|
ok so I was right about the spring loaded wrist sheath swift action not provoking
does retrieving a Wand from a spring Loaded wrist...Retrieving an item should only provoke an attack of opportunity when it means your'e taking your eyes off the fight to dig through a bag or whatever to do so. A spring-loaded wrist sheath type thing is a swift action and doesn't require you to turn your attention away from defending yourself (it's not a move action) and as such should not provoke an attack of opportunity.
I asked this in the ask James Jacob ...
|
I am not fond of this move.
Yet I've done it once. I ran 3-08 Among the Gods, and
I really don't like Death Knell used against low-level parties.
|
I am not fond of this move.
Yet I've done it once. I ran 3-08 Among the Gods, and
** spoiler omitted **
I really don't like Death Knell used against low-level parties.
That sounds like an epic way to die, though. Sometimes it takes courage to kill PCs, seriously. The cleric had few options, and taking that action was completely appropriate. The question is, did the fighter make the save? I take it he didn't.
|
@nosig
In some circumstances, it might be logical for a hungry wild animal to do so, or enraged humanoid who just lost his best friend due to that PC. In practice, it's just better to roll separately for each attack. This doesn't necessarily mean that GM is out to get ya, but instead he is in a hurry or simply less experienced.
This is No.1 reason why characters die if they continue fighting at 1 or 2 hp with average Con. I suggest some players that they can play dead if they have decent Bluff or simply withdraw to avoid this.
Adam
So, does he re-evaluate the two other swings to see if they hit, realizing that the is "down" after the first two swings, and would be "prone" (+4 to hit) and "non-moving" (Dex of zero, -5 to AC)?
I think it depends on the monster's motivation. A hungry wolf will probably take a bite out of a helpless victim, but an intelligent opponent probably wouldn't keep attacking something that looks like a corpse.
EDIT: Like Malag said.
|
"Man, that cleric fifteen feet from me is a definite pain in the butt and keeps healing the guys I try to kill...but I just took down this barbarian who killed four of my comrades and I have an attack left...if he dies, he can't get back up!"
You're dead.
Someone who has been doing damage--even if there is an immediate threat in the area that is up--is still an immediate threat. In the military we might move on after one of the guys we shoot crumples, but at the same time you'll have that one guy who keeps shooting until he's dead.
RPG Superstar 2008 Top 16
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I have a couple of observations I'd like to offer:
First, it's somewhat 'metagamey' to say that a creature unloads his full-attack routine "because he doesn't have another foe within five feet". That may be what happens in the game turn, but in the game's world, the creature just took down one foe and looks for its next opponent. It isn't conscious that it just completed a turn and began the next one.
When appropriate, GMs should try to make their players aware of opponents' motivations and approach to combat. A hungry beast may stop to devour a foe while its packmates fight others or a greedy brigand might use his remaining attack to cut his victim's coin purse from his belt or search his victim's backpack for liquor. Just as players' tactics may be suboptimal, some foes aren't on the right sheet of music.
I've had players roll Sense Motive mid-battle when an opponent "shifted gears". "You sense that he's taking the battle more seriously than he did before the barbarian hit him. You expect that he's also not going to take the chance that the cleric will bring anyone else back into the fight."
RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 8
|
Mechanically, rolling all the dice at once saves time. I do this frequently. Occasionally, the situation arises that there was "extra damage" than needed to down the target. If that target was a PC, I roll randomly to determine the order of the attacks and say, "Ok, on the first hit you took 12, then 18, then 16 -- are you down?" This way, I have the option to stop attacking if it would be in character for that NPC.
As was discussed earlier in this thread, continuing a full attack action on a downed PC depends on the kind of NPC. If a wolf, ooze, zombie, etc knocks a player down with their first attack, and has more afterwards, they may very well end up taking those attacks on the downed PC if they have nothing better to do. If it's an intelligent foe, they may stay their blade, for whatever nefarious reason they concoct. Maybe they want a hostage ;)
Regarding PCs, since it was brought up.
PCs have their own reasons for continuing (or not continuing) their attacks as well. Consider the situation below:
In character: "So I'm sitting in my chair enjoying dinner at this fancy party we all got invited to. This guy starts talking to the hostess and the next thing I know - BOOM - he punches her in the throat. His friends show up and start putting the boots to her. And that's when my friends join in. So now, of course, I have to fight. Like Hell I'm standing up though, and I still have to finish this dessert. So I just grab the guy nearest to me and bash his head into the table a few times until he stops twitching, and toss the body aside. Next chance I get, I do the same thing to his buddy. Now tell me, what's wrong with that? They were interrupting my meal, after all. And nobody stops me from eating."
Out of character: The barbarian PC is sitting when combat starts and thus considered prone.* When combat starts, he is adjacent to a hostile. He takes full attacks, rather than stand and take one. He rolls all of his attacks, see what hits, then totals the damage. The GM reports that the NPC died after the first couple, and the last two were gratuitous. Having nothing better to do, and being a barbarian after all, the PC deals the extra damage. The same thing happens with mook #2 who is within arm's reach on the subsequent round.
So I don't really see anything wrong with this. No GM I know is going to flag that player as evil, or slap their wrist for being overly 'brutal' in combat. If a player wanted to take one of the mooks alive, or if their PC would have issue with "finishing off" those two guys, I expect they would mention something, in which case, the barbarian would have a reason to stop attacking. Without that reason, no real issue with killing the guy.
*EDIT: Someone pointed out to me that there's actually a sitting condition (something I didn't know!). While the type of action to stand from sitting is left vague, assume for the example that the table GM ruled it to be a move, thus ensuring that our barbarian has to decide between standing and one attack, or sitting and full attacking.
|
|
Would you as a martial finish your full attack if there is nothing productivd you could do? Most PCs I know would.we must play with different people...
Most PCs I play with stop swinging when the mook goes down.
Esp. any PC using ranged weapons.
Because their AC goes up by 4 for being prone? ;-)
*Yes, yes. I know that their AC would likely go down for being unconscious, depending on what bonuses are being applied to their AC. I guess theoretically with a poor Dex creature with mostly natural armor, it might be harder to hit from range when it falls unconscious.
|
RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 8
|
Would you as a martial finish your full attack if there is nothing productivd you could do? Most PCs I know would.we must play with different people...
Most PCs I play with stop swinging when the mook goes down.
Esp. any PC using ranged weapons.
Because their AC goes up by 4 for being prone? ;-)
*Yes, yes. I know that their AC would likely go down for being unconscious, depending on what bonuses are being applied to their AC. I guess Walter's barbarian might be harder to hit from range when it falls down for no reason, because it's never unconcious.
Fixed that for you.
I see it differently.
Scenario: Monster is doing a full attack action (3attacks) against a lone PC (lone = nobody within a 5foot step). 2nd attack drops the PC and it has only one left.
Why would the monster stop attacking? If you are fighting someone how long does it take you to realize they are going down? Wouldnt you have put in a couple of extra attacks before you realize they are dropping? I wouldnt. With another threat in the area I might pause while attacking to see how effective I am being but otherwise I will focus entirely on the creature I am facing.
Other scenarios would have other results.
If there is another threat within easy reach then no, the monster should not beat a downed PC unless it is appropriate for that monster to do so.
Sometimes, it just sucks to be on the receiving end of this.
- Gauss
I know this old but I just wanted to say this seems very meta-gamey to me.
If the monster dropped the PC on the first attack, would you have it then move towards another PC?
If the monster dropped the PC on the last attack, would it finish off the PC on the following round?
Having the monster "finish" the full attack means the monster is aware that it is locked into "full attack mode."
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
For almost everything, I usually try to let the players set the tone. If one of them goes Sunder-crazy, they may find some Reach creatures attempting to break down their "untouchable AC". If they prefer to CdG their helpless opponents, they may find their deadly reputation precedes them and their enemies respond in kind. Or more to the point...
PC Druid: "I full attack. Bite: 18, 12 damage if it hits."
Me: "Hit."
PC Druid: "2 talons. 19, 9 if it hits..."
Me: "He goes down."
PC Druid: "Second talon 10 damage--"
Me: "Still down."
PC Druid: "2 foreclaws, 6 and 7 damage."
Me: It gets up, no...wait, still down.
later...
Me: 22. 7 Damage if that hits.
PC Druid: I drop.
Me: With no one else in range, it begins to tenderize your body for its meal later. One more slam and a bite, 15 damage total.
PC Druid: Why would it keep hitting me!?!
|
It's very tactically sound in a world of healing, to down-finish a PC if you have nothing else to finish a full attack on.
On the other hand, no, I've never actually done it. In fact, I actually roll attacks and damage one at a time if PCs look like they are rolling low.
I have had GMs that do roll all of their attacks at once and announce one big "pool" of damage kill PCs (never mine, but others). And I have done the "please roll your attacks one at a time" to GMs when I myself am facing the "death by damage immersion" scenerio. Naturally a GM can say "No" to this, but no harm in asking :).
It's very tactically sound in a world of healing, to down-finish a PC if you have nothing else to finish a full attack on.
The monster (or character) shouldn't know they are "finishing a full attack." I don't believe they are supposed to have awareness of the concepts of full attacks or standard attacks or rounds.
If the enemy is willing to attack a downed opponent then he should do it regardless where it falls in his attack routine.|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
So, the troll rolls four attacks against the witch with AC 20.
In order: hits AC 16, hits AC 21, natural 20 (confirmation roll, hits AC 23), and hits AC 17.
That's a miss, a hit, a critical, and a ... ?
If the hit and the critical drop the guy, then it's a hit, because the attacker has at least a +4 bonus for the poor sot being prone. And loss of Dexterity bonus ...
So, if the GM originally called that last shot a miss, she should recalculate because the last swing struck when he was prone and incapacitated, not while he was standing and able to defend himself.
|
|
Absolutely the archer takes that final shot. If he wanted to not take a shot after the target went down, he should have prefaced his action, or said something like:
"I am going to take my full-attack, but if the target should go down in the middle of any attacks, I will stop or switch targets."
Not that hard to think a bit.
|
|
One of my pet peeves is when the GM rolls all their attacks at once "to save time".
Another is when I GM and a player rolls all their attacks at once "to save time".
I mean, how much time does it really save? Maybe 3 seconds per roll? You still have to evaluate the results. I absolutely encourage rolling the damage dice at the same time as the attack roll, but rolling more than one attack at the same time is really not following the rules of the game.
Things can change between each attack which could mean the roller may have chosen to do something else than attack the same opponent. But once the dice are rolled - that's that. Changing who gets attacked with certain rolls is in very poor form. You already know the results of the dice rolls and that could affect your actions.
And there is also the extra complexity when rolling more than one attack at the same time. Which dice is the first attack? The second attack? You can color code the dice and always do it the same way but the GM or affected player doesn't know your method so you have to tell them beforehand (rarely done).
I generally try to avoid GM's that roll all their attacks at the same time and when I GM I ask players to make one attack at a time even though some players can get bent out of shape at this simple request.
I just don't see the time saved as significant enough to matter. When I GM, my tables very rarely run long and in most every case it is a group (or one or two individuals) who take a lot of time to discuss their actions or resolve their turn. Those who would normally roll all their attacks together can process one attack at a time with very little time added to their turn.
|
|
I think our group was pretty good about that last night, Don, though our Archer rolled Rapid Shot at the same time. Both of them tend to normally, so...yeah.
I actually started rolling the attack and damage for the attack at the same time last night with Don, on the auspices of, "If it hits, it rakes X damage". It did make things easier.
|
I respectfully disagree. I think it does save quite a bit of time when you can roll all your dice at once, list all of the d20 rolls sequentially, and then read off the damage values independently. If the target goes down in between attacks, then its very easy to redirect the attack or not go through with it.
Rolling all of the attacks at once, as a player mostly, gives you the advantage of being able to roll your attacks out while other people are taking their turns. By parallelizing that task, it saves the time you consume on your round by using time where you're not going to be doing much anyway. If something happens in combat such that the rolls are invalidated or cannot be taken, then it's not a huge deal. You simply discard rolls as appropriate. And as long as the GM knows you are rolling your attacks in advance and if you have another player witness your rolls, I don't think there's a problem.
To the point of the GM not knowing how you roll that's just a matter of either the player voluntarily making it clear, or the GM asking how the rolls are being organized. For instance, if I'm playing with a GM who I don't normally play with, I let them know that I roll all my dice out at once and group them left to right (pull the leftmost d20 and then the leftmost damage dice in one group, and repeat) and I stick with that method so they can easily verify. It's a mitigatable issue with proper communication.
The difference is basically this:
*Roll on someone elses turn*
*Organize*
*Add*
*Wait*
*My turn*
Does a 20 hit? X Damage;
Does a 16 hit? Ok.
Higher than 20, X Damage.
Higher, X Damage.
*Downs enemy*
I don't take my last attack.
Instead of:
*My turn*
*Roll*
*Add*
Does a 20 hit?
X Damage.
*Roll*
*Add*
Does a 16 hit?
Ok.
*Roll*
*Add*
Higher than 20.
X Damage.
*Roll*
*Add*
Higher.
X Damage.
*Enemy goes down*
I don't take my last attack.
For instance, I have a ranger that does 4-5 attacks a round with 5d6 for each arrow and it takes me basically the entire round to calculate my to-hits and damage. Especially because of the conditional modifiers that go into his attack bonus based on the enemy type and which attack in the full round attack it is. There's no way I could possibly manage that if I had to roll each attack separately on my turn. Maybe I'm just slow at doing math, but at some point it becomes unmanageable to not roll everything at once depending on how your character is built.
Edited with example, sorry.
|
|
I'm not denying that martial characters roll a lot of dice. Then again, so do wizards and sorcerers. They may not roll as often as us, but the quantity gets up there later in levels. Just as it does for us. However, if you don't know total bonuses against favored enemies off the top of your head, I Don't know what to say. Sure, prone or enemies in cover, or other effects on you can be a pain, but that should not make such a large time commitment. Yesterday my Ranger was routinely rolling four times per turn: shield bash, off-hand shortsword, wolf attack and trip if successful. Attack and damage roll per, and my turns rarely went longer than fifteen seconds. In truth, I think the Barbarian with one attack per round had longer turns then I did.
|
|
However, if you don't know total bonuses against favored enemies off the top of your head, I Don't know what to say.
The favored enemy bonus was probably a bad example, but I'm still going to maintain that 6 arrows a round (30d6 if all hit, more on a crit) is often time consuming to add. Your 15 seconds is still probably more time than I spend on my actual round when rolling the attacks in advance. 15 seconds is negligible, sure, but I'd be spending far more than that otherwise.
|
|
It's very tactically sound in a world of healing, to down-finish a PC if you have nothing else to finish a full attack on.
The monster (or character) shouldn't know they are "finishing a full attack." I don't believe they are supposed to have awareness of the concepts of full attacks or standard attacks or rounds.
If the enemy is willing to attack a downed opponent then he should do it regardless where it falls in his attack routine.
That's silly. We're playing a game with a set of rules, and there should be a basic understanding that all PCs and NPCs know how combat goes and how their attack routine goes.
Now, you could flavour it differently, but an NPC is definitely aware of round-based combat and its implications. These include delaying and readying, as well as the idea of a standard, move, and full-round action.
|
|
The answer is pretty simple - do your players like playing easy mode, or realistic/hard mode? Forget what you prefer as a GM, because your character isn't about to die.
If they want easy, stop the bad guy in mid-triple swing to gloat for a moment if nobody else is in range.
If they want hard, show no mercy.
|
|
The answer is pretty simple - do your players like playing easy mode, or realistic/hard mode? Forget what you prefer as a GM, because your character isn't about to die.
If they want easy, stop the bad guy in mid-triple swing to gloat for a moment if nobody else is in range.
If they want hard, show no mercy.
I don't think that's so simple Avatar. I wouldn't want to have to kill someone's character for the first time because they were saved by GMs who allow easy mode. There's not supposed to be an option to tell the GM to not kill your character.
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
An archer fires 4 times, In order: hits AC 16, hits AC 21, natural 20 (confirmation roll, hits AC 23), and hits AC 17.
If the hit and the critical drop the guy, then it's a hit, because the archer has a -4 bonus for the poor sot being prone but with the Dexterity of Zero giveing a penility of -5 to the AC...
NOW add in that the Archer is using magic arrows and would like to not fire any more times after the target drops. Is he required to take that last shot? If it had been a miss, there would be a 50% chance of recovering the arrow...
At my table, nosig, the player doesn't get to first roll the dice, and then decide whether or not his archer PC takes the shot. If you roll all four attacks at once, for whatever, reason, you take all four shots.
I am not sure - first the judge would have to establish the order of the attacks...
Ah, yes. I have a hard time believing this is even a question on the table. Nobody in this game gets to first roll multiple attacks, and only afterwards decide which one's the primary attack, which one's the -5 iterative, which one's hitting the heavily-armored paladin ... That's one of the most blatant forms of cheating I've ever heard of.
|
"Man, that cleric fifteen feet from me is a definite pain in the butt and keeps healing the guys I try to kill...but I just took down this barbarian who killed four of my comrades and I have an attack left...if he dies, he can't get back up!"
dead.
I stopped playing my cleric partly because enemies started finishing unconscious PCs because I had healed one. (two different GMs). Once I just moved within range to stabilize and the archer shot the person dead. The fact that I am a good healer made pcs dead.
So there are plenty of GMs who kill unconscious party members.
|
|
I don't think that's so simple Avatar. I wouldn't want to have to kill someone's character for the first time because they were saved by GMs who allow easy mode. There's not supposed to be an option to tell the GM to not kill your character.
Obviously you need to know how they want to play well in advance - before the game, not just as the axe is swinging.
|
|
I don't think that's so simple Avatar. I wouldn't want to have to kill someone's character for the first time because they were saved by GMs who allow easy mode. There's not supposed to be an option to tell the GM to not kill your character.Obviously you need to know how they want to play well in advance - before the game, not just as the axe is swinging.
I feel as though you misunderstood me. Let me try again.
Imagine me GMing at a convention for a table of players who are used to a GM who gives them what he calls easymode. The players enjoy it that way, and all the way up to level 7 have been enjoying a nice easy time of it.
Now they come to my table, and I GM my usual way, which while not specifically to kill, also involves not pulling punches. Someone dies and it comes completely out of left field for them.
Should they have really been getting easymode this whole time? What about players that regularly play under me and might have suffered a few deaths? Is it fair that they don't get easymode and your players do?
|
|
Imagine me GMing at a convention for a table of players who are used to a GM who gives them what he calls easymode. The players enjoy it that way, and all the way up to level 7 have been enjoying a nice easy time of it.Now they come to my table, and I GM my usual way, which while not specifically to kill, also involves not pulling punches. Someone dies and it comes completely out of left field for them.
Should they have really been getting easymode this whole time? What about players that regularly play under me and might have suffered a few deaths? Is it fair that they don't get easymode and your players do?
Or worse yet. A table of some people expecting easy mode and some people that have played without being softballed.
Now thos epeople that expect to be spared endlessly play at risk. Thjose risks threaten EVERYONE. The mod does not get scaled because someone died.
You should earn your character levels so you can play with other people that have earned theirs too.
|
|
Im also a bit confused of what Avatar said and its starting to make me think there are 2 types of games Easy/Realistic-Hard mode, when there should just be the one type. Standard.
What exactly is an easy mode game anyway? Are DC's for npc spells reduced? Do people ignore terrain rules? Im not entirely following this.
By the same token Realistic mode? We are playing in a setting where people fire balls of fire at locations which then explode and where someone can cause an island to rise out of the waves. Realism in a fantasy game has always to mean meant ... there is gravity, people bleeding can bleed to death and so on.
I try to be as impartial as I can in an rpg. If the dice fall badly for a character they might die. But at least they felt challenged. Does anyone seriously want to play in a game where the whole risk/reward feel is missing? I sure as hell dont.
Now, you could flavour it differently, but an NPC is definitely aware of round-based combat and its implications. These include delaying and readying, as well as the idea of a standard, move, and full-round action.
That just feels very odd to me. The mechanics are there because its a game. Do the characters know they're in a game? Are children taught to count by rounds? Isn't that kind of the definition of meta gaming?
|
|
ahh thanks David.
Durngrun: It's no more odd than players who actually think that a character is swinging a sword then staying still after they have done so. People are constantly moving in their 6 seconds of a combat round and Ive always said to players 'Imagine your character is attacking but moving whilst doing so .. possibly in a different square for a second ... and trading very quick cut/thrusts with the enemy'.
If you know someone is a spellcaster you might delay until they start to cast, you might even ready an action if they start to cast. You are still effectively only slowing down your reflexes minutely as everyone is acting within that space of 6 seconds.
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
David, your definition doesn't square with mine.
Look: some people come to the table wanting to role-play, and have very little system mastery. They don't think up clever ways for their characters to blow away opponents. They have never readied an action, ever. The fights happen between the good stuff for them.
There are other people who like a tactical challenge, choose combat feats for battlefield control or try to get advantageous positions. They look at a battlefield as if it were another tool to defeat their opponents. The fights are the good stuff for them. (These are the people who, if given a chance, always chose to play up, because the fights are more fun.)
You don't have to break the game rules to play the enemies less competently, less ruthlessly, and more simply when playing with a table consisting of the first type of players.
