I'm curious now. Displacement (spell):
"The creature benefits from a 50% miss chance as if it had total concealment. Unlike actual total concealment, displacement does not prevent enemies from targeting the creature normally."
So does SA apply or not?
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This thread is entertaining. Not only is the OP complaining publicly on the boards about a GM before talking to them about it, but the GM in question is a 5 Star GM and the Author of the scenario in question. I think this thread is done.Really? I see at least three GMs in this thread doing what I, as a GM, would consider a questionable practice.
If you, as a GM, require your players to announce that their PC is using X ability, like Power Attack or Deadly Aim, or the ability is not used, what gives you the right to use the ability without announcing it first?
Or can I always wait, as a GM, to see if the critter would have hit with PA active, and say it was, after the attack was rolled? Isn't that why players have to announce it before the attack is rolled?
This sir is an adversarial attitude of player vs. GM, instead of a community attitude of "lets tell the story together."
As a GM, I definitely consider all the ramifications of abilities the NPCs/Creatures use, and if they miss, they miss. If they hit, they hit.
I trust the players aren't cheating at my table, and don't constantly question abilities and to hits and dice rolls and such.
So I expect that the players will trust that I'm not out to screw over their characters.
A player needs to let the GM know what they are using, so that the GM can correctly adjudicate such a thing.
The GM is under no obligation to tell players anything more than what their characters might be able to figure out.
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
@Andrew - I agree with your stance of mutual trust, and I don't tend to ask players about their bonuses and totals and whatnot. I would like to comment on one thing, though:
A player needs to let the GM know what they are using, so that the GM can correctly adjudicate such a thing.
I agree with this as well - so doesn't that mean that the reverse is true, too? That is, a GM should let the player know what they're using so that the GM can correctly adjudicate such a thing?
For instance, the player needs to tell the GM that they're adding sneak attack damage, so that if the monster is immune, the GM can adjudicate it correctly. For the same reason, the GM needs to tell the player if the NPC is using sneak attack, because the PC might have fortification or some other relevant ability.
The player needs to tell the GM whether their damage total is from a hit plus a rider, or all from one big Power-Attacking hit, so that the GM knows how many times to apply the DR. For the same reason, the GM needs to let the player know the same thing, because the PC also might have DR or some other relevant ability.
Etc, etc, etc.
Off the top of my head, I actually can't think of anything that the players should tell the GM about that the GM shouldn't also tell the players about for the same reason of correct adjudication. So I think expecting the players and GM to communicate the same amount of information about mechanics (whatever amount that may be, with no single "right answer") is perfectly reasonable.
|
Nosig:
The creature benefits from a 50% miss chance as if it had total concealment...
No concealment is granted, just the 50% miss chance as though one were totally concealed. A miss chance does not negate sneak attack, concealment does.
Here's James Jacobs on the subject.
I will note this time that he's not a rules source and is not uncommonly wrong.
James Jacobs says that it isn't added btw. Although there's some dissent in that thread.
Wow, there's a blast from the past! I'll stick with what I said in that thread: if there's no separate attack roll, there's no separate benefit from power attack/sneak attack/bardic music/weapon specialization, etc., etc.
|
|
@Andrew - I agree with your stance of mutual trust, and I don't tend to ask players about their bonuses and totals and whatnot. I would like to comment on one thing, though:
A player needs to let the GM know what they are using, so that the GM can correctly adjudicate such a thing.I agree with this as well - so doesn't that mean that the reverse is true, too? That is, a GM should let the player know what they're using so that the GM can correctly adjudicate such a thing?
For instance, the player needs to tell the GM that they're adding sneak attack damage, so that if the monster is immune, the GM can adjudicate it correctly. For the same reason, the GM needs to tell the player if the NPC is using sneak attack, because the PC might have fortification or some other relevant ability.
The player needs to tell the GM whether their damage total is from a hit plus a rider, or all from one big Power-Attacking hit, so that the GM knows how many times to apply the DR. For the same reason, the GM needs to let the player know the same thing, because the PC also might have DR or some other relevant ability.
Etc, etc, etc.
Off the top of my head, I actually can't think of anything that the players should tell the GM about that the GM shouldn't also tell the players about for the same reason of correct adjudication. So I think expecting the players and GM to communicate the same amount of information about mechanics (whatever amount that may be, with no single "right answer") is perfectly reasonable.
In those circumstances, usually I have had the player tell me that he has fortification, Uncanny Dodge, or some other such thing. Or if I crit, its usually quite obvious that I have, and they say, "hey, you need to roll 25% chance," or "hey, I'm going to negate that one crit for today."
As for things like Power Attack, Vital Strike, etc. that only affect an NPC's damage or to hit, then there is no reason for the GM to declare they are using it.
Obviously if a player may have an immunity or mitigating ability, then you would make sure that the affect applies.
But no, I'm not going to call out power attack everytime an NPC uses it. Have I? Yes. Will I in the future? Possibly. Am I required to? No.
|
|
I was talking about the major cloak.
It gives the displacement spell.
Displacement gives a 50% miss chance and does not stop sneak attack.Blur gives 20% concealment and does stop sneak attack.
??
** spoiler omitted **(Bolding mine.)
from Cloak of Displacement, Major (CRB pg 507): "This item appears to be a normal cloak, but on command its magical properties distort and warp light waves. This displacement works just like the displacement spell..."
Is it your belief that total concealment (50% miss chance) is NOT concealment (20% miss chance)? That the Rogue can see the target more clearly if it has TOTAL concealment?
I could be wrong, but I repectfully state that I think you are mistaken Pirate Rob.
From the text you quoted on displacement. The sentence directly following the one you bolded.
Unlike actual total concealment,
displacement does not prevent enemies from targeting the
creature normally.
Bolding part of a text doesn't necessarily make your case. You have to read the entire spell or ability to make a judgement on how it works.
In this case, I believe Pirate Rob is correct.
|
|
Attacking bonus? Yeah, I have to adjudicate that anyway, so they can add that conditional just like I split the damage amongst types. Seems pretty straightforward.
I'm also used to players asking "Does it take X energy damage" or "Does holy (or bane) activate" before rolling their attacks at higher tiers... It's a habit players of high-tier characters should feel free to get into...
To which I know one GM who always responds you don't know, just roll everything and break it down for me.
|
Had something similar happen at my Games day only it was the GM that came forward and told me he screwed up (Screw up resulted in a TPK)I did this at Dragon*Con. I realized that 4 rounds late that a PC had actually made a will save that I had thought he failed. I stopped combat, explained that I screwed up and discussed with the players how they wanted to handle it. Saved that PC from dying and I'm glad that I caught it despite it making me look like a n00b.
4 rounds later would have been 1 thing ... this was 4 DAYS later (Luckily before things got reported)
|
Attacking bonus? Yeah, I have to adjudicate that anyway, so they can add that conditional just like I split the damage amongst types. Seems pretty straightforward.
I'm also used to players asking "Does it take X energy damage" or "Does holy (or bane) activate" before rolling their attacks at higher tiers... It's a habit players of high-tier characters should feel free to get into...
yeah or "I smite that guy, does it apply?" very useful with those summoned creatures.
|
I'm curious now. Displacement (spell):
"The creature benefits from a 50% miss chance as if it had total concealment. Unlike actual total concealment, displacement does not prevent enemies from targeting the creature normally."
So does SA apply or not?
My interpretation:
'Targetting', in the above text, means 'allowing the creature to be selected as the target of an attack'.
It doesn't prevent the ability from affecting the chance of successfully completing the attack (ie 50% miss chance).
Invisibility gives total concealment, and the associated 50% miss chance. It also prevents an opponent from choosing to target them, unless they have other means of detecting what square they're in (such as hearing them moving about).
If you can't tell where they are, you need to either blanket the area with a burst/spread/emanation effect, or guess a square and hope you guessed right (if not, auto-miss).
Even if you can identify (or guess) the square they're in, and you attack them, they still have the 50% miss chance (and immunity to sneak attack), because you can't aim properly.
Displacement shifts your apparent image around, within the same square you occupy. Because the opponent's aim is affected, they're still subject to the 50% miss chance (and the associated immunity to sneak attack).
But you're not invisible or unseen. The opponents don't have to possess exceptional scent, hearing or divination magic, to know you're right there in front of them.
In fact, it could be said, you're even more obvious than you would be without the displacement. Imagine trying to hide behind a pillar, when your image is flurbling and blorping to all points within a 125 cubic feet area?
Blur shifts your image, the same way as displacement, but simply not as drastically, hence the miss chance is reduced to 20%, but that's still enough to provide immunity to sneak attack.
As pointed out above, it would be utterly strange, if the lower-level blur effect provided sneak immunity, yet the higher level displacement, which is a stronger version of the exact same blur effect, did not.
That would make zero sense.
|
|
I apologize for the thread derail.
Back on topic, no GM is perfect, sometimes they will make mistakes that are beneficial to characters, some times they will make mistakes to the detriment of characters. Do we really want to analyze all these and go back and make them right.
Under what circumstances should we go back and change things, and should there be some sort of time limit?
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Under what circumstances should we go back and change things, and should there be some sort of time limit?
If a PC dies (permanent or not) or is otherwise rendered unplayable, I think a player should be free to politely appeal. (I say this having been on the GM end of such a situation before.)
As far as a time limit... There shouldn't be an exact one. Just "while it's still feasible to fix".
|
As one of the players at this table, I wanted to chime in. That thing hit so hard that before most of us got an action the level 12 ranger was dead. Not just dead, but so dead my breath of life didn't bring him back. I don't think Kyle was trying to kill people (as a GM, I may have a slightly different opinion as to the authorship). The issue is that he doesn't hold back and he's a much better tactician than most players (including me). He's also run that particular scenario so often he's gotten a chance to see exactly what works and doesn't work vs the players.
I too went back and read the scenario afterwards along with part II. (Part two was even worse and the only reason it wasn't a TPK was some selfish jerk decided that he didn't deserve to die and plane shifted himself and whoever he could reach away.) I was trying to figure out how things got so bad for us. I talked it over with another player and we figured out where everything came from. I wouldn't have run it the way Kyle did, but I completely understand why he did.
Especially at the high levels, we know what we're in for. GMs make mistakes. Kyle killed me (indirectly) in Race for the Runecarved Key the night before because the GM misread something that would at least have given me a fighting chance. But I'm not going to go back and demand the Venture Captain retcon things - and not just because the GM was a Venture Captain.* I've had enough errors and "errors" in my favor as a player that unless I feel the GM really and truly was trying to cheat to kill players it's not worth arguing over.
As far as going back, if I kill a player and then realize I made a mistake I will always go back. (Happened in the last slot of the convention when my weary mind realized three rounds later that 5+19=24, not 34. I rezzed a fighter immediately.) One suggestion is that if you kill a player, hand them the page as soon as that combat is over and let them read the tactics themselves.
*I will however mock reading comprehension failure.
|
|
I apologize for the thread derail.
Back on topic, no GM is perfect, sometimes they will make mistakes that are beneficial to characters, some times they will make mistakes to the detriment of characters. Do we really want to analyze all these and go back and make them right.
Under what circumstances should we go back and change things, and should there be some sort of time limit?
As a regional coordinator (V-L) I can’t have my GM’s feeling like they are under a microscope for everything they choose to do while adjudicating a scenario. If they make a mistake that costs a character cash or PP, then that is unfortunate, but unless that GM does something horribly egregious (blatant cheating), then I will not overrule a GM. And I will let the GM’s know that they have my full support behind whatever decision they want to make on the issue.
Each GM gets to determine what they will change, and how long a mistake can sit out there before they will choose to correct it.
Were it me, and it was a particularly bad error on my part, and it resulted in a character death. Then I would probably overturn the death in perpetuity. (I have unfortunately made two death-dealing errors that were caught (one by me, one by a player) during play, and I corrected them immediately). If it were a stupid little niggling math error, I’d probably tell the player that I was sorry, but unfortunately mistakes happen.
As pointed out above, it would be utterly strange, if the lower-level blur effect provided...
I agree, but it's one of those RAW vs RAI things as displacement doesn't grant concealment, just the miss chance 'as if you had' concealment. I'll run it as negating SAs because a level 2 spell shouldn't be more effective than a level 3 spell, but I guess there'll be table variation.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
I will not overrule a GM.
Wait, that's what he was asking about? Then I agree, a VO shouldn't overturn something in a game they weren't running unless it's pretty bad.
GMs, on their own, should (in my opinion) be open to addressing player concerns and potentially reversing the effects of their errors.
|
Venture-Captain, California—San Francisco Bay Area South & West
|
Under what circumstances should we go back and change things, and should there be some sort of time limit?
The obvious cases for "go back and change" are when it makes a significant contribution to the final outcome. The most drastic example here, of course, is character death(s). If a character is killed because of a mis-ruling (and could have survived otherwise; delaying death by a round or two doesn't count) then I'd think there's a pretty long window for corrections to be made.
This can get excessively complicated (especially if the incorrect ruling doesn't directly kill the character, but only indirectly - perhaps it results in the front-line defender getting knocked down, allowing the next attack to get through to the squishies in the back). But it should be possible to take the usual appeal process (GM post game/event coordinator/VC/Paizo) in a 'reasonable' amount of time. A couple of years later might be a bit much, but saying "you walked away from the table - that's it" isn't reasonable, either.
For minor in-game stuff that gets questioned I like the approach of "I rule this way; feel free to show me an explicit rule that says I'm doing it wrong, and I'll happily change the ruling should the situation come up again". But I generally won't adjust the outcome of the previous occurrence; that extra damage (or rounds of spell effect ...) happened.
And, as Pirate Rob points out, not all GM mistakes hurt the players. The first (and, at present, only) time I judged Dalsine I was unfamiliar with the various metamagic enhancements, and incorrectly applied the wrong one. As it turns out, if I'd used the correct one that would have made the difference between taking a character negative (which is what happened at the table) and taking that character below negative CON. I'm not going to go back and retroactively kill the character; I'll just say fate was smiling on her that day.
|
|
Under what circumstances should we go back and change things, and should there be some sort of time limit?If a PC dies (permanent or not) or is otherwise rendered unplayable, I think a player should be free to politely appeal. (I say this having been on the GM end of such a situation before.)
As far as a time limit... There shouldn't be an exact one. Just "while it's still feasible to fix".
This is what I was asking. I was trying to figure out the appeals process. I wasn't complaining about the GM at all. I have since spoken to him and worked it out.
|
RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 8
|
Thanks Pirate! I'll run it that way when I'm judgeing tables... anyone actually have a PC with a Greater Cloak of Displacement? My 11th level PC can only just now afford the Lesser...
My barb is sitting on about 35k atm, having just hit lvl 10. If she wanted one, I could have one at lvl 11.
But I think that lesser is somewhat better, as its substantially cheaper and active at all times, rather than on command for X rounds a day.
|
As a regional coordinator (V-L) I can’t have my GM’s feeling like they are under a microscope for everything they choose to do while adjudicating a scenario. If they make a mistake that costs a character cash or PP, then that is unfortunate, but unless that GM does something horribly egregious (blatant cheating), then I will not overrule a GM. And I will let the GM’s know that they have my full support behind whatever decision they want to make on the issue.
I think you have the right of it Andrew. I've found my GM's have gotten loads of confidence out of what I feel is empowering them.
GM: What should I do here?
VC: What do you think you should do?
GM: I think I should do X...
VC: Then do that.
We all screw up, I screw up a lot. What makes a good GM is having the sense of honor with his players to say he did, and finding an equitable way to resolve the mistake.
Director of Brand Strategy
|
I'll let Mike address any outstanding questions about how players should handle disputes after the conclusion of a scenario, but I did want to clarify the use of the Power Attack feat with a rend attack.
Power Attack grants a bonus on "all melee damage rolls," which includes the melee damage rolled as part of a rend attack. Since it also states that the bonus to damage is increased by half when using "a primary natural weapon that adds 1-1/2 times your Strength modifier on damage rolls," such would also apply as long as the rend damage listed in the creature's statblock dealt 1-1/2 times its Strength modifier, which is most often the case but isn't a requirement. The feat interacts with attack rolls and damage rolls separately, so it doesn't matter whether melee damage is rolled as part of an attack or a special attack; the difference between the two might have an impact on whether or not the creature takes a penalty on the attack, however.
|
|
Rending Claws is a feat. We're looking:
Rend (Ex) If it hits with two or more natural attacks in 1 round, a creature with the rend special attack can cause tremendous damage by latching onto the opponent's body and tearing flesh. This attack deals an additional amount of damage, but no more than once per round. The type of attacks that must hit and the additional damage are included in the creature's description. The additional damage is usually equal to the damage caused by one of the attacks plus 1-1/2 the creature's Strength bonus.
Format: rend (2 claws, 1d8+9); Location: Special Attacks.
|
|
Ari,
In short I think you're over thinking it.
It's in the Bestiary(ies)
Why would they use a different mechanic for Rending Claws and rending? Would rending just be too powerful for a feat?
A) Rend's been around since 3.0, maybe earlier. The rending claws while similar is not the same, and I won't guess at the designer's logic behind it.
Now how do I perform a power attack exactly? (I think you mean literally, not rules mechanically)
A) Doesn't really matter, it happens and your GM makes it up.
Why would I have to declare the rend as a power attack before even being in the position to declare that I'm going to rend? Why would I, a "brutal combatant driven by hunger", even choose not to declare power attack on my rend? How exactly am I sacrificing accuracy for strength in this scenario where there is no accuracy involved?
A) You would have probably as a PC declared it with your first claw attack and thus every attack from there till the beginning of your next turn are auto-power attacked per the power attack feat, including the rend. The accuracy applies to the first two attacks, if he gets both of those, it's a bad day for you.
|
Venture-Captain, Massachusetts—Central & West
|
Hi Ari,
That which we are looking at is actually in the Bestiary (page 303). It's in the bestiary because it's pretty much a monster only thing.
The interaction would be for someone who doesn't necessarily have the "Rend" special ability, but has natural attacks.
Power Attack states, emphasis mine:
Benefit: You can choose to take a –1 penalty on all melee attack rolls and combat maneuver checks to gain a +2 bonus on all melee damage rolls. This bonus to damage is increased by half (+50%) if you are making an attack with a two-handed weapon, a one handed weapon using two hands, or a primary natural weapon that adds 1-1/2 times your Strength modifier on damage rolls. This bonus to damage is halved (–50%) if you are making an attack with an off-hand weapon or secondary natural weapon. When your base attack bonus reaches +4, and every 4 points thereafter, the penalty increases by –1 and the bonus to damage increases by +2. You must choose to use this feat before making an attack roll, and its effects last until your next turn. The bonus damage does not apply to touch attacks or effects that do not deal hit point damage.
So, if the creature in question was Power Attacking with the normal claws, it was Power Attacking with the rend as well. You can't just pick and choose which to power attack with.
|
|
So, the fact that Rend damage isn't considered precision damage is what separates it from Sneak Attack with regards to Power Attack? That would mean that Rending Claws doesn't get bonus Power Attack damage, even though Rend does.
Essentially, yes.
Also, once again, despite the similarity in words "rending claws" is not "rend"