Diego Rossi's page

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Card Game, Comics, Pawns Subscriber

1 person marked this as a favorite.

It is "Daily Readying of Spells", "daily allotment of spells", "A wizard can cast only a certain number of spells of each spell level per day. His base daily spell allotment is given on Table: Wizard." and so on at libitum.
Always "daily", never "between periods of rest".
If you need to go to the "I am capable to regain spells every time I rest" route to confute Aelryinth you are in deep trouble.

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Card Game, Comics, Pawns Subscriber

1 person marked this as a favorite.

For now there is no rule about how much stuff you need to enchant something.
Tehre are generic guidelines:

Armors:
To create magic armor, a character needs a heat source and some iron, wood, or leatherworking tools.

Weapons
To create a magic weapon, a character needs a heat source and some iron, wood, or leatherworking tools.

Potions
The creator of a potion needs a level working surface and at least a few containers in which to mix liquids, as well as a source of heat to boil the brew.

Rings
To create a magic ring, a character needs a heat source. He also needs a supply of materials, the most obvious being a ring or the pieces of the ring to be assembled.

Rods
To create a magic rod, a character needs a supply of materials, the most obvious being a rod or the pieces of the rod to be assembled.

Scrolls
To create a scroll, a character needs a supply of choice writing materials, the cost of which is subsumed in the cost for scribing the scroll: 12.5 gp × the level of the spell × the level of the caster.

Staves
To create a magic staff, a character needs a supply of materials, the most obvious being a staff or the pieces of the staff to be assembled.

Wands
To create a magic wand, a character needs a small supply of materials, the most obvious being a baton or the pieces of the wand to be assembled.

Wondrous items
To create a wondrous item, a character usually needs some sort of equipment or tools to work on the item. She also needs a supply of materials, the most obvious being the item itself or the pieces of the item to be assembled.

A lot of items require a heat source, something that I wouldn't allow in a rope trick (potions are a possible exception if you have a alcohol cooker or something similar, I think that the heat source should be appropriate to the kind of item worked) but other masters can feel differently.

Same thing for the equipment needed. working on a sword would require a small anvil, an hammer, chisel and similar stuff capable to etch symbols on the blade.

Working on a cloak would require some way to embroider it and so on.
So depending on what you want to do you need more on less stuff. It is possible to craft something with a small kit that you can keep in your backpack, but what you can work would be limited.

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Card Game, Comics, Pawns Subscriber

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Ascalaphus wrote:

A +4 Greater Rod is worth so much because it lets you do metamagic that should be "impossible".

Yes, I understand.

Quote:

The logic behind the pricing isn't "how many feats does this equal", but "at what level should this be affordable".

Feats/level is a linear progression. WBL isn't. Trying to express the value of a feat in money isn't going to yield sensible results.

Yet the designers didn't pull numbers out of their hat. They have a rational for a +0 level minor = half a feat, that +1 level minor rof = a feat or that +4 levels greater rod = 56 feats.

The dev have have give a value to metamagic rods, but there is no sign that that is based on the value of a feat, as metamagic feats are very different from what the rods do.

A item giving the feat would allow you to memorize or spontaneously cast an unlimited number of spells as if you had the feat, opaying all the costs of using the feat and with all the limitation of using the feat.

You are trying to discern a pattern with the assumption that the price of the rods is based on the price of a feat, but there is no proof that that assumption has any validity.

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Card Game, Comics, Pawns Subscriber

1 person marked this as a favorite.

*chuckles*

Wow, I really did just copy and paste the suggestion someone else posted. I thought they were good options and did not see a middle option. I figured a bit more guidance as to what I thought they meant was needed but I do not see how that is bias.

If Paizo's boards were more flexible I would add a middle "2.5" option although I really do not see the need. I think that most 2.5 people really fall into #2 or #3 based on the descriptions they give.

In my opinion, one person who said 2.5 went on to describe what amounted to option #2 while another poster who put down 2.5 went on to describe what amounted to option #3.

I have not made any attempt at putting valuations on other people's concepts. I only sought to answer the question from the other thread: Is there a consensus?

While I cannot say there is a clear consensus I can say that nobody has selected option 4 and only one person has come close to selection option 1.

Anyhow, like it or not, favorite or not, there was no bias on my part. (Note: that was a happy accident of rhyming.)

- Gauss

You see, gauss, your "guidance" is the problem with option 3.

This option means that you will heal primarily but not exclusively.

With you heal primarily you have moved the position of option 3 and opened the need for option 2.5.

The chasm between:

2 Healing in combat is a very bad use of resources and should be a last resort.
This option means that you will normally perform other actions in combat but will save a comrade from dying if it comes to that.

3 This option means that you will heal primarily but not exclusively.

is too large.

The guidance for 2.5 could be "this option mean that you try to keep your party members health to level in which a routine attack from the enemy will not down them in one round."
Especially at low level it is not always possible but it is a option.

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Card Game, Comics, Pawns Subscriber

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Fast Movement (Ex): At 3rd level, a monk gains an enhancement bonus to his land speed, as shown on Table 3–10. A monk in armor or carrying a medium or heavy load loses this extra speed.

I don't have the 5th printing at hand, but I doubt it is different. So it isn't "base speed" but specifically land speed.

@StreamOfTheSky: AFAIK the base speed of a creature is the speed listed under its entry in the bestiary. The bestiary specify to what for of movement that base speed apply.
You can have multiplòe base speed: a land base speed, a flying base speed, a climbing base speed.
Most creature have only 1 form of movement and don't have any form of movement that isn't listed under their entry, so no dwarf burrowing speed unless a spell or special ability give them that.

To make an example:

Grippli
from statblock Speed 30 ft., climb 20 ft.
....
Grippli Characters
...
Fast Speed: Gripplis have a base speed of 30 feet and a base climb speed of 20 feet.

and just to be clear about the burrowing speed:

Speed: The creature's land speed, and additional speeds as necessary for the creature.

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Card Game, Comics, Pawns Subscriber

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I do see one GM related issue: style mismatch.

Forcing a tactical style on players who don't enjoy it (and aren't statted for it) is bad form.

Particularly if your players have communicated that they aren't having fun.

Might want to drop the 'GM vs Players' mentality and move to the next scene.

The monsters should play stupid because the don't want to think?

What is the next step? They should have 1 hit point because having to hit them more than once is boring?

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Card Game, Comics, Pawns Subscriber

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Question wrote:

Majuba wrote:

Question wrote:

Wow that seems pretty expensive...1,000 for a level one spell?

Yep - that's why spellbooks are so valuable - they have the knowledge already distilled down into a useable form.

But the market value of a spellbook, and scrolls, is only a tiny fraction of that.

Like, the cost of a level 1 scroll is 25 gold or something?

Because it's already a known spell.

Take a real-world example:

An existing spell is like a car. All the legwork and research has already been done, and the basic mechanics are all understood. You can buy the parts for it, guides on how to build one, etc. and so the costs - in both time and money - are limited in doing so.

A new spell would be like making an anti-gravity hoversled. It's all hypothetical, it's never been done before; the tools you need to build it, or even to research it, would have to be built from scratch. Therefore, it's far more expensive - in time and money - to create it, even though both are modes of ground transportation.

AFAIK, building a car from its components is more costly that buying a factory made one.

I would compare:
- buying a existing spell from another wizard to buying a car from a salesman
- developing a spell that already exist but which you can't find to building a common car from its components
- developing a totally new spell to building a formula one prototype.

You are always making a car, but the difficulty and cost increase exponentially with each step.

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Card Game, Comics, Pawns Subscriber

1 person marked this as a favorite.

No, the pearl don't give you a new spell slot, it recall a used spell, a specific one that you have used that day.
So you can use a second level pearl on a shocking grasp only if you have memorized the shocking grasp in a second level spell slot and you have spent that specific spell.

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Card Game, Comics, Pawns Subscriber

2 people marked this as a favorite.

mplindustries wrote:

Read it with the clear intent of the material:

"The creature hit is unharmed (by having it's life force absorbed)."

The weapon itself obviously still deals damage.

And your exploit likely does not work. Name an 18-20/x2 weapon made of wood. Go!

Ironwood Scimitar.

...

Also, small Fauchard.

Silent Satrun wrote:

@Quantum Steve: Where are you getting a bag of unconscious rats?

Put a trap in the tavern cellar baited with cheese laced with a sedative. Every level 1 adventurer knows that there is no shortage of rats in tavern cellars.

Only if you are a bard.

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Card Game, Comics, Pawns Subscriber

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Sean K Reynolds wrote:

However, as there is no option for us to say "this post is a mess and we can't suss out exactly what you're asking," it's possible it may have been marked answered-in-FAQ to purge it from the list (otherwise it would sit in the list forever... the only options for clearing flags are "answered in FAQ," "answered in errata," "not an error/no staff response needed," and "create new FAQ entry for this") with the expectation that a clearer version of the question is in the queue.

We could create a "question unclear" flag... or any other flag that you think helps you do your job!

The information Sean gave us will help a lot with our posts and FAQ flagging.

Vic, two other things could help us if you can add the to the forum:

1) the ability to un-FAQ a post, i.e. remove our FAQ flag. In some instance I have flagged a post with a FAQ request and later someone has show me that there was a reply in the rules or a developer post that resolved my doubt. Removing some obsolete flag could clear the queue a bit;

2) the ability to see a list of the post that we have FAQed. If 1) can be done it will help us in removing unwanted flags and even if that can't be done it will help us in trying to avoid duplicates.

Thanks to you and Sean for the informations and support.

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Card Game, Comics, Pawns Subscriber

1 person marked this as a favorite.

SKR wielding = using.

Wielding means "actively trying to use the item," and is normally only used in the context of weapons or weapon-like objects such as rods, wands, and so on.

Otherwise, it's just an item you're holding/carrying.

And if you're not holding/carrying/bearing it, you're probably wearing it, or it's stowed in a sheath or backpack.

And if you're not wielding, holding/carrying/bearing, or wearing the item, it's probably unattended.

If you're wielding a sword, you're trying to hit people with it.

If you're holding or carrying a sword, you just have it on your person, perhaps because your fighter buddy dropped it and you didn't want him to lose it.

You probably can't wear a sword.

If you're not wielding the sword, holding/carrying/bearing the sword, or wearing the sword, it's on the ground.

Spell Combat doesn't call out requiring a manufactured weapon. Both Unarmed Strikes and Natural Attacks are light weapons.

"Are treated as" [for two weapon combat] isn't the same thing of "are".

Maybe it is meant to work with unarmed combat, surely not with natural attacks.

BTW, if natural attacks are light weapons, this piece of the rules is meaningless:

Creatures with natural attacks and attacks made with weapons can use both as part of a full attack action (although often a creature must forgo one natural attack for each weapon clutched in that limb, be it a claw, tentacle, or slam). Such creatures attack with their weapons normally but treat all of their available natural attacks as secondary attacks during that attack, regardless of the attack's original type.

Replace "natural" with "light weapon" and see what you get:

Creatures with light weapons attacks and attacks made with weapons can use both as part of a full attack action (although often a creature must forgo one light weapons attack for each weapon clutched in that limb, be it a claw, tentacle, or slam). Such creatures attack with their weapons normally but treat all of their available light weapon attacks as secondary attacks during that attack, regardless of the attack's original type.

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Card Game, Comics, Pawns Subscriber

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Ravingdork wrote:

CWI does not double your wealth. That's a common mistake I often see from posters.

In you example CWI, it saved you 112,250gp, giving you a net worth of 146% of the expected wealth by level.

I don't think you are going to find many feats that are more effective than an extra 46% wealth.

Or comparing the two sample builds. Is it really that much of a toss up between Greater Spell Focus Abjuration and Craft Wonderous Items? I know which one I think is more powerful and its not even close.

The crafting feats require more in game time to become powerful than immediately adjust the DC of some of your spells. it is a trade off between an immediate benefit and a long term one (same thing for the choice between weapon focus and a crafting feat).

That said in the long run a crafting feat is more powerful, especially if you allow custom items. Even if they are well balanced in price and power they are still items that are tailored for your character and campaign.

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Card Game, Comics, Pawns Subscriber

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Removing from the components of the spell "a piece of the copied creature" changed Simulacrum a lot.
If you are the GM I suggest to reinstate it.

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Card Game, Comics, Pawns Subscriber

6 people marked this as FAQ candidate. 1 person marked this as a favorite.

The spell with a range of self or a target of you lack a Sawing throw line, but with the advent of alchemist it has become possible to make then into infusions and hit a enemy with them.

That mean that even the most powerful enemy, with the best protections against magic can be killed by a successful touch attack and a standard attack using skinsend. If done right the enemy has almost no hope to avoid this fate.
Even Panacea, a first level spell, will put you into a sleep state and allow for a Coup de grace.

For even more "fun" skinsed will work upon golems, undead and oozes.

Even without a alchemist in the party it would be possible to buy a skinsend infusion from a alchemist and put it in a syringe spear, so almost any group can have this handy combo.

Done the other way you can give your golem plenty of self buffs if you give it a few infusion in the form of oils.

I think that all (or almost all) spells with a target of you or a range of self need a saving throw line like this one:

Saving Throw Will negates (harmless); Spell Resistance yes (harmless)

substituting Reflex of Fortitude to will where appropriate.

If you agree please hit the FAQ button.

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Card Game, Comics, Pawns Subscriber

1 person marked this as a favorite.

The shield is teleported in your hand.
But:

- Buckler: This small metal shield is worn strapped to your forearm.
- Shield, Light; Wooden or Steel: You strap a shield to your forearm and grip it with your hand.
- Shield, Heavy; Wooden or Steel: You strap a shield to your forearm and grip it with your hand.

so all the shield need to be strapped to your forearm to be usable.

And:
- Ready or Drop a Shield
Strapping a shield to your arm to gain its shield bonus to your AC, or unstrapping and dropping a shield so you can use your shield hand for another purpose, requires a move action.

say that you need a movement action to don a shield properly.

So you would teleport a shield to your hand and then you would have to use a movement action to don it.

Ad that the buckler [the only shield in the CRB that allow you to use your hand to fight while donning it] say:
"You can also use your shield arm to wield a weapon (whether you are using an off-hand weapon or using your off hand to help wield a two-handed weapon), but you take a –1 penalty on attack rolls while doing so. This penalty stacks with those that may apply for fighting with your off hand and for fighting with two weapons. In any case, if you use a weapon in your off hand, you lose the buckler's AC bonus until your next turn. You can cast a spell with somatic components using your shield arm, but you lose the buckler's AC bonus until your next turn. You can't make a shield bash with a buckler."
and that that can be extended to say that if you have used a arm to fight you can't use a shield on the same arm for a AC increase till the next round and this trick will not work.

If you really want to do it you can use a quickdraw shield [nuked from orbit in my games] to get the same result in a cheaper way.

As often happen a basically cool idea [being capable to don your shield in a speedy way] was ruined by people that want to exploit it to benefit from fighting with a two handed weapon and getting the AC bonus of a shield at the same time.

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Card Game, Comics, Pawns Subscriber

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Coridan wrote:

James Jacobs wrote:

Damon Griffin wrote:

Coridan wrote:

I really hope she is not yet another hot female patron for the PCs.

James, could you speculate on what Coridan has against hot female patrons?

I could, but I won't.

You don't need to, I ranted about it in the snows of summer GM thread =p.

In any event...

She will be hot; she's a succubus after all.

She will not be a PC patron. More akin to a potential ally.

She's also not gonna dress to show off the skin, as most succubi do.

Pleas, keep a iron fist around the heart of the artist painting her. If her image end like the majority of those on Rule34 or similar sites it will be a big minus on the whole AP for me and I think a few others.

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Card Game, Comics, Pawns Subscriber

2 people marked this as a favorite.

It is in the rules:

Performing a Combat Maneuver: When performing a combat maneuver, you must use an action appropriate to the maneuver you are attempting to perform. While many combat maneuvers can be performed as part of an attack action, full-attack action, or attack of opportunity (in place of a melee attack), others require a specific action. Unless otherwise noted, performing a combat maneuver provokes an attack of opportunity from the target of the maneuver. If you are hit by the target, you take the damage normally and apply that amount as a penalty to the attack roll to perform the maneuver. If your target is immobilized, unconscious, or otherwise incapacitated, your maneuver automatically succeeds (treat as if you rolled a natural 20 on the attack roll). If your target is stunned, you receive a +4 bonus on your attack roll to perform a combat maneuver against it.

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Card Game, Comics, Pawns Subscriber

1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. 1 person marked this as a favorite.

Do people still think they can get an extra melee attacking using spell combat in conjunction with spellstrike?

People know that when using spellstrike you can exchange the free touch attack that you get casting a spell with a range of touch with a free weapon attack and for short say that you get a free melee attack.

- * -

Frostbite, like all the spell working like chill touch is a bit strange when speaking of held charges.
They aren't single touch spells whose charge is held but spell with multiple touches. In 1st and 2nd edition it was clear how they worked, they had a duration in touches and they would last until the touched were used up. Then 3rd edition introduced the held charge but never explained if the chill touch line of spell is subject to that rule or if the specific text of the spell supersede it.
That whole line of spell would benefit for a rule clarification.

That said, it will not grant a free attack in the round after the one in which it is cast. On the other hand it can be delivered multiple times in a round if you have multiple iterative attacks.

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Card Game, Comics, Pawns Subscriber

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Midnight_Angel wrote:

1) (according to PRD) "A succubus drains energy from a mortal she lures into an act of passion, such as a kiss. The succubus's kiss bestows one negative level. The kiss also has the effect of a suggestion spell, asking the victim to accept another act of passion from the succubus."

1) A succubus can choose not to do special attacks when she lures a victim into an act of passion, yes. If you trust her not to do that after you ask her not to, you deserve the negative levels you're about to get, though.

When having a with a succubus you use protection, that is the function of extended Death Ward!

:P

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Card Game, Comics, Pawns Subscriber

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Well, you make a point, but the OP’s story seems to be changing a lot as we criticize him. Or maybe ‘clarifying” , but I’d like to hear from the weretiger and DM.

Or maybe you are viewing it through your experience (as we all do) and adding and removing bit and pieces on that basis. I have read the same posts and got to a set of conclusions that are almost diametrically opposites to yours.

From my point of view several of your post glossed over things that the OP has already explained to attack him on what is your perception of the situation. Again from my point of view, you seem to forget the explanations and exaggerate the problems.

I have no doubt that you see the situation from the opposite point of view and think that we are taking the OP explanations without questioning them. Our different experiences at the gaming table color our perceptions of the OP posts. We can only try to be as objective as possible.

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Card Game, Comics, Pawns Subscriber

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Buri wrote:

How's it empty?

I think he is making a point (and a good one) that sound waves are rather irrelevant to telepathy.

It is half a jest and half a real question.

To make and example, we have a guy with 6 strength , 6 constitution but 20 intelligence and 18 in wisdom and charisma that speak telepathically to you.

His mind voice sound will have the wheezing and feeble tone of his physical stats or reflect the strong force of his mind?
There is no rule about that so every GM is free to decide differently.

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Card Game, Comics, Pawns Subscriber

2 people marked this as a favorite.

"Act naturally but don't try to do me or any of our companions any harm."
Seem acceptable as they share a common language and can communicate complex concepts.

Edit: as she don't know who is "me"

"Act naturally but don't try to do any harm to your companions."

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Card Game, Comics, Pawns Subscriber

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Geno wrote:

Avatar-1 wrote:

Unfortunately the situation sounds a bit biased towards you, it'd be good to hear the other side. Everyone is right about how mind control can hurt groups though - OOC, you are making a player sit there and watch instead of playing, unless she can roleplay her mind controlled character well.

Well, actually, that's the thing. In-game, her character had to get the mental OK to do anything, but my character was so fast at giving it that there was no delay in her actions. So, for OOC purposes, the only time she was effected was when she said, "I'm going to ____" and I replied, "No. No, you're not." Which happened very rarely, often no more than once a session.

I'd simply say "I will not accept this" and wait for the DM to stop it one way or the other. If it means me leaving, so much the better.

So disrupting the other players game is allowed, having your game disrupted isn't? Truly CN, but not a good way to keep a game going.

The weretiger is making the other player actions meaningless, so she is not without blame at all. She is actively disrupting the campaign for her whims, I don't see why, if she is allowed to do that, she feeel that doing that to her isn't allowed.

I still think it will end badly and the best option is to scrap the campaign.

As previously suggested, perhaps the best thing to do would be to leave her to explre the surrounding area when you're meeting with auhorities or certain influential individuals.

From what Geno said it is a social campaign, so she would be sitting in her chairs, doing noting and fuming for plenty of time, exactly the same situation as being dominated.

She is a square peg in a round hole. The other players should accommodate to her a bit but she need to do most of the work, as she is one and can't pretend that all the other players should follow her whims.

I had a player like that: "I want to play a Cthuluesque campaign with evil characters". Other players and GM "We want to play a campaign were we are mostly heroes and in no way we want clerics that are cultist of outer space horrors or similar things.", "Ok". Within three levels he would convert to be the follower of some outer space horror, use the most inappropriate spells on most party members (dominated, pah, try being entombed in a jade coffin for your safety, or being covered with green slime to protect you from a swarm). After several characters and years of playing we have banned him from our RPGs.

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Card Game, Comics, Pawns Subscriber

1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. 1 person marked this as a favorite.

What crafting requirements can you bypass by adding +5 to the DC of your Spellcraft check?

As presented on page 549 of the Core Rulebook, there are no limitations other than (1) you have to have the item creation feat, and (2) you cannot create potions, spell-trigger, or spell-completion magic items without meeting their spell prerequisites. So racial requirements, specific spell requirements, math requirements (such as "caster level must be at least three times the enhancement bonus"), and so on, are all subject to the +5 DC rule.

—Pathfinder Design Team, 02/22/13

So the recent FAQ cited above has specified that it is possible to bypass the "caster level must be at least three times the enhancement bonus" rule when enchanting items taking a +5 to the DC of the enchanting check.

Now I have a question about that.
How the +5 to the DC is applied?

It is a flat +5 independently from how many caster level are missed?, i.e. a 3rd level crafter can make a +5 sword (that would require a level 15 crafter) taking a +5 to the DC?

It is a +5 for missed level?
I.e. a 3rd level crafter making a +2 weapon would have a +15 to the DC while a 5th level crafter would have a +5 to the DC?

It is a +5 missed crafting tier?
i.e. if you want to make a +5 sword that require you to be level 15 (5*3) but you are only able to make +4 swords (level 12-14) you get a +5 to the DC, but if you are only able to make +3 swords )level 9-11) you get a +10 to the DC and so on.

Any idea?

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Card Game, Comics, Pawns Subscriber

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Sean K Reynolds wrote:

Starbuck_II wrote:

Im curious: Since we don't have FAQ indexing power, we can only push the FAQ button, how many unanswred FAQs are there for every answered FAQ?

What ratio are we up to?
1/4?

Can I count the hundreds of threads that are flagged by one person for simple, obvious-answer questions like "Do I really have to take Power Attack before I can take Cleave?" and "Do I really have to craft my sword with a +1 enhancement bonus before I can put flaming on it?" And all the threads where people hit "FAQ" on questions like "Who is responsible for nerfing butterfly swords?" And the threads where people FAQ post #1, #3, and #20 of the very same thread? And FAQ-flags for things like "can an alchemist add cleric spells to his formula book?"

All kidding aside Sean, given the choice, I'd rather you instead take that time and energy and answer maybe the top ten questions that are FAQ'd and come up over and over and over but never get answered.

However, even saying that, I think you are teetering precariously on the edge of "feeding the trolls" here and it might not be a bad idea to fall back on the default "Devs don't respond to direct appeals" mantra and let this particular thread die a slow, ugly death.

Sean question is a very valid one. Someone has to look any one of those flags to decide if they are worth considering or not.

Even spending only a minute reading and considering each new FAQed post to flag it internally as "meaningless", "not urgent", "urgent" or "vital" [categories mine, in no way they reflect internal flagging from Paizo] ours supposed rule guy would be spending one or more hours every day simply sorting between the new FAQ flags.
It is a Sisyphean task, with the same question reappearing again and again, even after they have been resolved.

- * -

An important part that people seem to forget is that good FAQ can't be made by a Developer alone. He need to discuss them with other developers and make sure that the resulting FAQ is incorporated in all future products, even those already in the last stages of development.
There are plenty of rule problems that are born by people working on a product and using a personal interpretation of how a rule work or not knowing that a FAQ has been made on that subject.
Proofreading a book help there, but at some point you must send it to the printer.

So, let's try and agree what the top 10 questions are! Just give me a moment to get Shallowsoul, Ashiel, TOZ, Beckett, Piccolo, 3.5 Mentalist and Master Arminas here. I'm sure it will take us 5 minutes to reach full mutual agreement on what the most burning issues are and Sean will profit greatly from the resulting level-headed discussion.

LOL. good point.

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Card Game, Comics, Pawns Subscriber

1 person marked this as a favorite.

My big problem is not with them taking time to do things.

It is with them saying FAQ/Errata is important, and then it obviously not being important. If it's not important, then just come out and say so. I feel insulted when people keep saying 'This is important' and then it takes them a year (I am not kidding, go look at the Monk Flurry thing) for them to get around to answering it.

It seem you have never written anything that should be read by a lot of people and hopefully comprehended by all of them in the same way.

That page of answer can take days of work, especially if you have do see what are the consequences of your FAQ.
You really want FAQs that require new FAQs to explain them?

Recent example: in which order you should resolve the attacks when fighting with two weapons?

Diego Rossi wrote:

A 2-hander weapon and a shield has at least 1 problem:

PRD wrote:

If you get multiple attacks because your base attack bonus is high enough, you must make the attacks in order from highest bonus to lowest. If you are using two weapons, you can strike with either weapon first. If you are using a double weapon, you can strike with either part of the weapon first.

So you can't get all your iterative attacks using your sword with two hands and then all your iterative attacks with the shield.

You need to do shield or sword at your higher bonus, and then the weapon in your other hands at your higher bonus; followed by the attacks at yous next higher bonus and so on.

This actually incorrect. There is a FAQ covering how TWF is done:

Sean K Reynolds wrote:

"Using the longsword/mace example, if you use two-weapon fighting you actually have fewer options than if you aren't. Your options are (ignoring the primary/off hand penalties):

(A') primary longsword at +6, primary longsword at +1, off hand mace at +6
(B') primary mace at +6, primary mace at +1, off hand longsword at +6
In other words, once you decide you're using two-weapon fighting to get that extra attack on your turn (which you have to decide before you take any attacks on your turn), that decision locks you in to the format of "my primary weapon gets my main attack and my iterative attack, and my off hand weapon only gets the extra attack, and I apply two-weapon fighting penalties."

So you make all of your attacks with your primary weapon, followed by your attacks with your secondary weapon.

Ssalarn wrote:

So you make all of your attacks with your primary weapon, followed by your attacks with your secondary weapon.

That FAQ is just clarifying that you can choose either 2 attacks with the sword and 1 with the mace or 2 with the mace and 1 with the sword—it wasn't implying anything about the order in which you had to take them.

The "do them in order highest to lowest" rule only applies to attacks with that hand. In other words, if you're +11/+6/+1, you have to do +11 before you do +6, and have to do +6 before you do +1.

The rules don't actually state or care whether you start with your main hand or your offhand, just as long as each hand's "in order highest to lowest" rule is followed.

Ssalarn wrote:

Sean, to clarify, Are you saying that an attack sequence of 11M/11Off/6M/6Off/1M is actually valid?

There's nothing in the rules that says "you have to take all your main hand attacks, then all your offhand attacks," so yes, that's a valid attack sequence.

Using the FAQ and the basic rules of iterative attacks I had an opinion on how they have to be resolved, using the same data Ssalarn opinion was the exact opposite and Sean reply explain that the correct interpretation is a third one.

So giving FAQs isn't simply at all.

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Card Game, Comics, Pawns Subscriber

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Our modern moral might object to killing peasants and such who do an insurrection. Medieval moral would not have minded killing them.

You aren't speaking of a insurrection, but of a lynching mob.

If a bunch of people were assaulting a prison with the intention of killing the prisoner and any guard trying to protect it:
- the police will use non lethal force as long as possible;
- after a few defender are wounded or killed they will use lethal force and they will be fully authorized to do that;
- will persecute the identified members of the lynching mod for murder and a lot of other crimes.

My modern moral don't see any real problem in using lethal force as a last resort to stop one or more homicides.

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Card Game, Comics, Pawns Subscriber

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Just as an example, if you play through Baldur's Gate I, sleep trivializes most of the encounters for many, many levels. It affected all creatures in the area under the HD limit, and many, many things were 4HD or less (including ogres).

Please, stop using Baldur's Gate as a reference for the AD&D rules. Baldur's Gate is computer game and don't really follow the AD&D rules.

Sleep was capable to affect 2d4 HD of creatures,and a cap at 4+3 HD creatures (4 hit dices +3 np). That is 2 ogres if you roll maximum effect. As 1st and 2nd edition sleep start affection creatures with lower HD first, a typical encounter of 4-5 1 hd orcs and a ogre would see the 5 orcs drop thank to sleep and the ogre totally unaffected.

As combat was faster in AD&D the typical encounters had a lot more enemies than today.

1ed Unearthed Arcana added specialization to the game. A fighter could double specialize for a +3/+3 and a extra half attack/round, a ranger could get single specialization in the bow for a bonus to hit at point blank and a increase in fire rate at level 7 and 13.
The cavalier had a bonus to hit and increased number of attacks with lance, sword and mace.

2nd edition removed specialization from all classes beside the fighter.

A wizard had to learn his spells, with a 85% chance of success with intelligence 18 (the maximum value you could have without wishes or characteristic increasing tomes) He failed? He couldn't retry until his intelligence increased.

Haste was dangerous, aging a year had the added effect of requiring a system shock check to survive. It was great for martial types as they would double movement and number of attacks, but did almost nothing for spellcaster, as it didn't allow them to cast multiple spells in a round.

And so on and on. A very different game.

Better? No. Worse? No. Different.

Fights were faster and you could have a large number of NPC without slowing down the game.
A lot of things were left to interpretation instead of rolling dices.
At the same time your character was less well defined and up to a point all the melee fighters were very similar, the thieves all had the same class abilities and so on.

The computer game derivate from AD&D don't follow all of his rules, so it isn't a good basis to evaluate the tabletop game.

gustavo iglesias wrote:

The maximum peak of caster power was 3.0 (specially with 3.0 haste, and the ability to cast two spells per round). Then they declined a bit in 3.5, and some spells got nerfed in 3.P. But spellcasters in AD&D weren't as powerful as they were in D&D 3rd edition. Not by a long shot.

Wait...what?

As someone who played every edition of AD&D (while they were current), gonna have to disagree with you there. Nothing -- nothing -- could stand up to a high level wizard in 1st edition. A lowly fireball could do 29d6, and saving for half didn't matter -- in a world where the fist of Orcus did 1d4, 29d6 meant that the target was dead either way. Protection from arrows made one completely immune to missiles weapons. That and fly meant a wizard could lay waste to armies.

Not that it really matters to the current conversation, but still...

Protection from normal missiles was exactly that, protection from normal missiles. Magic arrow? no protection. Giant boulders, reduction of 1 point of damage for each damage dice. Catapult or balista fire? Same as the giant boulders.

You where it before casting your spell? It was lost.

Memorizing your spells? 10 minutes per spell level. Preparing a fireball required 30 minutes. Full roster of spells for a 9th level wizard? 7 hours. 11°? 10 hours and 10 minutes.
You weren't casting your spell left and right as today.

Again a different game with different rules and a different feeling.

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Card Game, Comics, Pawns Subscriber

1 person marked this as a favorite.

You have to mention that this is not a normal medival city. The wall layout suggest that this is a "fortress city" they were specially build to withstand long sieges, so they have fields and more space for live stocks inside the walls.

Most medival cities don't have a wall that encycled the whole city at all.

Maybe in Germany, but in Italy? Almost all cities had city walls.

Milan
Bologna
Montagnana
Verona
and so on.

They were common in large and small cities and even some village had them. Today they have been mostly demolished and the space used to build ring roads around the oldest part of the cities but you can still see some remnant.

Palmanova is a city that was built as a fortress and you see that perfectly from its layout.

And, just to repeat it: most of the farmed land inside the walls was a property of the monasteries.

- * -

@Yepyepyep

About the cost of the buildings, you must remember that the lords of the nations aren't the owner of the buildings. The BP expenses is the cost of preparing the terrain, inviting people to settle in your land, tax rebate on new owners, subsidies and so on. But a good percentage of the construction costs is paid by the actual owner of the building.
The BP are an abstract measure of the kingdom wealth, not actual cash in the hand of the rulers.

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Card Game, Comics, Pawns Subscriber

1 person marked this as a favorite.

A few images of the Valle map of Padua (Italy), 1781. It was made with real trigonometric measurements and not as a approximate bird view image, so it is very accurate:

The whole city, in tis scale it is hard to see them well, but a large percentage of the area between the medieval walls and the renaissance walls is fields, a lot of them were property of the monasteries.

A section of the city walls, notice the space used up by cultivated fields.

The medieval part of the city, the houses are the dark gray areas, the light gray areas are parks or fields. Even in the heavily builded up old part of the city there are plenty of open spaces.

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Card Game, Comics, Pawns Subscriber

1 person marked this as a favorite.

2E Melf's Minute Missiles (3rd level, 1 missile/level, deals 1d4+1 also +1 fire with each) bypass MR (the 2E version of SR). And that good damage in 2E since hps were low (Lloth the spider god of drows had like 100 hps and Golems are way below her in level)

So no, there never was a time you had to fear golems. You chose to do so by not picking your spells right.

From where you get the idea that Melf's Minute meteors was immune to magic resistance?

It is an evocation/abjuration spell, so I don't see why you think it isn't subject to MR.

Beside that it fired at most 5 meteors round, each requiring a to hit (vs normal AC as you hadn't a touch AC in 1st-2nd edition) with a +2 tot eh to hit, each meteor did 1d4 fire damage in a 1' radius and could set fire to inflammable objects, missed did 1 point of damage to creatures withing 3' and you had do use the scatter rules for grenade-like attacks to see where the hit landed. Very different form what you say.

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Card Game, Comics, Pawns Subscriber

1 person marked this as a favorite.

ShadowFighter88 wrote:

Now a question for James: What do you think of Games Workshop pulling this nonsense: http://io9.com/5969092/games-workshop-gets-someones-book-yanked-from-amazon -for-using-the-term-space-marine

http://io9.com/5982201/games-workshop-is-still-claiming-to-own-the-trademar k-to-space-marine-time-to-get-pissed-off

To sum it up - they got an e-book pulled from Amazon simply by citing the use of "Space Marine" in the title as copyright infringement. The book had nothing to do with their Warhammer 40k game, they're basically just trying to take legal control of the term "Space Marine" regardless of context. The details are all in the links.

Copyright and intellectual property is complicated.

On one hand, I think that someone using the term "space marine" should realize that, in most circles where your writing will be read, folks will associate that with Games Workshop, and as such you should consider not using that term simply because I think it's better to build new things. Something like "star ranger" or whatever works just as well.

On the other hand, I think that when companies get TOO protective of their intellectual properties and start throwing around lawsuits, that can do more damage to your public persona than the dilution of a phrase or concept you've built up as your own. That also said... copyright and intellectual properties MUST be defended when they're infringed upon, because if they aren't, you can lose the claim to them.

Personally, if I were Games Workshop, I would have tried to negotiate a less public settlement or accord with the author of that book. Lawsuits and public griefing should be the last resort. Of course, this is the first I've heard of this... so maybe this IS their last resort.

So... my take is that I think the author should have known better, and GW should have been less antagonistic (unless, of course, this is only the first public appearance of a long-standing feud between the two parties and is a no-other-choice option by GW).

The term space marine was used used widely in in SF books for almost 50 years before Warhammer 40K. Suing someone for the use of that term is like suing someone for using the term robot.

If it was a miniature game using that term their lawsuit would have had a basis, but against a book? it has no basis.

The basic message is "we have more money than an indie author, so we get to bully him". For those that played at the time it has bad vibes reminiscent of TSR suing GDW for daring to publishing a fantasy game by Gary Gigax.
End result TSR settled outside of court, paying for the game rights but GDW closed.
Sorry, but it is something that still weight on my stomach.

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Card Game, Comics, Pawns Subscriber

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Diego Rossi wrote:

Maybe when the 400 guys listening to the BEEG speech turn and fire their bows at the bard, scoring 19 hits and 1 critical, the players will stop saying how his it was awesome and start arguing that it should not be possible?

Allowing impossible shots generally help the more numerous group, not the heroic characters.

If I were GMing that wouldn't occur. Why would you even want your players to argue over what is possible vs impossible? If they, and you, are having fun why rain on that parade?

The purpose of allowing the shot would be to give the players the sense their characters are heroic and can sometimes do the impossible. To then allow all of the minions to pull off the same shot does exactly the opposite instead giving the sense that even the BBEG's flunkies could pull it off. As bookrat said the old rule of thumb has been don't say no, determine difficulty.

Diego Rossi wrote:

Apparently that part has been handwaved for the PC, so it is only fair to handwave it for the minions.

Who says the GM has to be fair to the minions? Forgive me if I am misreading you here but you seem to have an "its the GM vs the players" mentality here and viewing it as an unfair advantage against the GM personally if the characters are allowed to do this type stuff.

I am of the opinion that fair for the goose is fair for gander. I don't play the NPC and PC under different rules when I resolve their actions.

Apparently you play the other way.

Heroic? Maybe, but plot armor don't make me feel heroic.

"Determine difficulty" is a bad rule of thumb if any difficulty level can be overcome with a natural roll of 20.

"You alway succeed 5% of the time" isn't heroic, is playing in a world where your skill don't matter much.

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Card Game, Comics, Pawns Subscriber

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Darklord Morius wrote:

Well that made me create a new ruling to avoid this absurd, instead of -2 for every 5ft i will make that range increment for all ranged weapons are now 5ft. God forbid that on my table something so ridiculous happens.

Personally I believe you should reconsider. Think about that shot and the effect. Sure a bad guy who maybe the players were not intended to kill at the time was killed. As a result the GM might have to improvise a bit. Would it totally ruin the game for the shot to happen?

Years from now that player will still be telling the story of how his character made that shot and think of that game session as one of the best ever.

Giving the players those kind of moments, even at the expense of reality or a little more difficulty on your part will cause them to remember your game.

Maybe when the 400 guys listening to the BEEG speech turn and fire their bows at the bard, scoring 19 hits and 1 critical, the players will stop saying how his it was awesome and start arguing that it should not be possible?

Allowing impossible shots generally help the more numerous group, not the heroic characters.

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Card Game, Comics, Pawns Subscriber

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Well it's a good thing that in most games you don't get to cherry pick your items and aren't always in a metropolis to buy them either.

Situationally useful is the classification I'd give them. 15' of no attack of opportunity movement has it's place in the useful tactics territory. Especially if your fighting larger creatures with reach where your usual 5' step does nothing.

Agreed.

As I did say, in my games I would change them so that they require a movement action to activate. Not too powerful, not extremely situational. But an houserule.

But as Sean said the RAW of the text is clear.

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Card Game, Comics, Pawns Subscriber

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Ilja wrote:

Grayfeather wrote:

Ilja wrote:

if you have the cash, a flaming mithril buckler also works, has no spell failure etc.

True but still flavor issues and still in the middle of a huge area o' boom. The damage is minor, I just wish i could use something to set it up from afar. Guess flaming sphere it is.

Yeah, or an alchemist fire.

Goodness, who uses primitive alchemist fire! (hides rolled up shrunken tub of oil). But seriously youd think there'd be a cantrip for making a torch size fire in an unoccupied square.

Spark

School evocation [fire]; Level bard 0, cleric 0, druid 0, sorcerer/wizard 0, witch 0

Casting Time 1 standard action

Components V or S

Range close (25 ft. + 5 ft./2 levels)

Target one Fine object

Duration instantaneous

Saving Throw Fortitude negates (object); Spell Resistance yes (object)

You can make an unattended Fine flammable object catch on fire. This works as if you were using flint and steel except that you can use spark in any sort of weather and it takes much less time to actually ignite an object.

You asked? :-)

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Card Game, Comics, Pawns Subscriber

1 person marked this as a favorite.

There is the Cellini-like Ayavah of Magnimar, the sculptor of the statuettes and buckles depicting entwined succubi you find in several adventures.

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Card Game, Comics, Pawns Subscriber

1 person marked this as a favorite.

beej67 wrote:

I love how any 5th level magic arms crafter with enough resources can craft items with Wish spells in them in PF, even if there are no casters in the entire campaign capable of casting Wish.

The easiest way to nip this stuff in the bud is make the prerequisites actual prerequisites. Just strike the language allowing prerequisites to be bypassed.

Show me how this is done using the appropriate WBL of a 5th level character, and then we'll talk. Games that shower such a character with a million gold pieces need not apply.

I don't think he is speaking of PC. The problem that that rule generate are the questions:

- why rich kingdoms don't have piles of wish granting gems whit unlimited uses if it cost less than 1.5 millions to make them and they can be made by 5th level wizards?
- why the same kingdoms don't have statues of great warriors that enchant the weapons put on the pedestal whit Greater magic weapons, cast at level 20th as a 6th level wizard can make them (again, with unlimited uses in a day)?
- same thing for magical vestment?
and so on.

"The golden guard of the kingdom of Tombar present his weapons and armor to the statues of the great hero Mios to bet them blessed with is might."
in game translation:
"The soldiers place their gear on the pedestal of the statue before donning it and it get a +5 enhancement for 20 hours. Enjoy meeting the militia guards with +5 spears, +5 studded leathers and +5 shields that will become normal items the next day."

The statues can even have the limitation that they work only people of the appropriate alignment for a discount in the crafting price and added security.

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Card Game, Comics, Pawns Subscriber

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Interesting question. I see a few reasons for not wanting to give a awakened tree a constitution score and instead giving it bonus hit point based on its size, but for some effects it seem weird.

Plant

This type comprises vegetable creatures. Note that regular plants, such as one finds growing in gardens and fields, lack Wisdom and Charisma scores and are not creatures, but objects, even though they are alive. A plant creature has the following features.

d8 Hit Die.
Base attack bonus equal to 3/4 total Hit Dice (medium progression).
Good Fortitude saves.
Skill points equal to 2 + Int modifier (minimum 1) per Hit Die. Some plant creatures, however, are mindless and gain no skill points or feats. The following are class skills for plants: Perception and Stealth.

Traits: A plant creature possesses the following traits (unless otherwise noted in a creature's entry).

Low-light vision.
Immunity to all mind-affecting effects (charms, compulsions, morale effects, patterns, and phantasms).
Immunity to paralysis, poison, polymorph, sleep effects, and stunning.
Proficient with its natural weapons only.
Not proficient with armor.
Plants breathe and eat, but do not sleep.

Looking the plant type we see that they are already treated like objects but they have a constitution score as they lack this phrase that is present in the traits of the construct type: "No Constitution score. Any DCs or other statistics that rely on a Constitution score treat a construct as having a score of 10 (no bonus or penalty)."

So my conclusion is that they have a constitution score and it is the same that they had prior to being awakened.

Fun note: herbicides don't work in Golarion as the plants are "immune to poison".

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Card Game, Comics, Pawns Subscriber

2 people marked this as a favorite.

As we have a specific rule about dismissing spells, if a spell don't respect that rule it can't be dismissed voluntarily.

(D) Dismissible: If the duration line ends with “(D),” you can dismiss the spell at will. You must be within range of the spell's effect and must speak words of dismissal, which are usually a modified form of the spell's verbal component. If the spell has no verbal component, you can dismiss the effect with a gesture. Dismissing a spell is a standard action that does not provoke attacks of opportunity.

A spell that depends on concentration is dismissible by its very nature, and dismissing it does not take an action, since all you have to do to end the spell is to stop concentrating on your turn.

You can cast a spell at a lower caster level than your current value, but the modified caster level you have chosen should be sufficent to have access to a spell of that level:

You can cast a spell at a lower caster level than normal, but the caster level you choose must be high enough for you to cast the spell in question, and all level-dependent features must be based on the same caster level.

Bot quotes from the Magic section of the rules.

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Card Game, Comics, Pawns Subscriber

3 people marked this as a favorite.

"olives and wine, which also has a large landowner style of farming"

Maybe in the US. In Italy practically every farmer has a vineyard with 10 or 20 rows of grapevines and working them don't require great numbers of workers.

Olives have a mixed style of cultivation, it is more dependent on the area climate but several of the farmers I know have a small number of olive trees and don't need any particularly big organization to cultivate them.
They only need access to a oil mill.

You should remember that a large percentage of the US has a low level of precipitations when compared to Europe. Apparently the Inner Sea region is more similar to Europe than the US in that regard.

For Celiax an the plantation style cultivations you probably are right even if the nation seem varied enough to allow for some difference depending on the area, and that can apply to Taldor, too. Quadira is an arid land so there is little chance of large plantations, Osirion had a recent change in government, so I don't know if there has been the time to concentrate the land in the hands of a few landholders.
Even if you were right with your assumptions, you are speaking of a limited percentage of the whole Inner sea region, maybe 1/8 of the land and of territories where the kind of village that Abraham is analyzing don't exist at all or is a rarity.

Let's look the other lands:
Thuvia e Rahadoum are semi-arid lands and probably have a different organization that those analyzed by Abraham;
Nex and Geb have theirs problems too.
Andoran, Druma, Galt, the River Kingdom, Varisia, Ustalav, Lastwall and Brevoy seem good candidates for this kind of village. That is about 1/5 of the map.

Looking at the map it seem that this kind of village would appear in locations with a climate and political situation similar to that of France, Germany or Northern Italy, not surprising locations where this kind of village existed during the middle ages and the renaissance on our world.

A typical Chelaxian or Taldoran large estate with annexed village will be different, probably the upper class would be richer and the lower class poorer, with little in between, but Abraham calculation about the total wealth produced by the the area wouldn't be far off. Simply the distribution of that wealth would be different.
And it would be a land where a gitzmo like mine would be even more interesting, as the rich landowner would want it, either as a novelty or for its benefits on production.

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Card Game, Comics, Pawns Subscriber

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Captain Sir Hexen Ineptus wrote:

This is pounce at level 1 once per combat at 1k per us a day.

Who benefits from pounce at level 1? Monks, TWFers, and, uh, I guess natural attack builds?

Wrong question. The right question is:

Who benefit for a free move at level 1 (or any level)?
Wizard wishing to escape
Rogues wishing to get in range to sneak attack
Flanking buddies wanting to help the rogue
Flanked guys wanting to escape
People wishing to pursue the escaping enemy
Melee guys wishing to make a full attack
Melee guys wishing to reach the damned archer and sundering his weapon
Archers wishing to keep distance from the melee guys
Maguses wishing to deliver their spell combat attacks
....
the list encompass almost any character, that is the problem. As a mean of escape or as a mean to close the range almost all classes will benefit from it and that will make it a must. The standard six items will become the standard seven.

And, as written, the chest slot isn't necessarily under the armor:

Chest: This slot consists of jackets, mantels, shirts, vests and other items that can be worn around the torso or chest.

Jackets and mantels are generally worn over other garments. Even assuming the shirt is under a full plate, changing it would require 1d4+1 minutes to remove the armor and 4 minute to don it.

Not something you will do in combat but something that you can do if you stop a few minutes to heal, rest and get your bearing.

It is a strong item with a extremely low cost. If your GM allow custom crafting you can do it in a mantle or jacket form (still using the chest slot) and with multiple uses in one day.
5.000 gp for 5 uses/unlimited uses? Most characters will pay for that on the spot.

The only group that will lose from this item are the monsters that can't use it.

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Card Game, Comics, Pawns Subscriber

1 person marked this as a favorite.

But the low level consumables don't net you 1.000 gp/day.
You can produce only on 1 magic item in a day.

Regardless of the time needed for construction, a caster can create no more than one magic item per day.

That 25 gp scroll that will be sold within 1 month? it will net 1.25 gp with your rules, divided between the creator and the shopkeeper.

Buying 25 gp of fishes from the fishermen I would sell them at 30 gp the same day. And tomorrow I will be capable to buy 30 gp of fishes.

The 750 gp of Remove disease? It is the equivalent of 18 months of disposable income for a expert. He could buy it as a safety measure, but surly he will not use it to cure the flu. Selling 1-2 a month will require a good sized city and they will net 37.5 gp each, again to be split between the shopkeeper and the producer.

A magic shop need a very large stock to keep up sales and that require a big investment. As that big investment is immobilized for long periods the gain from the sales need to be high, or your activity would be unprofitable when compared to opening a different kind of shop.

- * -

The "adventures are rich and skew the economy" argument is overblown.
Successful merchants are richer than most adventurers.
Even a small keep is worth more than the possessions of a middle level adventurer.

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Card Game, Comics, Pawns Subscriber

1 person marked this as a favorite.

especially since it is a per day profit.

Very short counter: it a per sale profit.

So the sellers either need an order (and those will be rare) or produce items with a high up front cost and long sale time.

I will get more profits selling stockfish.

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Card Game, Comics, Pawns Subscriber

1 person marked this as a favorite.

(though you might waste a lot of money attempting to do so and getting cursed stuff instead).

Practically impossible.

Let's consider a class with spellcasting as a class skill and a character with 10 intelligence, putting 1 skill level in spellcraft.

At level 3 he has +6 to his skill. He can take 10, so he rutinely get a check result of 16.
DC of making a item: 5+CL of the item. Let's add a +5 to the DC for him missing the needed spell.
Our guy can routinely craft any item requiring level 3 spells.
As soon as he get to level 4 he can craft item requiring a level 4 spell.

In practice he is capable to craft items requiring a spell normally cast by a character 3 levels higher than him.

Every bonus point in intelligence will increase that value by 1.

Remember that:
1) CL is not a prerequisite;
2) CL is not mandatory [with several exceptions], the minimum CL for a item is the minimum level needed to cast the needed spell.

Note that a guy with master craftsman will use a Craft or a Profession, so his skill will always be a class skill, and he will probably have the appropriate kind of masterwork tools, So he would routinely beat the DC for items requiring spells that could be cast by a character 5 levels above that of the crafter.
For some activity a shop will give a further +2 beyond and above the masterwork tools.

So failing the check wile crafting a magic item will require a lot of work on the part of the crafter.

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Card Game, Comics, Pawns Subscriber

1 person marked this as a favorite.

5.) Lastly, MIC makes the fantasy economy under which the game have e even less verisimilitude. If you sell a "used" magic sword to a merchant, you get 50% market price. However, if you craft a "new" magic sword yourself and try to sell it, you get also only 50%? Huh?

The reply for that is the usual one: you can open a shop and sell it for full price in a few months.

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Card Game, Comics, Pawns Subscriber

3 people marked this as a favorite.

Part of the problem is that people see the Law part of Lawful Good as adherence to a land laws, while it has nothing to do with that.

Take Stabbity example of a fail/fail scenario:
"For example, if a legitimate authority asks that they step-aside so that they may kill a man the Paladin knows is innocent. Either they disrespect the authority to protect the innocent (and thus fall) or allow the authority to kill the innocent (and thus fall). Any other options are just lucky loopholes."

The paladin code: "Code of Conduct: A paladin must be of lawful good alignment and loses all class features except proficiencies if she ever willingly commits an evil act.

Additionally, a paladin's code requires that she respect legitimate authority, act with honor (not lying, not cheating, not using poison, and so forth), help those in need (provided they do not use the help for evil or chaotic ends), and punish those who harm or threaten innocents."

Respect is not "bow to the wrong request by legitimate authority."
In Stabbity scenario the paladin would first try to reason with the authority figure, getting the time for a proper defense of the presumed innocent (the paladin can be wrong); then he would try to stall the killing while he tries for a better solution; then he would use non lethal methods to stop the killing.
None of that would make him fall.

Look the military code of conduct: if you get a doubtful order you can ask to get it in writhing. Every sane commander will pause before that request as it is a clear sign that you feel strongly that its a questionable order. Even after getting a order in writhing you should not obey it if you feel that it violate the laws governing warfare.
Doing that can get you in trouble but it is within your rights and even your duty.

Same thing for a paladin.

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Card Game, Comics, Pawns Subscriber

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Abyssian wrote:

James, you've mentioned the "House in Order" thread a few times and it just got me wondering a couple of posts upthread, how did the folks over there at Paizo feel about it while it was being posted? The overall result seems to be a greater organization of the "how to" of ironing out kinks but it kind of "sounds" like there may have been some irritation or even bitterness about it.

I'd like to point out, by the way, that this could all be the inflection that I add in my head while reading, so if I'm way off the mark, please don't mind me.

I can't say for others here at Paizo how they felt—don't wanna put words in their mouths. For me... while I do appreciate that the thread got us to re-examine our policies and priorities as regards FAQs and errata, and in a few cases resulted in some "about time" posts from Paizo on some long-term unanswered rules questions that had been festering... I think that the way the thread started and evolved was pretty humiliating and antagonistic and unfortunate. And I'm not sure how much, in the end, has changed, apart from the fact that I now feel quite a bit more self-conscious and timid on replying to some of the questions that get posted here, which if I were a customer and not an employee of Paizo, would annoy me even more.

The topic could have been broached with a LOT more tact and class and less self-entitlement, is what I'm saying. But I'm also saying that, given that human nature is what it is... I'm not sure a non-antagonistic version of that thread would have actually had any results.

I was relying on you for some unofficial reply (as far as the main rulebooks are concerned) done by very knowledgeable GM and one of the developers of the game, even if not one of those engaged in resolving rules problems. It is sad to see that you would refrain from giving your opinion on some matter.

Much of the blame is on us (myself included) for using personal opinions of Paizo employees as a blunt instrument to win Internet arguments.
I apologize for my part in that and thank you for plenty of useful replies.

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Card Game, Comics, Pawns Subscriber

39 people marked this as FAQ candidate. Answered in the FAQ. 1 person marked this as a favorite.

The cackle hex say:

Cackle (Su): A witch can cackle madly as a move action. Any creature that is within 30 feet that is under the effects of an agony hex, charm hex, evil eye hex, fortune hex, or misfortune hex caused by the witch has the duration of that hex extended by 1 round.

1) Some people take "cackle madly" literally, so, for them, this ability make the party easy to perceive and is noticeable, other say that it is a supernatural ability and that you can cackle without making any noise and maybe even in a unnoticeable way.

2) "an agony hex, charm hex, evil eye hex, fortune hex, or misfortune hex caused by the witch has the duration of that hex extended by 1 round."
As written that allow the witch to cackle for an extended period (hours) using both his move and standard action and extend the duration of the hex by hours. It is working as intended?

3) Several hexes have the text "Once a creature has benefited from the fortune hex, it cannot benefit from it again for 24 hours." or "a creature cannot be the target of this hex again for 1 day". It should be read as "the target can't be affected by the hex until the next day (so, conceivably you can affect him at 23.59 and again at 00.01) of you can't affect him till 24 hour have elapsed?
(with the first interpretation the witch could keep up the fortune hex for a whole day and the reuse it on the same targets the next day, with the latter using it for a full day would bar him from using it on the same targets the next day)

Please hit the FAQ button.

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Card Game, Comics, Pawns Subscriber

1 person marked this as a favorite.

And you should be able to do most of this cackling while the other PCs are doing their various local downtime activities, especially if you're camped somewhere: crafting, the assumed studying and practicing, camp chores, cooking, etc.

30' radius.

Who is tending the horses? (they are large animals, it is almost guaranteed that you will get outside the radius to do that)
Gathering wood?
Scouting the area?
Your guard is within the radius? What is the effect of the nearby noise upon his ability to notice someone stealthing near your group?

Being tethered to a 30' leash is terribly limiting.
It is not "fireball formation" but very close to it, and it is Horrid wilting formation.