Charging:
You must have a clear path toward the opponent, and nothing can hinder your movement (such as difficult terrain or obstacles). You must move to the closest space from which you can attack the opponent. If this space is occupied or otherwise blocked, you can't charge. If any line from your starting space to the ending space passes through a square that blocks movement, slows movement, or contains a creature (even an ally), you can't charge. Helpless creatures don't stop a charge.
There's two interpretations that could happen from this.
First is that the charge doesn't happen because the path the cavalry are travelling through is obstructed by a space that slows movement.
The second is that the first row would hit the first five feet of spike stones/growth and then would stop as the charge has been interrupted. The rest of the cavalry would be blocked by the group in front.
Now if the cavalry are simply double moving in to the spike growth area, there is no reason for them to stop other than when they take damage. The horses would rear up and blood would be all over the place. At that point they would likely stop their movements.
Krispy All traps have dcs to find them, once set off however they are easy to see, would you use the same rules for 30 ft of scythe traps once you set em off?
The physical state of the scythe traps has changed; if you see them trigger there is an actual, physical change in the state of the traps which theoretically can be seen. Spike stones just sits there and... is. As well, a scythe trap is a non-magical trap. Different situation.
Again, its important to note that the spell says it cannot be detected with Perception.
Barring something else stating otherwise, I'd say thats a pretty specific example of 'specific overrides general'.
Its more complicated than that. Cancelling the charge imparts information the chargers aren't supposed to have; they've entered a spell effect they are incapable of detecting by touch.
No, it imparts no information. It just invalidates their action. Yes, since their action was a charge, they can figure out that something is hindering their movement, but that's all they get. Something hindered their movement.
I'm not suggesting they all stand at the top of the hill, say, "I'm going to charge" and then have the GM say, "that is invalid." I'm saying they do charge until the Spike Stones invalidates their charge (i.e. when they take damage from it).
What they do on the next turn is another story. I do think they're rather likely to just push further. But they can't do so on the first turn.
So, the issue is this; the vast majority of theoretical army literally cannot charge. However, they dont know this;
It doesn't matter what they know or not. All that matters is that a charge is invalid and a charge is the action they took. Their charge is invalidated and their action is canceled. Period. End of story. If they imply information from that that they shouldn't have, then that's the fault of whoever is roleplaying as these soldiers.
they can't, because thats them literally receiving divine inspiration to the effect of 'Something you dont know about stops this from being a legal action.' So whats a good, reasonable solution?
Their action is stopped and they don't know why is the most reasonable solution I can come up with.
Oh wait, a double move in a strait line! Movement wise thats indistinguishable, and you dont need to tell the mover about it until it becomes relevant, at which point stopping is an option if its something they could reasonably think up.
No, this creates a dangerous action-cancelation precedent. They declared a Charge, not a double move. They are different actions. The charge is invalidated, so they lose their action. You can't just arbitrarily decide what they did instead. If an action is invalidated, the action is lost--it doesn't transform into another action you think is similar.
So the question is, are you really ok with the unflinchinly RAW situation (questionable, again, because they dont know they can't charge...)
Holy crap, it doesn't make a difference if they know they can charge! They can't, so they don't. I don't care what they know! Their knowledge is irrelevant!
And yes, I'm really ok with following the rules, especially because doing so in this case does not harm my sense of verisimilitude in the least. I can totally picture a line of horses running down a hill, cutting their legs up on spikes and then stopping (probably with bucking and neighing and all that), such that the second line of horses stops short, too.
I then picture some of the line pushing on and ripping their horses apart without knowing why, some of them retreating back up the hill, and some of them pacing back and forth along the edge of the hurty bits trying to figure out what the hell is going on.
of a whole army worth of people spontaneously gaining knowledge they can't possibly know about the battlefield... or should the GM just wing it over to the next closest thing and resolve it that way?
The GM should follow the rules and not let them spontaneously know what is going on. Their charge has to be invalidated, but that doesn't have to tell them any information at all. The GM is the one deciding what they know, after all--these aren't independent people with their own minds getting sent a message that their action is invalid.
Also note, that if you did rule that bodies (unlikely to have blead out on the low damage) piling up somehow insulated those moving over them from the spell effect (I dont think they do), they wouldn't stop the charge as they are helpless :)
Yeah, I would never rule that way, nor can I imagine horses actually dying from these spikes.
STUFF
The rules for charging clearly state that you may not charge if you are attempting to charge through a space that impedes movement. You may not charge across spike stones, regardless of whether or not you know of its existence; at no point during your turn is this a legal action to take.
The issue is, the charger does not know this, and is in fact not allowed to know this if he has not way to determine it.
Simplest solution; the GM resolves the action as if it were the closest legal action to the desired action of the would-be charger. A double move is indistinguishable until it is relevant, and IMO, the best solution... because RAW is he tells the charger. "You may not charge." When the charger asks, "Why?" he responds, "Nothing you can see."
The charger now knows that something he can't see is preventing his charge; thats information he should not have as it will effect his actions... IE, metagaming.
To me the closest comparable situation is tumbling through an enemy square. If you fail the tumble, you stay where you are and lose the move action. For the spikes spell, if you fail the save, you lose your move action,in this case the charge, due to losing the ability to charge in the first place. You still have a move or standard left... so they could press on, not charging. Stop where they are and fire missle weapons if handy, or reverse field and back out of the spikes.
This holds up logically even at large scale because the first line of the group would likely, given the speed of combat, stumble into the spell while others in the rear couldnt progress through them.
I think there's only one important distinction between me and Krispy's understanding of the rules, and that is that a magical trap stays undetectable indefinitely. I understand the rules to mean that a rogue can perceive the trap in advance - afterwards it is obvious as magical glows appear, stony spikes litter the floor, arcane runes manifest, etc etc as appropriate for the trap; whereas Krispy's position is that a magical trap stays indefinitely undetectable and simply is and its effect simply happens without any perceivable feedback.
We'll not get around this boundary of understanding, as we both believe we're right about our position.
Other than that, both of us draw the conclusions from our core assumption in a similar way - so if either of us were swayed by the other, we'd not have significant things to disagree about still.
I think there's only one important distinction between me and Krispy's understanding of the rules, and that is that a magical trap stays undetectable indefinitely.
And at that, its only on this spell in particular; its my opinion that the spell description does not allow for detection, and that this spell does not 'trigger' so much as 'continue to function in a specific way for its entire duration'.
One more comment:
"Rocky ground, stone floors, and similar surfaces shape themselves into long, sharp points that blend into the background." The spell is a transmutation, it physically takes what is there and changes it to be physically something else. It does not create a compulsion/mental/illusion effect in the victim, it hurts because there are sharp rocky bits.
The blending (i.e. camouflaging) effect explains why it isn't readily perceivable in advance (other than for rogues); but once you know about the pain you can figure out the sharp rocky bits are there by physical inspection.
The rules for charging clearly state that you may not charge if you are attempting to charge through a space that impedes movement. You may not charge across spike stones, regardless of whether or not you know of its existence; at no point during your turn is this a legal action to take.
I can see your interpretation of the rules there and would accept them, though I don't agree.
I believe the charge would begin and be invalidated when you ran over the terrain that impeded you. It would be no different than if someone wanted to charge someone across some debris. Someone could legally jump over that debris if they made the proper acrobatics check, and even for the Spike Stones, SR applies, so if the Horses have Spell Resistance, they could charge through with no issue. So, I don't think the charge is an invalid action to take at all--it just is an action that becomes invalidated when the offending problem affects you.
Further, aren't we talking about a readied action to cast this spell, so the Charge action is actually valid at the beginning of the turn regardless?
The issue is, the charger does not know this, and is in fact not allowed to know this if he has not way to determine it.
The charging character does not need to know anything for this to happen, only the player controlling the character.
Simplest solution; the GM resolves the action as if it were the closest legal action to the desired action of the would-be charger.
No, I do not agree that this is the simple solution. The simplest solution is that the charges are invalidated--it's just a solution that you don't like. Tricking someone and forcing them to take a different action than they declared is awful. I would never do that to someone. They should not be forced to do something else when their declared action is invalidated.
A double move is indistinguishable until it is relevant, and IMO, the best solution...
It is very distinguisable. For example, one is two move actions while the other is a full round action. One involves attacking at the end and gives a +2 to hit and -2 to AC. Another involves no attack and doesn't need to be in a straight line. No, I'm sorry, this doesn't work and I would never consider it the best solution.
because RAW is he tells the charger. "You may not charge." When the charger asks, "Why?" he responds, "Nothing you can see."
No, RAW, he tells the charger, "your charge is invalid," and the charger's charge is invalidated. Done, end of sentence. This is especially easy if, like the examples, the chargers are all NPCs under the GM's control, since he can very easily compartmentalize the knowledge and they will have no idea what's going on.
If it's a PC that is affected, then, if they question, their question must be related to out of game knowledge, since their character knows nothing. Rules cannot stop metagaming, that is the responsibility of those around the table.
To me the closest comparable situation is tumbling through an enemy square. If you fail the tumble, you stay where you are and lose the move action.
Exactly.
For the spikes spell, if you fail the save, you lose your move action,in this case the charge, due to losing the ability to charge in the first place. You still have a move or standard left...
Er, no, you don't. A Charge is not two move actions followed by an attack action. A Charge is its own special action that involves moving up to twice your speed and attacking. There is no parceling up of the Charge. Either you Charge or you don't.
If something stops your movement during a Charge, your turn is over because Charging was your action--there's no refund of the extra movement and attack. It's all or nothing.
MPL you are correct, I was actually making a little bit of DM Fiat there, as I would rule that really they only completed a move action before being interupted. It wasnt expressely RAW. But I think in keeping with intent and an attempt to not over penalize given that its a whole military unit..not an individual.
I'm beginning to come around a little bit. I can see the first line of horses moving in, getting hurt in the first five feet, then rearing up or otherwise stopping. I still believe their momentum would carry them more than 5 feet in real life, but for the purposes of an abstract turn-based system, the above is close enough.
However, I do not believe, under any circumstances, that their charge action would turn into some other kind of action. They would lose their full round action and suffer a -2 to AC until their next turn.
In my mind, to do it any other way is nothing short of cheating.
Much of what you people describe the GM treating the cavalry, are things I would NEVER be able to get away with as a player. Everyone of my GMs and fellow players would call it cheese of the worst kind ("You're just trying to weasel out a bad situation with confusing rules lawyer speak"). If I charged down a hill with an army behind me into such a trap, every GM I've ever played with would simply smile, steeple his fingers, laugh at how I fell into his wizard's trap, and then kill my horse and send me for a tumble through the spikes.
I think this is why it so offended my sensibilities early on: Much of what many of you describe would be absolutely impossible in our games.
EDIT: I do believe that once a victim has fallen into the trap, they will be able to tell what's going on, at least locally. Even hard to see spikes aren't going to be so hard to see once your blood is outlining them. However, I do not believe said victim would be able to tell where the parameter of the spike stones is at (as the rest of the surrounding area is still concealed).
I think this is why it so offended my sensibilities early on: Much of what many of you describe would be absolutely impossible in our games.
Following the rules is less likely in your games then a series of GM fiat-provided bonuses to NPC spellcasting, causing a fourth level spell to gain army-decimating power? I feel for you.
I mean, a lot of people like playing in those kind of Gygaxian antagonistic campaigns, where the GM frequently dips into his big bag of "Rocks fall, everybody dies." I guess they like those kind of games, anyway. They play in them, they must be enjoying them.
I had enough of petty tyranny when I got out of public school. I have no desire to play in a game where the rules only apply to one side of the player/DM axis.
I've found black tentacles to be insanely useful against a mobile army at night (since its hard to see black tentacles at night). Nobody could see what was going on at first (though everyone could hear the screams) and several more stumbled into the mess well after it was cast.
Finally when they got their torches lit up and could see what had happened, many more died still because they ran into the area hoping to rescue their companions.
I think one spell killed well over 50 soldiers in one of our games.
RAW or not, when I posted that encounter on these forums, the vast majority of people on these forums LOVED it and considered it a "real" game.
Had I posted the OP as a "this is what happened in our game today" rather than a "what happens in this scenario" this would be a VERY different thread. I would likely be getting praise for being so clever and defeating a large enemy force, rather than being brutalized over the head with "that's not how it works" and "you're doing it wrong!"
Oamu I don't think the spell goes so far as what you suggest under RDs interpretation... but there are many 4+ lvl spells that very well could be army destroying.... heck, fireball will do it at 3 since RAW horses are 2hd creatures...
It'd have to be a pretty small army to fit inside a fireball. With this scenario, not only was the cavalry charging, en masse, into a readied action, he was positing that the mounted forces would be (1) unable to stop,
(2) forced by inertia into traveling the full distance across the spike stones, taking damage from the entire area(3) getting thrown from their horses and subjected to tumbling damage and
(4) more soldiers were constantly cramming into the death tunnel behind them, all being subjected to these same effects.
For a fourth level druid spell, this is not a "clever trick" it's going so far outside any manner of reasonable interpretation as to how that spell is meant to work. It's way, way too powerful, and it's power comes wholly from disregarding multiple rules that would prevent it from working that way, including the rules regarding charging and sequential initiative.
That's the problem. The reason players couldn't pull shenanigans like this is they don't arbitrate the game, the GM does. I suspect that a GM that enjoys screwing his players over "with steepled fingers" probably doesn't allow the tables to be turned.
However, if everybody at the table is on board with an "anything goes" rules light type of group stroytelling session where a single fourth-level spell can ruin a whole platoon of cavalry, then by all means play that game. Pathfinder is not that game, by any reasonable interpretation of the rules. And this is a board about Pathfinder RPG Rules Questions.
I've found black tentacles to be insanely useful against a mobile army at night (since its hard to see black tentacles at night). Nobody could see what was going on at first (though everyone could hear the screams) and several more stumbled into the mess well after it was cast.
Finally when they got their torches lit up and could see what had happened, many more died still because they ran into the area hoping to rescue their companions.
I think one spell killed well over 50 soldiers in one of our games.
RAW or not, when I posted that encounter on these forums, the vast majority of people on these forums LOVED it and considered it a "real" game.
Had I posted the OP as a "this is what happened in our game today" rather than a "what happens in this scenario" this would be a VERY different thread. I would likely be getting praise for being so clever and defeating a large enemy force, rather than being brutalized over the head with "that's not how it works" and "you're doing it wrong!"
Not by me, man, but I tell you what. If you run a game, and everyone in it is having fun? Then my opinion is less than meaningless. You don't need the fun police to tell you have fun. What my group does is different than what your group does. There's nothing wrong with that.
Oamu I don't think the spell goes so far as what you suggest under RDs interpretation... but there are many 4+ lvl spells that very well could be army destroying.... heck, fireball will do it at 3 since RAW horses are 2hd creatures...It'd have to be a pretty small army to fit inside a fireball. With this scenario, not only was the cavalry charging, en masse, into a readied action, he was positing that the mounted forces would be (1) unable to stop quickly,
(2) forced by inertia into traveling some additional distance across the spike stones, taking more damage
(3) possibly getting thrown from their horses and subjected to tumbling damage and
(4) many more soldiers would likewise fall into the death tunnel behind them (as many are similarly unable to stop before pushing their comrades into the area), many of which would also be subjected to these same effects.
Once again you are claiming things I NEVER said. I've corrected the above post for you.
I never once claimed it would annihilate everyone in the cavalry, that they would travel the full area of the effect, or that those in the middle and back ranks wouldn't be able to stop prior to entering the area.
I did make claims it would be MORE effective than a standard casting of the spell would have been, but never the total destruction that you seem to describe.
Once again you are claiming things I NEVER said. I've corrected the above post for you.I never once claimed it would annihilate everyone in the cavalry, that they would travel the full area of the effect, or that those in the middle and back ranks wouldn't be able to stop prior to entering the area.
I did make claims it would be MORE effective than a standard casting of the spell would have been, but never the total destruction that you seem to describe.
Nevertheless, the spell still can't do those things because of sequential initiative and charging rules. So we're quibbling over the things you wanted the spell to do that it can't do. It can't do what I described, nor what you described. AND YOU MISSED WHERE I SAID NICE THINGS
For what it's worth, here's another (shorter) thread on the same subject:
Changing an action when you've been interrupted
My instinct as a GM would be to require a Reflex save of some kind in order to "stop on a dime". Vague enough for you? :-)
Not by me, man, but I tell you what. If you run a game, and everyone in it is having fun? Then my opinion is less than meaningless. You don't need the fun police to tell you have fun. What my group does is different than what your group does. There's nothing wrong with that.I've found black tentacles to be insanely useful against a mobile army at night (since its hard to see black tentacles at night). Nobody could see what was going on at first (though everyone could hear the screams) and several more stumbled into the mess well after it was cast.
Finally when they got their torches lit up and could see what had happened, many more died still because they ran into the area hoping to rescue their companions.
I think one spell killed well over 50 soldiers in one of our games.
RAW or not, when I posted that encounter on these forums, the vast majority of people on these forums LOVED it and considered it a "real" game.
Had I posted the OP as a "this is what happened in our game today" rather than a "what happens in this scenario" this would be a VERY different thread. I would likely be getting praise for being so clever and defeating a large enemy force, rather than being brutalized over the head with "that's not how it works" and "you're doing it wrong!"
I'm curious to hear how you go about letting your players feel powerful every once in a whilst not allowing them a simple bit of creativity such as this.
I agree that a GM should advocate the rules, and not the players, but a player should certainly be allowed to describe his planned intentions to the GM at the very least. What's more, if it isn't going to work out anything at all like the player thinks it might (due to a difference of opinion on the rules) I think the GM should alert the player to that fact PRIOR to squashing his fun by punishing his creativity with an extremely strict rules interpretation after the fact.
For example, I tell you (the GM) that I'm going to cast spike stones with the intent of creating the cascade effect like is described above. You don't think it would work at all like I describe so you inform me that it would have some effect (stopping the charge for example), but likely wouldn't work like I want (the hurtful cascade). From there I can go through with my decision, knowing that you interpret the situation differently than I do, or choose a different action.
If you gave me no warning whatsoever and instead punished my creativity, that would not only ruin my fun, it would make me second guess your ability as a GM (whose job is NOT to punish). Do it enough times and I would totally walk out on you and your games.
I'm curious to hear how you go about letting your players feel powerful every once in a whilst not allowing them a simple bit of creativity such as this.
I agree that a GM should advocate the rules, and not the players, but a player should certainly be allowed to describe his planned intentions to the GM at the very least. What's more, if it isn't going to work out anything at all like the player thinks it might (due to a difference of opinion on the rules) I think the GM should alert the player to that fact PRIOR to squashing his fun by punishing his creativity with an extremely strict rules interpretation after the fact.
For example, I tell you (the GM) that I'm going to cast spike stones with the intent of creating the cascade effect like is described above. You don't think it would work at all like I describe so you inform me that it would have some effect (stopping the charge for example), but likely wouldn't work like I want (the hurtful cascade). From there I can go through with my decision, knowing that you interpret the situation differently than I do, or choose a different action.
If you gave me no warning whatsoever and instead punished my creativity, that would not only ruin my fun, it would make me second guess your ability as a GM (whose job is NOT to punish). Do it enough times and I would totally walk out on you and your games.
You're assuming that your/your characters image of what would happen, is what would happen. I don't see why this would be so. Another example:
A PC casts Grease, then next turn he tries to set it on fire. Clearly the character (and probably the player) think that the Grease is flammable. But it's not. So the enemy diesn't catch fire the way he thought they would. Now that character through roleplaying has learned something about magic/the world/ what have you.
I could have just told them, but it works out better if they get bit. It's more moemorable this way and more intresting too. Remember, show not tell. That doesn't make me a meanie DM.
I'm curious to hear how you go about letting your players feel powerful every once in a whilst not allowing them a simple bit of creativity such as this.
Believe me, I let lotsa wacky stuff in. I'm specifically hardassed on rules stuff because when we've had looser games, they've bogged down in rules discussions rather than monster-killing. I do most of my game prep on a small-scale, tactical level, trying to create interesting maps (small scale, y'know, room-to-room battle grid stuff) that allow for a variety of approaches to different problems. I seldom see my players go through things precisely the way I anticipate, but it's usually through unconventional decisions that don't require a liberal interpretation of cut-and-dried rules stuff. I will tell you that I don't execute any shenanigans rule-wise that I expect my players to toe the line on. I'm bolt solid on action economy (I never shoehorn in an 'extra' action with my boss monsters, for example). My players are far more likely to initiate a surprise round than be surprised. They're far more likely to spot the monster before the monster spots them. I don't use monster closets, canned hunts, or "the boss is waiting in the throne room with only one entrance pointed at the door surrounded by archers and you have to go in and eat that damage." My game is a bloodbath, and the blood is almost never the players.
I agree that a GM should advocate the rules, and not the players, but a player should certainly be allowed to describe his planned intentions to the GM at the very least. What's more, if it isn't going to work out anything at all like the player thinks it might (due to a difference of opinion on the rules) I think the GM should alert the player to that fact PRIOR to squashing his fun by punishing his creativity with an extremely strict rules interpretation after the fact.
This does happen occasionally (some of my players are in multiple games with multiple sensibilities) And I'll be honest, seldom do I let these wackadoo plans in (But no, we discuss it beforehand, I wouldn't let him put that spell up with false expectations, only to have one soldier come down and set it off). Good example: in my last session, a player wanted to leap down onto a monster (down a 50' shaft, into a concealed lair) and transfer some or all of his falling damage to the monster.
Now, really, this isn't a super-bad idea, but this player tends to use one example of a tactic that makes sense and turn it into a character theme. I didn't want to deal with this character in the future constantly looking for ways to get 50' above his target to get an extra 5d6, rather than continuing with his more successful tactic of pushing everyone around with his shield and causing a s&@& ton of AoO's to spring up for his friends (he's a Shielded Fighter).
I didn't really have a problem with it as a one-time tactic, but I didn't want to open that door to future goofy antics. So he asked, I kinda kiboshed it (I think I told him he could make ranged touch attack to split the falling damage with the monster, or if he missed, eat the whole 5d6 himself) He decided to climb down.
For example, I tell you (the GM) that that I'm going to cast spike stones with the intent of creating the cascade effect like is described above. You don't think it would work at all like I describe so you inform me that it would have some effect (stopping the charge for example), but likely wouldn't work like I want (the hurtful cascade). From there I can go through with my decision, knowing that you interpret the situation differently than I do, or choose a different action.
Right. That's exactly how I do it. I'm not looking to gotcha people.
If you gave me no warning whatsoever and instead punished my creativity, that would not only ruin my fun, it would make me second guess your ability as a GM (whose job is NOT to punish). Do it enough times and I would totally walk out on you and your games.
Totally agree with you.
Interesting jump down trick the player came up with. Had I been asked that, I would have followed the rules pretty closely (since they do exist for this kind of situation). He takes 5d6 base falling damage (modified for deliberately jumping and landing on a soft surface), but the creature he's landing on takes damage from a soft, not so heavy falling object (3d6/2 = 1d6). The player in question would likely have to make a ranged attack roll at a -4 penalty as well (for falling object range increments).
Circumstances might change the above numbers, such as taking more falling damage if he is landing on a golem rather than a snorlax, or might deal more falling object damage if he is a heavily armored knight rather than a robed sorcerer.
Interesting jump down trick the player came up with. Had I been asked that, I would have followed the rules pretty closely (since they do exist for this kind of situation). He takes 5d6 base falling damage (modified for deliberately jumping and landing on a soft surface), but the creature he's landing on takes damage from a soft, not so heavy falling object (3d6/2 = 1d6). The player in question would likely have to make a ranged attack roll at a -4 penalty as well (for falling object range increments).
Circumstances might change the above numbers, such as taking more falling damage if he is landing on a golem rather than a snorlax, or might deal more falling object damage if he is a heavily armored knight rather than a robed sorcerer.
The monster was an huge undead Naga, mostly loose skin wrapped around bones, and the character is heavily armored. Yeah, he definitely wouldn't have gone with that arrangement, trading 1d6 for 5d6 it's actually worse than the slap-dash ruling I came up with. He would've only taken 4d6, since he makes those Jump checks (what is it, now, acrobatics?) pretty easily, but he just climbed down with his slippers of spider climb and started shield bashing.