|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
I'm fine with whatever the actual ruling was. I just saw the line about offhand attacks in my book, and when I looked it up found people saying things didnt or did stack, with arguments, and so I came to get clarification.
It seems I got clarification on most of the bits I was unclear on, aside from the stacking of Bashing and Spikes.
Interesting to hear about the +1 enhancement bonus from stacking not counting when you go to price out your weapon enchants on the thing.
Shields are weapons. They are on the weapon table. It is very hard to justify treating them any differently from any other weapon. You can main hand a shield and attack two handed. See also shield bash here (it also mentions about enchanting it separately as a weapon).
My thought was that the rules for shield bashing called out "as an off-hand attack" and so I thought that was the only way you could use the shield as a weapon by default, which made me think: "Well, they could still grab it by the edges and smash someone with it like a barstool, but then they're basically using it as an improvised club, not as a shield."
I have a player talking about Two-Handing a spiked shield of bashing. I've looked for a faq and I've found some threads with people arguing various positions, but no official stances, so I thought I would ask what the RAW of the matter is.
1. Do shield spikes count as a separate weapon that can be enchanted, separate from the heavy shield they're placed on?
1a. Are weapon enhancements on a shield priced separately from shield enhancements, or is a +1 shield that is also a +1 weapon counted as a +2 weapon?
2. Do shield spikes and bashing stack, giving you a shield that hits for 2d6?
3. Can you use a heavy shield as your main weapon attack in one hand, or as a two-handed weapon, without using it as an improvised weapon?
Core Rules, P152: Shield Bashing wrote:
You can bash an opponent with a shield, using it as an off-hand weapon. Used this way, a shield is a martial bludgeoning weapon.
Say I'm a druid, in a cat or wolf form; and I have regular access to ghost sound with one of the many options that enable that.
Does this work as a means of speaking (not to mention making all sorts of other fun noises) while wildshaped?
A google search turned up some people arguing both sides, but I couldn't find an official ruling.
Hmm. Thanks. I think I will avoid the ToB classes, but I will probably assign the disciplines to the PoW classes before the campaign.
I appreciate the help.
So long story short;
I'm sue this has been answered, but I can't find the rule.
Say we have a player, let's call him Jim.
Jim has a +1 Dragonbane Frost Shock Flaming Ghost-Touch Thundering Vicious Holy Greatsword (+10 total), and is then the recipient of CL20 Greater Magic Weapon.
I am arguing that nothing happens; he's at the +10 cap. If I'm feeling generous, maybe I let him turn off some special abilities to activate more enhancement bonus, but I'm pretty sure RAW he doesn't get that option.
Jim is arguing he now has a +5 (Lots of special abilities) Greatsword; and that the +10 limitation only applies to permanent enhancements.
Sp What happens?
Can someone point me to a FAQ/Dev Ruling?
John Kretzer wrote:
Actually I think not assuming that any AP (or module or novels for that matter) have not happened yet and keeping the world at the base level is the reason why I am still getting and reading Golarion soucebooks. Being a veteran of the FR I know how doing so can make GMS and players feel marginalized. So at in my opinion this was probably the wisest decision Pazio has made regarding Golarion as it allows people to make it their own.
Oh; sure, no I agree with that wholeheartedly. I'm also a big fan of FR, and when I talk to people about it, one of the first things I say is "Pick a campaign starting date at least 5 years before whatever is the year being currently published if you care at all about canon, because otherwise you could go to such and such city; and canonically it was destroyed last week."
I'm not suggesting a constantly marching timeline with everyone playing in the current year is a good idea. It's a bad idea. However, after 5-10 years of modules, and a bunch of novels, and comics are out? Yeah; I'd like a timeline update/update supplement/updated setting book that includes the canonical outcomes of all those things.
John Kretzer wrote:
Also only the events and possible outcomes of the APs are not considered canon...what powers the NPCs display, the articles, the monsters, etc. are all considered canon.
So if "Currently undetailed Kyonin city" is detailed in an AP, including city districts, factions, major NPCs and their capabilities; all of those things are setting canon? I hope that is the case.
And then/therefore, back to my original question: Gods (such as Iomedae) ARE canonically able to snatch people up (no-save), and kill them with trumpets?
Likely, but maybe not. We'll see.
I don't think I fully understand what this changes, for those who will never use the Unchained book.
Depending on how much they change archetypes, it might change almost nothing, or lots of stuff.
That IS the baseline assumption, so that APs can't invalidate the main setting book, by, say, wiping out or significantly altering nations.
How would it invalidate anything? The main setting book is simply set in the baseline time, a date before the events of the APs have occurred; and the setting itself doesn't have an advancing timeline.
I feel its unfortunate that that is the case.
So as far as Golarion is concerned, Wrath of the Righteous never happened; never will happen; and the characters depicted in it (including Iomedae) canonically have neither the personality nor capabilities described therein?
What about creature types printed in APs, Factions, and detailed articles about gods and whatnot? Are those all also non-canon, and limited only to that AP? Like, if in the next AP (in the AP itself), the religion of the church of Keltheald is detailed, is that just fanfiction as far as the rest of the setting is concerned, or is that canon? What if it was in one of those 4-6 page "God" articles?
What happens to a familiar after its master dies? How about if the master gains a new familiar?
I know you can learn spells from a dead witch's familiar for 24 hours.
If the level 10 party wizard dies, does his old familiar still have:
Or is it suddenly back to being a basic Int 2 Animal?
If the party wizard gets a new familiar, is he deliberately lobotomizing his old familiar, making it lose its identity, mind, and memories (this seems very evil to me).
Those are both story postulates not rules answers. The answers to your questions are in the category of stuff deliberately left for GM's to work with.
They're rules questions (AND) story postulates about the capabilities of the gods in Golarion.
What actually happens in WOTR has absolutely no relation to Golarion's main canon.
Wait. What? Seriously? Adventure Paths are set in their own little universes and have 0 effect on the setting? There is no Golarion "After the events of Second Darkness, Council of Thieves, and Wrath of the Righteous"? Is there any kind of quote or statement to back that up? That sounds ridiculous to me.
Sometimes the answer is simply "because it isn't."
That's a non-answer. If the official answer is just "Because, no reason"; that would be incredibly disappointingly lazy design.
Gods are the ultimate expressions of GM Fiat. So the answer to your questions depends ENTIRELY on the story the GM or author wants to run. There are no rules answers to be found here.
I thought I remembered reading somewhere the gods had limits to acting on Golarion. A non-direct intervention pact or somesuch.
Keep in mind that what goes on in the example you're quoting is clearly presented as a special circumstance, not "buisness as usual" even for Iomedae.
Sure, it came across as a "I don't usually do this, but I *could* do it, whenever.
Which made me wonder why this isn't a regular occurance.
At least they put SPOILERS in their thread title. :)
Oh, crap. my bad. It hadn't occurred to me to put spoilers.
Also; it seems mods took my thread and moved it out of where it was relevant, general setting discussion. I'm not interested in talking about the events of the module themselves, here; I'm looking to hear why the gods in the setting aren't scooping up/messing with the mortals on a constant basis. If a module killed the ruler of Cheliax at the end, would discussing playing in a post-ruler Cheliax be considered a thread about the module? Because I think the answer is clearly no.
Is it seriously nothing more than fear of an arms race, preventing gods from doing this?
So gods *let* their worshippers be killed by the followers of other gods so that those other gods don't protect their own guys?
[Edit] And it seems to have been moved back. Thanks.
"Can't... or won't?"
I mean via precedent, we know Iomedae can do it; and I am unaware of any reason why every other god would be unable to do the same.
Which of course makes me wonder why they aren't scooping up people all willy-nilly on a regular basis. Evidently it can be done.
What are the implications of the encounter in wrath of the righteous book 5 with Iomedae?
1. She gates in a a group of characters (no save).
2. She can either make them feel how she wants (no save), or the writer was suggesting how he expects PCs to feel about it. (not clear)
3. If they take any action against her, regardless of the reason, she shifts their alignment, maims them, slaps them down, and dumps them back on Golarion.
4. She makes it clear, with her Trumpets, that she *CAN* kill them on a whim and they have no real protection from her. (even if she does bring them back)
Can other gods do this, too?
Can Asmodeus pick up a group of adventurers (no save), change their alignments to LE, talk at them for a while, and then send them back out into the world, working for him?
Can he just scoop up L15 adventurers and execute them on the spot?
Can he scoop up his followers before they can be killed?
Can he scoop up troublesome adventurers and drop them off on another planet, far from whatever he has going on?
If no, why not?
I get that the AP is old news now, but I'm just getting around to reading it now, as I was considering running it. I was really baffled by this scene too, as it seemed very out of character from her writeups in other supplements. Anyways;
I have read this thread, and I get that the scene really did not come across as intended. But it is what it is.
I just had an amusing thought for a followup to WotR. The WotR party are a bunch of Clerics & Warpriests & Priests of other gods. They're of mixed alignments, all non evil; but none of them worship Iomedae. They've redeemed several of the demons thus far, and have decided that's their official policy - no conflict needed.
They don't do well with the questions. They are blasted, but cooperate. At least one of them dies. Upon being released; they all tell their gods of what happened.
Suddenly the Paladin God (who just broke two parts of the paladin code, what with the kidnapping and assaulting of her allies' worshippers - both not respecting their rightful authority over their worshippers AND dishonorably betraying her allies), is on the outs with possibly 4-8 (probably 5) other gods.
After finishing the worldwound plot; the party turns their focus to deposing the Mad Tyrant Paladin Iomedae, and lead a holy war against her. Maybe some of the redeemed-demons (redeemons) join the cause. New campaign starts with old PCs as leading NPCs.
the only way to use it to detect evil is to see if your punch murders them or just maims them.
Smite also gives you an AC bonus against that target if they are evil.The claim that started this discussion was someone saying their character would be immediately aware if they got an AC boost against the person.
And it would appear there's some precedent for that, based on a rule for spells; though there's no mention of it carrying over to class features, I can see how someone might generalize.
I dunno if he's ruining anyone in his group's fun. He's not in my group. Internet argument, as mentioned upthread. His murderhoboing was the premise he started the argument with; claiming that was the "Right" way to play a Paladin, etc etc.
Were it in my personal group this scenario would never even come up, as I only run games without quantifiable alignment.
Is that still technically evil if they are evil creatures?
He's using detect evil on everyone before he goes all SAW on them.
The fact that he's now wanted for serial murder and his "feelings" that the guy is shifty are irrelevant to the court system in a LN country is besides the point.
He's a smite-happy murder-hobo who wants a way to ensure he can continue to be a smite-happy murder-hobo without risking falling because he smites someone who detects as evil but isn't, such as by misdirection and nondetection and infernal healing etc - even though he's unwilling to take the time to investigate before butchering random passers-by on the street.
Zova Lex wrote:
I would agree with the statement that some things, a character could simple FEEL such as gaining natural armor, and I also agree with the sentiment that a character would have a rough idea as to how strong, dextrous, intelligent, etc. they are but certainly would not be able to put numbers to it...
While they were arguing they knew what the numbers were; that was not the point.
They were just looking to immediately know, with absolute certainty if someone was actually evil, at a glance; because Detect Evil isn't 100% reliable (a response to someone pointing out that if they are spamming Detect Evil at everyone in a crowd, and butchering anyone who pings evil, not only are they likely to face legal consequences; but there is a non-0 chance of them killing someone who isn't actually evil, their Paladin would be aware of that; and thus could easily fall whilst crowd-smiting).
Pretty much what I said. "You know you're good at archery because you an hit moving targets are far distances; not because you know how big your bonuses are."
And that was my response.
But then a bunch of people started agreeing with him, that characters have an innate knowledge of their own stats (which I think is ridiculous).
And since there were several people agreeing with him; I thought I would see what people thought over in another location.
I'm looking to assemble a list of the best homebrew classes people have put together for Pathfinder. Just looking for classes here, not archetypes.
This Warlock Reimagining looks pretty good.
Since I cannot edit the opening post, I will keep a running list as good stuff is posted,
I'm not underestimating my stats.
I agree my stats make a huge difference for those kinds of spells. However, generally I would avoid trying to stuff those kinds of spells into items, and use items for utility spells and buff spells, where the DCs and CLs don't really matter.
Ah. I missed that you can recharge staves without it costing you more gold. That would make a bit of a difference.
I knew about the CL and casting ability, but when I ran the numbers, it was still much cheaper to buy wands of anything that wands could do, except in the two cases I mentioned in my first post.
What feats apply to using a staff that are worth mentioning? Can you metamagic staff charges? Can I wield a metamagic rod in one hand and a staff in the other?
So far as I can tell, staves are only worth picking up if you want a consumable L1 spell at CL6+, or a L2 spell at CL17+, and that's using a staff like its a wand.
Is there a point in Pathfinder where Staves justify the cost?
I know that people used to really like staves back in 3.5, but back then they had 50 charges rather than 10, and they cost 15/16 the price (a bit cheaper).
I also know that wands only go up to 4th. Is it really worth putting the higher level spells in a staff?
Diego Rossi wrote:
I forgot about those. You are correct; they made significant changes to both of those kinds of spells (in addition to changing XP requirements into gold requirements).
But if you take a 3.5 Blasting spell, or summoning spell, and put it in pathfinder they work largely the same (other than the fact that summon monster in 3.5 had an ever expanding list of potential summons, and pathfinder has fixed lists (and suggests introducing alternate versions of the spell if they have different options). But for instance, summon undead should work fine in Pathfinder.
Most feats *should* transfer over as well (obviously if there is a pathfinder version, just use that version).
And for magic items, yeah, pathfinder made all physical boosters into belts, and all mental boosters into headbands, but that's not a massive change, and for magic items that don't have a pathfinder equivalent it works alright without any real changes.
Aside from the polymorph and SoD changes though, the differences are small enough that they haven't ever made a big difference in games where I have allowed them, from games where I only allowed Paizo stuff.
Okay. Thanks Liz.
That's about what I was expecting, and what I initially thought. I was just not sure when I saw a couple on DTRPG where they had changed the colors of the bottom bar, and people seemed to be okay with that (they were/are still up and unchanged)); and when I asked about it, I took your response to the linked color change to mean that you guys did not consider the bottom bar to be part of the logo. (Which I thought I would try to clarify, since the bottom bar was included in the package with the logo).
Which made me wonder if I had the potential for more options on incorporating the logo into a cover than I initially thought I did.
After hearing your most recent response, I will assume the people who are doing the neat looking things with the logo but that appear to be pushing/breaking the boundaries of the license, are bending/breaking the license, rather than thinking I must have just misunderstood it.
What about extensions like magical market place? Is there a reason not to use them in a home game?
Technically it's Golarion-themed, but it is by Paizo for Pathfinder, so there's no reason not to allow it in a home game, and most of the stuff in it would be allowed in Pathfinder Society as well.
To be honest, There's no real reason to disallow the stuff in the 3.5 Paizo stuff either. If a player wants one of those prestige classes, they'll work fine, even if they are slightly less powerful than some of the newer stuff.
Feats, Magic Items, and Spells though? Those should basically work fine as is. The only 3.5 stuff that isn't entirely Pathfinder compatible are Classes and Monsters; and both are perfectly usable in Pathfinder, they just tend to have a bit less Oomph than the Pathfinder edition stuff.
However, that being said, different gaming groups have different (largely arbitrary) rules as to what sources are allowed. I've played in games where only the hardcover books were allowed, games where any Pathfinder/Paizo products were allowed, games where any Paizo Product was allowed (including stuff from curse of the crimson throne, second darkness, and the like), and games where Any Paizo Product + Some combination of D&D 3.5 Products were allowed. All of them worked out fine unless a player brought something to the GM that was a really broken exploit, and those have cropped up in every one of those sets "allowable sources".
In Pathfinder Society, of course, it has its own list of allowed sources, and it bans many things in even the hardover Pathfinder books.
The main allowable source collections I've seen have been:
Much of the Pathfinder 3rd Party stuff is also great, however, and I think you'e doing yourselves a disservice if you ban them.
My own ruling is
So far (since Pathfinder came out) its worked out very well. The players get to use whatever sources they like, they get to play the kinds of characters they want to play, and I very rarely run into huge power disparities. When I do, it's usually been from the hardcover Paizo books anyways, so banning other sources would not have helped.
Nothing is going to fall apart if you allow almost every source, but you should know what abilities your players' characters have when you plan your game, and you should be comfortable with telling your players no if they took some combination that goes infinite or the like. It helps to skim through their abilities and make a quick note of any unusual abilities that are likely to come up, so that your plot doesn't collapse when they do.
As things come up that you feel are harming your game, be prepared to discuss with your players (between game sessions ideally) how/why you aren't comfortable with it, and try to work with them to rebuild their character without it.
However, if you disallow something, or change a rule, make sure you keep a record of it (preferably online somewhere your players can read it). Your players should be able to easily know what the rules are. Nobody wants to hear an option they have planned around is suddenly not available or does not work as described in the book.
If you can get your players to give you their planned 20-level progression in addition to their current level (In My Experience many players plan their characters all the way up long before they see the table anyways), then you can see if there's anything there you object to well before it comes up.
And having them post their character stats on Google Docs in some format you're okay with also means people can't lose their character sheet and that both you and the player have access to the character at all times.
I'd suggest that a character sheet template (I base mine on the bestiary monster blocks, but I know some of my players have preferred ones with sections based on the actual character sheet), copy it for each player, and share it with them/give them editing privileges. It makes them easy to find, and you can track the changes.
Liz Courts wrote:
The long wrap-around banner is not part of the logo.
Just to make sure I understand you correctly that the banner is not part of the logo; does that mean that the logo could be included like this, and that would be fine? Example Image. This seems almost the same as what Legendary did, but I went with blue instead of purple to make the change more obvious.
I'm not saying I intend to go with that (I don't think I would want to), but as an example.
What if there was no banner at all? Like This
To be clear, I'm not trying to push boundaries to be allowed special privileges or anything, I just want to know exactly where those boundaries are, since it seems some of the currently available products which I thought were breaking those boundaries are actually okay, so I would ather clarify in advance than do something I'm not supposed to.
My guess is that it's arcane, but with much being so naturey I wasn't 100% sure.
For instance, looking at the dryad, on the one hand, the SLAs are CHA based (Arcane) but on the other hand most of the SLAs come from the druid & ranger lists(Divine), but a couple come from arcanist sorcerer wizard (Arcane again).
I would imagine they are all divine or all arcane, but I was wondering which one it was.
My guess is arcane.
My objections to Tome of Battle revolve around my dislike of "Encounter Powers" and "X/Arbitrary Time Period" for anything I can't easily explain with "Yep, that's just how magic works in this setting".
I can't make much sense (in-character) as to why a barbarian/swashbuckler can no longer rage, but isn't too tired to keep using Grit points. I would be much happier if everything was moved to a single pool of "stuff you have limited access to" because then it could at least be "when you're too tired/you've used up your mana/ki/chakra"; or even better, keep making some kind of Save vs Fatigue rolls when you do stuff, and the DCs go up if you haven't had a breather/have done too many things without rest. Failed roll means you start taking gradually increasing fatigue penalties.
Obviously that isn't going to happen. But my point is that ToB took the part of the game I had the most problems with, and made that the mechanical premise of an entire book. That, for me, is the bulk of why I did not like ToB. It's also one of the major reasons I did not enjoy playing 4e (not the only reason, but definitely top 3).
Did it make the Fighters able to keep up with the Mages better, mechanically? Yes.
Thanks Liz, yeah that's what I was referring to. I just saw the bit of texture they added to the banner, and I was wondering if that was cool, or if it pushed the boundaries of what you the license described. Because if it's okay to keep the shapes and colors, but add a tiny bit of texture to the banner, I can make the cover look a bit nicer.
@Marc, when I say "Blend into the cover" I'm referring to having it look like it belongs on the book, rather than looking like some kind of sticker or an MS Paint copy paste job, or something.
Example Midgard Campaign Setting blends in like it's supposed to be there, while the logo on This PDF stands out like an ugly sticker. Also, it has a screwed up Aspect Ratio on the logo. I imagine it was by accident, but it's definitely an alteration of the proportions.
I agree Redward. I'm not saying this combo SHOULD stack (from an intent/balance perspective). I'm saying that I'm pretty sure, RAW, it currently does.
I also agree with you that if they change the general rule, rather than providing errata specific to this case, that opens a whole mess of consequences they'll also have to figure out.
@Marcus; none of that is very specific though.
What if steve and mike both build archery rangers, and I want to be able to accurately and meaningfully compare them?
I'm not sure what sort of industry you'e referring to, but it sounds like you're describing an industry where they can't take their measurements by running statistics. For instance, for car safety, they often crash many cars (crash test dummies) to collect data regarding the car's safety.
How would you choose a benchmark though? That's really the issue here. Is the benchmark Bob? Or is it Joe? And why is that benchmark meaningful? I mean I can see comparing different players classes, but that seems like a lot of work for little value to me.
The benchmark would be neither Bob nor Joe. The benchmark would be one that is designed to be able to take on 1/4 of four CR appropriate encounters, and by the last one, have the 50/50 chance of survival. The benchmark doesn't represent a specific character build, it would be a benchmark to compare all character builds against. The benchmark would be designed to meet specific odds of success and probabilities, based on the estimated CR guidelines in the books. In the case of the wizard, it would be a weak wizard. In the case of a rogue, it would likely be a highly optimized rogue.
This gives you a point of comparison to see how above or below the power curve you are.
Additionally, if there's a big disparity between players (an obvious one would be an optimized wizard and a poorly built rogue, but for less obvious ones would be where it would be helpful) this could help you see it before game so the guy lagging behind could be helped out to atch up a bit to the other players.
But; showing where Bob and Joe are on the power curve was the point from the beginning.
I've got no real interest in a broad generalization about how classes work in general. The tier system/niche system covers that well enough that I can guess, even if I don't have hard numbers to work with.
I'm interested in being able to say: "Okay. Bob built a Wizard. How does this compare in performance to our wizard(s) built specifically to match the game's power curve (the CR benchmark wizard)? How does it compare in performance to Joe's Wizard? How about if we look a bit further, and compare Bob's Wizard to Steve's Sorcerer, or Bill's Arcanist, or Mike's Master Summoner?"
That's useful in lots of ways; particularly if the measuring process is automated (you would have to be able to automate it for it to be useful, IMO). Have all of your party punch in their numbers into a computer program or spreadsheet, and be able to see any likely character power disparities, be able to see how much your party is above or below the power curve for all of the monsters (and therefore how much to adjust your encounters by, if you would want to), and be able to easily compare your party against any given set of encounters, and see their approximate odds of survival, how much of their daily/limited resources they'll have to expend to handle the encounters, and how long it will take for them to do so.
You could look at your party and say "I know they're highly optimized; so just how hard would they find this 3.5 module that's 2 levels above them?"
If you wanted to see how specific classes compared, I guess you could compare the most tricked out wizard you can build to the benchmark wizard, and you could have someone build some average competence wizards of the common types that crop up (evoker, conjurer, god-wizard) to see how they compare to the benchmark wizard. You could then keep those numbers, and run similar tests for other classes. Comparing those numbers, you could measure the raw power each class is capable of when well optimized, as well as the average power level of the class.
But again, that's much less helpful (IMO) than being able to compare various specific characters.
I wouldn't mind being able to punch in some numbers and see "would the party do better if our 6th player ran another fighter, or another bard", etc; and just how much better?
Just coming back to this thread. Are we now not comparing Bob's Wizard Build to Joe's Sorcerer Build? I thought that was precisely the point. To be able to compare specific character builds to evaluate their effectiveness, and have a bunch of pre-calulated metrics which they can be compared against, like "If your threat removal focused character can remove a CR appropriate threat on his own in 2 rounds, you're keeping up with the power curve". So you can see what areas you're ahead/behind the curve, and by how much.
I will, I guess, sit back and watch the random dungeon simulation and see if anything interesting comes from it.