snex's page

Litany of Righteousness + Imbue With Aura

Paladin casts LoR on the big bad, Cleric casts IWA on the party dps. Have the Paladin use Aura of Justice on the dps for some extra cheese.

I am currently playing an Evoker (Admixture) with a 1 level Crossblooded Draconic(Copper)/Primal(Earth) dip, and as others in the thread have pointed out, it is crazy good for blasting. You also have plenty of slots to use on utility/BC spells. You should also be taking Spell Specialization *at least* once as a feat, as it boosts that damage even higher.

You will also need Spell Focus, Greater Spell Focus, Elemental Focus, and Greater Elemental Focus, as well as the Spell Penetration tree, or you will find your damage output actually decreasing over time.

Would like to know

Skull & Shackles is pretty ruthless, our group didn't even make it through the first book.

ShinHakkaider wrote:

I'm also assuming that the PC's are playing by the same rules and tend to make sure that anything that they fight is DEAD, DEAD, DEAD.

I think that in almost 30 years of gaming that I've had more players ask of an NPC or a monster "is he dead?" as opposed to "is he still moving?"

It would be interesting to know;

a) how many of those players, who admit they would throw their toys out of their pram, if their downed PC took damage, think nothing of stabbing a downed NPC, and

b) how many of the GMs, who advocate never utilizing creatures to their full potential, would step in and tell a player that they aren't allowed to perform the last attacks in a full-attack routine, "because that's not what your character would do. You think he's dead, you have to leave them alone...".

c) if the two were placed at the same table, how long before a table was flipped?

In our group, if an NPC goes down in the middle of a set of iterative attacks, we generally don't waste time taking the remaining attacks. If we are standing next to a dying creature and can't take any other actions, we will coup de grace them (and the same thing happens to us). We will also include dying creatures in AOE spells, and expect our dying bodies to be subject to the same.

Some exceptions to the iterative attacks thing are:

- You are the only visible PC. You will keep getting pounded until somebody else shows up or they know you are dead.
- They are an undead with Life Sense. They know you are alive and want you to not be.
- They know ahead of time your propensity for healing.

If I'm a owlbear who is fighting a lone opponent and you as that lone opponent are wielding a weapon of some kind that can cause me grievous harm or kill me? God forbid that you may have actually already hurt me with it? If I get the chance I'm gonna Claw/claw/Hug - bite the living CRAP out of you until you stop moving. And that would be the same if I were a bug bear, a human fighter (not so...

Interesting choice of words... "until you stop moving". This is not the same thing as "dead."

In addition to the Undead Lord Cleric archetype, also take a look at Agent of the Grave Prestige Class. It has a requirement of evil alignment, but you might be able to get your DM to create a homebrew version for neutral necromancers.

snex wrote:

Think about what "make its final attack" means in the scenario. "Final attack" of what? An arbitrarily designated 6 seconds in which it can make a full attack. But baddies don't know about these arbitrary divisions of 6 seconds.

I understand what you are saying, and sympathise, as I have issues with the limitations to movement based on arbitary divisions of time*.

However, it may help to visualise 'full attack', not as a series of identical attacks ("I lift my sword, I bring it down, I lift my sword, I bring it down, I lift my sword, I bring it down, I lift my sword, I bring it down, etc."), but as committing to an elaborate series of attacks ("I lift my sword, I bring it down, I swing in a figure eight, then spin to deal a third backhand slash").
With the option that highly skilled attackers are able to interrupt the routine after the first attack, but not after the second or subsequent attacks.

In such a case, the attacker has already committed themself to the attack; why would they not make it?

But this is not how it works as stated in the rules. If the first attack drops the enemy, you can then choose to treat it as a standard action and then take a move action. So clearly it is not some combination attack that you can't stop once you've started.

snex wrote:

Think about what "make its final attack" means in the scenario. "Final attack" of what? An arbitrarily designated 6 seconds in which it can make a full attack. But baddies don't know about these arbitrary divisions of 6 seconds.

The only thing a baddie knows is this: "I hit my enemy. He fell. Should I continue hitting him?" The answer to this question must be the same, whether the baddie is in the middle of a set of iterative attacks or whether he has just finished his last attack of the round and cannot attack again until the next round. Anything else is metagaming based on the concept of a "round" that the baddie knows nothing about.

The monster/NPC would have a visual or perceptual validation of the state of the PC. A PC with negative hitpoints still breaths and lives until he crosses that threshold. If you are suggesting that he shoudl make a heal sheck to indeed determine that the PC is dead, then shouldn't all PCs have to do the same? Like you said they don't see mechanics they see a person clinging to life or a person with their chest caved in, torn asunder, decapitated, etc...

How easily could it make that visual validation of the state of the PC in the heat of battle? Probably not so easily that it just gets to do so for free unless it is something blatantly obvious like the PC missing a head or still swinging his weapon around. Think about how difficult it is to tell if a person is dead or alive even in real life. You have to take a pulse at minimum, and even then, you can't be 100% certain. We require doctors for precisely this. You would at minimum need to make a Perception or Heal check, or something equivalent.

And yes, this should apply to the PCs as well. But which PCs actually metagame in this way? In our group, once a baddie goes down, we move on to the next one. Whether he is dead or not is irrelevant to us until the enemy cleric starts bringing them back. It only seems to be GMs who abuse iterative attacks in this way, just to get a kick out of unnecessarily killing a PC.

If you consider it "metagaming" for a PC or GM to have their characters act upon knowing that they can perform a full-round action or a standard+move action each round, then I think you'll find that everyone metagames all the time.

How do you figure? The PC or baddie is just thinking, "I want to hit this guy." or "I want to run up to that guy and hit him." It isn't metagaming at all to make those intentions happen within the rules of the game. It *is* metagaming for the PC or baddie to utilize the concept of a "round" to justify hitting an unconscious body that he wouldn't have otherwise hit.

snex wrote:

So in other words, you guys are in favor of enemies metagaming based on rules they can't possibly know.

What are you talking about? What exactly do you consider metagaming in this situation?

Next turn, the monster can do one of multiple things:
(1) continue attacking the downed character
(2) do nothing
(3) move/charge to attack someone else
(4) withdraw/move away

In the scenario as written, the creature can only do one of two things:
(1) make its final attack
(2) do nothing

Options (3) and (4) aren't available to it, since it has already performed two attacks of a full-attack action.

Think about what "make its final attack" means in the scenario. "Final attack" of what? An arbitrarily designated 6 seconds in which it can make a full attack. But baddies don't know about these arbitrary divisions of 6 seconds.

The only thing a baddie knows is this: "I hit my enemy. He fell. Should I continue hitting him?" The answer to this question must be the same, whether the baddie is in the middle of a set of iterative attacks or whether he has just finished his last attack of the round and cannot attack again until the next round. Anything else is metagaming based on the concept of a "round" that the baddie knows nothing about.

Snex,

There's a difference between a subsecond followup attack (or an already initiated combination) and having to wind up for another routine.
Also remember that your combat rules ARE the laws of physics in your world. Expecting people not to notice how they work is unreasonable.

The combat rules are not the laws of physics. They are a model for describing actual physics, and like all models, they only approximate the real thing. Your monsters know about the actual physics, they don't know about the model that earth humans use to play the game.

So in other words, you guys are in favor of enemies metagaming based on rules they can't possibly know.

That's a horrible way to GM. Your monsters don't know what iterative attacks, rounds, or any of that other stuff is. Those things are abstractions that let us humans on earth play the game, not mechanics that creatures within the game world should be exploiting even though they have no knowledge of such things.

I have to wonder why this question only occurs with respect to iterative attacks, and not attacks on the next round. The scenario is the same whether or not iterative attacks exist.

The enemy dropped a PC. Should he continue hitting that dropped PC or not? The answer to that question has to be the same *whether or not* iterative attacks exist.

If you would continue to attack, then why wouldn't you also continue to attack the downed character ('s dead body) on the next round? It's the exact same logic that led you to take the extra attack in the first place.

Either enemies will attack downed PCs or they won't. They have no way of knowing if the PC is actually dead unless they do a heal check or have life sense.

Cast Simulacrum lots of times.

I disagree with Dimensional Door, it's incredibly useful. Either as a escape (sure, not while grappled, but works when surrounded), and, specially, as battlefield control and damage dealing.

dimension door can be used while grappled - it's even more useful than you thought.

Why do people keep talking about time slowing down inside the dimension? That is not what happens. What happens is that you don't age inside the dimension. Time flows at the same rate as on the material plane.

You should rapid shot *unless* you need an 18 or above to hit. This is assuming a x3 crit bow with no STR rating.

Is Psionics Unleashed allowed? If so, do a Half-Giant Soulknife/Rogue. You will be one-shotting pretty much every monster.

Ice armor is pretty good at the beginning but I'm not sure it scales very well. Water form, water sight, and punitive transformation are pretty good. Fluid travel is just amazingly good in this adventure. It will make many of the encounters way too easy.

oracle of waves is absurdly good for this campaign.

you will also benefit greatly from somebody with a big social skill.

lastly, at least one person should max out profession (sailor).

Alternative classes cannot dual class into their alternates.

Vanishing Trick wrote:

Vanishing Trick (Su): As a swift action, the ninja can disappear for 1 round per level. This ability functions as invisibility. Using this ability uses up 1 ki point.

Emphasis mine. It already lasts for a round per level.

Whoops, totally missed that. Thanks. (I haven't been Invisible for that long anyway so no foul :) )

Invisible Blade states that "whenever a ninja uses the vanishing trick ninja trick, she is treated as if she were under the effects of greater invisibility."

My question is can I still use the effects of regular Invisibility as opposed to Greater Invisibility if I choose? If I am doing stealth and nothing combat-related, I would rather use regular Invisibility for the minute per level duration as opposed to round per level. It doesn't make sense that my ninja suddenly gets less powerful at stealth at 10th level when I take Invisible Blade.

The holy lance ability from the good domain requires a standard action to use - however doing so makes the weapon's holy ability useless for the round you initiate it. Even worse, if you use it non-consecutively, you are wasting another round every time you use it. It seems to me that this ability should be used as a free action for it to be useful.