OOC (out-of-character)

[icnivad]

Ah. found the section in the magic introduction. nevermind.

It looks like you maintain bonuses from magic effects, such as rings, but lose them from armor. "Items that provide constant bonuses and do not need to be activated continue to function while melded in this way (with the exception of armor bonuses, which cease to function)."

[reefwood]

I need to get my gaming brain back into DoH 3.5 mode, so I'll hold off on posting anything else in here until later this week, and at that point, I'll get back to answering questions too.

[reefwood]

Dec 12, 2009 18:55:31 GMT -5 michael said:

[OOC: I know that I have foreknowledge of the fate of the horses, but tying up a horse is pretty standard procedure, and I think any group of soldiers would have tried to make sure their mounts couldn't get stolen or wander off in the night. (I'm not talking about 'mystical possession' wandering off, just normal horse wandering off.) If it had come up during the game that there wasn't any place to tie them up, I probably would have tried to find an alternate solution then.]

I wouldn't go so far to say that you know the fate of the horses. You know they started to stray, but you don't know what, if anything, that guarantees. Also, we are going to pick things up a smidgen earlier than where we left off, which could lead to circumstances being slightly different when we again reach the point we left off. But then again, maybe not.

I'd also argue your point about any group of soldiers having a standard procedure to tie up horses. Especially not soldiers who haven't had any training with horses, and maybe have never even been on a horse. It does happen to be, though, that you do have two members of a cavalry unit. One doesn't even tie up his horse, but he's probably used to being around others who do at times. Additionally, these aren't horses that spook easily, and they are trained to come to you and follow you, and there are two people who are expected to be keeping an eye on them the whole night. If anything, it doesn't seem like there is much reason to tie them up. All that being said, however, you are welcome to try and tie them up somehow in a place that doesn't actually have anything to tie them to (i.e. no trees). If you want to tie the horses to the warforged, that is fine by me, but if you want the horses to be tied to the warforged secure enough so that they can't pull away, it also means that the warforged will be tied securely to the horses.

This is the layout of the flat top of the hill. Each period (.) is a 5-ft square:

........
........
........
........


One possible configuration is:

HHhhHHhh
HHhhHHhh
SNBChhHH
.GJ.hhHH

Each sets of 4 H's is a horse. S = Sermon, C = Crow, N = Nero, B = Brion, G = Grolton, J = James. You can wait until the session to set up an actual configuration, but I thought it good to give a look at it now.

Oh, and one more point about this is that the warforged hadn't completed their repairs by the point we left off. If they are tied to horses, they will not be able to repair themselves. Of course, they could still plan to tie themselves to the horses after their repairs are complete, but we won't reach that point until after starting the next session.

---

Scheduling

Looks like the plan is to resume our regular gaming schedule in January with Den of Heroes. There are four Tuesdays in Jan, so it looks like the schedule will go DoH - Mutants & Masterminds - DoH - War Stories. Although, icnivad will be out of town for one Tuesday, so it looks like the second part of the latest War Stories adventure will be played the first Tuesday of February. Of course, if there winds up being an opening and everyone can still play, I could run the second part sooner, but I also don't mind waiting this long.

[reefwood]

Scheduling

Warhammer is next Tuesday, followed by Den of Heroes on Jan 26th, and M&M is on hiatus, so...

It looks like the next open Tuesday for gaming is Feb 2nd, and I'd like to use it to conclude the current/third War Stories adventure. I know this date is almost 3 weeks away, but as of now, does it seem like an evening that will work for everyone?

[Enric]

Yeah, that works for me.

[Rabbit]

It should work for me; need to get those guys off that grassy hill!

[icnivad]

A little far away, but me too, I believe.

[michael]

Yeah, the 2nd works fine for me.

[reefwood]

Woo, glad to see that everyone is tentatively on board! I will reread the old posts on here and resume answering questions this week as well as continuing to highlight changes to Pathfinder.

[reefwood]

Just want to share this messageboard thread that goes quite in-depth into how the classes have changed in Pathfinder.

The 3.5/Pathfinder Handbook

[reefwood]

Dec 9, 2009 11:43:54 GMT -5 icnivad said:

And here's a system question:
If I start as shown on the left, with E=enemy, A=ally, and G=grolton. Can I charge up 10 feet to make an attack on enemy over the shoulder of ally? Wasn't sure if this would be considered blocking my charge since I don't actually need to move into or through ally's square.

..E..   ..E..
..A..   ..A..
.....   ..GG.
.....   ..GG.
..GG.   .....
..GG.   .....


I would rule YES, this looks like a legal use of the Charge action. The restrictions for a Charge are on movement, and this movement (10 ft, straight line, closest space to attack) follows those restrictions. Furthermore, even if the Ally wasn't in the way, this is as close as you could get when making a Charge attack since you "must move to the closest space from which you can attack the opponent" and to me that means the closest space from where you started as opposed to the closest space next to the opponent.

Additionally, I don't think anything affecting the actual melee attack would come into play when determining if a Charge is allowed. But even in this case, the Ally being in the way doesn't affect this melee attack.

As for the overall Charge question related to using Ride-By Attack... I'll post a ruling on that sometime this week.

[reefwood]

Stirge

Reading this now seems pretty straightforward, but during the combat, there seemed to be some confusion about how this worked, Scratch that. I think I see what was confusing, so I want to make sure I'm understanding this right and that we're on the same page.

Attach (Ex) When a stirge hits with a touch attack, its barbed legs latch onto the target, anchoring it in place. An attached stirge is effectively grappling its prey. The stirge loses its Dexterity bonus to AC and has an AC of 12, but holds on with great tenacity and inserts its proboscis into the grappled target's flesh. A stirge has a +8 racial bonus to maintain its grapple on a foe once it is attached. An attached stirge can be struck with a weapon or grappled itself—if its prey manages to win a grapple check or Escape Artist check against it, the stirge is removed.

Blood Drain (Ex) A stirge drains blood at the end of its turn if it is attached to a foe, inflicting 1 point of Constitution damage. Once a stirge has dealt 4 points of Constitution damage, it detaches and flies off to digest the meal. If its victim dies before the stirge's appetite has been sated, the stirge detaches and seeks a new target.

Here's what I get out of all this:

1) The stirge makes a melee touch attack. To do so, it must enter the square of its target because it is a Tiny creature, so this movement provokes an attack of opportunity from the creature whose space it enters (and perhaps other adjacent creatures unless it takes a 5-ft Step...which still provokes AoO from the target).

2) If the Stirge succeeds on the attack, it is effectively grappling its target. Maybe this is what the confusion was about? It sounds like the Stirge is grappling, but is the target grappled? A couple things about this make me wonder.
2.1) First, it seems strange that a Stirge (Tiny w/ melee touch attack +7) could easily put an Elephant (Huge w/ touch AC 8) into a grapple. Especially since the normal modifiers for these creatures conducting a regular grapple are Stirge CMB +3 vs Elephant CMD 30, so it would be impossible for the Stirge to succeed unless it rolled a natural 20, and even then, I feel like DM discretion might need to come into play for something that seems this ridiculous. Of course, I can't find any size limitations on Combat Maneuver checks in general or Grapple checks in particular, and maybe a halfling that was focused on Grapple could pin a Gargantuan sized Dragon with a decent degree of success (same difference of 3 size categories apart), but the Stirge gets a pass around the normal Grapple mechanics to make its Blood Drain, which is pretty dope, so it makes me wonder if being grappled is the drawback it gets for being able to do this, but that it doesn't mean that the target is also grappled. And while it notes the penalties to the Stirge, it doesn't say anything about penalties to the target.
2.2) The last line in the Attach section seems to indicate that this is not an ordinary Grapple because if the target wins a grapple check, it cannot perform all the ordinary grapple options against the Stirge but instead simply removes it.

3) The Blood Drain looks pretty straightforward. At the end of its turn, it causes 1 point of Con damage if attached. This includes the turn/round where it attached. Probably the only way for a target to avoid this during the round of the initial attack would be to Ready an action to make a grapple check if the Stirge attached, but that seems like a pretty unlikely course of action to ever come up. Also, to remain attached, the Stirge needs to succeed on another grapple check in the next round ("If you do not release the grapple, you must continue to make a check each round, as a standard action, to maintain the hold. If your target does not break the grapple, you get a +5 circumstance bonus on grapple checks made against the same target in subsequent rounds"). If this wasn't necessary, I don't know why they would bother listing the "when attached" CMB in the monster entry right next to the regular CMB:
"CMB +3 (+11 grapple when attached)"

I'm not sure what to think about #2. Leaning toward the target not being grappled (I think we played it so that the gnome was grappled in the battle), but I would like to see what other people think before making a final ruling.

Also, I think the Stirge was summoned into the square of the gnome, and therefore, avoided the attack of opportunity (not that the gnome had a melee weapon in hand anyway) for moving into the target square. I did a little research into this and have not found anything that says you can't summon a creature into an occupied square (as long as it can otherwise legally fit, such as with a Tiny creature).

---

Summoned Creatures

In doing the Stirge research, I came across some differences in Pathfinder with the summoning spells.

The summon monster spells in 3.5 have some celestial and fiendish creatures. In Pathfinder, these creatures depend on your alignment, and those summoned creatures have your alignment, regardless of their normal alignment. What remains the same is that the alignment of the spell is based on alignment of the creature summoned (not all creatures get the celestial/fiendish option, and those other ones have their own/regular alignment).

For example, a chaotic good character who summons a dire rat will get a chaotic good celestial dire rat, and the spell is considered to be chaotic and good. In 3.5 you always got a lawful evil fiendish rat, and if your spellcasting was influenced by alignment (i.e. Cleric), a good character could not cast an evil spell, nor could a chaotic character cast a lawful spell, so no dire rat for a lawful or good cleric. A neutral character can choose which template to apply, but the creature alignment still matches the caster, which in turn determines the alignment of the spell. And a good cleric still can't summon an evil demon.

Summon nature's ally works a little different. Maybe? It says that "All the creatures on the table are neutral unless otherwise noted," but also says this: "When you use a summoning spell to summon a creature with an alignment or elemental subtype, it is a spell of that type. All creatures summoned with this spell without alignment subtypes have an alignment that matches yours, regardless of their usual alignment. Summoning these creatures makes the summoning spell's type match your alignment." The strange things are that A) there are no creatures on this list with an alignment subtype, so B) that means all the creatures have an alignment that matches yours, but then C) I don't understand why it says that these creatures are "neutral unless otherwise noted" because it looks like the note says their alignment actually depends on yours. Thoughts?

paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/spells/summonMonster.html
paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/spells/summonNatureSAlly.html

[reefwood]

Ride-By Attack

I've been doing a good bit of research on this topic, including playing around on the grid map, and learned some things about this feat that I don't think any of us realized.

The short answer is that it seems like the technical way to play this by the book will place you right in front of a creature it a way that will not allow you to actually get past it. Wtf? Not exactly... (and additionally, I will let this feat work like it did in the last session where you can charge alongside a target... kind of like when 2 knights joust).

This seemed perplexing to me for while. Some do view this as a mistake in how the feat is worded/works, and I've read a few posts that chalk it up to not properly testing the mounted rules because they don't get used often, but what I just came to realize better (and take as noteworthy) is that moving past a target is never mentioned in the feat. The benefits are that you can continue moving after you make the attack (which is not allowed in a regular Charge) AND that you do not provoke an attack of opportunity from the opponent that you attack. Both of these are good things that can be useful even if you don't move past the target.

This feat seems to be most useful in a couple types of scenarios. If you are using a reach weapon or have more than a 5 ft reach, or if you are attacking a creature that has a reach weapon and/or more than a 5 ft reach. It lets the rider and mount close to within striking distance with provoking an AoO, and possibly even get closer and/or adjacent to the target (if it wasn't there already at the time of the attack).

1) If a horse-mounted knight with a lance is moving to attack an Huge creature with a 15 ft reach, normally the knight (or horse, or both if Huge has Combat Reflexes) is going to get receive an attack of opportunity before he reaches this creature. If this knight has Ride-By Attack, he and his mount avoid the attack of opportunity from Huge AND even though he makes the attack while 10 ft away from the creature, he can continue moving and close to 5 ft (so even if the creature takes a 5-ft Step back on its next turn, the knight will still threaten him with the lance.

2) If a dog-riding gnome with a mace attacks an orc with a longspear, normally the gnome (or dog or both) is going to receive an attack of opportunity before he reaches the orc, but with Ride-By Attack, the gnome can reach the orc without provoking an AoO. *The FAQ says that you have to be able to move 5 ft after the attack to get the benefit of Ride-By Attack, but the feat says "you may move and attack...and then move again" not "you must move again," so I'd say the dog-riding gnome gets the benefit of avoiding the AoO even though he stops after the attack (since he is already right in front of the orc by that point and can't move any closer).

It seems that part of the perceived problem with Ride-By Attack in 3.5 is that by-the-book you can never move past an opponent unless the attack makes it helpless (i.e. dying or dead or destroyed), but that might not even what it was designed for. Whereas in 3.0, it seems like you could make an Overrun attempt as part of a Charge to bowl over the target and continue moving, but 3.5 does not let you Overrun as part of a Charge. This is one thing that has been changed/fixed in Pathfinder because it does let you Overrun as part of a Charge.

So in closing... Sir Groton will always be able to move 5 ft after attack with the lance since his attack comes when 10 ft away, but in addition to that little bit of movement, the three ways that you can use Ride-By Attack to move past an enemy:
1) Make it helpless (unconscious and/or dying or dead) with the attack, and you can move right over it.
2) If it survives or avoids the attack, succeed on an Overrun attempt to move through the enemy's square.
3) Charge alongside the enemy knight-jousting style (this may not be exactly by-the-book because it says "directly toward the designated opponent" but you are still moved toward it and is just as close distance-wise... though, this may not work so well with diagonal movement because this seems like it would often require (at least part of) you to move through the enemy square.

--[EDIT: I will add that since we all to some degree misunderstood how this feat works, icnivad is welcome to switch out Ride-By Attack for another feat, but this would also mean that Spirited Charge cannot be taken either. And even using it how we did (and would continue to do so), Sir Grolton was able to get in at a least a couple really whopping attacks in the latest combat.]--

Finally, along with reading through messageboards, here are the D&D 3.5 FAQ entries that helped me come to this understanding:

Will a reach weapon (or natural reach) allow you to make an attack of opportunity against a foe using the Spring Attack or Ride-By Attack feats against you? Don’t you always get an attack of opportunity against a foe that moves in to make a melee attack against you when you have greater reach than that foe? What about a 5-foot step? If you have greater reach than your foe, won’t you get an attack of opportunity against a foe that uses a 5-foot step to get close enough to attack you?
Having superior reach allows a creature to threaten more squares, but it doesn’t allow that creature to make attacks of opportunity when it otherwise could not. When you use either Spring Attack or Ride-By Attack, your movement does not provoke attacks of opportunity from the foe you attack using the feat. (The benefit from Ride-By Attack also extends to the mount.) Indeed, one of the main purposes of both of these feats is to allow you to close with foes that outreach you without getting smacked with an attack of opportunity. Remember, however, that neither feat prevents attacks of opportunity from creatures that you’re not attacking.
A 5-foot step provokes no attack of opportunity from anyone if that step is your only movement for the round, no matter how much reach those foes have. Again, one of the reasons the 5-foot step rule exists is to allow a slow, safe approach to foes that outreach you.

When you make a mounted charge, must you stop once you are in melee range of your target? Or do you continue past the opponent?
If you don’t have the Ride-By Attack feat, your movement for the turn you perform a charge ends when you attack. You must make the attack as soon you can.

With the rules erratum that prohibits overruns as part of a charge, the Ride-By Attack feat is now nearly useless. You must use the charge action to use the Ride-By Attack feat, and that requires you to travel in a straight line toward your target. Using the example in the PH, this would appear to rather specifically mean along a line from your entire square (or squares if riding a horse or other mount with a space of 10 feet or greater), to the target square. Ride-By Attack allows you to continue moving along the straight line of the charge after your attack. This would have to mean that at some point you would enter the square (or squares) of the creature you attacked. (At least I cannot conceive of any other way it could be done). Since you cannot enter your foe’s space unless the creature is already dead, Ride-By Attack is now pretty much useless if you can’t also overrun the foe. Some have suggested that you could charge in a manner that would not bring you through the target creature’s square (or squares). To do so, you would not be charging directly toward the target and likely not moving by the shortest route (also a charge requirement) or attacking it from the first possible square (another charge requirement). In any of these cases, you would be breaking the rules for a charge. Am I wrong about any of this?
No, you’ve got it about right.
When using the Ride-By attack feat, you must conduct your charge so that you move in a straight line toward the closest square from which it is possible to attack your chosen foe, so long as it is a square that allows you to attack and then continue on in the straight line of the charge. You still must attack your foe the moment you reach that square. (Although the feat description doesn’t say so, you and your mount also must move at least 5 feet after you make your attack to get the benefit of the feat.) This is a special rule for charging when using the Ride-By Attack feat. Note that the Flyby Attack feat (discussed in the previous question) does not require you to move in a straight line. You merely make a single move and take another standard action at some point during that move.

[reefwood]

First off, a reminder that we are playing War Stories tonight. 7pm in the basement! Woo!

Second... Languages. It probably won't matter for tonight, but I do want everyone to have languages selected for their characters (if you haven't already). Everyone gets Common for free, plus one language per point of Int bonus and/or Linguistics rank:
Brion Shaw +1 Linguistics
Sir Grolton +1 Int & Druidic
Sermon +2 Int
Crow +2 Int
Nero +4 Int
Language availability is still based mostly on race (along with some based on class). Warforged don't receive any bonus languages in 3.5, but I think that is mostly based on their existence in Eberron. But in Pathfinder, well, they don't even exist yet, and if/when they do, who knows if it will be tied into Eberron. Also, they receive a bonus to Int now, which is the ability linked to language-learning, so I'm going to say that Warforged may select bonus languages available to the common races (i.e. languages like dwarven, goblin, orc, but not auran or draconic).

Thirdly... in part to simulate realism and to speed up combat, I am not going to let anyone (myself included) take too much time to decide how to act on their turn. I won't have a timer or anything like that (unless a timer seems like a good idea/more fair?), but after it seems like a couple minutes have passed, I want people to start rolling/moving/etc. This is war, and it's not like being in a battle would give soldiers much time to think. Yes, this could result in some "sloppiness," and along those lines, if you start acting and the action results in something you didn't expect (i.e. an attack of opportunity you didn't see), I would like it to play through as part of the chaos of battle. Of course, I know this is still a relatively new system for us and extra time will be given to look up rules. I just don't want people taking more than a couple minutes just thinking because they want to play through their head every angle/manner to tackle something. Again, this is to help simulate the chaos of combat, and because this campaign is so combat heavy, I want to try ways to speed it up some. And I will try to let players know when they are "on deck" to give them additional time to prepare before their turn. Feel free to ask me who is next if I forget to say and also to let me know if I am taking too long.

EDIT: If players are taking too long but still want more time, I'll allow a little more time at the cost of an action, so you'll have more time to think but only have one action take that turn. And if all this works out horribly, I'll figure out something else for next time.

All that said, I am excited for tonight and think it'll be a fun one and give you more to do than just fight.

[icnivad]

Thanks for clarifying up the stirge and charge stuff. If I can continue to ride-by "jousing style", I'll keep the feats.

Looking forward to tonight. See you at 7.