most out of his bite.
The feat clearly states a pre-req of three natural attacks. My argument is that the half-orc only has one natural attack (the bite) and the otehr limbs would be considered unarmed attacks. Am I correct?
I'm pretty sure that "It does get hard for them (a monster at expected CR at level 8) to compensate." = disruptive.
If the "single" CR equivalent monster can't hit the tank, the encounter is (in most cases) a cake walk. If we add more lower level baddies to generate an equal CR, then the baddies have ZERO chance of hitting. And, this happens most of the time in AP's.
"Table: Character Wealth by Level can also be used to budget gear for characters starting above 1st level, such as a new character created to replace a dead one. Characters should spend no more than half their total wealth on any single item. For a balanced approach, PCs that are built after 1st level should spend no more than 25% of their wealth on weapons, 25% on armor and protective devices, 25% on other magic items, 15% on disposable items like potions, scrolls, and wands, and 10% on ordinary gear and coins. Different character types might spend their wealth differently than these percentages suggest; for example, arcane casters might spend very little on weapons but a great deal more on other magic items and disposable items."
This question came up because the PC's triggered a trap, got hit for 2d6 acid damage, and then quickly left the area. The rules are so unclear on how to adjudicate the item damage however, so the CR7 trap seemed extremely weak to simply allow the PC's to not worry about any of their equipment and walk out of a high level trap with only 2d6 damage.