Or are the corbies on the castle roof itself, and not the wall?
I think this falls in the realm of "Well, duh!"
Obviously, they have to get in position and do what Corinna so aptly demonstrated. Make a disturbance that causes the corbie to look for the source...over the side of the wall, and blam, rainbow brite in the face. My point is that the spell would reach.
Gilfroy will suggest trying it with the sleepy one. Of course, Gilfroy will also point out that the corbie could resist the magic, but it would be a more sure thing than trying to quietly take it out with arrows. Knock it out and somebody good at climbing quickly scales the wall to slit its throat. Is there any cover between the guards and each other?
There is quite a bit of cover between each of the guards.
Did Melon's questions to Corinna get through (separate post)?
Yeah, I see those fine.
Malan looks for a key on the corbie.
My brain gets weird sometimes. When I first read this, I saw it as, "Malan looks for a rib on the barbie."
Sometimes I frighten even myself.
Hey folks,
I"m in the process of moving this weekend. I had hoped to get an update to each game this morning, but last-minute packing made that impossible. I won't be able to get one in now until Sunday at the earliest, but more likely Monday. Have a great weekend!
After the mysterious Jemini makes room, Melon can move in and do the listening instead. ;)
Hah! This is what happens when I update through too many pbps simultaneously... *facepalm* :D
I'm having some weird difficulties with the map at the moment. The vision controls are behaving oddly. Everyone becomes blind upon entering the area you're approaching (which results in your tokens disappearing when I show a player view), and adjusting the vision blockers is actually making the area of blindness bigger! If I can't figure out what's wrong, I may need to rebuild the map. As such, there may be a delay before I can update the game.
Okay, I seem to have managed a partial fix to the problem. It's still behaving oddly, and I still don't really know what's wrong. The program is working fine with any other map or campaign file. It's just this one small area on this one map that's behaving oddly. At any rate, I've managed to get it so that I can get accurate screenshots for you all, so it's good enough to go on.
Mmm. But when you're rolling 1d4+0, is there really such a thing as "max damage?" The term hardly seems to apply. It's like the sound of one hand clapping.
Mmm. But when you're rolling 1d4+0, is there really such a thing as "max damage?" The term hardly seems to apply. It's like the sound of one hand clapping.
Hey - if a "2" was enough to hit, then "2" damage might have been enough to drop it. It already fell 20ft and got hit by Melon once.
Man, I really wish Melon found enough time to take out and drink a potion of mage armor.
Paizo has been making things really difficult for me lately; all my dots are vanishing, and a lot of stuff isn't showing up in my Focused threads either. How annoying.
Moving this to the discussion thread:
Hmmm... The problem I see here is that you're attempting an action that essentially denies the enemy their Dex bonus, which is basically the same thing as a Feint, which is a standard action (unless you have Improved Feint, which Melon doesn't). One might also consider it similar to a Dirty Trick action, which is also a standard action. Certainly, kicking up some dust is not a difficult or time-consuming action, but kicking up enough dust to obscure vision is more difficult (and likely to attract attacks of opportunity, too).
As such, I'm going to rule that it's a standard action to try your diversion tactic, so Melon can't both Bluff and attack. You'll need to choose one over the other, but since the dice roll results are already known, I presume you'll choose the higher of the two and just attack. We can keep some dust flying up as a bit of flavour though. :)
I've thought about it in a similar fashion, but then I my thinking went as follows: creating a distraction is dissimilar from a feint due to it only giving the opportunity for others to use stealth. It costs Melon a move action, and (say Tevyn tried) it would cost him a move action too (stealth typically being done as part of a move action).
So: distraction vs sense motive, then stealth vs perception; opposed to feint vs sense motive. Given such a situation, I think it is fair to use a move action to set up a distraction - at least the first time round (as they didn't see it coming!). And it gives people something to do with a move action. On the other hand - balance dictates that move actions shouldn't be useful.
There's also the fact that Tevyn is currently 10 ft away from Melon, meaning that's a lot of dust for her to stir up.
Creating a Diversion to Hide: You can use Bluff to allow you to use Stealth. A successful Bluff check can give you the momentary diversion you need to attempt a Stealth check while people are aware of you.
The wording of Bluff-to-create-a-diversion specifies that it allows you to hide, not you and/or your allies. I think you can only use Bluff to distract attention from yourself, not from anyone else in the party. Just imagine if Douena and her +11 to Bluff could give the whole party a chance to attack vs. flat-footed as a move action. That doesn't seem very balanced.
I think Melon's tactic sounds more like a Dirty Trick (and thus a CMB) also. Apart from the fact that it's a standard action, the numbers are more favorable to her, too: +5 CMB vs. -1 Bluff.
The rules for stealth say that anybody can stealth, if their enemies are distracted.
Douena's Bluff +11 is indeed high, but attacking enemies flat-footed is not automatic: Mahjik and Lorenz would have to succeed on Stealth checks (usually with a move action each), and we'd only get a single attack against the flat-footed enemy. Even if we somehow stealthed as a free action and got 3 attacks (Mahjik with his flurry, along with a ki point for extra attack) would still only get the first attack counting the enemy as flat-footed.
Other than for rogues/ninjas with their lovely sneak attack dice, attacking the average enemy flat-footed makes a -2 difference to their AC (pretty much at all levels). Multiple (opposed checks) and getting to attack a flat-footed enemy on one attack at a slightly easier AC is hardly ground-breaking.
Now compare: doing an actual Dirty Trick to blind the enemy would cost a single standard action (and a CMB vs CMD roll), and if successful the enemy is flat-footed to all attacks, all attackers get an additional +2 bonus to their attacks (for attacking a target that is blind), and all attackers do not need to make additional effort to get these benefits (neither spend actions, nor make rolls that could fail).
...
Finally, unlike a Dirty Trick, creating a diversion doesn't work reliably continuously. Most enemies would "figure out" what you're doing and handle it appropriately. In game terms, this can be viewed as the DC going up by +5 each time the distraction is attempted in an encounter.
If your observers are momentarily distracted (such as by a Bluff check), you can attempt to use Stealth. While the others turn their attention from you, you can attempt a Stealth check if you can get to an unobserved place of some kind. This check, however, is made at a –10 penalty because you have to move fast.
The expanded description of using Bluff to attempt a Stealth check (located, for some reason, two paragraphs above the called-out 'creating a diversion to hide') specifies that you only get a chance to use Stealth after a diversion if you use the diversion to move to a place where you have cover or concealment. A Bluff roll cannot create cover or concealment as a move action.
It is, after all, called Create a Diversion to Hide, not Create a Diversion to Sneak Attack. :)
That at least confirms that it works. So Tevyn can (as they are distracted by Melon's bluff check) move to an unobserved place (say AM37) with a Stealth check. Then he can still attack from there into the flat-footed enemy.
Just because he's using part of his round to hide, doesn't mean he cannot go and attack immediately afterward.
I agree with Navior's ruling that the attempt would be a standard action.
At any rate, Tevyn's not really concerned about hiding at this point; he'd have no idea that's what Melon is trying to do. My initial instinct, in fact, was to ignore the spider completely and continue concentrating on the other thing (yeah, I suspect I know what it is I'm just not using names even ooc) but I decided a concerted effort as a group might make more sense, especially since Melon's going through so much trouble.
I might regret this if the other thing charges me, but oh well.
Taking out the spider now is a good idea - since it's AC won't get this low again. We'll have to see how the spider handler feels about it.
Unfortunately, the woman's unusual motions prove distracting and his aim is off.
...dat ass...
Hey folks,
I'm going to be away for Canadian Thanksgiving this weekend, so I probably won't have much opportunity to post. That's actually not that unusual for a weekend; however, because of the holiday Monday, it could be a little longer than usual before I'm able to post regularly again.
Enjoy it :)
Happy Thanksgiving, Navior!
Hero Lab didn't include the trip ability for her dog the first time she summoned it, but it's in the PRD so I assume it's kosher. If not, I wasted an 18 she could have used for that Acid Dart. :P
Yes, dogs get the trip ability.
I knew there was a reason why I put Combat Reflexes as Melon's 3rd level feat. Here's hoping we make it through this blood brawl and that a level-up is on the other side of it.
Meanwhile, #6, #7, and #8 look confusedly to the red-skinned man calling everyone closer. When they take a step closer towards him, he points towards the party and cries, "No! Get them, you idiots!" Yet when they move towards the door, he follows up with, "Too far! Too far!" All three delay their actions.
I chuckled at this.
I vote we return to somewhere safe(r) after this fight. Either the Desnan shrine (from which we can guard the way to the caravan) - or at the caravan itself. Mostly because I'm hopeful that we get to level-up after this madness.
Apologies. For some reason, I was thinking Melon hadn't acted yet. About to post.
I posted the following general statement in my other games so most of y'all have probably already seen it but I figured I'd do it here too for thoroughness.
---
My apologies, everyone. Due to some unexpected and unpleasant surprises, work has been kicking my arse for the last couple of weeks. I haven't had much time to log in and contribute to the games during the day and haven't had the energy to stare at the computer screen in the evenings. I'm taking some time off after Thanksgiving. Hopefully it'll allow me the chance to recovery my momentum and a small portion of my sanity. In the meantime, feel free to autobot my PC if I'm taking too long to respond.
Seated on the floor beside the wrecked table are two scaly lizard-like humanoids.
Melon rushes into the room, leaping feet-first forward to skid with her bum over the table and use her legs in a scissor sweep to knock one of the stinking creatures to the floor.
Can you trip something that's seated? Is the "seated" condition prone or not prone? Is it a move or a free action to get up from "seated?" I assume that if it takes a move action to get up, it's already prone and Melon ought to have done damage or positioned herself to get an AoO if it tried to get up.
And that's not even getting into the "Does a successful Acrobatics check negate the stipulation that you must have a clear path unhindered by difficult terrain or obstacles to charge?" question.
Navior can adjust the reality of the post as he deems necessary :) - if they are indeed prone, then Melon does damage; otherwise one at least should be very prone, or alternatively dirty tricked into blindness.
Regarding the leaping charge, Navior can handled that as he sees fit too. I posted on the premise by which I rule these things (i.e. if in doubt, the rule of cool applies).
In my experience, the rule of cool usually means that the person who knows the rules as written gets shafted because they don't try actions that they know are disallowed and then see other people rewarded for system non-mastery/pushing the envelope. :P
PLAYER 1: *knows that action x is explicitly disallowed by RAW* "I move here and do action y."
PLAYER 2: "I do action x!"
GM: Player 2, you succeed! Player 1, what do you do now?
PLAYER 1: "What? The rules say you can't do action x in this circumstance!"
GM: "Yeah, but I'll allow it because it's so awesome!"
It just turns into an arms race of figuring out what the GM thinks is cool and trying to top each other.
I haven't thought of it that way - but on the other hand, an arms race centered on the rule of cool is... pretty damn awesome.
I do recall James Jacobs saying jumping charges are fine (though I do realize that his words are not considered rules gospel on the forums, I put a lot of weight on his input). Additionally given that a character could use acrobatics to avoid AOOs while charging, I see no reason why it cannot be used to avoid a table.
Gazooks! I just realized I could've done things even cooler if Melon'd charged and bull-rushed the table onto the critters!
Jumping charges are possible. Although the rules for charge don't explicitly allow them, there are several indirect references to them in other places in the rules. However, jumping charges do NOT provide the ability to avoid the "no obstructions" rule of charges. You can jump when you charge, just so long as there's nothing in the way when you do it.
For the "Rule of Cool" to work, you need a spot where the rules don't explicitly say no and leave things open to interpretation. In a game as rigidly defined as Pathfinder, that doesn't work very often, as every new ability you allow brings with it a cascading effect on the rest of the game system. In addition to the problem Joana outlines, it can also diminish the worth of certain feats and special abilities. While I can't find a specific feat or ability that allows someone to leap over obstructions during a charge, I'm pretty certain I've seen one somewhere. Even if nobody's thought of that, it seems a pretty reasonable feat ability. Imagine if somebody else had that feat, and then Melon was able to perform its ability without the feat. That person would feel justly annoyed. The "Rule of Cool" has the potential to create that problem every time it creates a new ability.
And honestly, while a rule of cool arms race may sound awesome, it would be nothing but a headache. Sure, it might generate some creative ideas, but it would also generate a lot of disappointment/anger/resentment/etc. from the people who aren't able to keep up. And that's just not fair. There are better ways to generate creative ideas.
So in short, Melon can't do a leaping charge over the table. However, she can leap over the table to land beside the beasts so that she can attack them next round.
Oh and yes, the beasts are currently prone (I forgot to mark that on the map). I also just realized I forgot to include a Knowledge check to identify them. I'll add that to my next update. :)
You may be thinking of Janni Rush (Ultimate Combat), that gives bonuses to damage when jumping on a charge.
That could be it, yes. It's definitely one of those indirect references that show jumping with a charge is possible.
I should clarify (as I think my previous post may have come across as a bit rigid), I'm totally open to rules interpretations and discussion, and there are areas where the rules are sometimes vague and uncertain. Such discussions are where the "rule of cool" can sometimes apply. However, I don't think these things should be tossed into the middle of a battle without any discussion as that's when the problems like the one Joana outlines can occur. If there's discussion ahead of time, then possible problems can be noticed and everyone knows where things stand.
Of course, there may still be times when you're just not sure if something's okay to do in a battle. In such cases, I have no problem with people asking.
I understand. From my perspective, it is easier to ask forgiveness than permission; particularly since I don't like to hold-up the action in a pbp potentially for days as rules discussion occur. I find it more expedient to do something cool by demonstration and let the GM realign reality as he sees fit. I don't mind if a GM rules against me :)
In a real-life game, obviously the discussion can occur in real-time and the general gist can be established within a minute.
Regarding the actual premise of using acrobatics to bypass difficult terrain/obstructions: I don't believe rules are there to limit what you can do, but rather they are a way to simulate reality (or in this case fantasy-action-reality). As such I don't put much stock in interpretations that reduce the dynamic nature of the action. The highlight of a combat should be "omg! remember when you broke down the door and used it to surf down the stairs to overrun their shield wall?!" - it should not be "omg! that x3 crit was sweet!"
Anyway, there is a feat that manipulates charges, namely Dragon Style. It allows ignoring difficult terrain and allies on charges, running and withdrawing (along with other extras like bonuses to saves and additional damage on unarmed strikes). I'd say that given the myriad of benefits in the feat, the balance consideration of making a skill check to attempt to ignore terrain/obstructions on a charge are adequately met. It is a low-power ability. Feather step slippers (2000gp) would cover it as well.
Isn't it a little weird to allow jumps on charges; but not for the sake of actually clearing a gap or obstacle?
Hey, Navior, how do you do that thing in MapTool where you number the bad guys, like corbies 1, 2, 3, etc.? I know I've seen it before, but I can't figure out how to get the numbers on the map for my game to easily distinguish between enemies with the same token.
I use separate number tokens that I simply overlay on the monster tokens. The number tokens are transparent apart from the number itself so you can still see the monster picture underneath. It does mean I have to move two tokens each time I move the monsters (and I have to make certain the number token is arranged above the monster token), but it keeps the screen from getting too cluttered.
Alternatively, in the View menu, you can click on "Show token names", which will add a bar beneath each token showing the name of the token. If you name the tokens with numbers, you can show the numbers that way. You may recall I tried using that for a little while (can't remember if it was in this game or Serpent's Skull), but it really cluttered up the screen. If two tokens are adjacent north-south, either the bar gets covered up or part of one token gets covered (depending which one is "above" the other). The number tokens work better visually, I think.
If you'd like, I can send you the number tokens.
If you'd like, I can send you the number tokens.
If it's not too much trouble, I'd appreciate it. You still have my e-mail address from the campaign site, right?
If you'd like, I can send you the number tokens.If it's not too much trouble, I'd appreciate it. You still have my e-mail address from the campaign site, right?
I do. The tokens have been sent.
Got them. Thanks!
HP should be 9/15, Melon; both current and total hp are reduced by 5.
9/14 then
hmmm... 9/19 is less than 50% crisis!!
But 9/14 is basically 2/3rds hitpoints. Melon is good to go!
Bleg. Only after posting I realize that the wight will act right after Melon, so the entire exercise doesn't really work the way I planned it in my head. I'll delay until after it next time, or something.
I was hoping to set up a situation where its AOOs were consumed allowing Malan to move out of the little room safely.
Is the energy drain automatic with a hit, or shouldn't there be a save to avoid it?