Ostog the Unslain

Thaboe's page

Organized Play Member. 70 posts (88 including aliases). No reviews. No lists. 1 wishlist. 13 Organized Play characters. 1 alias.


RSS

1 to 50 of 70 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>

Elleth wrote:
Thaboe wrote:
David knott 242 wrote:

Not to mention that it is a trivial effort to take one hand off your bow and punch someone.

And by trivial you mean 1 action to change grip, 1 action to punch and 1 action to change grip again.
Dropping a hand from an item is a free action.

You are correct, only for 1+ handed items (like a bow) though. Not for 2 handed weapons.

Hands pag 179:

Some weapons require one hand to use, and others require two. A few items, such as a bow, list 1+ for its hands entry. You can hold such a weapon in one hand, but the process of shooting it requires using another hand to retrieve, prepare, and shoot a piece of ammunition. This means you can do other things with your other hand while holding the bow in one hand without spending an action
to change your grip
, but you must free up your other hand in order to shoot. For example, you could shoot an arrow with your first action, use an Interact action to open a door with your second action, then shoot another arrow with your third action.
You’re considered to be wielding a 1+ weapon as long as you’re holding it in one hand and also have a hand free. Weapons that require two hands typically deal more damage. Some weapons that use one hand have the two-hand trait, causing them to deal a different weapon
damage die when used in two hands. In addition, some abilities require you to be wielding a weapon in two hands. You meet this requirement as long as you hold the weapon in two hands, even if it doesn’t actually require two hands or have the two-hand trait.

Hands pag 184:

This lists how many hands it takes to wield the item effectively. Most items that require two hands can be carried in only one hand, but you must spend an Interact action to change your grip in order to use the item . The GM may determine that an item is too big to carry in one hand (or even two hands, for particularly large items).


David knott 242 wrote:

Not to mention that it is a trivial effort to take one hand off your bow and punch someone.

And by trivial you mean 1 action to change grip, 1 action to punch and 1 action to change grip again.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
David knott 242 wrote:

I am fairly sure that "ready to make an unarmed attack" just indicates having a free hand you can strike with, not a specifically readied action.

But you can always kick when your hands are occupied. In light of this the bow question becomes irrelevant.

Unarmed attacks:

You can Strike with your fist or another body part,
calculating your attack and damage rolls in the same way
you would with a weapon. This counts as a simple weapon,
so almost all characters start out trained in unarmed
attacks. Use the statistics for a fist even if you’re kicking,
kneeing, or attacking with another part of your body.
Some ancestry feats, class features, class feats, and spells
give access to special, more powerful unarmed attacks.

It's pretty clear you always threaten if you stand adjacent to something and can actually move.


The new errata might appear to resolve some issues but left a major oversight in. Using lethal weapons to attack non lethally, but doing lethal damage with non-lethal hasn't been changed.

Non lethal pag 295 wrote:


You can make a nonlethal attack in an effort to knock someone out instead of killing them (see Getting Knocked Out on page 295). Weapons with the nonlethal trait(including fists) do this automatically. If you’re making a nonlethal attack with a weapon that doesn’t have the nonlethal trait, you take a –2 circumstance penalty to the attack roll . Likewise, you can attempt lethal attacks with a weapon that has the nonlethal feature, also calculating your attack roll’s result as though you were untrained.

This is strange as they have changed the monks powerful fist to read:

powerful fist pag 97 wrote:
When striking with your fist, you deal 1d6 damage instead of 1d4. You don’t take the –2 circumstance penalty when making a lethal attack with a nonlethal unarmed attack.

So is that an oversight not changing the second paragraphs second sentence, or are monkes still the only way to use fist lethally without penalties?


Quote:
What I think you may be missing is that there's not much reason to be worried if damage is non-lethal.

The same reason i was worried about it in PF 1. What about if you are fighting undead, constructs or other creatures that are immune to non-lethal?

You either need to pick up a gauntlet weapon or start make a multiclass monks

A general feat could easily solve this, just like it did in PF1.


Since this applies to multiple sections of the playtest document as well as things from the GM and player side I decided to post it in the general discussion rather than in any of the specific sections

I was trying to figure out how nonlethal and lethal unarmed attacks worked as well as how easy it is to threaten with your feet when your hands are occupied. I'll quote some of the rules in spoilers to make them easily available.

Lets start with what unarmed attacks are

Unarmed attacks pag 178:

You can Strike with your fist or another body part, calculating your attack and damage rolls in the same way you would with a weapon. This counts as a simple weapon, so almost all characters start out trained in unarmed attacks. Use the statistics for a fist even if you’re kicking, kneeing, or attacking with another part of your body. Some ancestry feats, class features, class feats, and spells give access to special, more powerful unarmed attacks.

Now keep in mind that the default fist is 1d4, brawling group, Agile, finessable, nonlethal and unarmed. And you use this for all your unarmed strikes (headbut, kicks, elbow, ect)

All the Barbarian animal totem weapons do NOT have the nonlethal trait and specify natural weapons. (claws, antelers, ect)

All the Monk's special unarmed attacks DO carry the nonlethal trait, and generally do not specify limbs.
What does the nonlethal tag mean?

Nonlethal Attacks Pag 295:
You can make a nonlethal attack in an effort to knock
someone out instead of killing them (see Getting Knocked Out on page 295). Weapons with the nonlethal trait
(including fists) do this automatically. If you’re making a nonlethal attack with a weapon that doesn’t have the nonlethal trait, calculate your attack roll’s result as if you were untrained with the weapon. Likewise, you can attempt lethal attacks with a weapon that has the nonlethal feature, also calculating your attack roll’s result as though you were untrained.

Monks get Powerful fist to allow them to hit lethally with non lethal unarmed attacks.

powerful fist pag 97:
When striking with your fist, you deal 1d6 damage instead of 1d4. You use your normal proficiency when making a lethal attack with a nonlethal unarmed attack.

But fighters and other classes get no such thing. Since there is no feat to pick, does that mean that any character that wants to fight with his body is expected to get monk and multiclass into something else or get stuck taking a -2 to -5 penalty on their unarmed lethal attacks?

And if you need to treat them as untrained does that mean you cannot use the brawling critical weapon effect if you fight lethally with the penalty?

Then there is the question of flanking with your mere existence

flanking pag 313-314:

When you and an ally are on opposite sides of an enemy, you’re flanking that enemy. While the enemy is flanked, it is flat-footed (taking a –2 circumstance penalty to AC) to the creatures who are flanking it. To flank a foe, you and your ally must be on opposites sides or opposite corners of the creature. A line drawn between the center of your space to the center of your ally’s space must pass through either opposite sides or opposite corners of the enemy’s space. Both you and the ally have to be threatening that enemy: this means you both must be wielding weapons or ready to make unarmed attacks and not under any effects that prevent you from making attacks. If you have reach, you determine whether you are flanking creatures out to the distance of your reach because you threaten all of those squares.

Since you always have your feet with you, and they are treated as simple weapons. Does that mean that you are always threatening? (even with occupied hands)
And if not, that exactly does this mean?

Quote:
or ready to make unarmed attacks

mean?

I have seen people raise some of these issues on the forum, but not the multiclassing requirement for unarmed combatants or the always flanking.


Mistwalker wrote:
Thaboe wrote:
But they could always just say a few words and try to roll that DC 10 to assist. The number of times I've seen a face roll poorly, only to be saves because the rest of the party chipped in with few words and their assists. That was the beauty of a DC 10 for assists. EVERY roll could count.

Are you aware that the new DC to aid another is 15?

And with the potential of adding in a penalty of -2 to the primary character if they fail to meet the DC by 10 or more?

I was referring to the situation in PF1 where one character shines while the rest stand around since they have no chance of succeeding at the check because of low bonuses.

So I have no idea why you are bringing up the new rules.


JackieLane wrote:
The number of parties I saw before with one hyper-charismatic sorcerer/bard/oracle speaking for the group, and the three other people standing in the background during social encounters because they know their 7 in charisma (or 5) will cause trouble...

But they could always just say a few words and try to roll that DC 10 to assist. The number of times I've seen a face roll poorly, only to be saves because the rest of the party chipped in with few words and their assists. That was the beauty of a DC 10 for assists. EVERY roll could count.

Quote:
Given that rolling is and will always be an option

Personally I love rolling for stats, and I do not love the current system. The Boost array comes down to 27 point buy in PF1 before you'd apply racial bonuses. It's no wonder they added boots to the stat rolling to make it seem a more palatable alternative.


Alyran wrote:
I imagine because the consequences of being caught trying to steal/hide something are often immediate. As opposed to the situation where you're trying to sneak through several rooms.

The effects of being caught in a lie and sneaking around are generally immediate as well.

Quote:
If you aren't in immediate danger of being caught, why are you rolling for steal/palm in the first place?

Where did I say this? You can make the same case for stealth checks.

What I was talking about is the environment noticing you and then letting you think you got away with it to surprise you later.

If I roll a 1 and the high priest sees me taking the 'sacred scriptures' and does nothing to stop me. I can metagame that these might not be the actual scriptures, or the priest wants me to take it for some reason.

Just like if i was caught in a lie or sneaking and the NPC goes along with it, only to ambush me later when I have exposed myself.


FLite wrote:

So, in the past, I could ask for a knowledge roll, and everyone would individually roll, do the math, and give me a number.

Now, I ask for a knowledge check, and suddenly, I have to take 6 mods, roll 6 times, make sure I am adding up the correct mod with the correct roll, then figure out how to distribute different information to different people.

In a home game, this could be really cool and involve notes.

In a game at a store, with limited time, this is going to really slow things down...

Note each players mods as you hand them a slip of graph paper numbered 1 to 15 and ask them to roll and fill in. While rolling they can introduce their character and you can look in their sheet or have them give your mods. Collect the strips after and and cross off a roll each time you need to make a secret check for them after you added the modifier. They still feel empowered to roll and you have an easy way to resolve each player's secret check. Running out of rolls? Call a toilet break after and encounter and hand out another slip and have them fill it. If they would get a reroll, ask them if they want to use it and go to the next roll on the slip.

The overview sheet should only include like 7 mods per player anyway and circumstantial modifiers have been greatly reduced. Just update the tracking sheet each lv (usually a simply +1 increase). |

SUUUUURE people could metagame it. But who remembers a list of more then 7 numbers within 3 minutes?


In PF1 the same argument could also be made. If you want to do sense motive, bluff and stealth in secret, why would you not include sleight of hand in many occasions.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I'v been going over the skill section and talking with my group about how much secret rolling we are going to do. I noticed that when trying to remain undetected or hiding an object using stealth, making a Forgery using Society or using Deception to lie the rolls are secret.

But not when trying to Steal or Palm and object it the roll is made open.

Why are these not secret as well? The like with the other secret rolls above, the player will notice the observers reacting when he fails his check, but the player can also be lulled into a false sense of security when the observers pretend to ignore it or run along with it.

What was the intention behind this?


Secret Wizard wrote:
Thaboe wrote:
Secret Wizard wrote:
PossibleCabbage wrote:
By my count, this is the third thread on this topic and the previous two have been locked.
The previous two were unlike this thread. Talking editorial decisions is a completely different approach than uh what the other threads intended.
But both previous threads asked for gender neutral language too. And for similar reasons as raises by Bardic Dave.
I have a different recollection.

posted on Thu, Aug 2, 2018, 08:46 pm in What do you think of the new GM and players prescripted behaviour?

(in response to "It was this was this way in Horror adventures too")
Quote:

I understand there are books and the like that do it. But with the intent of the new guidelines to include as many people as possible, why not do the correct progressive thing and make it gender neutral?

Just use "they", or "you".

The threads OP was deleted (never explained why) but it had the same sentiment, with the added point that using an exclusive "she" for GM's could be exclusionary.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Secret Wizard wrote:
PossibleCabbage wrote:
By my count, this is the third thread on this topic and the previous two have been locked.
The previous two were unlike this thread. Talking editorial decisions is a completely different approach than uh what the other threads intended.

But both previous threads asked for gender neutral language too. And for similar reasons as raises by Bardic Dave.

Although one of them specified that the request was limited to the GM references, not to the classes where the book is using iconics as standins. Since the iconics are gendered.

Quote:
Furthermore, if Paizo is trying to be as inclusive as possible of all genders—and it really seems that they are—they should either steer clear of gendered verbiage altogether

Yes. Gender neutral terms for non specific characters please.


Rysky wrote:
No, they are in act referring to one’s gender.

So they would be exclusionary to genderfluid PCs?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
DFAnton wrote:

So, I never read the prefaces of books, but I did because of that post and...yikes?

I run a very inclusive table (and personally fall into a couple of the minorities listed in those couple pages), but these read like organized play etiquette rules. I sincerely hope they won't be in the final release because, frankly, even very inclusive people tend not to enjoy being lectured on which attitudes to run their tables with.

(The irony is that I'm kind of preaching at Paizo, and they may resent that!)

Then again, I certainly never read it until just now, nor did I have any intention to, since I never read prefaces, so who knows?

I'm glad to see that me pointing this out had lead someone to read the preface and realize what is going on. I asked paizo to clarify if they intend this to be the PFS 2e guidelines and whether or not they expect people who run the playtest to adhere to them. They haven't responded, but i'm sure they will once they are rested from Gencon and can dedicate a mod to a thread that will not get deleted or locked.


Deadmanwalking wrote:


The issue with this is that we've been told that a PC Class character is a valid enemy/encounter for their level. IE: A level 6 character should be an equivalent threat to a level 6 monster.

I don't even think that was the rule of thumb in PF. I know enemy NPCs had a CR of class lv-1 because they were usually lacking in gear. And that an evenly matched NPC should be, well...evenly matched so pretty hefty 50-40% failure rate challenge.

But aren't they basically changing their rule of thumb in the new edition?


So basically we should consider a single lv 5 monster to just as difficult for a lv 5 rogue to sneak past in PF 2 as a CR 7 creature in PF?

Does having the party fight more of these lower lv creatures make sneaking even harder? Suddenly you have 2d20+8 rolls vs 1d20+8.

Since NPCs follow similar templates and no longer get class lvs, is that supposed to make you feel more powerful because a enemy NPC of your lv now have skills as though they were 2 lvs higher then you? Thereby giving the impression that you are always better then NPC that are as experienced as you.


That is radically different from the current balance.
In PF, if I make an optimized stealth character I am going to usually outstrip most things except the most perceptive monsters. In PF 2e, low lv minions are just as competent as CR +1 monsters in PF.

PF 1
Human lv 5 rogue vs CR 4 tiger/CR 6 cave lion. +13 stealth vs +8/+11 perception
PF 2e
Human lv 5 rogue vs CR 4 +10 stealth vs 9 perception.

This isn't even an optimized build of PF, just a rogue who has high dex, a magic belt and maxed his ranks.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

Doesn't this scaling make it so that a rogue with maxed stealth has a 50% chance of getting caught by a monster a lv lower then him with good perception?
I'm used to seeing monsters with bonuses you're not supposed to beat (big grabbing beasts). But unless a monster is exceptionally powered up, a well optimized character could still bluff or stealth them with a better then 50% chance of success. I really wonder how this will go over while playtesting.


This is why the devs implemented DC scaling. So a easy skill check will lv with you as well. That way you can keep sucking at crossing that stream whether you are lv 1 or 20.

What i'm more concerned about is that I can't be the worlds greatest climber and a terrible swimmer at the same time.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
PossibleCabbage wrote:


See the "Adopted Ancestry" feat on page 162. A gnome can start out with a keen sense of smell from their gnome genes, choose "Adopted Ancestry" at level 3 to represent that they were adopted by elves, then choose an elf feat at level 5. Easier for humans, since they can spend their ancestry feat on a general feat to take adopted ancestry to get a gnome feat at level 3 with a general feat.

I agree with the current transition for Ancestry for that reason. I just wanted to point out that ancestry it not unlinked from biology. Although they now call this "heritage" to refer to things you are biologically shut into.

[quot] Also, the "Race is problematic" discussion has been done to death, but the long and short of it is that IRL the concept of "Race" is biologically and sociologically meaningless

Speaking as a biologist, you are dead wrong. And even if it was meaningless. In a fantasy world where races are tangible things with different characteristics it's use would still applicable unrelated to IRL race discussion. It seems like people are afraid to call a spade a spade. Especially in light of humans finding all manner or ways to kill other humans beside their ancestry.

But I will not elaborate further on that since this discussion has been done to death.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
PossibleCabbage wrote:
Ancestry is more precise since it's basically the question of "who were your parents/who raised you?"

But a gnome cannot take a elf ancestry feat...Ancestry is intimately tied to your biological ancestors, not simply the people who raised you.

What do people find so problematic about race? How can recognizing that there are different distinct biological groups be a problem?


6 people marked this as a favorite.
AScreamingChocobo wrote:

If we are talking about precision, wouldn't Species then be the superior choice? Ancestry makes sense when you look at what you came from, half orc, half elf, aasimar, tiefling- they are all human or human based, for example. Orc would be a separate species entirely, cross-compatible though the two are.

I'll admit, I am new to Pathfinder, so the different species are unknown to me.

Species would imply that they can't interbreed. In PF many can. They also use types to roughly classify creatures as well.

Calling them race is perfectly in line with fantasy tradition an not wanting to use it because it's "problematic" is silly. If you are scared away from a game or discussion because they use the word race, you are probably not going to like the fact that racism is real in fantasy.

That being said, Ancestry would be a better term now because races now come with a la carte customization that expresses their specific ancestry, rather then a full race pack. It's also better descriptive for The new structure for half-orcs and half-elves who can now we half ANYTHING (in the blog post, not the book atm), rather then simply being human.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
GameDesignerDM wrote:
Thaboe wrote:
Why then is this specific guideline necessary?
Because it's a good thing to put in there as a reminder.

Then why not doing it along the same lines of uncomfortable topics (mature themes) as the original manual did? That could have deserved an specific reminder too. Or how to resolve a player conflict amicably.

As far as I've read, PF 2e is the only book that specifically takes this angle. It's not even in eclipse phase and that has an entire section on gender identity in regards to sleeves.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
PossibleCabbage wrote:
Edgelord stuff and smack talking has never and will never be part of a game I'm running, full stop, and I have personally encountered very little of it and find it grounds for "walking away from a table."

Well you aren't the only person playing this game. A large minority of my groups display this kind of behavior and sense of humor. Are they folks at paizo telling me that they should change or stop playing the game?

Quote:

As for the GM running bigoted characters, I would point you to the next parapraph, which reads:

Quote:
"...if a player tells you they’re uncomfortable with something in the game, whether it’s content you’ve presented as the GM or another player’s actions, listen to them and take steps to ensure they can once again have fun during your game."
A player is generally invested primarily in their own enjoyment of the game (though good players think of everyone)

But in this case they are specifically calling on the player, not the GM, to stop playing that character. So what should i do when i'm playing a dwarf that hates elves and i'm playing with a player that identifies as elf-kin. Roll a new character?

Quote:
An NPC who is genuinely upsetting in a bad way can easily be toned down or killed off when a particularly edgy PC who is an irritant to the game cannot be.

There are some capricious GM's out there that lose no sleep in killing off annoying or tedious PCs.

Quote:
Also, the mono gendered GM stuff is not new. See for example Horror Adventures, which has this sort of thing all over it.

I understand there are books and the like that do it. But with the intent of the new guidelines to include as many people as possible, why not do the correct progressive thing and make it gender neutral?

Just use "they", or "you".

I understand why they do this when explaining about making a fictional character that can have any gender. But when they are addressing the actual reader i find it strange.

Quote:
the GM is free (and encouraged) to shut down "X race is inferior" or "there are only 2 genders" BS.

Yea but, what if it's an actual discussion the players are having? What if the cleric PC has objections to marrying same gendered or mixed race couples? Is that something the PCs aren't allowed the play, but the GM is?

I can think of plenty of examples where IC the PCs can come across a discussion on pedophilia, racemixing, necrophilia, bigorty, slavery, corporal or capitol punishment, ect.


And while i'm on this, will these also be the new guidelines for 2e PFS?


Java Man wrote:

And to make it totally clear, the Bestiary FAQ has this:

Incorporeal Creatures and "Counts as Magic": Say I have an attack that counts as magical for the purpose of bypassing damage reduction, such as from the monk's ki pool (magic). Does that mean I can't harm an incorporeal creature at all, since the attack doesn't count as magical for that purpose?
Such attacks should also be able to harm incorporeal creatures as if the attack was magic. This will be reflected in future errata.

I figured as much, but I made my suggestion on shaky grounds because it specifically said "for purposes of bypassing damage reduction".


Shouldn't any critter with dr/magic already ba able to strike incorporeal creatures for 1/2 damage? At least with it's natural attacks. Like mephits and Gricks.

Oh and Lantern archons. They might not be strong. But they can fly around with perfect flight, teleport and pew pew lazers everywhere.

Light beam:
A lantern archon can fire beams of light to damage foes. These light rays have a maximum range of 30 feet. This attack overcomes damage reduction of any type.


Chess Pwn wrote:

Yes, R is hard corner and grants melee cover while the person higher has a +1 to hit for higher ground.

And you are basically correct, I was factoring reach weapon, which uses ranged rules.
Cause I'd rule that anything that wasn't straight enough to be a hard corner wouldn't be something that you'd need to climb up. Like stairs or a hill.

From the rules

With a successful Climb check, you can advance up, down, or across a slope, wall, or other steep incline (or even across a ceiling, provided it has handholds) at one-quarter your normal speed. A slope is considered to be any incline at an angle measuring less than 60 degrees; a wall is any incline at an angle measuring 60 degrees or more.

PFS has plenty of cases where you're making climb checks for things that aren't at 90 degree angles and usually not providing cover. But that is all beside the point.

toastedamphibian wrote:

If you climb 15ft up, you are 3 cubes above the cube you started in. Your hands increase in altitude by 15ft, as do your feet and head. 3 spaces, straight up, 0 squares over. Such that you are "floating" but your not actually floating, your standing precariously on the cliff edge.

If you want to stop balancing on the cliff edge, move away from it following the normal movement rules.

THAT is exactly where there is still some disagreement with other posters. Because it means you need to at least 20 ft movement to clear (stand firmly on) a 15 ft wall. Which is what I used in my original ruling. Balancing would still make you flatfooted, so it's like climbing. And moving into your first safe square in the same turn is going to provoke, and if as a result of the attack you are moves backwards, you fall clear from the wall. These were the things i figured in my original ruling.

People didn't seem to agree with that. Because "climbing up a 15 ft wall is 15 ft of climbing" and the square diagonally up from the hard corner is illegal/you cannot end your movement in".

chess pwn wrote:
It's a hard corner for cover and since it's climbing it doesn't stop movement.

Just to clarify, you're saying you can climb THROUGH a hard corner? Rather then being forced to move(climb/fly/swim) around it.


You don't have the prone condition though. And if you climb at an incline, or a ladder, rather than a 90 free climb degree angle, you're not really 'standing up. Ruling like that would be way to rough imo.

The 1/4 movement is because it's supposed to be really slow and cumbersome. Just like swimming. And just like swimming, you can overexert yourself (increase the DC) to move at half speed.

Further more,the hard corner rules don't deal with gravity, the same would apply when you would be flying around an edge or a corridor corner or if you were standing in a wall with spiderclimb. Cover will remain cover. But if you can climb through a hard corner (and presumably 5ft step it if you have a climb speed), then perhaps you can also 5ft step through it with a perfect fly speed. Which again, is why i wouldn't want to rule that it isn't a hard corner.


Toast, I understood what you were saying.

Thaboel wrote:
So you mean every drop is to cover 50% of the square so you can argue you can be both standing on the square as well as climbing it?

But that still doesn't resolve the other part of my problem. The reason I initially posted. If a wall is 15 ft high, and i climb 15 ft worth of movement, does that put me on top of the wall, or at the edge.

If the edge is a hard corner, you seem to need an extra 5 feet to move into a wall. Because you can't climb through the corner, but need to climb around it. So to climb on top of a 15 foot obstacle, you'd need to climb 15 ft, but move 20ft (1,2,3,B). As is the case with jumping a 15 ft wide pit. You need to cover the distance AND move into the safe square.

B 3
[]2
[]1
[]A

The main explanation I'm seeing for why it shouldn't be treated as a hard corner is because to climb a 15 ft wall would require you to only climb 15 ft, and that climbing those 15 ft WILL to put you on top of the wall.

And if needing only need to climb 15 feet to get on top of a 15 ft wall and the edge is treated as a hard corner, that means you'r not actually climbing from the bottom of the wall to the top in the 15 feet of climbing. Which is where my OP question comes in. Do we count the distance we need to climb from where our hands are, or where our feet at?

As for where you need to stand to strike down the climber. If you stand on the edge and climber needs to climb around the hard corner (through your 2), and that is the movement that would provoke from someone standing on the edge. Who will make the attack against the climbers flatfooted AC.
If the corner isn't a hard corner and i'm climbing through it, then climbing on top of a wall would never provoke because the edge is still providing you cover. Which just seems really off to me.


toastedamphibian wrote:

5ft step into John's Position 2, describe it as being on the edge of the cliff. Next turn 5ft step in. But your going to be flat-footed until you take that second step, probably not a great plan.

Or am I misunderstanding the question?

You did, according to john there is no position 2 if it's at the edge of the cliff. To avoid "W.C. syndrome.

So you'd have to 5ft step up diagonally, from his 1 to 3. Which is where my hard corner comes in.


toastedamphibian wrote:

I would suggest not drawing your "squares" in such a way that it causes "clipping" issues.

Say the "wall" is in both squares. He climbs to the top, he is now balanced on the very edge of the wall. If he provokes an aoo leaving that square, or gets hit by a readied action, treat him as balancing(Flatfooted, needs to make a DC 5 acrobatics check or fall if injured. Climb check to catch yourself = Wall Climb Dc +20)

So you mean every drop is to cover 50% of the square so you can argue you can be both standing on the square as well as climbing it?

That would be Elegant. No discussion about hard corners and provoking. You just climb through the square and provoke.

But then that still doesn't resolve my issue with the 5ft stepping with a climb speed.


I'm sorry, i misunderstood you, i thought you were referring to position 1. Because 2 isn't a legal space when you want to put your feet on it.

But i found it strange that you'd treat a 90 degree corner as anything but a hard corner, especially when it comes to 5ft stepping when you have a climb speed, which if it isn't a hard corner, means you could to that.

As for how you could occupy the space treating it as a hard corner), you are holding on the the edge as maneuver the rest of your body up on top of the obstacle(moving to position 3). That would mean that in position 2 you'd still be climbing, but not have any cover of hiding behind the edge. You'd be holding onto the top of the wall with your hands and the side with your.

Hence you could poke someone climbing over your wall if you were wielding a long spear. And you can push someone clear off the wall (not allowing them a chance to grab it mid fall, or negating slowfall. By readying something like a bullrush.

But this was because I could not picture a 90 degree corner as anything but a hard corner.


John Mechalas wrote:
Our posts crossed in the night. It can't be a hard corner because it's not legal to be hanging 5' off the edge like that. There's no wall next to you, and no ground beneath you.

How is it not legal? You saying i can't shimmy along a ledge (climbing horizontally), or take take cover from an explosion by hanging over the a railing or ledge?


John Mechalas wrote:


Count the squares moved to get from A to B. The pit requires 20' of movement (4 squares, 3 of which are the jump). The wall takes 15', the last of which is diagonal.

If the player already had a diagonal move before starting this climb, then that final diagonal would count as 10'. That may make it too far for them to move in the current turn, depending on how much move they have left.

So then the the edge of the climb isn't treated as a hard corner? Since you move through it diagonally. Does that also mean that if I was walking perpendicular on the wall (Eg:spider climb)I could 5f step around the corners of corridors since I'm technically 'climbing the wall'?

But either way, it would still provide cover from the reach weapon to make it not provoke. Since you can only target the exposed 4 corners of his 'cube' from the closest 2 corners of your 'cube'.

(yea i know pathfinder doesn't use 3d cubes, but this happens in 3d space).


The reason i'm interested in the answer this time is to figure out whether you provoke from an opponent with reach that is standing 5ft from the edge. If the opponent was standing on the edge (position 3), obviously he'd threaten and you'd provoke moving onto the obstacle (into 3).

But from reach, a hard corner ledge would provide cover if you moved directly from 1 to 3 (climbing 10 ft) and not provoking from reach. But that would mean that you have to move through a hard corner as part of your movement.

If you CAN'T move through this hard corner as part of the climb check, you have to move 1,2,3 (15 ft) and provoke from reach as you move from 2 to 3. If so, does that movement from 2 to 3 require a climb check (my original idea was that it did, but i can just as easily see that it's just regular movement, perhaps something you can 5 ft step is someone does the climbing for you (drag, reposition).

E 3 2
..[]1
..[]P

Or do hard corners only exist in 2D? That would make this a whole lot easier and allow you to move from 1 to 3 in one go, provoke an attack while doing so. And also not benefit from cover while hanging from the edge (burst effects, ranged attacks).

I know some people who like to climb along walls and i'd find it weird that the corners function differently is you approach them from the group or from the wall.


Bob Bob Bob wrote:
Real question, how far do you think a player has to climb to climb a 5-foot wall? Do they need 10 feet of movement to do it (5 feet to climb the wall, 5 feet to pull themself up)? Because that sounds a little silly. They can literally reach the top of the wall. The effort is just pulling themself up.

Well first of all, you can just 'pull yourself up the wall. (dc 15 climb) He doesn't actually need to climb distance imo. Or i have to consider pulling yourself up as though it's going at climb speed. Which opens up the conundrum of a series of chest high ledges...

But reading back, I appear to have mislead most of you with my description. The wall is adjacent to a platform and he was arguing that he moved into the platform with his climb check. Which i would consider 5 feet of extra movement in addition to the 15 feet he climbed. So as i agree, his feet were at the top for the wall or his hands were over the wall, but I still considered him climbing the wall because i hadn't considered him to actually moved onto the platform. Since a I considered the ledge a hard corner that he couldn't diagonally move through.

(Occupying the first square, climbin up from feet and 'stepping' onto the walls square.)
4 3
[]2
[]1
[]X

or is it more like
(Hands and climbing on top of the obstacle as part of the movement climb check)
3
[]2
[]1
[]X

Because what my mind turned it into was...
(distance traveled from the feet and then DC 15 to climb onto the obstacles square)
4
[]3
[]2
[]1

In which 4 is the putting him onto the platform (or 5 ft deep wall)

sorry for the confusion in my OP.


So I got into a little spat with one of my players regarding climbing up a 15 ft wall. So He has 30 ft movement and takes a -5 for fast climbing and gets a 22 on a DC 15 wall. So he climbs up 15 ft. Pretty straight forward.

I ask for a second check to pull himself up and move. He argues he has cleared the wall because he has "climbed 15 ft". He considers himself as occupying the first vertical square and starts moving from there (top of his hands) and i consider him occupying the ground and needing to move up the first 5 ft of the wall (starting from the feet).

What is the correct reasoning?

I hope this doesn't become as lengthy as the 'distanced jumped' discussion...


You can't use the free deflect from missile shield with a buckler right? Or does it count as a light shield?


Gisher wrote:

If you are going to use a sap, I recommend that you add the Sapping Special Ability.

The Cruel Special Ability is also a standard option for Intimidate builds.

The Ominous Special Ability is potentially useful, but usually not worth the cost.

MMm, i was thinking of just getting both feats, skill focus intimidate, and a merciful falcata +1 but that might be overkill.

So i'm thinking:
a) Merciful weapon + enforcer
B) Cordugon smash + Skill focus intimidate

As far as i know, only elementals are creatures that are not immune to both nonlethal but are effected by morale effects (EG: oozes, constructs, undead, plants).

So the only thing i have to watch out for is magical buffs or class features that give DR against nonlethal if i go route A . Since I only really care about scaring of a target for 1 round (as a CC) all i need to make sure i beat the DC and hit. With [DEX] to dam i'm doing a minimum of 7 damage anyway, enough to frighten each target I hit without using PA.

If i went with route B I'd need to hit with penalty and then beat the DC with 15, which is a pretty tall order, even with a +6 from skill focus ....On the other hand I can use it with any weapon, I can frighten elementals and it saves me money.

And then there is also option op considering Signature skill intimidate
Decisions decisions...

1 to 50 of 70 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>