Paizo Top Nav Branding
  • Hello, Guest! |
  • Sign In |
  • My Account |
  • Shopping Cart |
  • Help/FAQ
About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ
Sargogen, Lord of Coils

Darksol the Painbringer's page

5,889 posts (5,905 including aliases). No reviews. No lists. No wishlists. 2 aliases.


RSS

1 to 50 of 5,889 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

Forseti wrote:
I'd say since you forgo the dodge bonuses, you never have these dodge bonuses. So, they never get to stack. You can't stack things that aren't there.

If that's the case, then the feat doesn't even function because you're suggesting that there is no Dodge Bonus for the DR to be converted from, which means you have DR 0/-. I'd rather go with the interpretation that the feat actually does something, instead of creating some weird interpretation that leads to the feat being equivalent to Monkey Lunge or pre-errata Prone Shooter.

Even if it did work that way, you're still resulting in not gaining an equivalent amount of DR in comparison to the Dodge Bonus you gain from the two activities.

Re-reading the text, it actually sounds like you only forgo one Dodge Bonus set, and not both, so the idea that having a +2 Dodge Bonus to AC and DR 3/- (or vice-versa) is a lot more likely than simply losing all Dodge Bonuses gained from the activities for a mathematically sub-par benefit (and no, I'm not referring to DR being inferior to AC).


Forseti wrote:
I'd say Stalwart is the source. For both.

Disagree. Stalwart is the source for granting DR, but it's not the source for granting Dodge Bonuses to AC, which is what I'm contending.

The feat says:

Stalwart wrote:
While using the total defense action, fighting defensively action, or Combat Expertise, you can forgo the dodge bonus to AC you would normally gain to instead gain an equivalent amount of DR, to a maximum of DR 5/—, until the start of your next turn. This damage reduction stacks with DR you gain from class features, such as the barbarian's, but not with DR from any other source. If you are denied your Dexterity bonus to AC, you are also denied this DR.

Note the bolded part. If I normally get a +5 Dodge Bonus to AC from Fighting Defensively and Combat Expertise (since they both combine into the same type of bonus, Dodge), then stating that it only amounts to DR 3/- (or DR 2/-) is not gaining "an equivalent amount of DR" in comparison to "the Dodge Bonus to AC you would normally gain" from using both options.

It would make no sense for a character to have to choose between one of the two options he can take to benefit from this feat unless you're suggesting they can differentiate the two bonuses and affect only one (while keeping the benefits of the other), and in that case I find it dubious for that to be the intent behind the feat to permit.


Combat Expertise and Fighting Defensively aren't the same source, so that argument doesn't apply here.


Nope.

Razmiran Channel is a class feature, not a Bloodline Power. Just because it replaces the Bloodline Power you normally get, doesn't make it a Bloodline Power.


Hrothgar Rannúlfr wrote:

Hi, Sheepish Eidolon,

In looking at the 1st edition of the Astonishing Swordsmen and Sorcerors of Hyperborea, your solution of banning 7th to 9th level spells seems similar to its solution... 6th level spells are the highest (though it did have a hard level cap of 12th).

Your idea of only using the 7th to 9th level spell slots for metamagic is very interesting.

Thank you.

I wouldn't outright "ban" the 7th-9th level spells, I'd make the problem children spells more associated with special rituals that require specific components or activities to perform (since a lot of the 7th-9th level spells are out-of-combat and break the game anyway, such as Wish, Simulacrum, Demiplane, Gate, and so on). The other 7th-9th level spells can probably stay, since spells like Delayed Blast Fireball and Banshee's Wail aren't really that gamebreaking compared to an optimized Martial full-attacking (or Whirlwind Attacking) baddies.

Of course, cutting down the 7th-9th level spell lists considerably is certainly something that can help swing the pendulum's balance, but it won't solve the underlying issue with Magic being so ingratiated into the system that it's basically a requirement or your character becomes obsoleted (i.e. killed, early retiring, etc).


foggy1 wrote:

There are half a dozen arrows, including arrow (trip), that do no damage. They are listed as ammunition, not technically a weapon. Featherweight dart does no damage in the ranged category. the line gets thin.

But its the lasso, net, net (snag) that prove weapons can do no damage.

Fair enough, but those are listed in the weapons table.

Tower Shields are not.


Oh yeah, I forgot Weapon Focus has a BAB requirement. Stupid...


Master of Many Styles and the Unarmed Fighter archetypes were nerfed to only allow feats with the [Style] descriptor, of which only the first in the feat chain is constituted as, which means you have to meet the requirements normally after the first feat. So,

You're still going to need Weapon Finesse, Weapon Focus, and TWF in order to take the second feat, regardless of how you build, which means your suggested ideas aren't that great.

Dipping isn't that bad, you just have to outweigh the pros with the cons, and find dips that mesh extremely well with what you're currently going for.

My suggestion would be to take your first two levels in Unchained Rogue, since you get Weapon Finesse for free, and can take Weapon Focus or some other combat feat as a Rogue Talent (the Style feat chain are all Combat feats), continue as Vivisectionist Alchemist for two levels (stacking the sneak attack dice), then take your third level into Unchained Rogue, which lets you get Dex to Damage with your spear (since the feat gives you the ability to select your spear with Finesse Training). You can just continue with Vivisectionist Alchemist from there.

Suggested feat path:

1. Two Weapon Fighting, Weapon Finesse
2. Weapon Focus (Injection Spear)
3. Spear Dancing Style
5. Spear Dancing Spiral

If you could be Human, the bonus feat would go a long ways here, since you can have this build "online" by 3rd level instead of 5th level, a 2 level differential in the most played part of the game (1st-5th level).

With Human, you can simply do this:

1. Two Weapon Fighting, Weapon Finesse, Weapon Focus (Injection Spear)
2. Spear Dancing Style
3. Spear Dancing Spiral

You can be pure UC-Rogue until 3rd level, getting Dex to Attack and Damage with the Injection Spear (since Finesse Training only calls out a weapon that you can use Weapon Finesse with, which is possible via the Spiral feat), and then split into Vivisectionist Alchemist for stacking Sneak Attack dice while getting your other Alchemist goodies. Granted, you can't take the Weapon Focus talent since you spent a regular feat on it, it's not that powerful of a talent, and that can be solved if Retraining is allowed at your table (which, since feats like Spear Dancing Style are allowed, I imagine Retraining is allowed as well).

Also, because the Spear is a two-handed weapon, that's 1.5x Dexterity on damage rolls, which is pretty huge; not to mention with the option of going TWF with it due to Spear Dancing Style for racking up Sneak Attack, which grants Dexterity to damage all on its own (because it's still the same weapon) it's a very powerful and versatile combination.

**EDIT** Just saw that you need to spend proficiency for the Spear Syringe. That can be solved by taking the Swashbuckler UCRogue archetype, which automatically grants proficiency in a single weapon Martial weapon of your choice, of which the Spear Syringe qualifies for. You lose Trapfinding as a result, but the option to take the Combat Feat talent twice is also a nice addition if you decide the 4th level of UCRogue is worth it.


@ Cavall: Those rules were written before Shield Bossing was a thing, so the specifics of Shield Boss would overwrite the general rules regarding Tower Shields.

Shield Embossing wrote:

A shield boss is a sturdy steel device that fastens to the front of a shield, providing metal support struts that radiate outward from the center of the shield, reinforcing its structure. A shield boss can be added to a buckler, light steel or wooden shield, or heavy steel or wooden shield. Tower shields are too large for a typical shield boss, though one can be crafted to fit a tower shield for an additional 300 gp. Attaching or removing a shield boss requires 10 minutes of work and a successful DC 15 Craft (armor) check; on a failure, the shield boss is not successfully attached or removed and the shield takes 1d6 points of damage that bypasses any hardness.

A reinforcing boss provides extra protection to a shield, increasing the shield’s current and maximum hit points by 10. The boss makes the shield 10 pounds heavier and more unwieldy—if the shield imposes a penalty on attack rolls, as do bucklers and tower shields, the penalty increases by 1. Common improvements to the basic reinforcing boss include the following.

Based on the bolded part and the specifics in regards to the Hooked Boss, you're performing a Trip with the shield in question. So yes, you can perform it as a stand-alone Attack Action, as an Attack of Opportunity, or even as part of a Full Attack Action.

However, I doubt it would count as a weapon in this case though, since you still can't use that Tower Shield to attack for hit point damage like you can with any other weapon (or weapon-like object).


Chess Pwn wrote:
It's the GM's call when he wants to go into initiative. I'd rule that gaining a combat feat is aggressive enough to be worth going into initiative. Sure, most everyone is not going to be attacking since the negotiations are still going on. But make it really clear what's going on during this point that one character think a fight can start really soon.

Yes, it's the GM's call, which means it's not a hard rule.

Quite frankly, if I played by your rule, that means whenever a Wizard casts Mage Armor before entering a dungeon, I have to ask every player what they want to do for 6 seconds for HOURS UPON HOURS, because the Wizard was preparing himself for any potential traps or creatures that lurk within? Not only does that kill the pace of the game, but it's also an absurd requirement, especially when it's something as short as this, and not something with some potential ambiguity (such as minute/level spells or effects).


Chess Pwn wrote:
It lasts for 1 minute. It's showing that at least one character is planning on fighting. And once you plan on fighting I call initiative to see how it plays out round by round.

An effect or ability with a duration doesn't mean they want to initiate combat. That's the most absurd reason for a GM to say that combat begins.

Combat initiation is triggered based on hostile actions. Unless you can prove Martial Versatility is a hostile action, your basis for that claim is a houserule.


Per RAW, you can have any score (except Constitution) below zero, and you suffer the effects of having zero in that ability score.

Per RAI, 0 (or -5) is the lowest score that a creature can reasonably have, since the significant detriments outweigh the raw numbers.

Also, creatures immune to paralysis (such as from Freedom of Movement) would still be immobile and unable to move from 0 Dexterity, since the rule doesn't reference the Paralyzed condition.


Vidmaster7 wrote:
This was way more convoluted then I expected. (also I would not start a paladin alignment thread I don't need random people to tell me right and wrong)

Just because it doesn't start as a Paladin thread doesn't mean it can't be a Paladin thread...

More seriously, the falling rules aren't exactly accurately spelled out in terms of how fast you fall in relation to the remainder of actions you have prior to committing to falling, which seems like it could use some clarification.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ravingdork wrote:

Alright, let's make those assumptions.

11 base average damage
09 Strength (23)
03 Power Attack
==
23 average damage.

It still takes two hits to kill almost everything on that list, unless you get lucky.

The Strength damage is 10, since it's 24 Strength, not 23. Otherwise, it certainly trivializes the encounter, since that's 80% of their HP on a regular hit.

Of course, you could substitute the axe with any other two-handed weapon and the results would be practically identical, so it's obviously not a weapon issue.


PossibleCabbage wrote:
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
A Vital Striking Warpriest with this axe (who I believe gets proficiency just for choosing it for Weapon Focus) would be devastating, since they're the class that benefits most from Vital Striking (Weapon of the Chosen feat chain and 3/4 BAB while still able to select Vital Strike feats at class level), but for every other class that's either full BAB or can't easily get proficiency or feats in this weapon? Isn't particularly worth it.

I think this only works if there's a deity out there that has the Butcher's Axe as their favored weapon, since the WP gets auto-proficiency in their deity's favored weapon (generally redundant because they already have martial proficiencies) and the weapon of the chosen feats specify "When you use your deity’s favored weapon".

Assuming there's no deity out there who favors the Butcher Axe, I'm not so sure the vital striking Butcher Axe WP is a better choice than a Vital Striking Greatsword Gorumite WP. The latter gets the weapon of the chosen feats and the ability to Vital Strike on a charge and doesn't have to worry about spending a feat on proficiency. The damage is less absurd, but the accuracy and mobility is better.

Probably. I'm not 100% certain of Warpriest mechanics.

All I'm saying is that Warpriests are probably the only class that can make the most use of the weapon, and everybody else won't be able to simply due to proficiency or lack of BAB, or even both. The investment just isn't worth the ~3.5 damage differential, even with the most optimized of Vital Strike builds.

@ Ravingdork: While the table is helpful, it also exposes a glaring problem with how Nimble is quite niche and Double-Plated is either pointless (might as well move up to the next armor category) or basically if Armor were able to be classified as Exotic Weapons in the case of Heavy Armor, which is that it's sub-par and is basically a feat for +1 AC (at the additional cost of 2 MDB and increased ACP). In which case, feats like Armor Focus and Dodge are much more valuable, since they don't have the added baggage.


Ravingdork wrote:

Or is it simply "fine?" Don't feel like you need to go to an extreme if you don't feel it's warranted. I am opening this discussion in the hopes of better ascertaining whether or not the new book material is balanced or not, according to popular opinion.

I personally am excited to see some of the new items and rules, but a few make me wonder if they are balanced options.

Such as the new armor modification (1,000gp for mundane armor, 1,500gp for magical armor) that increases max Dex by 2 and ACP by 1, in return for -1 armor bonus and +5 lb.

This is something Dex characters have needed for a LONG time, but is it balanced?

How about a new exotic two-handed "butcher axe" that does 3d6 20/x3 base damage in return for a -2 to hit UNLESS you have 19 Strength (if Med) or 17 Strength (if Small)?

Still balanced? It seems to me we have some nice new toys for both Dexterity characters and Strength characters. Are martials finally getting some nice things? Or is this a bad sign of power bloat?

I'm curious to hear your thoughts on these and other new features of this intriguing tome.

To be honest, I think the options aren't really that good to warrant the added expenditures (in terms of value and feat opportunity costs), so balance isn't really an issue. (Then again, it's Paizo we're talking about, and we need to understand that their form of "balance" isn't the same as our concept of balance.)

The issue would stem from whether the options are going to be popular (too popular), or if they're just like feats such as Monkey Lunge, which are broken and just don't function, or if they're feats like Prone Shooter, which function but are so pointless to nab that they're not worthwhile to take. In other words, how many target audiences does the new material actually affect?

For the min-maxers, the new adjustments you've mentioned so far fall under the latter concept (i.e. Prone Shooter). They function, but they aren't really worth the cost (or penalties) for the benefits you gain. For the more casual players, they appear nice to have, and as such would be more desirable for them. However, the other problem then becomes that players who are casual probably won't be looking for options like these unless they're really desperate to shore up their character flaws.

Let's take, for example, the armor modification(s). A truly min-maxed Dex build would preferably use an armor that doesn't have a Maximum Dexterity Bonus, since even if you're using Darkleaf Leather Armor with the modification, a +12 Dexterity Bonus, they're still going to be losing out on some dexterity bonuses to AC. Hell, several Dex builds would actually rather have Bracers of Armor over any type of armor, since the Bracers of Armor do add more raw AC compared to other armors that can accommodate their unbelievable Dexterity. Which means the armor modification doesn't really help true min-maxers.

But would the armor modification prove useful for someone who isn't a min-maxer, has a decent Dexterity, and wants to make full use of it? Sure. That Fighter/Barbarian/Paladin now doesn't have to sacrifice base Armor bonuses to make use of his higher-than-expected Dexterity modifier. In short, it's helpful for secondary-statted characters, but useless/pointless for primary-statted characters.

Next, we have the new weapon, which is basically a non-flavored/re-flavored Minotaur Axe that deals Large Greatsword damage with a Greataxe multiplier, and has a minimum Strength requirement (AKA, you need to be min-maxed to fully appreciate this weapon). It's effectively an exaggerated transition from a Longsword to a Bastard Sword with the worse range (but better multiplier) of a Greatsword.

However, the factor that it's an Exotic Weapon (which means you have to spend a feat or suffer even more penalties), that you need a minimum score to properly wield it (usually exclusive to Composite Bows), and that the only key difference between this axe and a Greataxe is 1D6 (aka the equivalent of a Flaming/Frost/Shocking/Corrosive property benefit), you're still hard-pressed in justifying spending a feat for 1-6 damage.

Granted, it's a much better transition and more worthwhile than, say, Longsword to Bastard Sword, and it works better with Vital Strike builds due to the increased base damage, the problem becomes that the expenditures, for the most part, aren't worthwhile unless you can effectively get them hard-built into your class.

A Vital Striking Warpriest with this axe (who I believe gets proficiency just for choosing it for Weapon Focus) would be devastating, since they're the class that benefits most from Vital Striking (Weapon of the Chosen feat chain and 3/4 BAB while still able to select Vital Strike feats at class level), but for every other class that's either full BAB or can't easily get proficiency or feats in this weapon? Isn't particularly worth it.

So, I find that at best, the new options you've listed (so far) just better help niche builds function more competitively, which can be a good thing, but as far as it being completely unbalanced and changing the dynamic between min-maxing martials, it's quite dubious to say that is indeed the case.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I'd ask him about his motivations for playing a Paladin. If it's about class features, he can take a class that has similar features (Oracle, Cleric, Warpriest), and use that as a chassis without having to deal with the ideal of falling from grace. If it's about the idea of being the "better character," then that can be easily compensated with appropriate roleplay, with little in-game consequence.

While a Paladin is very sturdy, so are classes like Barbarians and Bloodragers.


I already provided the intent source: We have multiple abilities and rules that state that reducing an Armor Check Penalty never brings it to a positive score; it is always a minimum (wouldn't it be maximum in this case?) of zero.

The reason being as to why that is, is both because A. People can pick the lightest armor and have ridiculous bonuses to Dexterity/Strength-based Skill Checks with little to no investment in them, and B. If you have a positive Armor Check Penalty, then it is no longer considered a Penalty, due that it doesn't subtract from the check/statistic, it adds to it.

A Maximum Dexterity Bonus is basically the inverse of an Armor Check Penalty in terms of mechanics and statistical adjustments, which means if you have a negative Maximum Dexterity Bonus, then it's no longer considered a Bonus, due that it doesn't add to the check/statistic, it subtracts from it.


Calth has the right of it, per RAW.

It's the same reason why, for example, an Armor Check Penalty can't ever be +1, even if you can effectively have it at +1, because it no longer becomes an Armor Check Penalty, but an Armor Check Bonus, which is both absurd and against RAI.

Also, here's the Maximum Dexterity Bonus entry, from Core:

Maximum Dexterity Bonus wrote:
This number is the maximum Dexterity bonus to AC that this type of armor allows. Dexterity bonuses in excess of this number are reduced to this number for the purposes of determining the wearer's AC. Heavier armors limit mobility, reducing the wearer's ability to dodge blows. This restriction doesn't affect any other Dexterity-related abilities.

So, we know that in every case, it refers to itself as a Bonus, and not a Penalty, which means anything that subtracts from the value instead of adding to it, based on the definitions provided in the Getting Started section in relation to common game terms, ceases to become a Bonus, and therefore no longer follows the rules regarding Maximum Dexterity Bonuses, which means you're heading into houserule territory.

My suggestion? Keep is simple, stupid. This is something that we don't need to needlessly complicate, especially when the intent and RAW is quite clear that Maximum Dexterity Bonuses do not go below zero, and Armor Check Penalties do not go above zero.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Was expecting this to be a Paladin thread.

It's sad that I associate Paladin alignment threads with actual falling threads...


Nature Soul, Animal Ally, and Boon Companion feats are all you need, and you have a character-level-scaling mount, without having to dedicate class features to it.

You can even have your mount be more exotic than the typical horse, such as a lion/tiger, or a wolf, both of which are flavorful and cool for those non-typical mounted fighters.


Nope.

Referencing the actual class feature in question:

Diversity Training wrote:
An eldritch knight adds his level to any levels of fighter he might have for the purpose of meeting the prerequisites for feats (if he has no fighter levels, treat his eldritch knight levels as levels of fighter). He also adds his level to any levels in an arcane spellcasting class for the purpose of meeting the prerequisites for feats.

The bolded part is quite clear that it only works for meeting feat requirements; nothing else. I highly doubt it's a typo since it uses identical wording multiple times (twice, to be exact).

So, if I was a Myrmidarch Magus 10/EK 10, I could take feats like Greater Penetrating Strike, since I'd be considered a 17th level Fighter (the Magus and EK levels are equivalent to Fighter levels in this case), but not feats like Extra Arcana (Bane Blade), since I do not meet the Magus level requirement to take that Arcana, which the Eldritch Knight's Diversity Training does not help with, since it's only concerned with meeting feat pre-requisites, and not Arcana pre-requisites, which is what you aren't meeting with taking a feat like Extra Arcana (Bane Blade).


ViConstantine wrote:
Im building a knight in my spare time for fun. Id like to avoid being dedicated to a god and focusing on mounted combat if possible. Mounted combat would be a bonus if it were possible but id rather not just be like a cavalier for example. I would like to build the straight up fantasy knight, the save the princess/prince, kill the monster, help the people, serve the king kind of knight. Magic would be a bonus but its not always a possibility. What kind of knights would you guys build? What suggestions do you have?

If you are looking for classes that actually explicitly rely on mounts, then the others make good suggestions in relation to Paladins (who can get a Mount as a Divine Bond), Cavaliers/Samurais (scaling mount, the latter being more Eastern-flavored), some Druids (Horse animal companion), and Sohei Monk (though it doesn't actually get a proper mount as a class feature, it does have extremely powerful class features for mounted combat, and it gives a monastic feel instead of a monarchic one).

Of course, you could honestly build a mounted character with any sort of class as long as you take the Nature Soul and Animal Ally feats for a scaling Horse mount. Granted, you can't have a mount until 4th level, it requires 2 or 3 feets, and it'll be weak starting out (until you get the Boon Companion feat), classes with bonus feats can reduce the impact of such requirements.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

You're overgeneralizing my statement. I didn't say they don't care about the game as a whole. Obviously if they didn't, they'd do nothing more with it and move on to something they do care about. (People can speculate that's the case with Starfinder, but I personally doubt it since I imagine they'll still publish Pathfinder content; it makes more sense that this is merely an expansion of their company than it is moving onto a different style of game.)

What I mean is that they don't care about the game the same way we do (which has multiple implications besides intensity). They might not care about balance in regards to X, but when it comes to Y, they'll react so fast that it (can) cause(s) more damage than it helps. (Think of Caster/Martial disparity as X, and Y as Dexterity to Damage, just for one example of common correlation.)

To expand on that even further, they might not care about things like the Caster/Martial Disparity because it's a problem well beyond their ability to fix (without introducing a brand new edition with a completely revised set of rules), or they might not even believe that such a problem exists or is relevant to their product, because all it is to them, is a common term used to express a theoretical/hypothetical sense of balance that isn't founded except in the rough drafts of personal character sheets that hasn't commonly approached at official Paizo-ran tables (i.e. PFS). Ironically enough, several of these "gamebreaking" options just outright don't exist in PFS (since it caps off at 12th level, the level where the Caster/Martial Disparity is assumed to start taking place), and as far as we know, PFS is the only Paizo-endorsed agency that actually runs Pathfinder, which means that it will always be that hypothetical balance concept that won't ever reach the developers' ears (or eyes, in this case).

While I understand your point of not letting my personal concepts cloud what most other people see, there's one other problem with that belief: other, numerous consumers agree with, or even at the very least understand the concerns I pose in relation to the balancing they've done for options, which makes this much more than just a personal concept that I refuse to acknowledge that it has changed. (I actually always acknowledge changes, it's just that I might disagree with the reason and purpose behind said changes; there is a difference.)


You mean Chaotic Stupid, right? I mean, if he's borderline Evil, but we're playing him up as "not-evil" in an attempt to skirt the alignment system in that he loves killing and torture and pain, but not unless somebody says "Yo momma so fat" to him, then let's be realistic: he's Evil to a T. Anyway...

If you're seriously adamant about not wanting to retire as a 3rd level character with that kind of money, then I'd suggest you get a +10 Weapon (AKA +5 Enhancements with +5 in special abilities). The special abilities can be anything you want, really, but some solid ones (depending on build) are Keen (spares a feat on Improved Critical if this is the only weapon you plan on using), Fortuitous (works with Combat Reflexes if you can create provocations on your own), Ghost Touch (just because it's magic doesn't mean it won't work on incorporeals with full force), Defiant (greatly reduces the odds of losing your weapon, also works with Improved Iron Will/Reflexes/Fortitude feats), Impact (improves damage dice, but depends on what weapon you use), and Menacing (improves flanking bonuses for allies, giving them more incentive to work with you).

You could work on getting the Big 6 (Belt of Physical Perfection +6, Cloak of Resistance/Amulet of Natural Armor/Ring of Protection +5, +10 Armor/Shield) instead, but I think having a powerful weapon like that is both in-character (your favorite "murdering tool"), and probably the most beneficial to you (since the game favors offense more than defense, and the +10 weapon is the best you can get offensively).


3 people marked this as a favorite.
HoloGnome wrote:

It has to be OK for designers to be able to make changes, if, in their estimation change is necessary for balance, to correct errors, etc. We shouldn't end up making assertions that Paizo is changing existing items merely to force people to buy new books. I'd rather observe that Paizo is actively working on our behalf to publish lots of great, new content, and is working to ensure a consistent, balanced gaming experience and has our best interests at heart. It's not an error-free process, and it's not easy to evolve a campaign over time to ensure that it stays fresh and interesting. It's amazing that Pathfinder will soon be entering its 9th season!

Further, no matter how good anyone might be as a designer, it's impossible to understand all the myriad ways that something might be used (or even abused) over time as content evolves or how it might impact every type of encounter. And, as a highly creative "crowd computer," the player base will always go in search of total range of feature function, find exploits, reveal where design imbalance exists, or show where there is need for improvement. Enjoy the limited-run power when it occurs and while it lasts, then remember the good old days of the fabled multi-crit Jingasa!

Gamer: "Haha! I am totally immune to your compulsions, can block your crits and sneak attacks, and can see through every wall in your dungeon with my amazing gloves! I laugh at your paltry encounters and attempts to surprise me!"
Designer: "True...sort of...I guess...did we really do that?" <giant eraser rubbing noises>

Logistically, when an item changes and is reprinted and you own the original source of the item, I don't think there is any imperative, PFS or otherwise, to have to buy the new source to continue using your item. But, as others have stated, for PFS, at least, you do have to follow the change once it is formalized in "Additional Resources (or elsewhere - blog, campaign clarifications, errata, FAQ, etc.)," and the various lists handle most cases. And, as above, if you don't like the change, rebuild or resell with no penalty! That part of the policy is simple enough.

Finally, relating to certain AG changes, the Clear Spindle at 4K with a CL12 Prot. Anything is still a great deal when you compare it to other once/day items like the Horn of Goodness for 6.5K that is only a CL6 Circle of Prot. Evil. Don't leave that circle!! Up! It's a chaotic creature!

There's a fine line between "balance" and "turn into useless garbage that shouldn't have been published in the first place." Paizo rarely does the former, and often does the latter, usually out of kneejerk reactions to PFS complaints, because PFS is their biggest source of playtesting. I'm looking at you, Crane Style, Master of Many Styles Monk, and Jingasa, three perfectly solid, flavorful, and cool player options turned to garbage because of PFS complaints (that should've just been solved in PFS in the first place).

I wouldn't go so far as to say that rules changes are made so that players can buy books. *sees Scarred Witch Doctor nerfs as Occult Adventures was released with the Kineticist class* But I can understand why people would make such a claim, and if the cycle repeats with an option being nerfed to increase the attractiveness of another option in a future book, all that does is perpetuate their claim further.

Nobody's saying they understand the myriad of ways that the game is broken. In fact, people say the exact opposite, that they don't understand, or even that they don't care. (I'm actually one of the people that says it's the latter.) It's the #1 reason why the Caster/Martial disparity exists, and also possibly why PFS doesn't really exist past 12th level, because A. They don't know it exists (or don't care that it exists), and B. If they tried to fix it, the game probably still wouldn't be published.


PossibleCabbage wrote:
graystone wrote:
If it works like unchained, that that in itself is an answer. "These classes can be used alongside their original counterparts", so that would mean both versions are official and correct. That's different than saying 'this officially replaces any instance of this this rule'.

It just feels like this is sort of like asking the PDT "Should I use the Advanced Player's Guide or just the Core Rulebook?" At some point you just have to make an executive decision about the game you're running (unless you're in PFS and someone will just tell you.) No rule in any book that no one at a given table actually owns or has read should ever be considered mandatory, IMO.

This whole thread to me strikes as sort of a "One True Way" thing, as in "the one true way to play Pathfinder is to use the new Lore Warden, never the old one, strike it from your memory." This may not be the intent, I may just be sensitive because that's the opposite of what I want. Whatever way of playing you and your group enjoys playing Pathfinder is the right way to play it, even if you're using the wrong Lore Warden.

That's not what's being asked, read the thread title again, then come back and see if that's the same question as what you've given.

What's (effectively) being asked is "How can I know whether an option is simply reprinted (and effectively functioning as errata, see Fencing Grace) or was just created as an alternative set of mechanics to follow?"

And that's honestly a very valid question worthy of a FAQ. The problems with it actually getting answered are twofold.

First, answering it is a Damned-if-you-do/don't situation. If Paizo answers it, they're damned for condemning players to effectively succumb to a d&+#&ead GM that is shoehorning a player's character options because it's "more official and recent." If Paizo doesn't answer it, then we're having people wondering what the heck to do in these situations, because they think "GM FIAT" isn't an appropriate answer.

Second, the most accurate answer will probably say it will vary based on the situation, though perhaps a general rule would be that options with similar or identical wording and intent for currently existing options (which is very difficult to judge, since this is Paizo we're talking about here) are most likely to be considered publishing errata. Slashing/Fencing Grace and Lore Warden Fighters are probably the most notable of examples, and probably will serve as precedent for such concepts.


This would be mostly a GM FIAT call, since the rules aren't particularly clear.

I will say that he can't voluntarily stop flying until the next round, since he'd have to make his fly checks for the round to charge, bite, and grapple the Wizard, which would allow the Wizard one chance to escape before the effects of not flying takes place, either through breaking the grapple check, or escaping through other means.

Of course, if the Wizard fails, then yes, they'd fall the 200 feet, and take 20D6 damage (both of them). Since the Dragon (you really think we couldn't deduce what kind of creature could do this?) is purposefully falling, he could make Acrobatics checks to reduce the damage he takes, but being big and bulky and probably not having Acrobatics ranks, would be doubtful to accomplish.

Realistically, I doubt a Dragon would risk taking 20D6 damage to defeat a Wizard who can very well survive that damage with the help of magic, especially since that Wizard has friends to help save his skin. He'd be better off trying to outright eat him, since the Wizard's Strength is piddly (meaning cutting out of the dragon's gullet is mostly futile), and it's much more difficult to escape through magical means.

Sometimes the Wizard should realize that, to a Dragon, he's a nice tasty magical snack.


PossibleCabbage wrote:
Wei Ji the Learner wrote:
The problem is that there is a conflict as things have been stated, and it could have a dramatically poor result on organized play. This is why clarification is requested.

Isn't that an issue for the organized play officials to address, rather than the PDT?

It seems that the PFS decision-makers are going to be able to come to a decision on this a lot quicker than the PDT will, at least (we're still waiting on a bunch of more pressing FAQs). Plus, this seems to be an issue that only really affects organized play.

PDT should still address it because you will have "RAW is the LAW" tables who won't budge an inch unless the PDT says so.

Granted, there are probably worse problems at play at such a table; still, it'd be nice for them to bring this up.


Snowlilly wrote:
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:

That's all kinds of incorrect.

For starters, modifiers on a given roll doesn't mean you're changing the actual roll that the dice gave you. If that was the case, then if I rolled a 10, then having a +10 to hit means I rolled a Natural 20, and could potentially critically hit an enemy. You know how silly that sounds? Because that's exactly what you're perpetuating here with that claim, since mathematically speaking, that's what your claim is permitting me to do. Which is obviously unintended.

Furthermore, Power Attack does not increase the damage dice of the weapon like Lead Blades or Enlarge Person does, it simply adds a flat modifier to the total damage dealt by the melee attack at the expense of reducing the attack roll modifier. That's all it does. Nothing more, nothing less. Saying Power Attack affects your damage rolls the same way Lead Blades or Enlarge Person does is a disingenuous argument that is absolutely not reflected in most every statblock that Paizo has published, which means you're still clearly in the wrong.

I don't disagree with the way things have been run to date. I simply point out what your reinterpretation of Power Attack leads too.

The RAw states:

Weapons wrote:
Extra damage over and above a weapon’s normal damage is not multiplied when you score a critical hit.

If we assume Power Attack is an effect that modifies normal weapon damage, Power Attack is multiplied on a critical hit and it falls under monk IUS rules for enhancing natural weapons.

If we assume Power Attack does not modify normal weapon damage, modifying only the result of the dice roll, the damage bonus is not multiplied on a critical hit.

Quote:

And while we're on the topic of Monk Unarmed Strikes, it's time to play a game of "spot the difference" between what the rules say, and what you keep saying:

A copy of what I actually posted earlier

Monk wrote:
A monk’s unarmed strike is treated as both a manufactured weapon and
...

Clearly, you do, otherwise you wouldn't be making such a big deal about people stating Monk Unarmed Strikes are not Natural Weapons of any kind, primary or secondary. (If they were, they'd also be mentioned in the Natural Attacks Universal Monster Rules table. Just saying.)

Relevant FAQ says your citation of the weapons entry exception is wrong, and further clarifies what that statement means. In short, Power Attack is multiplied, because it's a damage bonus, not damage dice.

Also, Critical Hits determining how Monk Unarmed Strikes function like Natural Weapons is a strawman argument, because nobody suggested that crits prove or disprove that Monk Unarmed Strikes aren't natural weapons, and they're by-and-large irrelevant, so I suggest you pick another avenue of defense, because it's currently thoroughly broken through.

I know what you posted earlier. I also know what you're trying to get at, but the problem is that nobody can reach that conclusion without drastically altering what the entry actually says, and how similar that entry is to other entries that say you "treat X as Y for Z" that also disallow that sort of combination.


TimD wrote:
PossibleCabbage wrote:
Specifically if Paizo came out and said "The Lore Warden in the Pathfinder Society Field Guide doesn't exist anymore" what is that going to actually affect? PFS was likely going to do that anyway (so didn't need Paizo to weigh in) and everybody else is free to just ignore what Paizo says and use any version of the Lore Warden they want.

Except that, that's not true at all. If Paizo hadn't reprinted the Lore Warden, PFS would likely have kept using the archtype as it was / is from one of the several books that was published partly specifically for PFS (I'm relatively sure it was a Core Assumption product for PFS for Season 4 or 5).

Unfortunately, however, PFS now has the tendency to rule that any updated versions now replace any print versions that you are required to have in order to play PFS rather than allowing either version or grandfathering older versions as they once did (ex Osirian, Land of Phaoroahs' Living Monolith).

The other issue that arises is that while this is rules content under open source and therefore something many players would have access to online in home games, Paizo, d20pfsrd, and Archives all generally only show the most recent rules revision - there is no legal option to find older materials, so if the GM has for example a 1st printing copy of something (and is using those rules) and a player wants to have access to the same rules material, there is no legal option for them to obtain said rules. (The Adventure Path ACG and 2nd printing ACG being the most glaring example of rules divergence between printings, so a Magus with Slashing Grace would operate VERY differently between those versions of the same product).

I'm likely biased however, since the only reason I purchased most of the Paizo product I own was for PFS and the choices that Paizo is making to reprint and revise rules material from softcovers to hardcovers devalues my softcovers (and AP ACG) and erodes my faith in Paizo's ability to maintain a...

Honestly, the only defensible way for this to not be true is that PFS wanted to only nerf the archetype instead of ban it, but guess what, a lot of archetypes and options which aren't anywhere near as powerful as Lore Warden are still banned, either for flavor, alignment, or balance reasons, which means PFS being in the "nerf but don't ban" camp is highly unlikely, and quite unprecedented to say the least. At worst, it's just wishful thinking that's just asking to get knocked out of the ballpark of expectations that Paizo and PFS have.

Even then, PFS could've just as easily banned the old Lore Warden, then when the reprinted Lore Warden comes out, they'd mandate that usage of the archetype (because the other was either banned prior to or after the new version's creation), so it's not a question of "Does Paizo intend for the current Lore Warden to replace the old Lore Warden," it's a question of "How long do I have to play the old Lore Warden before PFS decides to overwrite/ban it?"

This one of the biggest reasons why I don't play PFS (the actual biggest being that nobody hosts PFS in my area), and while I don't want to discourage people from enjoying PFS, I can assure you that people who do play PFS would, at the very least, call this a raising concern to their enjoyment of the playstyle.


If characters aren't proficient in the armor or shields they employ, the armor check penalty on their equipment also applies to any attack rolls they make.

That Barbarian is not proficient with either Full Plate or Tower Shields without spending feats, which means he has a whopping -16 to his attack rolls. Which means even with a 1st level Barbarian with 20 Strength and Rage, and even a Masterwork Weapon and Weapon Focus, his attack rolls are still at a whopping -6, which means even with rolling a 19, he's hitting AC 13 at best. That's not even including the flat -2 attack penalty that Tower Shields employ, which makes this even worse.

Same argument goes for the Cleric. Granted, Clerics can contribute with spells and Channel Energy, it's only 1st level, which means both their spell repertoire and their Channel Energy uses are extremely limited.

Sure, their AC is high, but they don't do jack all for contributing to combat because of it, which means they're playing turtle tactics, something which a smart enemy/creature can learn to ignore after a round or two without repercussions from the turtlers.

I say the GM lets them roll with it. Have the bad guys get smarter and realize that their increased armor only means they can be dealt with last, because they otherwise pose no significant threat. When the casters are the first to die because the other "tanks" aren't keeping the threat, they'll learn their lesson, that turtling is just a bad thing to do in a game like Pathfinder.


Snowlilly wrote:
Brain_in_a_Jar wrote:
Snowlilly wrote:
It is well within context. Monks only have one type of attack that is treated as a natural weapons, IUS. The quoted RAW provides a default classification of primary when a combatant has only a single type of natural weapon.

No.

A Monk's Unarmed Strike is only treated as a natural attack for "spells and effects that enhance or improve".

The section your quoting from is neither a spell or effect that enhances or improves.

** spoiler omitted **1. Power Attack is an effect that changes weapon damage.

2. The effect is positive in nature for the user; it modifies the damage quality of the weapon in a desired manner.

That's all kinds of incorrect.

For starters, modifiers on a given roll doesn't mean you're changing the actual roll that the dice gave you. If that was the case, then if I rolled a 10, then having a +10 to hit means I rolled a Natural 20, and could potentially critically hit an enemy. You know how silly that sounds? Because that's exactly what you're perpetuating here with that claim, since mathematically speaking, that's what your claim is permitting me to do. Which is obviously unintended.

Furthermore, Power Attack does not increase the damage dice of the weapon like Lead Blades or Enlarge Person does, it simply adds a flat modifier to the total damage dealt by the melee attack at the expense of reducing the attack roll modifier. That's all it does. Nothing more, nothing less. Saying Power Attack affects your damage rolls the same way Lead Blades or Enlarge Person does is a disingenuous argument that is absolutely not reflected in most every statblock that Paizo has published, which means you're still clearly in the wrong.

And while we're on the topic of Monk Unarmed Strikes, it's time to play a game of "spot the difference" between what the rules say, and what you keep saying:

Quote:
A monk's unarmed strike is treated as both a manufactured weapon and a natural weapon for the purpose of spells and effects that enhance or improve either manufactured weapons or natural weapons.
Quote:
A monk's unarmed strike is treated as both a manufactured weapon and a natural weapon for the purpose of spells and effects that enhance or improve either manufactured weapons or natural weapons.

The former is what the rules actually state. The latter is what you're trying to interpret the former to mean. The fact that I have to cut out all of that text to reach your conclusion should be a telling factor that your interpretation is way off-base.


James Risner wrote:
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
You can't enhance something you can't make.

Got a rule for that?

The only thing you need to make an Equalizer Shield is:
Requirements Craft Magic Arms and Armor, antimagic field; Price 60,930 gp

Just like the only thing you need to make Boots of Speed is:
Craft Wondrous Item, haste; Cost 6,000 gp.

You still can't make it because you're requiring making something that, by the rules, you just cannot create.

If you're telling me Mithril Tower Shields are impossible, then a specific magic item that is listed as a Mithril Tower Shield is still impossible.

Until you can prove that Force Tower is a specific AP item that (for whatever reason) was converted as a generic specific magic item for use at any table, you're effectively saying I can create the +1 Keen Longbow from the one AP you mentioned, but not any other version (even adjusting it to a +2) of that item.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

You can't enhance something you can't make.


James Risner wrote:

Saying an example of a whole class that cast all spells as targeting themselves with spells that only target objects on their class spell list is a straw man isn't helping. It's an example of "some times rules conflict".

You don't seem to be interested in discussion, your mind is set and you seem unwilling to accept reasons why things are as they are.

But it is a strawman (as far as I can tell). The issues with Extracts in relation to what spell effects can and can't be replicated is both not relevant to special materials on crafted items, and even if it somehow was, isn't really defensible towards the argument that I made.

The argument I make is that Force Tower is a published example of a Mithril Tower Shield that currently exists, but outright should not exist in the first place. GM Rednal posted another example (though it's not part of the RPG Rulebook line) that fully quantifies the properties of Mithril in relation to Tower Shields. And yet, apparently it's not legal, because Tower Shields, according to the Gamemastery Guide, can NEVER, EVER, EVER, EVER, EVER, BE MADE OUT OF ANY SORT OF SPECIAL METAL. No Mithril, no Adamantine, no Cold Iron, no Fire/Frost-Forged Steel, no Elysian Bronze, no Gold, no Living Steel, no Viridium...hell, anything that says it can be worked "like metal" is likewise not permitted in any instance that can possibly be conceived.

I (and the rules) don't care if you're the GM and houserule it to work, the fact of the matter is that you have to houserule it to make it work, which means you're not playing by the actual rules of the game. Which means according to you, Force Tower does not exist as an item, should never exist as an item, and therefore should be errata'd into a version that's actually workable (i.e. Darkwood).

Even with you stating that "they're special items," they're not AP-Specific like the Keen Longbow that was mentioned (which disregards and invents rules just for the AP anyway), they're generic items published in official hardcover rulebooks that can be adapted to any game or table, as is, with no changes to be made to it whatsoever, which means you're still left with the reality that Force Tower, as an item, should never have been published due to it being illegal to craft, and by relation, acquire, because as an item, it doesn't, and cannot, exist.

Also, I'm certainly interested in discussion. For example, I personally think that the Force Tower item's publication in Ultimate Equipment might serve as a precedent for "stealth-errata" in relation to the Gamemastery Guide's permittance of metallic tower shields, and that because Ultimate Equipment is the latest publication in relation to this matter that its application takes precedent (which means errata for the Gamemastery Guide should be reflected to accommodate this apparent change). I'm curious as to what makes you think that this isn't anything different from other means of them "stealth-errata"-ing this sort of option.


Diego Rossi wrote:
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
The rules include the option of Mithril Shields. Tower Shields are Shields. Therefore, if a Mithril Tower Shield was possible, it'd use the Shield cost. Even without a FAQ, the rules would tell us this, and all you're doing is perpetuating Schrodinger's Tower Shield, where it is both a shield item and not a shield item at the same time.

It is a [b]wooden[b] shield. By the rules, you can substitute steel or iron with mithral, not wood.

PRD wrote:
Items not primarily of metal are not meaningfully affected by being partially made of mithral.

So, a tower shield that is primarily made of wood (there is some metal rivets in it, probably) is in no way meaningfully affected by being made of metal.

If you want to pay 1,000 gp for no meaningful effect, do it.

If you want to have a meaningful effect you need to follow a different route.

BTW, I love the hypocrisy of blasting someone for presenting a hypothesis based on RL arguments, when in you Op you said:

Darksol the Painbringer wrote:


However, the argument that you can make Tower Shields out of metal is quite simple: There are numerous items that, realistically speaking, if made out of metal, still function identical to their non-metal counterpart.

Seriously you base your argument on RL and blast people for doing the same?

I suppose that coherency is for the others.

Still doesn't explain why there's a tower shield published in the RPG Rulebook line that explicitly states it's made out of a special metal (when it's not supposed to be). At best, it's a typo because they might have meant Darkwood, but then the pricing for the Force Tower doesn't reflect the cost of Darkwood, which means that's improbable. In either case, errata is needed.

Sure, it's hypocrisy...to the untrained eye. I "blasted" you for using real-world calculations when we have published material that betrays that concept, which means using real-world calculations to prove your point just simply doesn't work, because the example items we already have disprove those theories.

@ James Risner: Referring to the Alchemist Extract list to support the argument that the Force Tower is a unique item that cannot be replicated is both irrelevant and (possibly) a strawman.

Referring to APs (which largely contain illegal material that is not published in any RPG Rulebook product to-date) and PFS (which has their own set of rules and interpretations of existing rules) to support the argument that the Force Tower is a unique item that cannot be replicated doesn't make any sense because it has no correlation to the RPG Rulebook product line.

A quick cursory search of Ultimate Equipment in terms of Specific Magic Armor/Shields and Weapons only mentioned gauntlets once, in the Demon Armor entry, and only states they attack as if they were +1 weapons, dealing 1D10 damage, and apply a crappy Contagion spell on attack. But that's specific to the armor, and the item is not in and of itself a +1 Gauntlet, which means this is either made up or it exists in APs or PFS, neither of which are hard rules for the actual Pathfinder game.

Do you realize how silly you sound when you effectively say "You can't make Mithril Tower Shields except if you're creating a Force Tower, and it otherwise doesn't exist until the item is fully complete."? That's the most outrageous thing I've ever heard in regards to magic items that it makes 2,000 gold Constant True Strike rings sound more sane than what you just basically described.


Diego Rossi wrote:
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:

Good lord, I cannot believe the amount of disregard for the rules we have in this post.

You're applying real-world calculations to a system that is A. Mostly abstract of such concepts, and B. Doesn't use accurate real-world concepts for whatever they do implement from the real-world (such as Gravity).

If we went with the idea that Steel is ~8 times the thickness (and by relation, weight) of a Wooden item, then items like a Light or Heavy Steel Shield would weigh just as much as if you were using a Tower Shield, or even wearing Stoneplate Armor. Steel would also have 8 times the hit points in comparison to their Wooden counterparts, assuming they're made of equal thickness.

But, if you compare the entries in the Armor tables, you'll notice that the weight, hardness, and hit point increase does not reflect the numerical value changes you presented, which means the developers did not factor the weight increases with real-world calculations, so your calculations are all meaningless here.

Also, Mithril Shields of any type default to a flat 1,000 gold increase, so you don't calculate the price based on weight like you would for items that aren't generally listed on Mithril's table cost.

First. we don't have a rule to substitute not listed materials, so we should use RL measurements. I based my estimations with the aim of keeping the same weight. A reasonable choice, I think.

Second, what the *** are you saying with "If we went with the idea that Steel is ~8 times the thickness (and by relation, weight) of a Wooden item,"? Have you you read what I wrote? I am keeping the same weight, and that require us to reduce the thickness. You claim that I am doing the opposite.

Third. there is no rule about substituting mitrhrail for wood in a wooden item. So you can't say "Mithril Shields of any type default to a flat 1,000 gold increase" when the rules don't include at all the option of a Mithral tower shield.

Paizo didn't have a rule, yet they made Light and Heavy shields have Wooden and Steel variants, none of which add up to the calculations you presented, which means any real-world measurements in relation to determining wood and steel weight don't apply to this game. So, the "~8 times the weight" argument is factually disproven by published material in the Core Rulebook.

I did read what you wrote. You're trying to quantify the system of creating a metal Tower Shield by reducing the thickness of the item in an attempt to make the weight identical, when we have a published item that does the latter without doing the former, which means your calculations, even by adhering to real-world measurements, doesn't match what Paizo calculated.

There is no hard rule for it, hence why I made a FAQ thread, because I feel something like this should have a hard rule, especially when we have two sources of information that contradict each other with no indication as to why that is outside of (at-best) speculation.

The rules include the option of Mithril Shields. Tower Shields are Shields. Therefore, if a Mithril Tower Shield was possible, it'd use the Shield cost. Even without a FAQ, the rules would tell us this, and all you're doing is perpetuating Schrodinger's Tower Shield, where it is both a shield item and not a shield item at the same time.


No, it's not. The example you gave is something specific to an AP.

That specific AP item is not published in any core rulebooks, which is what makes it a "custom magic item."

Force Tower is not in any specific AP item (to my knowledge), and is published in a core rulebook, which means the idea that it "deviates from past rules" can't be right, because that item would still adhere to Core Rulebook rules, which Gamemastery Guide is one of.


Keep in mind that Clustered Shots is more valuable for a Crossbow character than a Longbow/Shortbow character since there is a lot more different types of Arrows than there are Bolts, which means the options for Crossbow characters (i.e. Bolt Aces) for penetrating DR aren't anywhere near as good or effective.

This is true for aspects other than overcoming DR, such as Trip Arrows, Bleed Arrows, and so on, and I'm baffled that there aren't identical options for Crossbow characters.

Personally, I blame Lord of the Rings; most specifically Legolas, since such characters overshadowed the concept of Crossbows being potentially cool or viable for Pathfinder.


James Risner wrote:
Garbage-Tier Waifu wrote:
It's entirely nonsencial for a tower shield to not be allowed to be metal outside of stringent rule environments like PFS. :/
As is always brought up but often discounted, Wood weights significantly less than mithril. Making a shield big enough to provide cover out of mithril would weight a lot more than a wooden one. The magic could be considered to provide assistance to the weight aspect that a masterwork one could not.

Except the published Force Tower uses the standard weight of the Shield while being made out of metal, hence the Mithril component and the weight reduction (50%), when doubled, equals the standard Tower Shield weight.

We also don't have text stating it merely has Mithril qualities (such as in the case of Celestial Armor/Shields), but instead text that outright states it's made of Mithril.

Which, according to the Gamemastery Guide, is both illegal to craft from scratch (due to not being able to create a Mithril Tower Shield, the equipment that Force Tower is based off of) and impossible to find (due to the aforementioned reasons as stated prior).

You know, I'd think you of all people would understand that the item is either wrongfully published and therefore needs to be errata'd to a legal item (such as a Darkwood shield), or the rules from the Gamemastery Guide need an errata to reflect the implications of published items such as this.


Diego Rossi wrote:
Cantriped wrote:

Regarding the weight of wood versus metal. The item will only weigh more made from metal instead of wood if they are both made from an equal volume of said material.

Objects made from metal instead of wood can often have much less volume, yet still achieve greater levels of physical durability. So in theory a Steel Tower Shield might weigh the same or even less than a Wooden Tower Shield, while potentially having superior hardness as well.

cannen144 wrote:
Yeah, in Chapter 5 of the Gamemastery Guide, table 5-5: Random Shields, the special materials listed for Shield, tower is Wood.

That is a fairly explicit ruling. From a RAW perspective I'm satisfied with that answer. Thanks for the citation!

Interestingly though, that same table lists Buckler's as being Wood or Steel. Which is both news to me, and also contradicts their description in Ultimate Equipment (which describes them as being a metal shield). Also interestingly, Studded Leather is considered Metal for special materials, so you can have Mithril or Adamantine Studded Leather (but not Dragonhide) in addition to those materials which explicitly mention they can be made into studded leather (such as Angelskin, Darkleaf Cloth, and Eel Hide)

Part of the effect of a tower shield is its actual size, not only height and width, but thickness too.

Steel weight 7.5-8 times what wood weight. To have the same weight you need to reduce thickness by 7.5-8 times.

So, let's look what happen.
Tower shield Hardness 5 Hit Points 20
Steel Tower shield Hardness1 10 Hit Points 20/(7.5*10)*30= 8 hp

(Wood has 10 hp for inch of tichness, Steel 30

No, it is not better if it is made of steel. It is worse.

Mithral 15 hardness hp 0/in. of thickness
It weight half of a equivalent item made of steel

Mithral Tower shield Hardness 15 Hit Points 20/(3.75*10)*30= 16 hp

A Mithral tower shield is better. But really pricey, as you need 22.5 lbs of Mithral.

And you still end with a shield that...

Good lord, I cannot believe the amount of disregard for the rules we have in this post.

You're applying real-world calculations to a system that is A. Mostly abstract of such concepts, and B. Doesn't use accurate real-world concepts for whatever they do implement from the real-world (such as Gravity).

If we went with the idea that Steel is ~8 times the thickness (and by relation, weight) of a Wooden item, then items like a Light or Heavy Steel Shield would weigh just as much as if you were using a Tower Shield, or even wearing Stoneplate Armor. Steel would also have 8 times the hit points in comparison to their Wooden counterparts, assuming they're made of equal thickness.

But, if you compare the entries in the Armor tables, you'll notice that the weight, hardness, and hit point increase does not reflect the numerical value changes you presented, which means the developers did not factor the weight increases with real-world calculations, so your calculations are all meaningless here.

Also, Mithril Shields of any type default to a flat 1,000 gold increase, so you don't calculate the price based on weight like you would for items that aren't generally listed on Mithril's table cost.


Lord Foul II wrote:
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
Lord Foul II wrote:
Also my build totally has enough feats to make picking up eldritch heritage (orc) totally viable
The Orc Bloodline powers are meh, which makes the Eldritch Heritage feats meh.

really? Immunity to fear, bonus to natural armor an eventual untyped +6 str and a special large size transformation for more Str is "meh"?

(The first power is damn near always meh)

First off, you have reduced progression, and you won't get Fear Immunity until much later. The Natural Armor bonus is decent, but starting out it's the equivalent of a Dodge feat. Later on, it's an Armor of the Pit equivalent, which is better but for some it's still questionable for taking.

Second off, the Strength Bonus is Inherent, so it won't stack with a Manual (or 5 consecutive Wish spells). It'll save you money from getting a manual (since it's actually better), but there comes a point where it won't stack. The size bonus will hinder you defensively, but boost you offensively, and even that varies.

Lastly, both combinations you suggested will function better being Dexterity-based than Strength-based, since Dervish Dance is a thing, and I imagine you'd take UCRogue over the classic Rogue like everyone else does. Which makes ANY of those Strength bonuses useless, since all they'd do for you is give carrying capacity.

Trust me, I know when something is "meh."


Lord Foul II wrote:
Also my build totally has enough feats to make picking up eldritch heritage (orc) totally viable

The Orc Bloodline powers are meh, which makes the Eldritch Heritage feats meh.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Of course, my favorite Triple Gestalt combination is Man/Bear/Pig...


Fair enough. However, the Orc Bloodline (with Blood Havoc and eventually Blood Intensity, adding +2 damage per dice and additional dice equal to Charisma) combined with the Magus' mechanics would one-shot any potential baddies he comes across.

Bonus points if you have a flexible GM who allows the Blood Arcanist to have access to Bloodline Mutations, since you can boost your CL and Save DCs even further, and take things like School Understanding (Admixture) so you can effectively bypass immunities/resistances altogether for more net damage.


Ciaran Barnes wrote:

Ask your GM.

;)

Tell that to PFS, and you'll see a bunch of angry faces.

That's why I made this thread.


@ Lord Foul II: It'd be easier to go Orc Blooded Sorcerer/Eldritch Scion Magus/Scaled Fist Monk, so that you're purely Charisma-based, and you have all of the basic stuff from each class meshing quite well.

Similarly, an Empyreal Sorcerer/Druid/UC Monk would be pretty powerful. Full Arcane and Divine Spellcasting, Monk Goodies, Wildshape Goodies, and so on. Tack on VMC Barbarian, and you can do anything except disarm magical traps. (Because Rogues gotta be able to do something that nobody else can...)


James Risner wrote:

Ok so I'm on board now with Tower Shields can only be Wood, but Force Shield is Mithril and magically made to function like a Tower Shield.

Nothing supports the bolded part.

You can't have magic mimick special materials, especially when the description makes no indication of such.


Chromantic Durgon <3 wrote:

Draconic Sorcerer/Oracle Dragon Mystery/Scaled Fist Unchained Monk

Full Bab/ All good saves/Divine Charisma Casting/Charisma Arcane Casting/Charisma to AC and Stunning Fist/Bonus Feats a whole bunch of other stuff

Dragon's wish they could be like you xD

Bonus points for splitting the Draconic Sorcerer levels for Dragon Disciple levels, for increased hit dice and other goodies.

1 to 50 of 5,889 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

©2002-2017 Paizo Inc.® | Privacy Policy | Contact Us
Need help? Email customer.service@paizo.com or call 425-250-0800 during our business hours, Monday through Friday, 10:00 AM to 5:00 PM Pacific time.

Paizo Inc., Paizo, the Paizo golem logo, Pathfinder, the Pathfinder logo, Pathfinder Society, Starfinder, the Starfinder logo, GameMastery, and Planet Stories are registered trademarks of Paizo Inc. The Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pathfinder Adventure Card Game, Pathfinder Player Companion, Pathfinder Modules, Pathfinder Tales, Pathfinder Battles, Pathfinder Legends, Pathfinder Online, Starfinder Adventure Path, 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.