Alright, updating my character sheet with my new Black Stone +3! Taking Mage Armor, True Strike, and Vanish from the Wizard's list.
Also, regarding the lvl 7 feat, I've decided to push the feat back to 8, and pick up Dragon Roar. A 15' cone to do damage and debuff… there's some combat options for me. :)
Sounds like a plan to me.
The GAUNTLET
Conveys +3/+3 HIT/DAM - melee weapons
Conveys +2/+2 HIT/DAM - bow
Deployed Armor - AC Bonus: +3 (up from +2)
NEW Ability: TARGET ENEMIES
Jofram's gauntlet whispers advice to him enabling him to better target a creature's weaknesses...
1x day for Gestalt Level RNDS
Jofram can apply his highest (based on his Ranger level) Favored Enemy ATT/DAM bonuses to any creature type he chooses. This ability works with the bow, gauntlet, or any weapon that is 'gauntleted'. If the creature type chosen is already a Favored Enemy, only the highest ATT/DAM bonuses are used.
Apologies for my slow posting the last few days, guys. My Work dial got turned to 'Unrelenting' and someone busted off the nob.
On a good note, Straehan's sheet is fully updated. Let me know when you guys have your sheets all finished so I can transfer some of your key stuff to my cheat sheets... Perception rolls, etc.
Sch-weeeeeeeeet!!!!!!!!
Glad you like it. :) Feel free to thank Jayse. I was pinging ideas off him and he came up with the basic concept.
Okay, quick huddle:
Regarding our misty benefactor - should we enlighten the villagers, as to her name? I know she wants more followers, but saying her name seems to do funky things...
I guess I don't have a big opinion on this one. She's still somewhat of a mystery to me. So while we're working on her behalf for the time being, I don't really understand what impacts starting little churches to her would do.
Not to mention that Jayse really doesn't care about her getting her own church. I believe our agreement with her is fairly open to interpretation right now.
That's just me, though.
Also, Jofram, you had a chance to level up yet? :)
The only issue I see with revealing her name this early in the game is giving the other deities a heads up on her efforts to get back in the Great Game. We still don't know which deities took her power away from her, and since we are going to see some priests back in Orfallen, it would be a good chance to find out about what happened to Naladoria.
Ha! Love me some twice-baked jokes!
Putting on my DM hat here briefly... There is really no harm in using her name now. When she resuscitated most of the team, she pretty much declared herself to your deities and all of the Celestial watchdogs.
Whether you WANT to help her get more followers by doing some light evangelizing is up to you.
To me the question is "do we know enough about who she is and what her goal/motivations are?"
I'm tryign to remember all of our interactions and research, and I just don't feel like I know her well enough to feel comfortable being a spokesman for her.
You guys have any thoughts/insights?
Well, Ushari's deity does not seem to mind all that much. Since she worships a good deity, I suspect she would not object to helping Naladoria. Again, I feel like we have taken sides already, but then I am a cleric so things are a little more black and white to me anyway.
Jayse sees this as a contract. So far the terms of the contract are fairly open-ended and undefined, so there's no reason to give a firm 'yes' or 'no' to working with her.
He works with her so far because she gave him a gift. If he finds out that her goals are counter to his own, he will have to revisit the contract. If that bears consequences on the original gift... well, we'll cross that bridge when we get there.
He's willing to take on the tasks put forth so far, but "building her a following" wasn't part of the contract - at least not that i can recall.
You are correct. She has never asked you guys to evangelize for her.
Putting on my "If I were purely a player" hat...
Straehan doesn't follow any particular deity and he isn't inclined to start now. To evangelize for Naladoria, he'd have to consider her his deity - and that isn't their relationship.
Now, if she'd asked him to round up followers... maybe. She's been pretty generous and if she wanted to drop that in the "hey do me a favor" list, he'd consider it.
Strae has no objection if any of you guys want to help her increase her following but it doesn't interest him.
Jofram - it looks like your character is mostly updated to L7... did I miss your HP roll?
Yeah, I really need to get on that.
I haven't added my HP, yet, but I can do that, now.
<-- includes 2x favored class bonus (Bard, Ranger) as a Half-Elf
Heads up, I'm out of town until Monday. Pretty sure I won't be posting in the meantime (including the rest of today, most likely).
Have a good one, folks.
I hope this is nothing serious, Ben. Catch you next week.
It's nothing serious. Isaac is in the middle of some teething with some kind of cough or cold thrown on top. He just hasn't been sleeping well, so I stayed home to make sure he got enough sleep so we could go on a vacation this weekend.
Work is way busy guys but I'll try to update the game as I can. If not today then definitely over the weekend.
Cool.
SR...STOP mimicking my work schedule! No mere mortal can handle the stresses of my schedule without completely snapping!!
I'm a DM. By player definition, I'm soulless and inhuman. :)
Touche!
The Campaign Info page has been re-tooled to be a little easier to read.
That's some nice formattin', man.
Dang you, Jimmy, and your job that requires work and girlfriend who you spend time with...
... leaving Jayse hanging like this.
LOL, sorry. Hopefully, the job will change sometime soon...
Well, you seem to have a decent gig going, so I guess you're off the hook.
You have survived another 1000 posts of my foolishness. Did you reflexively dodge my idiocy? Or perhaps you used sheer willpower to keep your sanity? Possibly, you fortified yourselves and merely endured the experience?
Whatever method you used to arrive at 5K posts with me, I don't doubt that it proves your character's mettle.
Thus you all receive a permanent +1 on your Reflex, Fort, or Will save. Just put a little '5K Post Bonus' note where-ever you note it.
Jayse: Toughin' it out for 5k posts. (+1 to my weakest save: FORTITUDE!)
Ha. I'm using the same theory - +1 to WILL.
Dang.. I'ma haffta get me one dems nifty cloaks of what resists stuff!
Ugh...stomach flu is the killer...why my posting is sporadic. Since I need a boost to my CON, Ushari will take the +1 to FORT.
Yikes! Get well!
Fort for me as well, methinks.
Wow... so the males get hit with what I assume is some combination of an Illusion and Enchantment effect, and we get two 1's and a 5?
Priceless.
:D
I couldn't have rolled better for you. Actually, there is very little illusion involved. Even without a little magical oomph Sudara would give most men pause.
Move action to draw my Humble-Pie-Eating Spoon.
OK, rules discussion time...
Here are the sections I am referring to:
Sneak Attack
Uncanny Dodge
Flatfooted
Surprise
So here's the situation. Ushari is drawing an AoO for casting a spell in range of the were-rat Rogue that she hasn't detected. That's not up for debate. What is a question mark is whether she is subject to Sneak Attack aka Precision damage as well.
According to the book, Ushari gets Uncanny Dodge at 4th which allows her her full AC against all attacks because she is never flatfooted. The only exceptions to this rule are when Ushari is immobilized or someone successfully feints against her. Sneak Attack, by design, only works when someone is denied their DEX (for various reasons such as a feint) or when flanked. These rules both apply in a situation of surprise.
So here is how this works in the current scene according to the rules and the discussion threads I reviewed on the subject...
Ushari can't be backstabbed by the wererat even though she is unaware of him. He could even be invisible and not do Precision damage to her. This could be a surprise round - nothing. In all cases, she retains her full AC as well.
While the rules don't say a Feint requires the defender to perceive the attacker, commonsense says otherwise. It seems ridiculous to me that one could feint behind the back of someone who doesn't know you are there to gain a possible Sneak Attack. The nature of a feint is a ruse used to coax someone into a poor position.
So here is the absurd bit as I see it. According to the rules, Ushari is safer from backstabs by being completely unaware of the wererat. If she were aware of him, he could feint and possibly sneak attack her. Now, I don't begrudge Ushari the full AC, or the ability to fire off AoOs even before she's acted in the round (another by-product of Uncanny Dodge). My issue is that Uncanny Dodge seems pretty damn powerful for an ability gained at 4th level. It grants all Rogues pretty close to the blanket immunity enjoyed by Elementals, Incorporeal Creatures, and Oozes. And when a Rogue reaches 8th level - that immunity is nearly complete.
SO, I'm looking for opinions here. I'm willing to abide by the rules, though I have my reservations about them. I'd also entertain a middle ground if one can be found. I think in ALL situations Ushari would get her full AC. But I think a fair change would be that 'premeditated' attacks are caught by Uncanny Dodge... so if this wererat snuck up on Ushari and, on his turn, lined up a shot to strike at her... then her spidey sense would go off. So she would be immune to an intentional backstab attempt. But in this type of case, when she is unaware of her opponent and is drawing an AoO (a reactionary not premeditated strike from the opponent) she would be subject to a Sneak Attack damage.
Anyhow, let me know what you guys think. If you'd rather stick with the rules, I'll go with it.
Okay, it looks like there are a few issues here that could stand to be discussed, so I'll break them out a bit.
The power of Uncanny Dodge
I agree that Uncanny Dodge is a powerful class ability, but I keep coming back to a couple of things. First, it's not all that common of an ability. Only two classes and a handful of archetypes have access to it. So while it's potentially powerful, it's not very common for the DM to have to deal with it. And generally when the DM does have to deal with it, the impact is that their monsters are dealing with a few points more or less AC (unless the DM runs a game with A LOT of rogue-y, sneak attacking badges).
So it mimics one of the more difficult defenses of some of the more niche opponents, but it's pretty rare in the hands of a PC. Plus, when stood up side-by-side with the abilities of those few opponents, it doesn't really measure up. Uncanny Dodge gives the rogue/barbarian the ability to retain his Dex to AC -- which mostly just makes him all but immune to sneak attack -- whereas the defenses of those specific foes is more of a blanket immunity to not only precision damage and flanking but crits in general. This tells me that Uncanny Dodge is pretty much built to make sneak attacks more difficult, if not often straight-up impossible. Given that this is the point of the class ability, it makes me lean in favor of not changing the ability in this situation, even if visualizing the ability working is difficult.
So is it an overpowered ability given the level it's received for rogues/barbarians? I say not really. It gives them a serious advantage against a few opponents, but don't all classes have something built in like that? Some have serious bonuses against spells and spell-like abilities. Some have means of easily bypassing monster's DR or other passive defenses. Kind of seems par for the course when class-building and balancing.
Is it in need of an exception based on its very strong (and difficult to justify) application in this very specific circumstance? Again, I'd say I don't think so. We've kind of reached a rare corner-case here, and not one that I think merits a house-rule. It may bother you more than it does me, and you may still want to change it, but I'm not sure it's necessary.
Uncanny Dodge, Sneak Attack, and successfully stealthed opponents (attacking proactively and reactively)
The thrust of what you're asking here (if I'm reading this right -- correct me if I'm wrong) seems to be the the resolution of the intersection of a few different mechanical elements of the game viewed through the lens of RAI. You know I think the intention of the rules is important, but it's also up to interpretation -- so much moreso than RAW. So I'll try to speak to both.
While the rules don't say a Feint requires the defender to perceive the attacker, commonsense says otherwise. It seems ridiculous to me that one could feint behind the back of someone who doesn't know you are there to gain a possible Sneak Attack. The nature of a feint is a ruse used to coax someone into a poor position.
The bolded is what I think is most pertinent. From my understanding/reading of Uncanny Dodge, it assumes that the Rogue is either A) aware of the attack/attacker on some level of consciousness despite the fact that their higher-functioning mind isn't aware of it… or B) their body is capable of reacting to dangers that their senses don't even actively perceive. (If you have another interpretation, I'd be curious to know what it is.)
In both cases, I can see a strong case to be made for the feint to successfully allow a sneak attack. In both cases the rogue's subconscious mind or body is able to react to something that their conscious mind hasn't recognized, and I'd suggest it's within the spirit and letter of the rules to assume that the sneak-attacker is able to capitalize on the Uncanny Dodger's initial defensive reaction.
I think in ALL situations Ushari would get her full AC. But I think a fair change would be that 'premeditated' attacks are caught by Uncanny Dodge... so if this wererat snuck up on Ushari and, on his turn, lined up a shot to strike at her... then her spidey sense would go off. So she would be immune to an intentional backstab attempt. But in this type of case, when she is unaware of her opponent and is drawing an AoO (a reactionary not premeditated strike from the opponent) she would be subject to a Sneak Attack damage.
If I understand what you're suggesting here, I don't think I'm in favor of it. I don't believe Uncanny Dodge was meant to give the Uncanny Dodger a supernatural defense against intent to attack. I think the Uncanny Dodger has an incredible ability to respond to the attack. So in the case of an unseen AoO, the Uncanny Dodger isn't reacting to the sneak attacker's premeditation, she's reacting to the oft-missed clues that the attack is happening. The aggressive grunt of the attacker as he drives the blade forward. The shuffling step behind her where there shouldn't be one. Hell, maybe (in some fantastical blind swordsman fashion) the Uncanny Dodger is reacting to the deadly whisper of the blade as it cuts the air on its way to her liver.
A few final thoughts
Even with the confluence of all the strange inter-workings of these different game elements, I can't think of a situation where this would be an issue more than once per attacker in any given combat encounter. Even if the sneak attack is delivered on an AoO, it can only happen once. Once the attacker sneak attacks, he loses his element of surprise… meaning he loses the ability to gain sneak attack on followup attacks solely based on surprise. Additionally, he's now known to be a threat (or at least that there is a threat there), so the strangeness of feinting from surprise is now a non-issue…. the sneak attacker can feint away without issues of the strangeness mentioned above.
So in general, I'm inclined to lean into the RAW on this one, cause I think it's i line with RAI. If you disagree and decide that we're going to install a few house rules around these circumstances, I can dig. It's the DM's world, and we're just playing in it.
I do have one thing that should be considered, though, if you move in this direction. Instituting a change like this in the moment when it favors the DM's attacks throws up red flags to me. I don't think you are this kind of DM, but it smacks of a DM who really wants a certain out-come and is willing to change rules on the fly to suit his desires. I've been burned by this, and it wouldn't sit well with me, particularly if I were playing Ushari in this situation. Kind of feels like a "Well, the DM just really wanted me to get sneak attacked here… circumstances and rules be damned." Like i said, I think I know you well enough to know you don't roll that way… just putting it all out there.
So if you do decide you want to make these house-rules, I'd suggest (unless everyone else at the table thinks they're good changes to make at this moment and on the fly) we let the combat play out in the favor of the existing rules (and in the benefit of the player), then we can all agree that the house-rule will go into effect afterwards.
I'd say that's my two cents, but really… that's a lot of words on the page. :)
I'd say that's my two cents, but really... that's a lot of words on the page. :)
LOL! I like how you always give thoughtful responses, Ben. So we'll call that your ten cents not two. Sadly, my responses will be far shorter. In a nutshell, we'll stick with RAW and even if we hadn't, Ushari wouldn't take the sneak attack hit for a rule made In-Game. Eric may have chosen Ushari's actions with the RAW version of Uncanny Dodge in his head and so risked the attack being relatively sure it wouldn't do excessive damage. It would be pretty unfair for me to exploit that. My ignorance of this particular confluence of abilities is not a reason to 'punish' a PC. I mean, it might be FUN to punish the PC, but we musn't be hasty. >:)
Now to a few specifics because we DMs like to pontificate...
...whereas the defenses of those specific foes is more of a blanket immunity to not only precision damage and flanking but crits in general.
Personally, I wouldn't lump these together as part of a single blanket immunity. I think these are separate by-products of physical traits of the creatures (a lack of a cohesive form for instance) that carry more than one benefit. To me, it is comparing apples (Rogues are immune to backstabs) to apples and oranges (Elementals are immune to crits and backstabs). But it really doesn't matter.
It gives them a serious advantage against a few opponents... Even with the confluence of all the strange inter-workings of these different game elements, I can't think of a situation where this would be an issue more than once per attacker in any given combat encounter.
Agreed. I mean, we've run into this situation ONCE after a solid year of playing and 7 levels of character building. I think we can call it 'rare'. When I was thinking about this last night, I pretty much came to the same conclusion... but I figured I'd let the post stand for reasons I will explain in just a moment. :)
re: Feinting to Sneak Attack
I think I wasn't clear in what I was saying. I can easily see how a feint could be used to throw a rogue off and thus make them open to a sneak attack. No argument there. What I was commenting on was the oddness that a feint (which I think by RAI) would have to be used against a fully aware rogue who sees his opponent is a more sure and likely method to achieve a Sneak Attack than an invisible, unperceived, and successfully stealthed rogue stabbing another in the back. :) I get the difference you are drawing, it is a ruse that makes the other rogue misstep in the first case and a 'spidey sense' thing in the latter. I don't even have an issue with that justification. But what it does - in a rogue on rogue battle - is basically nullify 'sneakiness' as a way to get the upper hand... in a strictly martial situation. Again, it isn't relevent to this game as it is a rare case.
I don't believe Uncanny Dodge was meant to give the Uncanny Dodger a supernatural defense against intent to attack.
Again I'm not disagreeing with your interpretation of the ability BUT using a 'real world' example intent/focus can absolutely clue someone in that they are a target. Have you ever 'felt' someone staring at you? A standard principle in combat training when trying to sneak up on someone or remain unobserved is to not focus on your target or watch them peripherally. Something about how we are designed makes us aware when we are being stalked and focused on. Not that we are, but if we WERE going to tie that sort of thing into the game - using a creature's intent would make a great deal of sense.
That's just a little brain-teaser for you to ponder. :)
If you disagree and decide that we're going to install a few house rules around these circumstances, I can dig. It's the DM's world, and we're just playing in it.
LOL! Ironically, this is the ONE thing you've said that I actively disagree with. :) Yes, I've been building this world for a very long time and yes I'm the Ref... but this is our joint experience and our joint rules. You guys are helping me fill in the blank that is the Isles. As such, it is OUR game as far as I'm concerned which is one of the reasons why I solicit your opinions and tinker the rules (or not) to our mutual enjoyment.
I sincerely hope you guys are invested in this world, because you are creating it. Forestal, Coal Slide, Badger Lope, many elements of Shiv, a good chunk of the Shaudran history, and even some of the elder and exiled Gods exist SOLELY because of your interaction in the world. I had the vague ideas but your choices and adventures are what brought them into being. So I really, REALLY hope that you don't feel that I'm a whimsical bastard who arbitrarily shoves rules down your throats which you accept because "It's the DM's world".
I do have one thing that should be considered, though, if you move in this direction. Instituting a change like this in the moment when it favors the DM's attacks throws up red flags to me. I don't think you are this kind of DM, but it smacks of a DM who really wants a certain out-come and is willing to change rules on the fly to suit his desires. I've been burned by this, and it wouldn't sit well with me, particularly if I were playing Ushari in this situation. Kind of feels like a "Well, the DM just really wanted me to get sneak attacked here... circumstances and rules be damned." Like I said, I think I know you well enough to know you don't roll that way... just putting it all out there.
Sh!t, man... regardless of the outcome of this discussion, that wasn't going to happen. Shanghai'ing players & their characters with that kind of 'cuz I said so' solution creates more deserved bad blood than anything else. Having been on the short-end of that stick more than a few times, I don't knowingly do it.
And generally when the DM does have to deal with it, the impact is that their monsters are dealing with a few points more or less AC (unless the DM runs a game with A LOT of rogue-y, sneak attacking badges).
And THIS is the reason I've let the question stand, didn't delete my post, summarily resolved the AoO according to RAW, and solicited your opinions. :)
As you guys have helped develop villages up and down the coast of Amador Island (and now parts of Orfallen), my IRL group has been adventuring around Orfallen. It is an entirely Rogue-based campaign. They are forming their own 'Mob' in Orfallen and crossing blades with other thieves, other fledgling Mobs, and possibly will try to fight the Guild itself some day... so you can see why the intersection of Sneak Attack and Uncanny Dodge is something I need to work out. When we created the Thief War idea, I envisioned a world of deception, intrigues, feints within feints, betrayals, and brutal alley combats where the victory would go to the most stealthy/prepared combatant sinking a knife (with Sneak Attack) to quickly end a rival. And that will hold true up to 4th level. But the 'blanket defense' provided by Uncanny Dodge and Improved Uncanny will radically change the complexion of battles at the early to mid-levels... and that is what I'm trying to wrap my hands around. Basically, after 4th level a rogue's stealth to precipitate a combat quick-kill is pretty much gone (Rogue v Rogue). I find that a little sad... but I don't want to have to create a whole divergent set of rules just to keep that gritty and 'one-shot' intensity.
Words... so many words...
As the furthest thing from an expert on the rules, I definitely defer to Ben & Justin on this. That being said, I definitely relate to the problem of "how do you feint against a target that doesn't see you?"
It seems like you would have to be seen/heard/perceived in order to feint. In a feint, you want your target to see a threat - just not the actual one. That seems to suggest you would have to sacrifice any bonus derived from being hidden.
I don't know that there isn't a case where you could pull both of these off, but it seems reasonable to require the player (or npc) to provide a reasonable explanation of how they could do both, or else pick which attack style they would prefer. Conceptually, an attacker would generally have to pick one in the sneak or feint option, so I understand why a player/npc would.
Yep. Regardless of whether the rules don't forbid you from feinting against a character who can't perceive you, I flat-out would say "no" as a DM. RAW in this matter is good enough for 99% of games. The only campaign it really twists up in a bad way (IMO) is an all thieves one because it essentially takes stealth out of the equation in a thief v thief battle.
Yah.. which is lame. Archetypes, man... archetypes.
Just a heads up. My family and i are heading out of town for an extended weekend. Be out of pocket tomorrow morning through some time wednesday. Not sure if I'll be available to post or not, so feel free to NPC/play Jayse if it needs doing.
I realize stormraven is out for a few days, too, but in case he gets back and kicks this thing off and I'm still unavailable, feel free to use him as needed until I can get back online.
Ok, Damage Reduction and overcoming it.
According to the Damage Reduction section here , a high enough enhancement bonus bypasses certain DR types. (you might have to search Damage Reduction to get to the right section.) Specifically, there's a table that indicates a +3 bonus ignores DR for both silver and cold iron.
I know some DM's don't like it, some of them do. Happy to go with whatever you think is right because I have mixed feelings about the mechanic.