Chapter 2: How Do They Rise Up? (OOC)

1505 posts / 0 new
Last post
Talanall
Talanall's picture

Yes, he can. It works like any other sunder attempt, so he'd take an AoO if he goes this route, and success is based on an opposed attack roll (essentially a random number from 5 to 25, avg. 15.5) instead of the bothrian's normal AC.

Wæs se grimma gæst Grendel haten,
mære mearcstapa, se þe moras heold

Darker

Why not? If it's an utter failure, I'll get to roll up a new character with Obsidian_Spoon.

Talanall
Talanall's picture

AoO and opposed attack

I rolled 1d20-1, the result is 13, -1 = 12.
I rolled 1d6+1, the result is 1, 1 = 2.
I rolled 1d20+4, the result is 8, 4 = 12.

Wæs se grimma gæst Grendel haten,
mære mearcstapa, se þe moras heold

Talanall
Talanall's picture

Looks like Swarbrick has the luck of the foolish and the insane on his side. The tentacle isn't fully destroyed, but he's certainly giving the bothrian something to think about besides eating Vandersrike's face.

Wæs se grimma gæst Grendel haten,
mære mearcstapa, se þe moras heold

Obsidian_Spoon
Obsidian_Spoon's picture

Wait, did I miss something? I'm not rolling a new character yet...

Obsidian_Spoon
Obsidian_Spoon's picture

Also, how does flanking against a reach weapon work? I don't have enough movement while gooped, but I'm curious for reference. If Kaarys was free, could he flank #4 by standing one square west of it?

Talanall
Talanall's picture

Darker probably meant Vandersrike.

Flanking is calculated, regardless of reach, by drawing a line from the center of one attacker's space to the center of his potential flanking partner's space. If it passes through opposite sides of the defender's space, including at the corners of the space, and both attackers threaten the defender's space, then it's a valid flank. Creatures that take up multiple squares can use any of them for this calculation, and creatures that have a reach of 0 ft. cannot flank. In general, it's easier for larger combatants to flank against smaller ones.

Kaarys could flank White #4 by standing in the square immediately to the west of it. He would be using Kisasi as a flanking backstop, though, so this approach would be invalidated if Kisasi switches to a sword or other weapon that doesn't offer reach.

It's also the case that if Armund were standing in the square west of White #4, Kaarys could flank by standing in the square east of it. In this case, I'm somewhat unsure whether Kisasi would be able to flank as well, because I think Kaarys would be granting "soft" cover to White #4 with respect to Kisasi's reach attacks. Standard cover (like from a massive tree) certainly would negate Kisasi's ability to flank, because it block's AoO--in effect, he can't threaten a square that has cover relative to his reach weapon. I'm a little ambivalent about whether soft cover would do that.

Wæs se grimma gæst Grendel haten,
mære mearcstapa, se þe moras heold

Dafyd
Dafyd's picture

Leland takes a five foot step south and slashes into White 6 with fiery death.

I rolled 1d20+2, the result is 6, 2 = 8.
I rolled 1d8+1, the result is 8, 1 = 9.
Talanall
Talanall's picture

Summoned Wolf vs. White #3

Concealment, bite plus damage, trip, resist
I rolled 1d100, the result is 86 = 86.
I rolled 1d20+5, the result is 16, 5 = 21.
I rolled 1d6+3, the result is 5, 3 = 8.
I rolled 1d20+3, the result is 15, 3 = 18.
I rolled 1d20+3, the result is 14, 3 = 17.

Wæs se grimma gæst Grendel haten,
mære mearcstapa, se þe moras heold

Fixxxer
Fixxxer's picture

Armund will take a 5ft step to the southeast. Unless I miss my guess, that sound set him up to flank White #4 with Kisasi. With a grimace of disgust on his face, he'll have at it with his scimitar.

Attack; Damage
I rolled 1d20+6, the result is 18, 6 = 24.
I rolled 1d6+1, the result is 4, 1 = 5.
Fixxxer
Fixxxer's picture

I effed up and forgot to add favored enemy bonus to the damage above, so it should be 2 higher. I suspect that attack is a hit, so I'mma roll for critical confirmation and extra damage (which will include the FE bonus this time).

Confirmation Attack; Critical damage
I rolled 1d20+6, the result is 12, 6 = 18.
I rolled 1d6+3, the result is 6, 3 = 9.
Talanall
Talanall's picture

Concealment

I rolled 1d100.hits(20), the result is 56 = 1 vs. 20.

Wæs se grimma gæst Grendel haten,
mære mearcstapa, se þe moras heold

Talanall
Talanall's picture

Sally vs. White #3

Concealment, bite and damage, trip, resist
I rolled 1d100.hits(21), the result is 31 = 1 vs. 21.
I rolled 1d20+3, the result is 13, 3 = 16.
I rolled 1d6+1, the result is 3, 1 = 4.
I rolled 1d20+1, the result is 1, 1 = 2.
I rolled 1d20+3, the result is 9, 3 = 12.

Wæs se grimma gæst Grendel haten,
mære mearcstapa, se þe moras heold

Talanall
Talanall's picture

White #6 vs. Swarbrick

I rolled 1d20-1, the result is 15, -1 = 14.
I rolled 1d6+1, the result is 4, 1 = 5.

Wæs se grimma gæst Grendel haten,
mære mearcstapa, se þe moras heold

Talanall
Talanall's picture

White #3, full attack vs. Summoned Wolf

I rolled 1d100.hits(21), the result is 36 = 1 vs. 21.
I rolled 1d20+4, the result is 3, 4 = 7.
I rolled 1d3+3, the result is 2, 3 = 5.
I rolled 1d20+4, the result is 10, 4 = 14.
I rolled 1d20+4, the result is 4, 4 = 8.
I rolled 1d3+3, the result is 3, 3 = 6.
I rolled 1d100.hits(21), the result is 58 = 1 vs. 21.
I rolled 1d20-1, the result is 1, -1 = 0.
I rolled 1d6+1, the result is 1, 1 = 2.

Wæs se grimma gæst Grendel haten,
mære mearcstapa, se þe moras heold

Talanall
Talanall's picture

White #5, full attack vs. Kisasi or horse (1d2: 1 -- Kisasi, 2 -- Horse)

Tentacle and bite
I rolled 1d20+4, the result is 20, 4 = 24.
I rolled 1d3+3, the result is 3, 3 = 6.
I rolled 1d20-1, the result is 18, -1 = 17.
I rolled 1d6+1, the result is 5, 1 = 6.
Random target
I rolled 1d2, the result is 1 = 1.
Grapple, resist, constrict
I rolled 1d20+4, the result is 11, 4 = 15.
I rolled 1d20+4, the result is 19, 4 = 23.
I rolled 1d3+3, the result is 3, 3 = 6.
Confirm critical
I rolled 1d20+4, the result is 3, 4 = 7.
I rolled 1d3+3, the result is 2, 3 = 5.

Wæs se grimma gæst Grendel haten,
mære mearcstapa, se þe moras heold

Talanall
Talanall's picture

Fixxxer wrote:

I effed up and forgot to add favored enemy bonus to the damage above, so it should be 2 higher. I suspect that attack is a hit, so I'mma roll for critical confirmation and extra damage (which will include the FE bonus this time).

No crit, I'm afraid. But good job on the favored enemy bonus. I've edited the IC posting to reflect the greater total.

Wæs se grimma gæst Grendel haten,
mære mearcstapa, se þe moras heold

Obsidian_Spoon
Obsidian_Spoon's picture

On Kaarys' turn, he'll declare his dodge on White 4. Then, since it'll take at least two turns to cut off the goop, and he'll be free in two turns anyway, he'll just attack White 4 with his handaxe in his primary hand, then switch it to his off hand and draw his rapier with a move action.

Handaxe at -4, dmg as main weapon.
I rolled 1d20+3, the result is 5, 3 = 8.
I rolled 1d6+1, the result is 3, 1 = 4.
Obsidian_Spoon
Obsidian_Spoon's picture

Stupid goop spitting ant mutants. This slime straight cripples Kaarys. At least there's enough heroics in the party that others can draw off all the attacks while Kaarys sort of stumbles about the back lines.

He's prolly getting really pissed off, though. Kinda ruins any showmanship when you're covered in hardened spooge.

Talanall
Talanall's picture

If the adhesive is a problem, I could switch the next set to use lubricants instead.

Wæs se grimma gæst Grendel haten,
mære mearcstapa, se þe moras heold

deadDMwalking
deadDMwalking's picture

Obsidian_Spoon wrote:
Kinda ruins any showmanship when you're covered in hardened spooge.

That has always been my experience, yes.

Talanall
Talanall's picture

What's Vandersrike doing?

Wæs se grimma gæst Grendel haten,
mære mearcstapa, se þe moras heold

Cronono
Cronono's picture

Is he still grappled?

Is retreat strenuous?

Talanall
Talanall's picture

Yes to both.

Wæs se grimma gæst Grendel haten,
mære mearcstapa, se þe moras heold

Cronono
Cronono's picture

Is full defense strenuous? Is there any combat action that isnt strenuous?

Talanall
Talanall's picture

Most move actions are not strenuous, so long as Vandersrike limits himself to only one of them in a round. There aren't many move actions that he can attempt while he's grappled, which kind of limits him at the moment. He could try delaying in hopes that his situation improves; the bothrian that's got him in its clutches doesn't seem to like Leland's flame blade very much, and has already moved away from it once, albeit to a square that allowed it to maintain its grip on Vandersrike. And Swarbrick has made decent progress toward cutting off the monster's tentacle, which also would free Vandersrike.

If he had a cure potion or something like that, he could get it ready to go this round, and then use it next round. The act of using it would be strenuous, but that would be counteracted by the healing imparted by the potion. I don't think he does have such a thing, though. But it's an example of a thing that he could do, even though he's grappled and disabled.

Wæs se grimma gæst Grendel haten,
mære mearcstapa, se þe moras heold

Darker

What's the ruling to make a bluff check to play dead? If this is a predatory beast, the reaction to holding a now dead opponent/prey is either going to be to attempt to take it away to eat it (and perhaps suffer AoO as it attempts to flee) or drop it in favor of using all its combat power to kill more.

Talanall
Talanall's picture

I'd use the "feint in combat" rules for the Bluff skill to model an attempt to play dead against a creature that's grappling you. If you failed the opposed check, your attacker would know you're really still alive. It won't work against a mindless creature (most vermin, standard zombies or skeletons, etc.), but there's a chance you could succeed against a creature that has an Int score of at least 1.

Wæs se grimma gæst Grendel haten,
mære mearcstapa, se þe moras heold

MinusInnocence
MinusInnocence's picture

This is gonna be great.

"Every normal man must be tempted, at times, to spit on his hands, hoist the black flag and begin slitting throats." - H.L. Mencken

Cronono
Cronono's picture

Delay

Talanall
Talanall's picture

Rolls

Random target (1--Kisasi, 2--Horse); Full atk by White #2
I rolled 1d2, the result is 2 = 2.
I rolled 1d20+4, the result is 14, 4 = 18.
I rolled 1d3+3, the result is 1, 3 = 4.
I rolled 1d20+4, the result is 11, 4 = 15.
I rolled 1d20+2, the result is 14, 2 = 16.
I rolled 1d3+3, the result is 3, 3 = 6.
I rolled 1d20-1, the result is 1, -1 = 0.
I rolled 1d6-1, the result is 5, -1 = 4.
Random target (1--Kisasi, 2--Horse); Full atk by White #1
I rolled 1d2, the result is 1 = 1.
I rolled 1d20+4, the result is 13, 4 = 17.
I rolled 1d3+3, the result is 3, 3 = 6.
I rolled 1d20+4, the result is 4, 4 = 8.
I rolled 1d20+2, the result is 9, 2 = 11.
I rolled 1d3+3, the result is 2, 3 = 5.
I rolled 1d20-1, the result is 8, -1 = 7.
I rolled 1d6-1, the result is 1, -1 = 0.
Concealment, Full atk by White #4 vs. Armund
I rolled 1d100, the result is 85 = 85.
I rolled 1d20+4, the result is 15, 4 = 19.
I rolled 1d3+3, the result is 2, 3 = 5.
I rolled 1d20+4, the result is 18, 4 = 22.
I rolled 1d20+3, the result is 9, 3 = 12.
I rolled 1d3+3, the result is 2, 3 = 5.
I rolled 1d20-1, the result is 12, -1 = 11.
I rolled 1d6+1, the result is 4, 1 = 5.

Wæs se grimma gæst Grendel haten,
mære mearcstapa, se þe moras heold

Talanall
Talanall's picture

Per my earlier post regarding Vandersrike and grappling, Armund is now grappled. The bothrian holding him is at a net -16 to its grapple checks. Armund's modifier is +3, and he's not disabled (or even that badly injured, really) so it's profoundly unlikely that it will beat him on any of the upcoming opposed checks, or even be able to keep a grip on him without his cooperation.

The -20 penalty that comes from using Improved Grab to initiate and maintain a grapple without moving in to occupy the same space as the victim will not be in effect if either Armund or the bothrian decides to close in, though, so that's something to keep in mind; if he closes in (which he probably can do pretty much at will), the bothrian will subsequently gain a net +4 bonus, giving it a slight advantage in terms of its ability to inflict damage on Armund (it would be capable of constricting for 2d3+6 points of damage if it wins an opposed check on its turn, potentially dropping Armund to negative hit points). On the other hand, Armund would also be putting the creature in a situation that would deprive it of its Dexterity bonus to AC versus attacks from outside of the grapple. On the gripping hand, there'd be a 50% chance that anyone shooting into the grapple with a ranged attack would hit Armund instead.

Very much a high-risk, high-reward scenario if he wants to lean in.

Wæs se grimma gæst Grendel haten,
mære mearcstapa, se þe moras heold

Darker

Does this mean that us roguish types in the party could get sneak attack damage vs. one of them if they get pushed into a traditional grapple?

Talanall
Talanall's picture

Grappling is one of the better ways to qualify an opponent for melee sneak attack damage. It also works for ranged sneak attacks, but the 50% chance of hitting your teammate also is a 50% chance of inflicting sneak attack damage.

It's one of the best ways to qualify an opponent with uncanny dodge, because it's a method that relies on immobilizing him. I'd need to check to be certain, but I think that stunning is the only other non-magical way of bypassing uncanny dodge without actually rendering the victim helpless.

Wæs se grimma gæst Grendel haten,
mære mearcstapa, se þe moras heold

Fixxxer
Fixxxer's picture

Incidentally, I wrote a feat for this situation years ago that's up on the Archive, Human Shield. https://www.dndarchive.com/content/human-shield

deadDMwalking
deadDMwalking's picture

Do they have any type of immunit to sneak/crits? I thought someone failed to confirm with a pretty decent roll...

Ic
With Leland clearly feeling good enough to continue the fight without Henrik's administrations, the dwarf closes with Vandersrike. "Be healed."

Cure Moderate
I rolled 2d8+3, the result is 3, 7, 3 = 13.
Talanall
Talanall's picture

Stab one and find out.

Wæs se grimma gæst Grendel haten,
mære mearcstapa, se þe moras heold

Darker

I think Swarbrick got a sneak attack on one (the very dead one) that worked out alright.

Cronono
Cronono's picture

Vandersrike is still grappled, but able to attack the monster grappling him, right? If it is susceptible to sneak attacks, would it's grapple on Vandersrike qualify it or does the improved grab mean that it still gets to dodge?

deadDMwalking
deadDMwalking's picture

When you're grappling, you're vulnerable to everyone outside the grapple (unless you take a -20). So if it were holding Henrik, you'd be good. But since you're grapplwd you'd have to feint it or something- you don't count as flanking either.

Talanall
Talanall's picture

He's still grappled. The monster is not grappled.

The grappling rules are in some respects a black hole; there are a lot of contingencies and special cases that simply aren't addressed. The procedure Vandersrike would have to go through in order to make things so that he and the monster are both grappled is a good example of this.

The most rigorous procedure would involve having him 1) take an AoO and either be missed or take no damage, then 2) make a melee touch attack that hits, then 3) win a grapple check, and 4) move into the bothrian's space. I don't like this idea, because it seems unreasonably advantageous to the monster. I'd be satisfied with #3 and #4; it seems unreasonable to me that Vandersrike would take an AoO and be required to grab the monster, given that it's already grabbing him.

If Vandersrike did this, it would not qualify the monster for him to sneak attack it, because grappling combatants do not lose their Dexterity bonus to AC versus other participants in the same grapple as themselves. It WOULD qualify the monster to be sneak attacked by anyone else who is capable of making sneak attacks, though, and it would deprive the monster of its Dexterity bonus to AC, if any, which might lower its AC versus attacks from outside the grapple.

The main problem with doing this is that right now, grapple checks between Vandersrike and the bothrian are a matter of 1d20-2 vs. 1d20-16. The price tag for the bothrian's ability not to be considered "in a grapple" is a -20 penalty to its grapple bonus. If Vandersrike tries to move in, he's likely to win the opposed check to do so. But afterward, that penalty goes away. Thereafter he's dealing with a 1d20-2 vs. 1d20+4 opposed check.

Vandersrike probably can get loose from the grapple if he wants to; the effort takes the place of an attack, and he's got several attacks in a full attack sequence. So between that and the hefty advantage he currently enjoys in a grapple check, I'm pretty sure he'd get loose. Any leftover attacks would be viable for use against the bothrian as normal. The bothrian would have its tentacle freed up in the process, though; right now it's using that to hold Vandersrike, which means it can't use it for AoOs or to attack anyone else.

There's some risk that it could manage to constrict Vandersrike if he doesn't break free, but the advantage is decisively his; the bothrian has to roll a 15 or better to have any hope of beating him, and he has to roll a 6 or lower to be vulnerable at all. If he loses, the constricting tentacle will deal him 2d3+6 points of damage (8-12, avg. 10), but he's very unlikely to lose, and there's something to be said for the idea of monopolizing what appears to be the monster's primary natural attack, and that in a fashion that's relatively low risk for him.

Another possibility would be for him to use a standard action to make an opposed grapple check, and then move up to half his speed, potentially taking the bothrian with him unless it wants to let go. He'd take an AoO for the movement, but that'd be from the creature's bite attack. So 1d20-1, with 1d6+1 damage if it hits him. No Dex bonus to his AC, but it's not like these things can sneak attack him. This approach could get him into a position that would let him flank the creature with Swarbrick next round, at which point he could try to break the grapple as described above.

Wæs se grimma gæst Grendel haten,
mære mearcstapa, se þe moras heold

MinusInnocence
MinusInnocence's picture

Unless Swarbrick does something particularly unexpected, Kisasi intends to repeat its attack against White #4, hoping to encourage it from releasing Armund. The horse will attack White #5 with another full attack action, since it has taken the most amount of damage thus far from the group of three squirties it threatens.

Is there a way to get the horse to fight defensively? Its attack modifiers already aren't super awesome so it's not a huge loss in exchange for bumping its AC up a little bit.

Lance vs White #4 (higher ground), Light Warhorse vs White #5 (full attack - two hooves and bite)
I rolled 1d20+5, the result is 7, 5 = 12.
I rolled 1d8+2, the result is 1, 2 = 3.
I rolled 1d20+4, the result is 6, 4 = 10.
I rolled 1d4+3, the result is 4, 3 = 7.
I rolled 1d20+4, the result is 19, 4 = 23.
I rolled 1d4+3, the result is 1, 3 = 4.
I rolled 1d20-1, the result is 16, -1 = 15.
I rolled 1d3+1, the result is 2, 1 = 3.

"Every normal man must be tempted, at times, to spit on his hands, hoist the black flag and begin slitting throats." - H.L. Mencken

Talanall
Talanall's picture

No, I'm afraid not.

Honestly, the biggest problem you guys have is that you're fighting these things in a situation where they get both concealment and cover. They get a total of +2 AC and a 20% miss chance versus your attacks from where they're standing. It could be worse, in the sense that you could be fighting them while they stand someplace that grants them a 30% miss chance instead.

That's not applicable to the scrum that's developing around White #6, but all of the other bothrians are situated in squares that make a fifth of your attacks miss automatically, prevent you from sneak attacking, and improve their armor. Their attack routines aren't anything to sneeze at, but the problem is that you can't hit them readily because of where you've decided to engage them.

Wæs se grimma gæst Grendel haten,
mære mearcstapa, se þe moras heold

MinusInnocence
MinusInnocence's picture

Yeah, it worked about as well as I thought it would so far - provoking half of them to fight me away from the rest of the column and giving everyone else time to move up and engage the monsters where they want instead of getting swarmed on the road.

Of course, I had hoped we would have killed more than one of them by now. But when the one tangled up with Vandersrike goes down I think I will try to withdraw onto the open trail and hopefully entice the bothrians to follow instead of jizzing all over everyone.

"Every normal man must be tempted, at times, to spit on his hands, hoist the black flag and begin slitting throats." - H.L. Mencken

Darker

Swarbrick is going to go with a rather plain and simple attack. No fanciness at all.

I rolled 1d20+3, the result is 8, 3 = 11.
I rolled 1d8+4, the result is 4, 4 = 8.
Cronono
Cronono's picture

Is Swarbrick moving? Vandersrike will take his delay after the end of Swarbrick's move.

Darker

I didn't see a benefit in moving anywhere. He's not putting his back to the monsters to the west and Vandersrike is to the east and where he is he's got his flanks protected. Sure, he could provoke an AoO to move into a flank, but exposing himself to get an extra 1d6 didn't seem worth it.

Cronono
Cronono's picture

Vandersrike will attempt to break the grapple.

Grapple
I rolled 1d20-2, the result is 4, -2 = 2.
Cronono
Cronono's picture

Ugh.

Talanall
Talanall's picture

Opposed

I rolled 1d20-16, the result is 6, -16 = -10.

Wæs se grimma gæst Grendel haten,
mære mearcstapa, se þe moras heold

Pages