lutzsd's page

Lune:

Not having ever played PFS, I guess i can't say how useful or not the archetype would be. Just between the devils and undead, it wasn't a good fit from a utility perspective. I'm sure there are scenarios that you might find yourself unable to use your best abilities. I was really looking forward to the Wide Audience ability, and just when I got it, I made the decision to retrain. You never have to worry about being able to buff your allies, after all. I know a lot of times that bonuses are applied to a roll or a reduction in DC is given, and those can be the same thing, but there is a big distinction between +2 to your allies and -2 to your enemies.

I'm pretty sure I went through all of book 2 and 3 of CoT without using Satire. one ability I never got to use is Mockery. Mockery, in an urban campaign, seemed like something I'd get to try all the time. Oh, this guy wants to bluff me? I'll just have mockery going on. Never happened. Not sure how PFS goes, but this is another ability you may never be able to use, too.

From an RP perspective, the archetype is great; very flavorful. In practice? Not as useful as I had hoped.

I'd like to add something that I don't think has been considered. Until recently, I was playing a Court Bard in the Council of Thieves AP.

I was having fun with the concept a lot, and the intimidation and Diplomacy bonuses were great. However, one thing that I did not consider is that Satire is mind-effecting and language dependent. There are a LOT of creatures that this can't be used on. I believe I only ever got to use satire early on against a group of human hellknights. Even the goblins weren't given common, so I couldn't use it against them. Then we start fighting undead and devils that are immune to mind-effecting abilities, and I became effectively useless with my main ability, that I thought, just like Lune, would be an awesome RP aspect.

I ending retraining my archetype because during combat I could basically just stand there aiding actions or other simple things.

Just wanted to make sure you take that aspect into account because you might have several sessions go by before your satire is effective.

EDIT: I see Dave Justus brought this point up, but as I've actually used the archetype and wasn't just theory crafting, you have to know what kind of campaign you will be playing in because it won't just be ineffective, but practically useless in the wrong campaign.

It's clearly a derivative of the first. As this is based in a game of Bonuses and Penalties, its clear that it assumes your Second Attack is taken at a -5 penalty from your first because it becomes less accurate as you swing wildly to hit them again in that small 6 second space of time, while moving and dancing around.

If the Second attack was considered its own BAB then I would agree it would be +8/+8, because you use your level in place of your BAB. However this is not the case as it is BAB +6/+1, not BAB +6 / BAB +1...

If we refer to the charts you keep referring to, it also doesn't say "BAB +6/+1," it has a header of BAB that applies to the column as a whole, so it could mean "BAB +6/BAB +1."

The issue that has not been resolved, which you claim is clear and evident, is whether the iterative attack is a derivative or separate BAB. You can't simply say that it is one thing without evidence.

A secondary attack is not the same as an iterative attack either, so just because it says that specifically in place doesn't mean you can apply it to all similar circumstances.

I'm not trying to be an a+#$%~* when I say this, but im going to tell you the same thing someone told me once when I had an issue with the rules.

a little background first. My issue was with the Sha'ir Occultist Archetype. I wanted a proper faq to explain how the Jin's Schools ability worked. However the General consensus was that it worked as written, I knew it worked as written but I wanted the clarification to get Herolab to fix the class in it's program.

So one person told me that the Devs were never going to FAQ this because its pretty clear how it works.

Now im saying the same to you, It's pretty clear that iteratives are at a -5 the previous one. 5 less than the previous translates into; previous attack BAB - 5. Thus the Devs are not going to FAQ this or give a direct ruling as its pretty clear what the ruling is.

Also using your example of the 2 = 4. there is no other way to arrive at a 1 from a 6. which is why im sure the devs picked these numbers. so there would be no confusion on how they arrived at the values they got. for Example lets say it was +6/+3, well they could of done 2 things; -3, or /2 (Divide by). if it was +6/+2 it would either be /3, or -4. but the only way to get from +6 to +1 is to -5.

So Read as Written or RAW, your +1 iterative is 5 less than your primary +6 BAB, or +6 - 5 = +1.

Last I checked, 6 divided by 6 will get you 1. Maybe that is the formula used.

I believe what Noobz is asking is this:

If I have a +6/+1 BAB, is my first attack considered at my BAB of +6 and my second one is at my previous attack minus 5, or do I have an attack at my BAB of +6, then my second attack is at a BAB of +1? Is the second attack considered it's own BAB, or is it a derivative of the first?

If the second attack is considered a BAB of +1, and the value is not a derivative of the first attack, then the Battle Oracle's Maneuver Mastery would allow for the +8/+8 he is asking about.

If iterative attacks are considered derivative's of a primary BAB, then no, the oracle's ability would be at +8/+3. He's simply asking for a definition of how that second number is defined/arrived at. is it derived from the first or is it a second attack at a lower BAB?

Correct me if I'm wrong, Noobz.

Name: Azzir
Race: Tiefling
Class/Level: Magus 4/Bloodrager 2
Adventure: Raiders of the Fever Sea
Killed by: Kelloort

Interposing himself between the captain and the Sahuagin leader, while brave, ultimately led to his death. He was buried at sea. He had been carrying the ship's bell from Deathknell, so we will just have to see how that plays out...

We just had this fight two weeks ago. In the second round of combat, the Bard/Captain cast Hold Person and succeeded. Isabella made her save at the end of her turn, but that was still one turn without an action. The next round, the Bard cast it and again succeeded, this time allowing the rogue to coup de grace and that was that. It was a little anti-climactic for me, but the player's love steam-rolling over the bad guys. They had more trouble versus four Great White sharks than they did versus Isabella and her cronies.

I have the PDFs and I just print them out. I hate using PDFs at the table, but the print-out allows me to mark all over them.

One change I made for my campaign is how HP works for ships. I divide each ship into 4 sections (bow, after, port, starboard) and each section gets 1/4 of the HP. Sail HP is divided among each mast. Sections can be targeted or rolled randomly or facing can determine which section is hit. Every section of sail that is reduced to 0 reduces the speed by the appropriate amount, and if any section of the ship goes to 0, the ship gains the broken condition, and if two sections are reduced to 0, the ship is sinking. This makes combat a little quicker (ostensibly, ships only have half the HP), but it also means PCs have to worry more about maneuvering so they aren't sunk. At higher levels, this also allows the PCs to take on multiple opponents.

Hi everyone.

I have come up with my own chase system. Before posting, I wanted to see if anyone else had done so, and it seems like the OP and I have similar ideas.

I ran my first chase last night with my players based on my system and had some good feedback as well.

For my chase, I laid out 15 post-it notes -referred to as squares- (all my table width would allow). The players start 2d4 squares behind the quarry.

Each player takes a turn drawing a card. They can read the card aloud, but the other players cannot consult them on what action to tak (essentially, the player is the captain for the turn and is making the decision). We have a list so that all skill checks are made using the highest among the players, not just the player that is drawing. However, if the player that drew has some ability or item that could add a bonus, I allow them to do so, but only on their turn. For instance, one player drew a card that allowed a sailing check to gain a square. He asked if he could use Gust of Wind to get a bonus and I allowed it.

Additionally, the enemy ship also has to perform each card, so there is a chance they get themselves caught.

Once the PC's ship enters the same square as the enemy ship, ship-to-ship combat begins. If the distance between the two ships is 10 or more squares, the quarry gets away. Starting distance can be modified based on the ship's max speed.

I made about 30 cards, some very similar to the OP's, and some that required sailing checks, CMB checks, some cards only dealt damage to the ships, and some allowed a gain of squares without a roll, though penalized the next roll.

All in all, it was a very fun chase, but my players did make some suggestions:

1. Include cards that are simply "+1 square" or "-2 squares" to take some pressure off.
2. Have cards that only affect one ship, not both. For instance, I had The Dominator card that had the PCs take a broadside attack (basically wounding the ship before ship combat began), but a player noted that they wouldn't attack the merchant vessel. So, I will also be including Ally cards that only harm the other ship.
3. Include fail cards. Chases could go on a long time, so they mentioned throwing in one card that just ends the chase.

It's a work in progress, and I don't have my cards typed up, but if there is enough interest, I will get them typed up and post them. Any feedback would be great. Thanks for reading!

For other hints, I had Harrigan mention it a few times to Plugg and Scourge where the PCs could overhear. Also, in the captain's cabin of the Man's Promise, I had the PCs find a note written by Harrigan to Plugg about his intent to "crack the rock" once the met back up in Port Peril.

While you are certainly free to do so, I would recommend against it. With such a melee-centric party, it's possible that they could wipe the floor with some low level pirates and Scourge. Keep in mind Scourge has a pretty low AC. A decent strength and full attack bonus at level 1 would would give someone, at worst, a 50/50 chance to hit him. My party mutinied early and completely dominated Scourge, Plugg, and the remaining 8 pirates.

If that were to occur, you would then have to really railroad the party to start the path.

Perhaps you would want to start a little differently: For those that chose a campaign trait that required them to be drugged, maybe the battle starts because they realize something is wrong. Give them 3 good rounds of combat before they start to succumb to the taggit oil and pass out? It will start them off with some severe spite for the bad guys while still getting the AP rolling.

I agree, it is a very silly questions, but there are those that abide by rules as written very strongly.

Thanks for taking the time to respond.

I'm sorry if this has been asked, but I couldn't find it in my search.

RAW, long jump states "For a running jump, the result of your Acrobatics check indicates the distance traveled in the jump..."

If I need to cross a 10 foot gap, but only intend to land on the other side, but my Acrobatic result is a 46, does that mean I have to travel the 46 feet? How do others handle this aspect of Acrobatics? Would you make a player roll if his minimum check is a 26 and he only wants to jump 10 feet? What if they wanted to jump 15 or 20 feet? Do you allow them to target a square within their range at a penalty?Assume that as long as he can jump past it, he could land on it?

I don't play PFS, so I'm sure a specific answer is out there, but any help is appreciated.

I'm not exactly sure if you are bound and determined to be a sniper, but I currently have a 7th level Human Rogue (Knife Master) and a 6th Level Orc Barbarian. Their to hit and damage output is extremely comparable, assuming the Rogue pulls off a sneak attack. My build is all about acrobatics (I have a 27 Acro at 7th level) and will always maneuver to flank, so I'm generally dealing +4d8 per attack.

This Rogue is the one that I am running through RotRL with. From levels 1-5, even with a Samurai and an Archer in the party, I was outputting more DPR. Generally speaking, while my stealth isn't as high as my acrobatics, it is still nearly 20, which is more than enough to get past a lot of CR appropriate creatures.

Bear in mind, I do have wealth by level, so I have some nice toys to assist with AC and Acrobatics. I also recommend, if you can, taking the 1/6 Rogue talent alternate favored class ability. It will help you make the rogue you want and possibly save you a feat or two.

Going into the final battle of the first book, the only crew that were completely against the PCs are Jape, Badger and Shivekah, so I gave them full write-ups as fighters and rogues. I kept Scourge pretty much the same, except a gave him a 20-point stat buy and swapped out whip mastery and weapon focus (whip) for his Iron Will and Intimidating Prowess.

I completely re-did Plugg as a Ranger with the Skirmisher and Freebooter archetypes. With his Freebooter's Bane and Freebooter's Bond, it will give him the appearance of a Captain commanding his crew to attack, but will give them all huge bonuses to flank and to attack a given PC. I gave him the Defensive Bow Stance at 5th level as a Skirmisher to let him attack with his whip without provoking.

The fight hasn't occurred yet (should be next session), but as long as the PC's don't sneak attack Plugg with a Balista (that's their plan), it should be a good fight.

If you want to make it realistic, all of that belongs to the captain. Harrigan could claim it all. My players didn't take it, even the obviously magical pike, for fear of reprisal. If they are caught looting, it could be considered stealing from the captain.

Not at all; no apologies necessary. Thanks for helping me understand.

Yeah, I'm wrong.

When I compare how I would operate those as compared to how I do rage, I don't handle them same, and mechanically, I really should. I can't reconcile handling them differently.

Sorry, Avoron.

Guess I'll have to start marking my tracked spells and effects a little differently now.

It all made sense as I was writing it, in terms of looking only at rage, but, hey, that's why we have forums in the first place.

Can you give me a specific example of a domain power you are referring to? I'd like to see how I interpret that and see if my line of thinking holds true with how I am interpreting the rules for rage. If they aren't in line, I will need to change my belief.

I'm admitting that my interpretation of the rules may be wrong (not saying it is, but I can't say my way of thinking is what the developers meant). I think that if you have one action raged, you should have two actions fatigued.

Yes but every 1 round thing you start at any point of your turn ends the beginning of your next turn. Many cleric domains have a standard action, 1 round touch, making them unable to "benefit" from it except for AoO. So why would rage be any different? Any round you end is the first round it's off. It's one of the perks of a scarred rager that they can rage cycle every turn. They're just fatigued between their turns.

My interpretation is that a scarred rager still has a turn fatigued, so it would be more in line with the original poster's (and Avoron's) thinking.

Rage
Fatigue
Rage

Without going into detail, I think Rage Cycling is a whole other issue that we don't need to go into, anyway.

Yes, it depends entirely on the turn in which you end the rage. It doesn't matter when during the turn you end it, it just depends on the turn itself.

lutzsd, should we just ignore the rule that fatigue lasting two turns ends just before the barbarian's initiative count?

If the developers didn't intend for that to be the rule, they wouldn't have written it so clearly in the rulebook.

I don't agree that it is clearly written. If it were clearly written, I don't think there'd be the original question.

The section of the combat rules you quote also states that each round is cyclical and last six seconds. If you end a rage at the end of your turn, then 6 seconds later is that same moment at the end of your turn. I think it all comes down to interpretation on this one, and as I said, we disagree.

It depends on exactly when you end the rage. Ending rage is a free action, so you can only take it on your turn.

If you end it at the end of your turn on the round you activate it, it functions as Avoron stated.

If you end it a the beginning of your turn on the second round, it functions as Damanta stated.

Most of the time, you should end range on the same round you activate it if you want to cycle, but if you do, it will not apply to any AoOs you might be able to take.

This is exactly what I wanted to say, but couldn't phrase (it was also posted as I was writing my response).

Avoron, I understand what you are trying to say, but I simply don't agree. I think that rules as intended, you are to suffer the consequences of fatigue for two of your turns for every one that you benefited from a rage. Yes, I'm equating turns to rounds again, but the Core Rulebook does that frequently as well.

Unfortunately, I think this is a case of RAW vs. RAI. I think that if you are to be fatigued for twice as long as you could rage, then it should be that you are fatigued for twice as long, thus what Damanta and Azouth wrote is a better interpretation.

Rage
Fatigue
Rage

is a 2:1 rage to fatigue ratio.

Rage
Fatigue
Fatigue

is a 1:2 rage to fatigue ratio, which is what is the rules state should happen.

If you were a first level wizard and cast adjuring step (a spell that only lasts 1 rd/lvel) at the end of your round, according to Avoron, the spell wears off before he acts again, which means it is a wasted spell.

Essentially, I think that if you end a rage at the end of a round, the fatigue also ends at the end of the round, just as if the qizard in the example above would get a chance to actually use Adjuring Step on his next action before it wore off.

My players are:

Human Sea Singer Bard
Tiefling Magus
Kitsune Swashbuckler (Rogue Archetype)
Human Oracle of the Waves

We are on Day 15 (will likely take the Man's Promise tomorrow) and besides throwing in the Salvage Operation module, it has been almost completely RP. The team has managed to kill three hostile crew members without actually fighting them and they can't wait to kill Plugg and Scourge.

I am currently running this for my group and we are likely going to capture The Man's Promise this week. I would suggest starting them at level 1 (unless you have less then 4 players, which I could understand). As Uri Meca said, they start out being over-shadowed by the rest of the crew and it's been great seeing them get more confident about a pending mutiny, something they never would have risked at level 1.

If you start them at level 3, I think you may run the risk of having a party that will mutiny far too early. Also, when the party isn't hindered by potentially lethal lashings and fights with the hostile members of the crew, they will make stupid decisions. In other APs or campaigns, the game can survive, but the penalty for killing on the Wormwood, even in self-defense, is being keel-hauled. If the PCs think there are consequences, they are more likely to toe the line.

Besides, overcoming a challenge is way more fun than steamrolling it.