Questions from my last Play session.

[Infiniti2000]

Doesn't change much, really. That's like saying he only touched him with the flat of the blade and didn't cause any damage. Either affecting someone's personal effects is an "attack" or not. If not, you need to start drawing lines about what you can or can't do. That's why I suggested thievery.

Here's another case where I think it should function exactly the same. The rogue is hiding in a barroom (behind a pillar, etc.). The server walks by carrying a tray of drinks. The rogue tries to upend the tray on some nearby patrons. Can he do it while remaining hidden from (a) the server, (b) the patrons, (c) everyone? How about the server is expecting it, as would be in your case with the tarp?

 

[Rothe_]

I'd handle it differently, because in my game the combat would initiate only when the PC's and monsters detect each other AND decide to fight (and not wait under the tarp for something to happen). If the monsters do not detect the rogue, he could peek under the tarp without them instantly surprising him, since they'd both see each other, or the rogue could detect them first. Out of combat, concepts such as facing do exist, so it could be that rogue got behind them to lift the tarp or something like that.

As for the example with the waiter, out-of-combat I'd allow for the rogue to trip the waiter and keep hiding if he makes a bluff check, so he creates a distraction by getting the tray to fall on the bad guys. This is just because it is a cool trick and the waiter is probably not relevant as a combatant. It is also completely my decision how to handle it as a DM, someone else might decide to not allow it. Allowing players to do things like this is more fun than not allowing them, as long as it is not overdone.

 

[Infiniti2000]

Agreed, Rothe. The rule of 'yes.'

 

[Colmarr]

2. Rogue was correct when he referred to Players handbook #1 saying on page 295, 2nd column, under the section titled "healing a dying character" it says: "When you subject to a healing effect that requires you to spend a healing surge and you have none left, you are restored to 1 hit point, if you were dying."

Point 2 is technically correct but not relevant to your situation.

A dying character that receives healing of any kind that requires them to spend a surge but who does not have a surge to spend regains 1 hp regardless.

But that's not the issue here.

In order for Point 2 to apply, the ranger needs to have received "healing". p293 of the PHB (4th paragraph) states : "Powers, abilities and actions that restore hit points are known as healing" (sic).

A heal check is only a "Powers, abilities and actions that restore hit points" if it results in the successful use of second wind. Otherwise it does not restore hit points.

To put it a different way, the second wind is the "trigger" for Point 2, not the heal check.

In your case, the ranger had no second wind to spend, therefore didn't receive healing, and point 2 is therefore irrelevant.

So the heal check does nothing, and the ranger stays at -X.

On that basis, it's not really necessary to deal with point 3, but I'll touch on it because I think you might be misunderstanding its application:

3. BUT...In Players Handbook #1 on page 295, 2nd column, under the section "healing the dying" (in other words the same section Rogue was referring to) in the second sentence it says "If someone has stablized you using the heal skill but you receive no healing, you regain hit points after an extended rest."

So you were both wrong? So this last part has me thinking that michael and matt need a full extended rest to get hp back

Point 3 refers to stabilising.

Healing is not stabilising. They are different mechanical concepts. As far as I am aware, the only way to stablise a dying character is through the "stabilise the dying" application of the heal skill. Any healing at all returns the character to positive hitpoints, and thus consciousness.

Point 3 is therefore a very corner case and doesn't apply to your situation. The rogue didn't stabilise the ranger.

If the rogue stabilised the ranger with heal the next round, then point 3 becomes relevant and your interpretation of the rules is correct.

 

[Gruns]

My 2 cents...

These 3 things have pretty much been touched on fairly thouroughly, but it is a community message board, so I figured I'ds throw another opinion into the mix!

1) The Stealthy rogue/tarp peek incident.
Forget the rules for a second, and play the game according to the situation. Obviously the fake girl cry for help suggests that the bad guys are expecting the PCs to investigate, and are planning on ambushing them when they do. I picture them sitting under the tarp, listening intently for the sound of appraching footsteps. The rogue also apparantly suspects something, and thus chooses to go about things stealthily. (*Why do the PCs suspect something? Is this player knowledge, or were Insight checks made?*) Anyway, rogue sneaks down and peeks under the tarp. Although they may be slightly startled to see someone so soon, I can't consider them to be surprised: their whole intent was to attack the people that lifted the tarp. In this case, no one is surprised. Roll initiative as normal.

2) The Heal check with no Second Wind incident.
Anytime a player does something that is 'outside of the norm' I like for it to be rewarded. Regardless of what the PC said he was doing to Heal the dying ranger, as a DM it's ok to assume he is doing the right thing when it comes to obscure, seldom used rules such as this. Heal check is made, dying ranger is stabilized. Nice job, rogue.

3) The trap vs. the acrobatic rogue.
This one is probably the most cut and dry. the Trap 'attacks' the Rogues Reflex. If it hits, the Rogue falls in. Acrobatics may come in handy regarding the falling damage and ending up prone, but won't keep the rogue from falling in. And once the trap is encountered, XP is awarded. Even if it's not quite encountered in the most favorable way...

Later!
Gruns

IT'S A TARP TRAP!!! -Admiral Ackbar

 

[devcar]

1) The Stealthy rogue/tarp peek incident.
Forget the rules for a second, and play the game according to the situation. Obviously the fake girl cry for help suggests that the bad guys are expecting the PCs to investigate, and are planning on ambushing them when they do. I picture them sitting under the tarp, listening intently for the sound of appraching footsteps. The rogue also apparantly suspects something, and thus chooses to go about things stealthily. (*Why do the PCs suspect something? Is this player knowledge, or were Insight checks made?*) Anyway, rogue sneaks down and peeks under the tarp. Although they may be slightly startled to see someone so soon, I can't consider them to be surprised: their whole intent was to attack the people that lifted the tarp. In this case, no one is surprised. Roll initiative as normal.

In your case, how would you rule the readied actions of the creatures under the tarp? Would they trigger or not?
BTW the rogue made a perception check and saw someone on the roof but could not identify them any further. This is why he was stealthy in his investigation.

 

[Infiniti2000]

In your case, how would you rule the readied actions of the creatures under the tarp? Would they trigger or not?
BTW the rogue made a perception check and saw someone on the roof but could not identify them any further. This is why he was stealthy in his investigation.

He said roll initiative normally. Thus, no readied actions are possible. You just don't roll initiative prior to the actual encounter starting.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Sounds like you've got the pit trap all worked out. Acrobatics IS pretty handy. With a good check and a decent roll a level 1 PC can fall a LONG way (assume +10 skill bonus and a roll of 20 that will on average negate 30' of falling damage, character can probably survive 30 more damage so for a trained PC a 60' fall is survivable at level 1).

In terms of the healing incident I agree with others, if a player applies a skill I'd assume the character knows the proper application of the skill to use. Game should not be a contest of knowing every bit of obscure mechanics. He says "I want to heal the ranger", then if stabilize was the appropriate thing, he does that. Maybe when they've played a while longer I might expect them to be more clear about it.

There are a few ways to handle the tarp. I'd say in GENERAL the guys under the tarp were ready for action, but the rogue DID sneak up on them. They might not even notice him peeking under. They COULD be surprised. I'd think the rogue being ready for a fight probably cannot be, but it depends. In this situation it sounds like he's prepared for anything.

 

[Infiniti2000]

I think you have a typo in your calculation. 30' of falling damage averages out to 16 points. A roll of 20 negates 10 of those points. Also, 33 more damage is +60ft, so what you're really saying is that a 1st level character can probably survive a fall of 90ft. AVG = 49, -10 for check, 39 damage. He'll be negative, if not dead (depending on class). My ranger had only 24 at 1st level, so he'd be dead unless he had a higher check--still possibly survivable.

 

[Nichwee]

The poster said a 60' fall was survivable, not a 30' + 60' fall. Tho he also talks about 30 more damage which could imply an extra 60' after the first 30'.

But then he says 30' can be negated (which with a +10 check would imply his "roll of 20" was meant to read as a natural 20 not a total with skill of 20).

So an average 60' fall at Lvl1 can be survived with an average roll (33 - 10 damage, most Lvl1 have enough HP not to be dead from 23 damage).

And an average 90' fall at Lvl1 can possibly be survived (not standing but feasably still not dead) with a natural 20 rolled to negate damage (49 - 15 damage = 34, HP > 23 = alive).