Paizo Top Nav Branding
  • Hello, Guest! |
  • Sign In |
  • My Account |
  • Shopping Cart |
  • Help/FAQ
About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ
Sleepless Detective

Abraham spalding's page

Pathfinder Society Member. 10,195 posts (14,998 including aliases). 1 review. No lists. 1 wishlist. 13 aliases.


RSS

1 to 50 of 10,195 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

Yeah I like that on the Font of Ki. Solid.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

lots of hookers and blow.


Sgt Arpin wrote:
Let's be clear here. I don't think the swash is better. I think they both have their merits. I'm trying to find someone to make a compelling argument to my group as to (other than sheet flavor) why they should take a fighter over a swashbuckler when I'm standing toe to toe with a bad guy.

Then have your group make a good argument why anyone would want a swashbuckler to two weapon fight, fight in ranged combat, grapple, or do anything else the fighter can do and the swashbuckler can't.

Because quite frankly your only argument has been, "In this specific case the swashbuckler is really good and the fighter isn't and I'm going to ignore anything else that is said about any other type of melee case."

Which isn't a good argument.


Sgt Arpin wrote:
You keep using this "feats well" statement. What feats can a fighter take a swash can't?

Spellbreaker, weapon specialization, greater weapon focus, greater weapon specialization, disruptive, teleport tactician, shield specialization, greater shield focus, ray shield

Off the top of my head.

Of course then there is:

Two weapon fighting,
Point blank shot, rapid shot, precise shot, manyshot, deadly aim, and any other combat feat that doesn't involve stabbing things with a single one handed weapon.


Sgt Arpin wrote:
Imbicatus wrote:
Why be a fighter instead of a swashbuckler? If you want to use two-handed weapons. If you want to use heavy armor. If you want to use a shield other than a buckler. If you want to use two-weapon fighting. If you want to have a good fortitude save. If you don't want to keep track of resources like panache.
I think you missed the point. "Want" isn't a factor here. If I wanted a class that casts spells I wouldn't choose swashbuckler either. What you use to do it is irrelevant in this conversation as pointed many many many times above. The point is that swashbuckler does melee fighting better than fighter. Stop being a klingon and start thinking like a vulcan. Thats the point of this conversation. There are plenty of classes that I would play just because I liked the flavor better, even if it was gimped and the same thing could be done much better by another class. I'm sure we all agree on that and pointing that out derails the intent of the conversation and should not be contributed.

But... as pointed out it doesn't melee better than the fighter. It does a single part of melee in a specific way better than the fighter.

Stop trying to sell something like a ferengi and think like a vulcan. IF you want to do a single type of melee fighting then yes, the swashbuckler is great.

BUT if you want to do anything else fighter is better.


I think it's kosher.


Aelryinth wrote:

Kindly note: A fighter who doesn't invest in Dex loses all benefit of his Armor Training Dex to AC ability.

Also note that a true Dex fighter will not be able to keep his full Dex bonus to AC in heavy armor...he tops out at 24 Dex in Mithral Full plate, unless you allow Celestial Plate into play.

The Swashbuckler doesn't need Armor Training. He always has full movement, and with mithral chain or celestial Chain he can easily get use out of a post-30 Dex without a problem. Armor Training is a completely unnecessary ability on ALL LEVELS for a swash, so why waste class level abilities on it?

==Aelryinth

Not actually true. He still has the reduced armor penalty, and he has the full movement in heavy armor. Investing in some dexterity is still a good thing for a fighter but he doesn't lose everything for lack of dex, and even if he doesn't like his armor training there is still mutation fighter he could trade it out for.

At the end of the day though the answer is thus:

Swashbuckler is great -- if you like to be shoehorned into your role. If you want to not be the dexterity guy then the fighter is simply a better choice... or if you want to two weapon fight... or fight in heavy armor... or if you want to be an archer... or if you want to two handed fight... or if you want to move and full attack (with archetypes) or if you just like certain combinations of archetypes (again I'm digging the druman blackjack martial master mutation fighter).


Fighters also gain more bonuses to hit with their chosen styles -- yes the swash has weapon training (limited) but the fighter still has the weapon focus/greater weapon focus line to help too.


Sgt Arpin wrote:
ShroudedInLight wrote:

Right, you then ignored the whole Armor Training point I brought up. So let me mention it again, Armor Training. Fighters, compared to Swashbucklers, can wear Heavy armor and move at normal speed. Additionally, Armor Training allows you to play even a Dex Fighter in heavy armor without losing any AC. Even with the Swashbuckler's extra AC in light armor it cannot match up.

So, with similar Saves, the difference between them is that one hits harder and the other is harder to hit.

Plus, more feats, options, and archetypes instead of deeds.

As swashbuckler with the signature deed feat for opp parry and rip with combat reflexes, AC hardly matters.

Yup up until people shoot at them. Parry/rip is melee only.


Some other points:

MAD -- Swashbucklers are inherently more MAD than fighters due to wanting a good charisma score. They need strength a little less, but if they want power attack then they are going to want a good strength score. A fighter can get away with simply a good strength, Con and Wisdom score.

Front Loaded -- The fighter is a bit more front loaded damage-wise. The swashbuckler needs that precise strike. If the swashbuckler goes dex heavy with a light weapon to use piranha strike the damage is going to be sketchy for a bit. If they go slashing grace they still need a 13 strength if they want power attack (since piranha strike doesn't work with 1 handed weapons). The fighter can two hand a weapon with power attack and lay down the hurt from day one. The fighter (especially a human fighter) could also complete a basic fighting style at level 1 (say point blank shot, precise shot and rapid shot), where as the swashbuckler is building into his stuff much longer.

Base saves -- Fortitude is a more important save throw than reflex. The swashbuckler does get to add charisma to saves a few times a day (likely enough) but even so that just makes the swashbuckler MAD again.


Because fighters can specialize ranged combat and ranged combat is superior in just about every way to melee combat?

Other than that I would say because a martial master, mutation fighter, Druman Blackjack is fun.


Well cluck a duck.

So either a two level dip is required or 7 levels of fighter.


LessPopMoreFizz wrote:
Investigator can't qualify for Master Chymist so the question is moot.

Except they can:

Quote:


Alchemist Discovery (Ex): The investigator can select one of the following alchemist discoveries as an investigator talent: combine extracts, concentrate poison, dilution, elixir of life, enhance potion, eternal potion, extend potion, infusion, mutagen, and poison conversion. When selecting an alchemist discovery, he must be high enough level to qualify for that discovery, using his investigator level as his alchemist level to determine if he qualifies. This talent can be selected multiple times; each time grants a new alchemist discovery.
Quote:


Mutagen (Su)
Benefit: This discovery gives the alchemist the mutagen class ability. (This discovery exists so alchemist archetypes who have variant mutagens, such as the mindchemist, can learn how to make standard mutagens.)

So they have mutagen, can take infusion and have extracts. Meaning they meet all the prerequisites.


So what do you think? Worth the change up or not? You get +6 to damage with simple weapons over 9 levels but that means you give up +4 to hit over those levels with studied combat.


caliga wrote:

Moving in another direction, is Bolt Ace even worth going beyond level 5? Beyond maybe hitting level 11 to take signature deed. Once you hit 5 and grab your "chosen" crossbow you and grab imp. critical you'll probably be critting enough to keep your grit up anyways.

Though from that stand point, besides Hunter what are other classes that would be worthwhile multiclassing into? Warpriest maybe to up your crossbow damage further, though going that route you will get more bang for your buck using a hand or light crossbow.

Sohei Monk -- you can flurry with your crossbow (15 levels means 3 extra attacks) and you get weapon training (up to 2). It also improves your saves without costing you bab on full attacks (once you hit level 6) and you can flurry in armor according to the FAQ.


@ Armor Of course in the long term it is better than both bracers and mage armor, but it wasn't supposed to pass it early on. It doesn't stack with bracers in the same way bracers don't stack with armor -- that problem is already has its solution built into bracers, and very importantly, it scales off of class level not caster level, so you won't get the full benefit if you go into dragon disciple as it isn't a bloodline ability that would be increased (part of the reason we call them mutations is to make them not part of the standard bloodline ability package). You can already get that +14 natural armor bonus with a +6 armor bonus (bracers, or the enchanted armored skirt/ceremonial robes) or higher (mithral chain shirt for example). What this saves you is gold, but it saves it at the high cost of a class feature. Armor bonuses are a dime a dozen, especially without the problems of encumbrance. The encumbrance factor and the fact that armor bonuses don't stack, the fact that it scales but slowly means it is a trade off but one that does pay in late game (though not too much).

@ font of ki The of font of ki was to provide some ki abilities (and ki) without it actually being something scaled to an ability. I would rather reduce the power of the font of ki, than introduce an one off mechanic to have it hit another bloodline power. The over all idea was that if you multiclassed into something with a ki pool you would gain something for your trouble (the concentration check and caster level choices as well as a few ki points... about as many as a feat) without giving the sorcerer the full range of choices other classes get. I really don't like the idea of the wisdom to ac choice. That matches the monk's abilities but not ki abilities.


Armored shell and font of ki are the only two I think we have differences over.

At +2 going up to + 8 armor bonus even if you have natural armor you aren't actually going to get anywhere abusive. After all with the original you are still better off with mage armor until level 6. Also it's not a big deal since even by +8 you aren't that much over bracers of armor and the armored shell isn't enchantable. Indeed you are actually at a worse spot since you are slowed down by the armor. I agree with the 1/4 hp though -- that part is a solid idea.

Font of Ki has the unusual (for these abilities) fact that it isn't constant to hurt it -- I don't think it needs to pull off the 3rd level ability as well. However I like the rest of the changes on it.

Wrathful energy is weird on the defense bonus -- I think you meant for it to be a penalty.

@ Malwing -- the end idea is a pdf, we aren't to that point yet but it should be fully developed like the last one was.


"That's a wonderful spell your friend cast on you. Be a real shame if someone was to come along and dispel it..."

and off the top of my head:

Peacebond the enemy's weapon

Arcane lock the only exit out of a burning building

Curse of Magic Negation on the town's magical healers during an epidemic

Fire Trap an orphanage for blind orphans

Covetous Aura in a location a lot of people receive healing magic

Unbreakable Construct on a rampaging flesh golem

repulsion on the city's water supply


thejeff wrote:
Mudfoot wrote:

Magic items are like land in that they're an illiquid asset that can potentially provide an income, but you can reasonably likely to be able to use land as a guarantee against a loan. OTOH, few merchants are going to lend an adventurer 2000gp cash on the promise that your +2 shortsword is more than that so you're good for it.

Similarly, pawnshops are a perfect place to handle magic items, and they're terrible for handling land.

Except that damn near every PC has a pile of stuff to sell on hand at any given moment, unless he's just sold it all to buy the next upgrade, in which case he's probably on his way off to the next adventure.

Sure, he'd have trouble borrowing money, but he doesn't need to since the income comes much faster.

It's not like being land-poor, since that's essentially the case where you've got land but it's not producing enough income - and probably already mortgaged to the hilt. At least for PCs, the investment in gear is guaranteed to produce income (or death, in which case who cares).

Well from an economic standpoint we do care since we are looking at over all investment across all outcomes.

Adventuring is like gambling, it is a high risk short term investment pool that either pays really well, or really poorly.

Those that stand on the side and take the steady but boring investment strategy (sell to adventurers) have a lower return rate but generally have less chance of things going sideways.

Also PC's aren't always adventurers which I feel is an important part to remember.

CSB: Many of my PCs would never call themselves adventurers or anything of the like -- they aren't on quests, and what not. In their minds and actions they are just taking care of something now.


Yeah actually -- the 11 we have so far is good, but I feel there are more needed if it's to be at the same point that the original SAP was at.


Yeah got to say I like the clean up on those. Much closer to what I was going for and (again) cleaner and simpler.


@Ryan Signor

In regards to point 2:

Quote:


Inspire Courage (Su): A 1st level bard can use his performance to inspire courage in his allies (including himself), bolstering them against fear and improving their combat abilities. To be affected, an ally must be able to perceive the bard’s performance. An affected ally receives a +1 morale bonus on saving throws against charm and fear effects and a +1 competence bonus on attack and weapon damage rolls. At 5th level, and every six bard levels thereafter, this bonus increases by +1, to a maximum of +4 at 17th level. Inspire courage is a mind-affecting ability. inspire courage can use audible or visual components. The bard must choose which component to use when starting his performance.

So kind of but not all the way -- only the save throw bonus against charm and fear effects is a morale bonus.

3. yes.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Well since this came up I would offer up the Sorcerer's Aid Project: Sigils and Talents as an option for fixing your problems with this (it's a free pdf and is linked on the d20pfsrd site).

Also if you look over in the homebrew section you can find where I have started on the Sorcerer's Aid Project Redux: Mutations.

I could use some help on the second honestly, as I've been the only person working on it so far.

EDIT: now with links


Deadmanwalking wrote:
Ring_of_Gyges wrote:

If you want a sensible economy you can't just tweak and mend around the edges, you'd have to throw the whole thing out and start again from scratch.

One shallow example, a Wizard crafting magic items can use 500gp of components to make 1,000gp of magic items every day. Work 5 days a week 40 weeks a year and you're pulling down 100,000gp a year. At level 3.

Everyone with an Int of 11+ should be training to become a wizard. Magic items should be churned out in massive quantities. Wages of wizards should plummet.

Uh...this assumes an unlimited number of customers to buy your magic items as soon as you make them. Also, a fair amount of money to start with. Neither is a given, most especially the first.

Well technically that's the same as the real world. Plenty of businesses churn out millions of products with no guarantee of sale, just the thought that someone will come in and buy their product at some point.


Pendagast wrote:
but they have metal and circuitry

On technicalities so do humans. There's iron in my veins and electricity in my brain.


Rust monster sharks.

Or deeper darkness green slime vials, preferrably below water level.


Thelemic_Noun wrote:
the secret fire wrote:
I'm sure this is true, but I still consider it an awful mistake. The normalization of magic items is probably the current game's greatest source of min-max "within the rules" munchkinism (as opposed to the older and much less insidious "I just write a bunch of garbage on my character sheet" munchkinism), and has made the magic item into little more than a part of the stat block, which makes me a sad bunny.

Panda. Sad panda.

No bananas for you.

It's also not true -- the greatest source of min-max "within the rules" is the way stats are done now.

With the 2nd edition system it really didn't matter too much if you had a 9 in a stat or a 14 (sometimes as high as 16 and as low as 7). There was next to no difference... maybe a percentage point or two on your bend bars check.

Now there is a 3 point difference on checks between a 9 and a 14. If you want to know what has a bigger impact -- the codification of all the existing magical items into a wealth by level guideline or the standard practice of completely changing how the stats are perceived the answer is the second.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Mikaze wrote:
the secret fire wrote:
A person who has been publishing obscure fantasy fiction since...1987.

One of the most famous writers of the romantic fantasy genre is obscure. Gotcha.

You know what this sounds like? Gatekeeping. Except against sources of inspiration and themes rather than players.

What really upsets me is when you said Mercedes Lackey I immediately thought of the harpers and these guys couldn't be bothered enough to find out what you were talking about to realized you literally, "Oh Snap" on them. The only thing the harpers don't have going for them is magic -- in a non-magical world that makes sense too, and even then their music was considered almost mystical if not magical.

People be fools.


There is a reason fishing nets became popular.

At aboyd yeah I can be abrasive at times sorry about that.

With the rules and in general sections are very specific -- if I say something is this way I'll usually have a qualifier with it and state the situation it applies in because (as we can see with the rules on liquid environments) the rules become extremely fluid very quickly with situations changing how things interact.

Basically put: Going through the water-air interface does not block line of sight (like glass) but can block line of effect for attacks that utilize attack rolls. Moving into the water (role playing wise possibly ducking your head in to look) makes things easier to see and attack.

Part of this is realistic -- it's easier to hit something in the water if you are under it instead of above it due to the way light refracts through water.

I would suggest that there is room for a homebrew feat for those that want spearfishers... At least I am unaware of one in the current rules otherwise.


aboyd wrote:
Abraham spalding wrote:
Water is not a solid barrier

Where did you get this from, though? The quote you provided doesn't mention water, so I don't see how this logically follows. Would love to see a rules quote that says water is not a solid barrier.

At least in D&D 3.5 it WAS considered solid, because there was a feat to get past that limitation. This is why I really need this spelled out for me.

I'm going to start CTRL-Fing through the FAQs.

Dude -- did you not read the rest of the sentence? WHEN YOU ARE IN WATER.

I mean it would be like if I quoted you as "I don't see" then claimed you were blind.

Beyond that here is the section you are looking for.

Quote:
Spellcasting Underwater: Casting spells while submerged can be difficult for those who cannot breathe underwater. A creature that cannot breathe water must make a concentration check (DC 15 + spell level) to cast a spell underwater (this is in addition to the caster level check to successfully cast a fire spell underwater). Creatures that can breathe water are unaffected and can cast spells normally. Some spells might function differently underwater, subject to GM discretion.

The water to air interface is a different case which is why it's called out specifically in the rules section.


Magic section, line of effect:

Quote:
An otherwise solid barrier with a hole of at least 1 square foot through it does not block a spell's line of effect. Such an opening means that the 5-foot length of wall containing the hole is no longer considered a barrier for purposes of a spell's line of effect.

Water is not a solid barrier when you are in the water -- the air to water interface counts for effects that require attack rolls.

1. Arrow shot -- total cover no shot allowed.

2. Acid arrow requires an attack roll, total cover means can't be targeted spell wasted or not cast, depending on GM and when the caster realized the situation.

3. Magic missile does not require an attack roll and you have line of effect (presumably) so it hits for regular damage.


K177Y C47 are you not feeling well tonight?

Bard spells all have verbal components -- not somatic ones.

Also you seemed to have grabbed part of my conversation with someone else and gotten confused on where you were in it and who you were referencing too.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
CigarSmoker wrote:
Abraham spalding wrote:

So your answer is, "I don't know how bards work, so ignore the rules."

Got it.

And your answer is "I've never spoken aloud in my life, so I don't know how a voice works."

Got it.

Now that the smart ass snide remarks are out of the way let us go look at the book under bard. And what do we have on pages 36 to 38?

Why it's where it says all* bardic performance effects have an audible effect. If a bardic performance has an audible effect it is language dependent.

*Inspire courage is the only one that gives you a choice of Audible or Visual.

It doesn't say that.

I mean I've literally quoted it for you and you got it wrong, so why not do it again?

Quote:


If a bardic performance has audible components, the targets must be able to hear the bard for the performance to have any effect, and many such performances are language dependent (as noted in the description). A deaf bard has a 20% chance to fail when attempting to use a bardic performance with an audible component. If he fails this check, the attempt still counts against his daily limit. Deaf creatures are immune to bardic performances with audible components.

Also auditory is not the same as verbal. Auditory means it must be heard, verbal means it is spoken. These are not the same. It could be heard, but not be verbal, however it cannot be verbal without being heard.

The error you have made is called converse error.

As my recent logic instructor is fond of saying, "Words have meaning!"

You seem to have different words confused with each other.


CigarSmoker wrote:
Bandw2 wrote:
CigarSmoker wrote:
TarkXT wrote:
stuff

So, you can sing two different words at the same time?

One of which is an arcane amalgam of consonants and vowels with odd inflections and tonal qualities, and the other is some single word that would inspire your comrades.
The mouth, tongue, and voice box...
more like his song now is being said in spell lingo, but keeping the tune, his dance changes to have the correct movements at the correct times.
Bardic performance is language dependent. So if you start saying weird words in your song you've stopped your performance and the bonuses for that end. Because what is says is important in the bardic performance, that's what is supposed to inspire this bonus in the other people around him.

SOME bardic performances are language dependent:

Quote:
If a bardic performance has audible components, the targets must be able to hear the bard for the performance to have any effect, and many such performances are language dependent (as noted in the description).

If it isn't in the description of the performance it isn't language dependent.

In fact the only language dependent for a core bard is suggestion and mass suggestion.


CigarSmoker wrote:
TarkXT wrote:
CigarSmoker wrote:
Kobold Cleaver wrote:
CigarSmoker wrote:
Kobold Cleaver wrote:

The bard can cast while performing.

Also, you just listed two "pony tricks". The bard is also amazing at skills (tragically, better than even the rogue), makes an excellent archer, a skilled buffer (especially once you hit seventh level), and has a handy mix of utility spells. To say nothing of the varied applications of his performances.

Sure he can cast while he's performing provided the spell doesn't have a verbal component while he's singing. Or a somatic component while he's playing an instrument. Your voice and hands cannot be otherwise engaged to cast a spell.
Sorry, but that's incorrect. Look at the context of James Jacobs's post.

That's not taking into account the rules for spell casting. The rules for spell casting say that if you can't speak the words of the spell or perform the hand gestures for the spell you can't cast the spell.

Page 213 from the Core Rule Book:
Verbal (V): A verbal component is a spoken incantation. To provide a verbal component, you must be able to speak in a strong voice. A silence spell or a gag spoils the incantation (and thus the spell). A spellcaster who has been deafened has a 20% chance of spoiling any spell with a verbal component that he tries to cast.
Somatic (S): A somatic component is a measured and precise movement of the hand. You must have at least one hand free to provide a somatic component.

The assumption is that a bard can do things like weave spellcasting into his performance. Because, you know, performers can often do two things at once.

So, you can sing two different words at the same time?

One of which is an arcane amalgam of consonants and vowels with odd inflections and tonal qualities, and the other is some single word that would inspire your comrades.
The mouth, tongue, and voice box...

Show me visual components and the rules for them. While you are at it show me auditory components. Then show me where it says either of those are somatic or verbal or prevent you from using somatic or verbal components.

Good luck with that.


thejeff wrote:

Also RAW?

Profession Shopkeeper - make a Day Job check. That's how much you bring in. Doesn't matter what you're selling. :)

Well businesses go under everyday.


Well my point would be that people still visit pawn shops now so it's likely that it'll happen there too. Also sometimes you just want to move it now, etc etc.

If a player wants to take the time and what not I'm alright with them getting more. But again as a default, "Cash out now, no questions asked."

half isn't bad.


Cigarsmoker -- why are pawnshops in business? There you go.


Ring_of_Gyges wrote:

The extraplanar entities who built the world and set its physical laws? Yeah, they should know what they are.

Carving out random exceptions to divination is a) a house rule and b) poor form to hobble PC's powers. It's better to remove the spell than "allow" it and make it not work any time it would be awkward.

1. The extraplanar entities did not build the world -- so that's awkward.

2.

Quote:
You send your mind to another plane of existence (an Elemental Plane or some plane farther removed) in order to receive advice and information from powers there. See the accompanying table for possible consequences and results of the attempt. The powers reply in a language you understand, but they resent such contact and give only brief answers to your questions. All questions are answered with "yes," "no," "maybe," "never," "irrelevant," or some other one-word answer.

So you aren't really guaranteed anything of an answer, and even then you have at best an 88% chance of a true answer.

Not exactly definitive.

So I don't really have to house rule or "poor form" anything -- the spell is crap.


Ring_of_Gyges wrote:

PFRPG magic should make science develop incredibly quickly. Want to test a theorem? No need to set up a complex experiment, just Contact Other Plane.

Does the Earth orbit the Sun, is Lamarckian evolution accurate, is there Dark Matter, etc... aren't lengthy debates, they're a 10 minute casting time.

Um... sure, because you know those extraplanar areas all have exactly the same laws of time and physics that the prime material does, and the extradimensional being is going to know the answer and care to provide it.

There are plenty of threads where we point out all of the fallacies of using divination to obtain all your answers.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Quote:
Alertness (Ex): While a familiar is within arm's reach, the master gains the Alertness feat.

You gain the feat -- just as if a magic item gave it to you. The issue is when the familiar is more than an arm's reach away you lose the feat again.

Now fortunately the general rules for prestige classes say that you don't lose your abilities only that you can't level in that class again until you meet the prerequisites again (specific classes can and will differ).


Got asked a question that I think deserves added to this thread as well as my answer:

Quote:
Odraude wrote:
Question for Spaldjng. With the noble, why are you using the downtime rules instead of the kingdom building rules for owning villages?

Because the kingdom building rules do not allow for personal gain (at least not without risk of imploding your kingdom) from building your kingdom. This is the noble's income and as such wouldn't be represented by the kingdom building rules. Also the kingdom building rules doesn't really explain how much time is actually used ruling the kingdom -- each turn is 1 month but obviously you aren't spending 24 hours 7 days a week for 4.33 weeks a month. BP is much more of an abstraction and represents labor, raw materials, etc.

The downtime rules on the other hand tell us exactly how much time is needed, how many people are used, the resource allotment is better divided and has a more explicit exchange rate, and is more individualistic.

The kingdom building rules also require a higher level of ruler (king/ruler, consort and the like) and are a group effort. If we are talking about a minor noble (with only four villages that are his responsibility) the should he really be ruling his own kingdom? Not likely -- instead he's probably simply managing his own goods and making sure the king's edicts are carried out.

With that said, I can/could see an need for saying that a noble has to spend time on both, and there is certainly room for discussion on what sort of leadership the kingdom in question has and how that divides out for the lesser nobles. However unless the lesser nobles have complete control over their parts of the kingdom it seems odd to me to use the kingdom building rules for them.


Odraude wrote:
Question for Spaldjng. With the noble, why are you using the downtime rules instead of the kingdom building rules for owning villages?

Because the kingdom building rules do not allow for personal gain (at least not without risk of imploding your kingdom) from building your kingdom. This is the noble's income and as such wouldn't be represented by the kingdom building rules. Also the kingdom building rules doesn't really explain how much time is actually used ruling the kingdom -- each turn is 1 month but obviously you aren't spending 24 hours 7 days a week for 4.33 weeks a month. BP is much more of an abstraction and represents labor, raw materials, etc.

The downtime rules on the other hand tell us exactly how much time is needed, how many people are used, the resource allotment is better divided and has a more explicit exchange rate, and is more individualistic.

The kingdom building rules also require a higher level of ruler (king/ruler, consort and the like) and are a group effort. If we are talking about a minor noble (with only four villages that are his responsibility) the should he really be ruling his own kingdom? Not likely -- instead he's probably simply managing his own goods and making sure the king's edicts are carried out.

With that said, I can/could see an need for saying that a noble has to spend time on both, and there is certainly room for discussion on what sort of leadership the kingdom in question has and how that divides out for the lesser nobles. However unless the lesser nobles have complete control over their parts of the kingdom it seems odd to me to use the kingdom building rules for them.

Also: I hope you don't mind but I copied this question and the answer to the thread in question because it's a really good question that should have been answered earlier.


Under a bleeding Sun that's not actually correct. It does grant you the feat, it's just limited as it says.


ngc7293 wrote:
Who invented Inflation the the D&D world? It's not like Demons created ....Demoncracy ;)

If you think you should profit from your work then you are a source of inflation.

The primary source of inflation is profit by very definition of the word -- anything above and beyond cost that you receive for a product. The product is worth the cost of the product, if you sell it for more than that you have caused inflation and received profit for it.


Liam Warner wrote:
Coriat wrote:
Liam Warner wrote:
100,000 GP per year is the kind of income I associate with massive empires spanning multiple continents. For a more modest kingdom maybe a few thousand per year if they sell off the rice and other taxed items.
I don't know if you are at all interested in calibrating your numbers to any real life continent spanning empires, but if you are, when I did some napkin math some time ago to convert the (typical) annual income of the Principate-era Roman emperor to Pathfinder gp, I arrived at a range between 15-50 million Pathfinder gp or so, depending on how you choose to calculate the exchange rates.
Before or after supporting their court? I was under the impression this 100k was what a four village baron is getting after all their expenses are met. That's a lot of disposable income for a minor noble.

Whoa -- I've said nothing about the noble's expenses. That's just what the villages are earning him -- not what he's spending or how he's spending it. This doesn't cover his retinue, his family, the new mansion he wants built, the palace, or the upkeep of existing property.

That's just his income, gross not net.


Apocryphile wrote:

That sounds really powerful, but as we're talking about a 16th level NPC here, CR15, it's not that sick..

All it would take would be a Jingasa of the Fortunate Soldier to drop 14d6 off that damage.

Also, remember that the SA on the spell is the same type...

Hey. Does that mean someone able to cast CLW as an arcane spell caster with this ability could sneak attack an undead with a CLW and get an extra +Xd6 Sneak attack on the CLW? nice..

But not on healing someone for damage because healing isn't damage.


My guide points this out and it is potentially powerful.

However getting the right set up to have the spells, be able to hit and not be too squishy is an incredible balancing act.

Lots of potential... very difficult to get the mix right.


So your bias is off. That happens. 100,000gp is really not that much.

You are talking 800 people in the villages, and then figure that the noble is supporting off that 100,000 gp his retinue of say 50 people so 850 people. That sort of return isn't that insane, and in fact builds up to support the sort of numbers we see in the prices for both normal and magical goods.


Yeah again, for just 12 weeks a year a noble acting as a manager for a single village will earn the following:

Quote:

So on an average day the town buildings provide:

75 goods
36 influence
28 labor
3 magic
13 gp
To arrive at this number I typically took the most diverse of the above options for each building and applied them all together. The 'take 10' was applied to the magic to get it above 30 (specifically a 37) to give a 3 instead of a 2.
Of course doing it this way means each of the people need paid. So it is conceivable to me that if we treat the nobility as managers/owners and had them do a weeks worth of managing each month that would leave 40 weeks a year for the people to earn their own way and still leave the nobility with:
84 days of work:
6,300 goods
3,024 influence
2,352 labor
252 magic
1,092 gp
Buying a new village would take about a year if the run over capital was used to instead earn gold each year. Also this could account for magic item production too -- the nobles would have 252 magic points of capital which would convert to 25,200gp worth of magic. Taking that into account means the noble could afford some fun toys blow money and still put up a new village each year (in theory if not in people this would leave 238 magic points).

That's just for the noble working. If we assume this is his cut of the taxes and he does this for each of his villages he could do 4 villages a year by himself, making 4 new villages and still having 238 magic points left over to capitalize on (with 4 weeks off too).

This still leaves enough time for the individual farmer and his family to make the 793.2 gp a year mentioned earlier.

We are literally talking over 100,000 gp and a new village each year for the noble that only controls 4 villages to start with.

1 to 50 of 10,195 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

©2002–2014 Paizo Inc.®. Need help? Email customer.service@paizo.com or call 425-250-0800 during our business hours: Monday–Friday, 10 AM–5 PM Pacific Time. View our privacy policy. Paizo Inc., Paizo, the Paizo golem logo, Pathfinder, the Pathfinder logo, Pathfinder Society, GameMastery, and Planet Stories are registered trademarks of Paizo Inc., and Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pathfinder Adventure Card Game, Pathfinder Player Companion, Pathfinder Modules, Pathfinder Tales, Pathfinder Battles, Pathfinder Online, PaizoCon, RPG Superstar, The Golem's Got It, Titanic Games, the Titanic logo, and the Planet Stories planet logo are trademarks of Paizo Inc. Dungeons & Dragons, Dragon, Dungeon, and Polyhedron are registered trademarks of Wizards of the Coast, Inc., a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc., and have been used by Paizo Inc. under license. Most product names are trademarks owned or used under license by the companies that publish those products; use of such names without mention of trademark status should not be construed as a challenge to such status.