|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
Yes. So, there's a difference of 100 gp.
now, the only issue here is that there's a 100 gp difference. The answer, though, is that Celestial Plate gets 1 less additional Max Dex than the mail. Hardly a fair savings, but the formula still works, so ask them why they valued it at 100gp.
Plug in my formula and see for yourself.
Okay, so here is my alternate solution that works according to item creation rules assuming you invent a new special material. Though, I'll admit, this interpretation is a little less clean, and therefore I don't like it. Anyway:
300+9,000+5,400+7,700 = 22,400
*Celestial: Max Dex +6, Armor Check Pen +3, Arcane Spell Failure -15%, One Step Down
I have a possible solution. I don't think it's right, but it's very close.
So my opinion is that this armor is made from a special material, and my formula will show you why. The ONLY problem that I catch with this formula is I cannot find a reason why I should multiply the Fly special ability by 1.5, since there aren't multiple special abilities in my version.
Feel free to share any corrections.
300+9,000+8,100+5,000 = 22,400
*Celestial: Max Dex +6, Armor Check Pen +3, Arcane Spell Failure -15%, One Step Down
In order to pay the 1000 gp to make your armor a +1, you have to have previously paid the 150 gp during its creation (or whatever the cost is) to make it masterwork.
Masterwork is a pre-requisite to making armor magical.
Now, speaking about Mithral, the masterwork cost is included in the cost to make it mithral, so you wouldn't have to pay an additional cost.
Did I answer it sufficiently?
Yes. This is part of a bigger question I have about using shields you've equipped after attacking with the corresponding hand. Like, people love the idea of a quickdraw shield, but what's the value of a quickdraw shield if you've already attacked with the hand you're using for the shield? But this is neither here nor there.
I'm aware :) just a quick derail to ask a question.
Charisma (Cha):So, according to the book (and then to me)
Charisma measures a character's personality, personal magnetism, ability to lead, and appearance. It is the most important ability for paladins, sorcerers, and bards. It is also important for clerics, since it affects their ability to channel energy. For undead creatures, Charisma is a measure of their unnatural “lifeforce.” Every creature has a Charisma score. A character with a Charisma score of 0 is not able to exert himself in any way and is unconscious.
1. Personality (The higher your Charisma, the more dynamic your personality is)
So, according to the book, what is Charisma NOT
Charisma is not:So, I could accept this definition at face value if all Charisma did was affect Diplomacy and Bluff, but it does so much more than that.
1. Will power
Charisma Affects:So what do any of these listed abilities have to do with the definition of Charisma provided by Paizo? In my opinion, not much. The definition is way too narrow to offer any sort of explanation as to why Charisma can do what it does. To me, Charisma is much more than meets the eye, and in a strange way, it makes sense to me.
1. A nymphs AC due to her "unearthly grace" as a deflection bonus
2. Your ability to use magical items
3. Most creatures ability to cast SLAs
4. A Sorcerer's, Bards, Paladin's, Summoner's, and Oracle's ability to cast spells
5. The Ki-Pool of a ninja
6. The duration and effectiveness of a ninja's, paladin's, and a bard's abilities
7. A Druid's and a Hunter's ability to influence animals
8...... the list goes on
Charisma, not per the dictionary, but as I see it applying to Pathfinder, measures Self-Actualization as well. Now, while this seems much more appropriate for Wisdom, but the Paizo definition of Wisdom refers almost exclusively to one's interaction with their surroundings, and with information.
Now, when I say Self-Actualization, I'm referring to the idea of someone working toward understanding themselves, and reaching their full potential. For example, why do spontaneous casters and SLA's (primarily) depend on Charisma? Because it requires the creature to be in touch with what they are innately, what it is they have inside of themselves. They need to understand what's inside of them before they can adequately express it externally, in this case, Magic.
Now lets apply this same principle to the idea of "personal magnetism", it's the same thing. Understanding your potential, and who you are gives you a significant advantage in your ability to influence and inspire courage in others. After all, what wise man ever truly believed in someone who did not believe in themselves?
Now, a bit more of a stretch, how could Charisma possibly enhance your AC? The way I look at it, it can be interpreted as follows: a creature with a high Charisma can channel their self confidence and self understanding into a physical advantage in combat. After-all, there is nothing more attractive than a woman who is not only physically sexy, but who is confident in her... own assets. Regardless of how "hot" or fit her body is, she cannot reach her full potential (physically) if she does not understand what it is she is working with, and isn't confident in what that is. Another example would be a man stepping into a yoga class. It takes a special kind of confidence for a man to get himself to move like that. Even individuals who aren't perfect physically, but are confident and comfortable with who and what they are are better company than shallow or insecure individuals.
Anyway, I've been working a melee class which incorporates some of these ideas, such as "AC Bonus" as Monk but with Charisma instead of Wisdom, bonuses to social skills, bonuses to certain acrobatics or escape artist rolls, charisma-based abilities that help you push a physical ability to the next level.
Mysterious Stranger wrote:
Wolverine would probably be a Wild Stalker Ranger. In combat he is good, but without his claws and skeleton he is not nearly as good. This gives him a decent amount of skills, and the class skills he is going to need. You also get some rage power but all you really need are beast totem for the claws and reckless abandon.
Without his claws he would lose very little. He is trained in just about every form of martial arts in the world, and could probably use any weapon available. Stack that with super-human everything, scent, and regenerative powers... this guy is ridiculous.
I passive aggressively give my players guilt-trips for trying to break the game. I have players that optimize HARD. I did not make them, that's just how they are. They enjoy cooky concepts and min maxing. Perhaps they just need time and experience to get it out of their system.
Anyway, I give them guilt trips. I say things like "you know as I GM, I have to do my best to balance the encounters to the whole party so that you all have fun, but sometimes a rift is created where the level 3 tank has 30 AC, and the wizard has a base of 10. What do I do then? It's not easy being a GM" and then if I have to, i'll rub it in; I'll attack the tank two or three times and then have the creature say screw it, i'm going to two-shot the squishy. You can thank the level 3 AC 30 tank for that one.
1. You don't want to use two-weapon fighting with a rogue. It's a subpar choice.
Not really. If you crunch the numbers for -2/-2 vs 2 additional Attacks and 2 additional applications of Sneak Attack it works just fine. Add Agile to that and it's even better.
But the curve-blade is not optimal. You'll be taking size penalties for it being the wrong size, and weapon focus, or any weapon specific feats will not work if you use a different weapon in your offhand. If you want "dex optimization", use two shortswords, two kukris, or two wakizashis (if you're prepared to burn the feat for Exotic Weapon Proficiency). All three will work with weapon finesse and agile weapon property.
They are good things. I think you've gone too far in your assumptions. "Suddenly we need free hands to use armor spikes" What makes you think this? You need to have an unexpended attack, and if you're using both hands, you cannot TWF. SO, make a one-handed attack with a longsword, free action grip in two hands, and make an offhand attack with armor spikes. You don't have a free hand, but you've not expended your attacks.
A fighter six can attack x1.5 + x1.5 = x3 with a two handed weapon.
A fighter 6 can also attack x1 + x1 + x1 + x1 = 4x if they have: Dex 17, Improved Two-Weapon Fighting, Two-Weapon Fighting, and Double Slice.
You can still choose which weapons you use within boundaries. You simply cannot have a 1.5x +.5x strength on your attacks when using TWF.
Never was there a limit on what weapons could be used whilst two weapon fighting before, why now?
Because you've been misinterpreting the RAI for a long time. I've actually been playing it correct because that's how it makes sense to me; if you've expended your attacks, you can't just make more attacks because you have more weapons. Goes to show there's two sides of the coin, and you've been judged to be on the wrong side of it. So what? Get over it, and start a thread in the homebrew section where you can develop an approach you feel is more balanced.
Where did the rule come from?
From the same people who MADE THE GAME. That's where it came from. Where else would you want it to come from?
Why is it every individual who disagrees, or asks for clarification being mocked, ruthlessly?
That's unfair, because that's not the case. People who are being rude, demanding, and/or relying upon the Pathfinder developers for their self esteem are being told to stop that. Your point is made. No matter how much you fight, you will not be right. Take your balancing conversation to the homebrew section. Legitimate questions about how to understand and apply this ruling are appropriate, and I think Rynjyn (i can't even remember) among others is one of the only ones who is asking real questions that apply. When you lace and frame your questions in contempt, frustration, and anger, you get little sympathy.
No more than this is a "woe is me" victim mentality.
It's really quite pathetic, in my view, that there is so much anger and so many PERSONAL ATTACKS on the people that made the game that you love to play so much (not necessarily talking to you here BBT). This thread is full of nasty comments made about SKR, the developers, and the editors. If you're not going to ask real questions about how to apply this ruling, you need to stop, plain and simple. You're just creating a nasty dynamic between the developers and the community and pretty soon the level of engagement and communication will drop. Nothing the developers ever say will control or dictate how I play at my table, ever, because I get to control that. What I cannot control is how they choose to build the game, and neither can you. Time to move on.
Sure you can disagree, but you've gone beyond simple disagreement. I would argue that your point has been made.
You don't have to find it agreeable, disagree if you want to. In fact, you already have disagreed. If you want to houserule differently, you should do that. I have a list of houserules down to my toes that I actively employ at my table.
You should question it as it relates to you creating the best possible gaming atmosphere at your table. Once you've been given an answer, you should move your discussion about the rules as you would have them to the homebrew section. I post there all the time.
Not sure I would agree with this. The FAQ only helps you to understand the RAW more fully.
After reading this thread, as a person, I judge you to have been unreasonable, and would guess that you're trolling at this point. As Sean said, your mind is made up, and no amount of reason could possibly change your mind. All this kicking and screaming isn't getting you anywhere. I only say this to answer your question, though I imagine this may get deleted, whatever.
Are you unreasonable for not seeing all these unwritten rules? No, I don't think we can catch all of them always, after all, none of us are perfect, but just because you got one wrong doesn't mean that there's a cause to try and argue about it.
Malachi Silverclaw wrote:
How can any of us make any character when the rules for doing so are partially secret?
The secret rules are actually the ones that reasonable people should be able to gather by using common sense combined with logic. The reason they're not there is so that reasonable people don't need to read twice as much text as they should.
Just wanted to say hey. Looking forward to collaborating with all of you. I joined The 7th Veil for a few reasons. I can envision this company becoming very influential in game. I also feel that in the long run The 7th Veil will be the best or competitive at every aspect of the game given the nature of the company. I like the proactive leadership and I'm excited to get started.
Spell-Like Abilities (Sp) wrote:
If no caster level is specified, the caster level is equal to the creature's Hit Dice. The saving throw (if any) against a spell-like ability is 10 + the level of the spell the ability resembles or duplicates + the creature's Charisma modifier.
Wait a minute - that can't be right since you can only apply Sneak Attack damage once per round... or is that wrong?
You may apply sneak attack damage to any and every attack which qualifies for sneak attack.
Sneak Attack wrote:
At my table, I would say no. My logic is this.
1. The bonus gained from using two hands for one weapon is one of the benefits for not TWFing. (This would simply be one more +1 for STR based melee vs. the depraved DEX based melee)
2. That hand is already in use with the sword, and you cannot use it for something else since it's already been used. Enhanced BAB changes the story a bit because you can choose what you'll do each during each wave of main/off hand attacks.
3. If you use this, you'll have to allow bow users to to declare two weapon fighting, shoot at -2, quickdraw a handcrossbow, shoot again.... right.
4. As for rules quoting, this is the best I can find:
In any case, if you use a weapon in your off hand, you lose the buckler's Armor Class bonus until your next turn. You can cast a spell with somatic components using your shield arm, but you lose the buckler's Armor Class bonus until your next turn.
This idea goes back to my number 2, the hand is already occupied with another action, and you simply don't have the ability to use it for both in the same round. I am sure that this mechanic is buckler specific, but I feel the logic should apply all round.
NOTE: I'm not claiming I'm right RAW. I feel that this is the most reasonable approach.
Funny you should post here Nihimon, I have done more delving into The Seventh Veil and the bigger picture is starting to... if I may... unveil itself.
This is an interesting approach. It definitely encourages the crit build... which is already pretty well played (x ninja with wakizashis, or human rogue with wakizashis)
Another is to give weapon finesse as a free feat and offer "dex to damage" as a feat with restrictions (like no power attack, weapon focus required, minimum bab)
So if tremorsense doesn't negate it, then does blindsight?
Blindsight: "Such senses may include sensitivity to vibrations, acute scent, keen hearing, or echolocation. This makes invisibility and concealment (even magical darkness) irrelevant to the creature (though it still can't see ethereal creatures)."
so yes, it does.
Has anybody gone through the words of power and give each one a word in Draconic or some other language? I think it would be cool to have a name for your spells as opposed to "Burst Fire Blast" which sounds cool but not what the word of power actually is.
So the idea would be to create a Prefix, Infix?, and Suffix for each Target, Effect, and Meta word respectively.
This seems like a big undertaking by an expert in linguistics, so I'm not about to pretend like I could do this. Does anybody know of an existing set of WoP translations?