Aus wrote:I have recently had some questions arise in relation to the logic of some of the rule interpretations. Perhaps you all could provide some insight.
In relation to the combat rule in which all ranged combat gets first initiative.
1) As the GM, my contention is only sniper or surprise ranged attacks get auto-initiative because they "cannot be countered" and therefore no cause for the victim to worry about his/her initiative roll for the first round. However, my group is convinced that the rule applies at all times, ie: in melee range, all ranged attacks go first regardless of initiative (for the first round).
My scenario is an archer/caster class is in sight of a melee class. They both see each other and both are prepared to do combat. My group feels the ranged class will get auto-initiative every time (for the first round). My response is they both need to follow the normal order of initiative due to the fact that the melee might have a defense of some kind against the ranged attacks and just because he can't do damage to the ranged class, he might still be able to negate the damage that is coming his/her direction if he is able to get the better initiative.
I think my answer will be that all attacks should follow the order of initiative including all ranged and melee attacks, except for sniper/surprise attacks. This will give melee's a chance to defend themselves in the event they have an ace up their sleeve.
Totally what you said. Surprised attacks go first as no one even knows they are in combat. Once they do roll initiative for all as equals ranged & melee together - if ranged rolls 9 and melee rolls 10 the melee takes his action first.
Aus wrote:2) I have a warlock in the group who wishes to cast more than 1 phantom footman. He also wants his summoned elemental to be able to cast more than 1 phantom footman. Can a warlock summon multiple numbers of phantom footman? Obviously the first response is if he has enough PPE, then so be it. It is a hugely overpowered situation however.
Our scenario is in a dungeon. They are in the proximity of a ley line. He finally, after several sessions, been able to make his summoning role and brought forth a lesser elemental to do his bidding. Due to the increased rate at which PPE regenerates, and due to the large number of PPE he has (approx 260PPE), he is able to consistently summon several phantom footman, while his PPE regenerates very quickly, almost too quickly. Then he also has his summoned elemental summon a plethora of phantom footman. He is a level 5 warlock. Due to the increased PPE regen, they can practically summon unlimited phantom footman and makes things highly unbalanced.
I think my ruling is going to be that a warlock can only summon one of each type of being, ie: 1 lesser elemental, 1 phantom footman, etc. I'm curious as to what latitudes other people have allowed in past adventures?
I had a priest who had phantom footman spell. Yes he can do whatever his PPE allows and yes it can be very unbalancing! Your ruling makes some sense (with the guilt of enslaving too many of his elemental brethren). As long as the player doesnt feel overly cheated by the limitation given all will be cool.
Aus wrote:3) Now on to a physical ranged attack question. When discussing archery, in this case a shortbow, what does 'rate of fire' actually equate to? My contention is a character with the appropriate WP archery at level 5, will have a rate of fire of 5. My group wishes to contend that is so underpowered that it cannot possibly be accurate and that the 5 rate of fire equals 5 arrows fired per melee attack. In this case I believe the character in question, has 3 HTH attacks per round, which of course comes out to 15 arrows fired per 15 second combat round. This character is a level 5 priest, which I have a hard time allowing a priest to fire 1 arrow per second and only getting more obscene as they get higher level.
I'm almost certain that my ruling will be the wording means it is the equivalent to 5 ranged attacks per round, or 5 single arrows fired.
Rate of fire is ****. Your right - he'd have 5 attacks which means he can fire more arrows than he could slash a sword. Stupid rule. Up to you if you want to ignore it and used hand to hand attacks for firing bows. Ask your group I bet they all say yes.
Aus wrote:These are my scenarios which have caused the most verbal discourse over the past couple of months and so I recorded the events with the idea to see what other people have done in the past.
Ps: This doesn't even address the whole duel wield issue and the huge over powered aspect of a barbarian who is duel wielding giant sized weapons that have been blessed by a priest to do an additional 2d6 damage. With 7 attacks per round, a DW barbarian in the group is doing a minimum of 6d6 (I'm sure I'm forgetting something) times 14 sources of damage with a strength of 30 he is a Juggernaut. :/ I really dislike duel wielding, hehe.
In all of your questions you have a great understand of the rules. Youre spot on on what your reading, welcome to the minor frustrations of this "so so close to being uber" game! Trust your decisions they all seem logical with the right limitations and a group that understands them too. Have fun and if youve any more questions (but I think you'll figure most out on your own - you already did here!) then just ask.
