|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
From a pure RAW standpoint, I would say you can certainly use it.
Are ranged weapons specifically excluded? No.
Further, the equipment list has the damage type tagged on the Bow and not the ammunition.
As others have said, there may be a question of RAI. There are certainly some questions of logic, but no more so than what are presented with some weapons that obviously work with this feat (the quarterstaff and bag of marbles examples above are good ones).
So to answer the question about changing deities, I feel once again that you are not abreast of the entire situation.
I figured as much.
He chose a deity that was outside of the pantheon that my universe supported. I asked him to change to one within the story. Not only did he change, but he changed domains as well. I told him that the change in domains would result in a momentary loss of inquisitor abilities and that he would have to role-play the change (which he did and regained his abilities later). This was not a permanent change, I was just trying to adjust the game to deal with inconsistency.
Fair enough. I was punishing the change of domains rather than the change of deities.
I'm with The Alkenstarian on this one. If the deity existed outside of the pantheon of your universe, it should have changed before a session ever happened. In the event that wasn't possible due to time constraints, a retcon (with appropriate domain power changes) is the best solution.
How exactly did it happen that a character came to exist in your game with an inappropriate deity? Were characters created outside of a game session? Were you unable to review characters before the start of play? Were the players made aware of what deities existed? Answering these may provide answers for avoiding such an issue later.
As many others have mentioned, the "No Evil Characters" rule is common. I use it in my campaigns usually.
I can understand the rulings on the actions being evil, when considering everything that happened. I agree with the earlier post (I'm going to be too lazy to find the exact quote) about killing the ringmaster being Neutral, framing the strong man as being mildly evil, etc. It was mentioned in the OP that you "shifted" the alignment, and didn't change it (something I think some have overlooked). That counts as sufficient warning in my book. I think that if they had just killed the ringmaster...that's not exactly evil, just neutral (her certainly didn't appear to be innocent) but there is a lot more to the picture.
I'm actually much more interested in something else in the thread...and that's the request to change deity. If I understand this correctly, the GM (TrustNo1) asked the player (arcanine) to change their deity for no other reason than the GM didn't like it? And when the player agreed, treated the character as if it became an ex-inquisitor? That seems off...I certainly hope there is more to it than that.
Finally, there is this:
However, unless a developer clarifies a rule, I have a hard time accepting the ruling of the forums. No offense guys, but you are just a drop of sugar in a sea of vinegar. By that, I mean that anyone can have an opinion, but I prefer an official ruling before I change the rules.
I can agree that you shouldn't blindly change your way of thinking because of the forums. Hopefully though, you do consider the information that the the pool of experience provides in your decisions when controversy is at hand. It has been my experience that no matter how much I think I am right on something, someone who views it from a different perspective can add some much needed light to an otherwise questionable ruling. Ultimately, you are the voice of rules in your campaign, but that voice need not lack ears.
May I suggest the Alexandrians encumbrance by stone
I will have to read that in full later, thanks.
Dave Justus wrote:
If you just want to worry about weight, by all means...use weight, everything you need is already there.
However, weight doesn't address the issue of quantity of items beyond how much they weigh. A person with an 18 strength can carry 25 long swords and still be considered a light load. Something about that doesn't seem right.
What the above systems appear to be trying to do is determine how many of an item you can reasonably carry, regardless of weight.
The idea of a "Unit" as I proposed attempts to accomplish quantity and weight within a single system...it's not trying to be any more simple than weight alone, but rather adding to the meaning without (overly) adding to the complexity. It also does it in a way that many people are familiar with, even if it is videogamish.
If you dislike this idea, this rule is not for you. You'd also probably hate my ideas for hunger and thirst. But that is the great thing about the game that we play, we can all choose to make it ours. This is the homebrew forum right?
I'm working on something similar to this for a campaign I'll be running in a month or so. In fact, it's very similar to what Anonymous posted.
I've yet to work out all the specific numbers, but the general idea is that weight becomes "units" and each slot on your character can hold so many units. Containers take up so many units, but can hold many more. An example might be that your back slot can handle 2 units. A backpack is 1 unit, but can contain say 5 units. "Slots" would be things like back, chest, waist, etc. similar to the Magic Items system.
You are limited by two things, one being the aforementioned slot system and the other that you can only carry a number of units equal to your Strength score.
In general, weapons would be 1 unit, and armor 2 (though I like Anonymous' breakdown of light/medium/heavy). Small items would stack within one unit.
Again, I've yet to work out the details...but that was my thought process.
I really like this idea, and it fits with a campaign that I'm going to be putting together. Ninja, Samurai and Gunslinger are things that won't really fit the theme...but if I can retheme them instead of outright denying my players from playing them, it'd be great.
So...Ninja to Gypsy...
How to go about doing the same with Samurai and Gunslinger?
This one comes from one of my players...during Rise of the Runelords, chapter 1. Encapsulating in spoilers as it deals with the end of the chapter.
The group consists of a rogue, wizard, ranger, and fighter (yes, no healer of any kind). We play with the core rulebook only, except that I've allowed the use of Hero Points to help a bit since they are running with no healer. The fighter was a new character, as that players previous fighter had been killed after getting captured by goblins when the group decided to commit goblin genocide in the area after the festival attack.
The group had managed to make their way to Nualia's room in Thistletop. And the rogue, after opening the door, and seeing Nualia with her hound(s) proceeded to take a few steps forward, kneel, and swear his allegiance to her (not completely out of character mind you...he had been doing some crazy things throughout the campaign and had suffered temporary madness due to coming into contact with waters of lamashtu earlier). Nualia, eager for a new play thing, agreed if he could prove his loyalty by killing his companions...
Chaos ensued. The fighter and ranger fled after the hound used it's bark, and the wizard opted for a retreat as well. As the fight progressed, the ranger broke the hounds effect and returned to the wizards side...the fighter decided that booking it back to town and getting as far away from this insane group of people was his best option. They managed to kill the hound, but Nualia was tearing them to pieces. When she started attacking the wizard, a female elf, the rogue pleaded with Nualia to leave her that he wanted her as his...when she refused, he switched sides again and attacked Nualia.
After spending nearly all of their hero points in the encouner, the wizard went down, dieing, and the ranger was almost gone. The group realized they were dead...except the fighter. As the rogue contemplated what his action would be, I gave him a moment and went to retrieve a drink. When I returned...the group, in particular the rogue, had come up with an idea...
The rogue, "Can I use my last hero point to reset everything back to the point that I was opening the door, as if this were all a vision? Our spent hero points would remain also remain spent."
I thought about it a moment, and not really wanting an almost complete party wipe...I agreed. All in total, I think 8 hero points were spent...and all but one character had 0 left. After telling the rogue a vision of their combat flashes thru his head when he touches the door, the turns to the group...
"The god's spoke to me..."
Ryan Dancey wrote:
The team has it marked as a high-priority, must have feature.
So, this "must have feature" is ready for the launch of EE tomorrow? Or is it only "must have" for the full launch sometime in the distant future?
I'm just curious when I can expect a resolution, since my emails have gone unanswered for 30+ days.
TEO Cheatle wrote:
4 - Because they are trying to emulate the table top.
I've seen this tossed out there for the idea of touch-based healing on more than one occasion (so don't take this as me pointing at you, you just provided a good quote for this thread)...
That's great, it is. But...not everything about a tabletop game translates well to an MMO.
Pathfinder tabletop has turn based actions with grid based movement. The MMO is real time and is not confined to a grid. This means that moving into touch range and healing is more problematic than the tabletop equivalent.
Also, the "trying to emulate the tabletop" excuse seems to be tossed around as is convenient. In my table top games monsters drop loot, coin can be used to buy equipment, there are classes, and XP isn't earned at a static rate. They went away from "emulating" Pathfinder a long time ago. If we can cherry pick those things, we can cherry pick touch based healing...
After looking over the Improved Targeting of the Dev Blog I have some questions/concerns/etc.
Increase tab and click targeting range to 80 meters. You should be able to target anything you can see.
Is this needed? Right now the target box on models seems to be very small, making click targeting problematic. When fighting a group, it is hard to click-target the next mob that you want to kill, making it so you have to tab through the cycle of targets. Sometimes you have to tab through the targets of a nearby group before you get back to the target you really want to attack...adding range to the tab system is going to make this worse. Also, I can't see what I have targeted at the current maximum range because there is either no text identifying the target or it is so small it is unreadable, I assume this would be the same with additional range.
Targeting box needs to be increased, as well as the size of text floating above a target's name. A target hud would also be nice.
Tab targeting will include hostile player characters.
Great. Have the various bugs with accidentally targeting players been fixed (like the click-thru hud bug?) If not, I see this tab targeting change coupled with bugs/misclicks simply leading to more misclicks and more lost reputation.
The system will autotarget anything that attacks you if you have no current target.
I see both positives and negatives with this. On one hand, I've encountered the problem of clearing groups (or thinking I had cleared a group) and there is still an archer targeting me that I have to track down...this will help in that. It will also help if players ambush other players, the victim(s) will have a chance to see where the attackers are and react. The question is should this be how it works?
Shift+Tab will let you tab through player characters but not NPCs, monsters or resource nodes.
This is great. Can we maybe add to and adjust this some? Might I recommend the following (or some variation of):* Tab cycles mobs
* Shift+Tab cycles friendly players
* Ctrl+Tab cycles hostile players
* Alt+Tab cycles resource nodes
In addition, a hotkey or two could be added as per a suggestion I seen in another thread that targets "nearest", it could use the secondary keys as well. So, if we were to use say "Q" for this key it would like:
Caldeathe Baequiannia wrote:
Note that you will be able to belong to multiple companies (up to three)
Quote from thread here.
Has anyone heard how being in more than one company will work with WoT? Is there a mechanic for flagging which company you are in will get the capture credit when you are in the capture location?
Dorgan Berkham wrote:
I did read that post. To address the specifics of what you said, I'm not a fan of leaving the character in the world for similar reasons as to why I'm not a fan of being able to log off in enemy territory. The camp idea from my post is simply a way to create a safe log out, you still log out.
Although...choosing to log out in an area for an extended period of time knowing your character is vulnerable is a choice you are making that impacts only you, so I could see how it could work. It creates a risk (death) vs reward (location) scenario. I believe some of the zombie survival games (Rust?) use this type of mechanic.
Adding to this...what if there was an item that could be made, such as the camps, that allowed the player to log off and later log back into that location. Restrictions on the use of the camp could be put into place so that it can't be used inside of a Settlement (presumably you would have an Inn that would function like this in the settlement), but could be used in wilderness hexes. This would allow those who are traveling great distances, but in short online spurts, to have a mechanic to save their travel. It would cost resources to do so and it's use to create an invincible fortress is minimized.
He is. The fact that he got his quote tags messed up in his original post is confusing you. He has since pointed out statements of yours that he disagrees with, so he's arguing with you about what you said. I'm under the impression he agrees with my stance and therefore has no reason to argue with me.
TEO Pino wrote:
Handling the logout feature is indeed a balancing act. If they move you from the logout location, they remove the Invincible Fortress but create the issue of losing travel time. If in addition, you are moved to a predictable log on point, there is a potential to create points of PvP griefing.
Possible ways to handle (can be any combination):
It seems from the dev posts that an approach similar to this is what they are taking.
No offense, but arguing semantics over a few words is really detracting from the talking points of the conversation.
Audoucet's point, as does mine, still remains. The validity of the tactic or strategy in regards to game mechanics is less relevant than whether the ability to do so should exist within the game in the first place. Whether it falls within the definition of tactic or strategy isn't relevant at all.
Strategy is strategy regardless whether there is or isn't any counter.
Poor choice of words on my part perhaps.
It's not the lack of a counter that is problematic...it's the lack of a reaction. Logging off in someones city or territory...doesn't provide them an opportunity to react to the fact that a spy is in their area (outside of initial entry...which, as in my previous post, shouldn't grant extended immunity).
The fact that we are constantly referencing it as a "Trojan Horse" is really a misnomer...the Trojan Horse had risks, this does not. That story would have ended much differently had it been burnt where it stood instead of being brought into the city...a choice that the "logoff" tactic doesn't allow the defenders.
If it exists within the game, it's a valid strategy and will be used by many...that doesn't change the fact that, at least in my opinion, it should't exist within the game.
(to prevent your trojan horse scenario - otherwise known as an intelligent strategy)
It's not really strategy when it has no counter. If you are logged off I can't exactly remove you from my settlement's streets...so you aren't being sneaky, you're taking advantage of a game mechanic that has no counter.
Being sneaky to get in shouldn't net you potentially hours of offline safety in my area with the ability to log in later and do damage.
Now...all of that said...I personally would be ok if there was a way for you to do it, just not everyone. Say using disguise to make yourself appear as a friendly to my settlements NPCs/buildings/etc and using our inn to log off could net you the ability to log back in at that same location. You've spent in game resources (XP) to circumvent the issue...and that I'm ok with.
Most games have a timer to log out if you're not in an "inn" or equivalent building. Most don't allow you to log out if you're in combat. Most keep you in game for 5-15 minutes if you "disconnect". These are pretty much standard and I would hope that PFO would have some equivalency.
It could go further that if a criminal action was committed, you have to wait 5-15 minutes until you can initiate a logout, and then the preceding qualifiers come into play.
Also, Shadowbane had a system like what Valkenr mentioned...if you logged out or were disconnected for longer than 15 minutes (iirc) you would log back into your bind point. This was to prevent stashing alts in enemy territory as undetectable spies.
If I'm wandering around and I snag a node that I didn't realize was in an owned hex or an owned hex that restricted such things, why should I be penalized?
Ignorance of a given law isn't an excuse...unless there is no way to find out the given law. Good rule of thumb, don't mine the node unless you know it's safe...
Now, if there's no way to view what the give laws for a settlement are...it can be bad. I would hope there would be a way to look at a settlement's hex and see what laws are applicable to their controlled hexes.
That or, as you said, the UI that says "Hey doing that is bad"
Responses are reassuring that something is likely to be in game to support this, even if specifics aren't known yet and/or it's not immediate.
I would agree that contiguous hexes would probably be more apt to support a law system, but I would say non-contiguous should still be able to have the laws applied, even if at a cost of resources or something to penalize it...making such issues Lifedragn mentioned at least be a costly endeavor.
Of course, on that note, in Life's example Callambea would have had the benefit of a "free defense" prior to the Goons taking over...the size of Callambea, at least to me, is irrelevant. Coming from a group that is traditionally tiny...I understand that making friends and having alliances is the lifeblood of small groups in games like this, and I'm not a fan of having mechanics specifically coded to protect small groups.
Does anyone know how harvesting resources is going to be handled when doing so on territory that is claimed?
As an example, Company/Settlement A controls a hex, and someone from Company X comes in and begins to harvest resources off the land. If someone from Company A attacks them, will they be given the "attacked an innocent" flag and potentially suffer from a reputation hit?
It seems that if territory is controlled by a settlement, harvesting on that territory when you are not part of that settlement (or allied, etc) should flag you for being attackable by those people only (i.e. not free for all for everyone).
It seems that a bulk of the conversation on these boards is directed at Settlement/Company recruitment, general speculation as to what might or might not make it into the game, and other general stuff...with very little information coming out of the Alpha testers as to how things actually work. Don't get me wrong...there are spreadsheets upon spreadsheets of data, which is nice, but without an understanding of how all of that data links together it's really just data. This may be a result of their being more comprehensive data on the Alpha boards...I don't know, but it still seems to leave a gaping hole (unless I'm missing it) in certain things.
Let's take for example the Quick Start guide that GW was kind enough to put. For purposes of this post, I'll look at the fighter.
This is what is listed as the requirements to attain Fighter 1. All fine and well, and I get that for the most part. But what if you want to play a fighter and go the archer route. Does the "Heavy Melee Attack Bonus 1" represent a categorical requirement (i.e. any attack bonus qualifies) or is it specifically "heavy melee attack" and if you go the archer route you would have to train your archer skills in addition to whatever skills grant the heavy melee attack bonus? (Cleric has a similar issue with domains, and rogues with swashbuckler/cutthroat requirements.)
Also, since you can pick and choose what skills you train and the roles really exist as soft-coded groupings...how do multi-roles work? If I attain Cleric 1 and Wizard 1...am I then able to cast spells from both without issue, or do I have to swap out a bunch of stuff to do so, thus eliminating/reducing the effectiveness of a character blasting in combat but tossing the occasional heal if needed?
Yeah I debated back and forth between going the ceiling mounted approach or aiming the projector down and bouncing off a mirror that way...
In the end there were a few factors that made me go this route:
1) To project at the size I want, my stand for the projector would up being almost 4 feet tall to get the correct throw distance (even using a mirror).
2) No good area around our game table to put said 4 foot tall projector stand without one of my gaming group inevitably knocking it over.
3) Needed a custom table with a hole in it for said plexiglass/translucent paper...that or move my current folding tables far enough apart to accommodate (in which case reaching map would be hard - we'll still be using cardboard pawns)
4) Most of us (myself especially) tend to stretch our legs out under the table more than we should...
Eventually I'd like to get an HDTV and mount it in similar fashion with a thin sheet of plexiglass over it...the only issue with that is to display at the same size I'm projecting now it would be costly.
Got any pics of your setup? I wouldn't mind seeing how you did it.
I've had a projector sitting in my closet for over a year now...waiting to be hooked up for use in my Pathfinder games. This week I finally got around to building the framework for the display as well as the contraption (there really is no better word for it) for hanging the projector and mirror from the ceiling....
It gets tested in an actual game next weekend...should be fun!
Info on the setup:
The surface is mounted to the frame using 3M command strips for mounting frames...that way I didn't have to nail through the display and it makes it easy to remove the surface from the frame if it gets damaged, or if I want to swap it out with a different topper.
The mirror is mounted to a piece of plywood (same 3M strips) that is screwed into the ceiling...from that I have four eye-hooks for hanging the projector cradle. The cradle is just a wooden box so the projector points up at the mirror...hung using a bit of small-link chain so that I an adjust the height a bit if needed and also put it up/take it down with ease and repeatability. (Sorry no pictures of the cradle...didn't think of it at the time.)
i have seen the sticky post but most of the links there are 404 error ... i would like to say good job to the community for the immediate answer;)
The original post by Gr4ys is over five years old...you're better of working from the last page backwards. Or...
The last compiled post is on page 12 (last post on page), by BuzzardB with the dead links removed and newer posts incorporated. link
Start there and move forward, I believe most of those links are active.
Check out the Community Created Stuff sticky...there are lots of good resources in that thread.
It might be worth noting that you'll probably want to start on the last page and work backward...I believe some of the links in the first post no longer work (a con of not being able to edit posts on this forum after so long). So work backward from the last page...there are a few scattered posts with links until you get to the last "organized resources" post.
The Numerator wrote:
I haven't checked out the player companion myself, but it's on my list of "should get this once I get some cash".
Where the player companion really helped me was with the map and travel times.
What is this player companion?
At first I thought it was the player's guide...but it's free so not sure how the first quote applies?
What form do you think this remade undead would take? And what do you think it would do to try and get revenge on the party?
A headless horseman that terrorizes Sandpoint until the PCs come and deal with him?
Seriously though, I don't know...but I like the idea of possessing the body and leaving to torment them again later.
If nothing else, have the possession happen but be open ended with where he went to the current group of characters (i.e. they don't know). If you run the same players through another campaign that brings them to Sandpoint, the body could make a return appearance...the players would get it even if their character's didn't.
So they've expanded the Birdcruncher territory :-)
That's what one is hoping for I think...but it's not going to be that easy.
Butch A wrote:
If your group has done everything possible to attract attention to themselves (like exterminating two goblin tribes on the way), then I think the goblins at Thistletop should be very well prepared for their little visit.
Attention, yes. Yeah I've got a couple weeks before we meet again for an all out on Thistletop...so beefing it up a bit is the plan (not impossible mind you, just tougher than the other tribes).
Alternatively, let them wipe the goblins out and get on with the AP. IMO, unless it has a Sihedron on it, it's just filler.
Sometimes the filler can be what makes a campaign. All but one of the players is a long time roleplayer (we're all new to Pathfinder)...and having a living, breathing, world is something we all enjoy.
Their trip into the Licktoad lair was cut short when they got overwhelmed...three of them were forced to leave their fighter unconscious as they beat a hasty retreat. They mounted a rescue attempt a day later to find that the lair had been abandoned...the Licktoad had moved to a secondary lair of an abandoned ship along the coast that had, in the past, been reclaimed in the Licktoad name (We Be Goblins). Sure...I could have left the lair in-tact and let them come back and decimate the remaining goblins as it was originally setup...but I don't think that would have suspended their disbelief in the way an RPG should (and I can hear their disappointed groans when they see how static the world would be).
Is it off the rails of the AP a bit...sure, but I'm not looking to interrupt things at Thistletop (maybe beef it up a bit), just seeking advice for things in the "filler" time between chapters.
It sounds like you need some big damn goblin heroes...
I like this...thanks :)
The waters from the Altar of Lamashtu becomes normal unholy water after an hour if I recall correctly. I'm not sure about the Runewell.
My players took samples of the Waters of Lamashtu (they have since used them)...one player failed a check for gathering and suffered ability damage to dex (a slightly crippled hand) and int (minor insanity). He roleplayed it pretty well...
When they entered Erylium's room, he claimed the runes on the wall said that the water they had gathered would allow them to control her if they could hit her with it. The group was amazed he could read the runes. Later, while fighting Erylium he decided that the Runewell must have healing properties so he submerged his hand into it. Chaos erupted after that...as the rest of the party was fighting Erylium outside the room and he proceeded to head out there in a rage, saw the party fighter first and attacked him (this character was new to the group, having replaced the fighter that had previously died). The fighter turned to defend himself and struck down the offending PC...the rest of the party saw this attack, and only this attack so the distrust that followed was a very interesting development.
They have since killed Erylium and deactivated the Runewell...I'm quite amazed that no one decided to gather some of it's water, but after their experience with the Waters of Lamashtu I guess they thought the risk vs reward wasn't really there.
Shayliss hit up the party fighter in my campaign...or what the group thought was the party fighter.
After they made a trip to the swamp and the fighter got captured (and subsequently tortured and killed) by the Licktoad goblins, the group mounted a successful rescue attempt and brought back a Faceless Stalker to Sandpoint as the party fighter.
He awoke in his room to a half-naked Shayliss that wanted to reward him properly for everything he had done to help Sandpoint and her family. They got together at least one other time after that.
During the trip into the Glassworks, and their encounter with Tsuto (who knew the fact that the fighter was actually a Faceless Stalker under Nualia's control) the Faceless Stalker turned on the party, who managed to kill him.
The post-combat realization that Shayliss hadn't slept with their fighter but instead a shape changing aberration was fairly entertaining. They are all convinced that Shayliss is pregnant with a demon spawn, which one PC has declared dibs on (something about it being a perfect fit for the mercenary group he wants to start).
My group is currently in the act of committing goblin genocide in my Rise of the Runelords campaign.
Spoiler tag because details of the campaign are revealed...you've been warned.
I am running an Anniversary Edition campaign using GoB's idea of having the Licktoad and Brinestump goblins be the mites and kobolds from Kingmaker.
After the raid, the party proceeded to Brinestump marsh and killed off the Licktoad goblins. They did lose a party member in the process, but after a second trip into Brinestump managed to get rid of the Licktoad. Afterward, they befriended the Birdcruncher goblins (one PC has plans to make them into his personal mercenary group, or at least the Fodder Company).
Flash forward...and the group is on their way to Thistletop, but after looking at the map and where they need to go come to the conclusion that since they're passing by the woods that are home to the Seven Tooth Goblins they "may as well stop in and say hi". End result is the entire village of Seven Tooth is now a pile of ashes as they burned it to the ground.
Obviously, the outcome at Thistletop is going to be similar considering the focus of that goblin tribe within the campaign...but I know they discussed whether they would hit up Mosswood and get rid of them before they headed to Thistletop or wait till later (it wasn't a matter of *if* but *when*).
Now...I'm perfectly ok with all of this...the players can go where they choose and do what they want. But...knowing the player's mentalities I used Shalelu's meeting with them to foreshadow that the idea of "keeping the goblins in check and controlled is better than wiping them out...their presence here is more of a nuisance and if they were to disappear a power void would happen and who knows what might try and fill it".
Now I'm at a point where I need to figure out what I'm going to do to fill the void that the players are creating by destroying the goblin tribes. Only the Birdcruncher are going to remain after all is said and done...the rest will be dead/scattered. Any ideas on what I could use to fill the void and provide an interesting and entertaining challenge to the players who (by the time this happens) will have completed Chapter 1 of the adventure path? I haven't read far enough into Chapter 2 and beyond to know what might apply to the AP...but I'm open to anything even if it doesn't tie in if it makes for an interesting side quest. It doesn't even have to be one thing...it could be regional replacements for each clan.
TLDR Version: Players have killed off all goblins in Sandpoint area, looking for something to fill the void left to challenge the players after completing Chapter 1 of AP.
If you make 100 swings against a target, the Falcata will have 20 chances to crit providing an opportunity for 40-320 bonus damage. On the other hand, the Katana will have 30 chances to crit but that only provides the possibility for 30-240 bonus damage.
That's based on the idea that your crit chance is a hit.
Increased Threat Range: Sometimes your threat range is greater than 20. That is, you can score a threat on a lower number. In such cases, a roll of lower than 20 is not an automatic hit. Any attack roll that doesn't result in a hit is not a threat.
If you're fighting creatures with high ACs on a regular basis...the extra threat range of the Katana is nullified. This probably isn't much of a concern in normal situations.
Bearded Ben wrote:
but that doesn't factor in any abilities that trigger on a crit, which might swing the decision to the katana.
There is that to consider. What types of things might trigger on a crit?
I recently bought a set of three of these from EBay:
The seller has had them for a few years and had purchased them originally from Ebay as well, so wasn't sure of their origins. I can't seem to find anything on Google...
They are about 2" D6 dice with the TSR logo in the location of the 1. Has anyone seen these before or know where they originated (I'm assuming a con of some sort). I purchased only the dice, the treasure-chest like box this one is in was something I picked up to display them.
I've been using an online treasure generator to generate treasure for my group when they come across a large group of treasure at once. This generator says that it uses the Core Rulebook and Gamemastery Guide to generate the treasure...but i've noticed that specific items will have something like [90%, Low Quality] which adjusts the price of an item down to 90% of base. I can't find the tables for this in CRB or GMG....anyone seen these tables before (or have some that I can use)?
I'm wanting to generate qualities for specific items...while I can see from the generator what adjustment qualifies as "Low" or "Fine" I'm not sure what percentage of items I should make "Low" vs "Fine". If someone can point me to a rulebook that gives such a table...or has a table they use...I'd appreciate it.
High quality items are those that have a DC higher then 10
Can you cite the source that states DC 10 is high quality?
'High Quality' is not DC 15
As per the craft rules, a high quality item has a DC 15. This is the only source that I have seen that specifically calls out High Quality and includes a DC. I'm not saying there aren't others, just that I haven't seen them.
As I said before, you've pointed out on a few occasions that any interpretation other than your own is a house rule, yet you aren't giving any credible source for this reason.
For what it's worth...I agree with part of your interpretation of Fabricate. You can't cast it twice for the same item. You can't use it to make a normal item into a masterwork item (i.e. a longsword into a masterwork longsword). I don't see anything in the spell description that denies ANY masterwork item from being created however.
Cool, he's saying he's lenient, and that's what he'd allow. I doubt he's thought it through to the logical conclusion.
Are you saying that since the "logical conclusion" is that Fabricate can ruin an economy that means the rules state it can't create Masterwork items? That's kind of flawed. Balance issues shouldn't factor into a strict interpretation of the rules...they should factor into house ruling the crap out of it so the player wizard doesn't make a fortune.
Aelryinth, I can respect your stance on this and for the most part you have some solid information. However, you have a hard stance that you claim is from a strict RAW angle and that "any other reasoning is a house rule". However, you seem to imply that every use of the Fabricate spell requires a craft check.
To make anything with Fabricate, you have to make a craft check or the spell fails to spin your raw materials together properly.
This is not in the spell description. The spell description specifically says that a craft check is required on items requiring a high degree of craftsmanship. If it does not require such a high degree, no check is made. What can be debated is what constitutes "high degree" (as someone else mentioned).
You also take a stance that Plate is of higher quality than Chainmail. Can you show me where this is stated in the rules? I'm not asking for the DCs either, the DC defines how hard the item is to make...not it's quality. If DC defined quality, then our only point of references would be that anything of DC 15 or higher is considered "high quality" as per the Craft rules that point out "high quality item (bell)" as having a DC 15.
Assuming that DC 15 = High Quality is what is intended, then Fabricate could still create Masterwork items....but only if the original item was less than a DC 15. A chain shirt is a DC 14, so Fabricate could be used to create one of masterwork quality, requiring a single craft check on the DC 20 masterwork component.
If DC 15 != High Quality, then the only point of reference we have for quality is masterwork which means that Fabricate could create any masterwork item requiring a craft check for the masterwork component.
I happen to be of the opinion (though not a fan of the idea) that Fabricate can create Masterwork items and that this constitutes the "high degree of craftsmanship" that would then require the DC 20 masterwork check. Economy breaking? Yeah. But that's magic, it has a tendency to screw everything up.
I think no matter how we look at this...it's a good candidate for a FAQ. Someone care to write up a post that has information clear enough (not this debate) for FAQing?
I'm the bard :D
I had a few proposed solutions to this over in the houserules forum here but my request for feedback hasn't done so well.
To explain things a bit further...
My intent would be to play a more roguish character that likes to talk a lot. I would try to establish that aspect of the character before any abilities come into play so that it isn't out of the ordinary.
Players not realizing they are getting the buffs is part of the trick...I've talked to Casien about applying the bonuses to said rolls without the players knowing, which is easy enough since the GM knows the effect of what I'm doing.
The biggest thing is the spell casting. I'd like to be able to use things like Mage Hand to open doors, or Detect Magic, without the group knowing. As stated my houserule thread, I'm not trying to be silent or unseen so much as disguise what I'm doing as something it's not.
One tripping point for the whole "at what point would a character know" is Cure Light Wounds. I discussed with him this evening the fact that I would like to use Cure Light Wounds on party members that need it when they are sleeping...so that when they get rested they get more HP than they would otherwise normally get. Obviously at this point the player would know something is going on...just not necessarily what. But what would the character know?
I also joked about (but if there was a way to make it work, I'd totally do it) of carrying around vials of water or other non-magical liquid and giving them to players...as I cast Cure Light Wounds on them, and claim that it was a healing pot.
The idea is really that my bard wouldn't want to use magic and stuff openly...past issues to deal with...but would want to use it to benefit the group without them knowing. As I told him...in the event that things come down to certain life or death situations...the character would outright do it and deal with it later, but grudgingly so.
What if you made it so you gain levels in Warrior, Mage, Priest, and Thief all independent of each other and then slotted all of the other classes into one (or more) of these....
For example...you take a level in Warrior at the start, which you dedicate to the Fighter subclass. Later, after earning the appropriate XP you could take a level in Thief (and dedicate that to Rogue). If you then wanted to take a level in, let's say ranger (part of the Warrior group) you'd have to earn enough XP for level 2 Warrior ...at which point you dedicate the level to ranger.
A class that belongs to more than one of your primary groups would require the highest amount of XP to level it. Say a bard is both in the thief and mage group and your first level is in thief/rogue...you would then need to get to level 2 thief to get one level in bard (this avoid leveling your hybrids by alternating "primary" levels). Alternatively...once you level a hybrid using a primary it's locked into that primary for leveling purposes, but that requires even more tracking...
Not sure how the math on that works out...just wanted to reply to what I seen here :D
So, I have a player that is playing a rogue and plans to use the Minor Magic rogue talent to gain the use of a cantrip. When casting the cantrip, he doesn't want the rest of the party (and to a certain extent those around him) to know that he is casting a spell.
This idea is also of interest to me, as I intend to play a bard in his campaign and would like to do something similar.
I've seen this idea discussed in a couple of different threads with various proposals...but would like a little feedback on two options that I am currently debating.
Note that in neither case are we trying to be completely silent or motionless, the intent is to mask the spell casting by making it look like something it's not.
Options that I've seen elsewhere are:
Hidden Spell Skill Trick from D20 PFSRD - I really like this idea...but auto denying the attack of opportunity on a success seems a bit much.
My solutions then...please provide feedback on whether you think these options seem balanced, viable, etc. and which you think is better than the other.
Coerced Caster (Basic Trait - Magic Category)