Yes, you can be both a Ranger (Guide) and a Ranger (Urban Ranger) at the same time because NONE of the abilities replace any of the same abilities. However if any of the archetypes replace the same core abilities then they can not overlap.
As a warning, Shattered Star is tied very closely with Rise of the Runelords with some tid bits from Second Darkness and Curse of the Crimson Throne. If you're playing in a RotRL game, running Shattered Star could spoil some of your game.
The walk back to the front of the tomb is a somber one. Janet seems on edge and eager to get out of the dark depths but is careful to follow your steps closely. The going is slow with Kiri carrying Grax over her shoulder but after what seems like a month underground you finally make your way back to the entrance room. Light streams in from the open doors leading outside and the man you left tied up is gone. You can hear the sound of voices from outside and as your eyes adjust to the brightness you can see the shapes of people. Janet runs outside and falls into the embrace of a man.
Janet: Oh Roldare, I was afraid those horrid things had killed you.
Roldare: Janet! I’ve been so worried. I’m sorry I ran off and left you. I just couldn’t face those things and figured the best thing was to go and get help. I ended up traped in the crypt in the supply room and almost died.
As Roldare ends his comments, the other group seems to notice you all for the first time. Besides Roldare (the wailing man from the tomb) and Janet, there are four strong looking young men standing beside a wagon. The group looks ready for a trip into the tomb and seems to have come well prepared. On the side of the wagon is a sign that reads “Hagfish Hopefuls.”
Agent None wrote:
My understanding of the map was that those stairways connected to each other as a small passage way between the two rooms. Seems to work out pretty well.
I'm sure he's just talking about the Cheese from the core rulebook that you can get half a pound of for just 1 silver. Talk about OP :D
As to the Topic at hand, if you don't like it, house rule it out. As of right now it's legal for PFS play so there is no issue there as it is decided by higher ups. I like the idea of the spell, though I also do play with people who try to maximize every little thing, we just play a game we enjoy to have fun.
*edited due to being tried and getting confused
So I'm having the same issues with Adobe and getting bad parameter errors on odd pages. Odd thing is that I have no problem with APs or Core books, but other pdfs give me the problem. I've tried on two different computers with both Adobe 9 and 10, the Adobe X copy is brand new and just installed. I can get SomePDF to work, but the quality of their images isn't that great. Anyone have anymore ideas on this? Thanks.
From page 202 in the Core Rulebook:You can use ranged weapons while your mount is taking a
double move, but at a –4 penalty on the attack roll. You can
use ranged weapons while your mount is running (quadruple
speed) at a –8 penalty. In either case, you make the attack roll
when your mount has completed half its movement. You can
make a full attack with a ranged weapon while your mount is
Mounted Skirmisher is meant to apply to melee attacks, not ranged.
Kelsey MacAilbert wrote:
Anita Blake: Vampire Hunter. I cannot abide by the main character. At all.
You're not alone on this as the Hamilton herself has spoken on how much she now hates the main character. Apparently, at some point the market took over the character and her publisher started telling her how to write. I'm sure she'd just kill the series if it wasn't for the fact that it is her cash cow.
Heh, touchscreen can be a nightmare. Should be page 506 in the crb if your on a pdf viewer.
OK, after looking at that and rereading what you typed I understand. I was meaning to say that my problem was with what should be considered 'market value' of the item. I have no problem say that a ranger could make something cheaper than a wizard could, eventually. If anything the ranger could stand to make a better profit if wizard prices were considered market value. So my main question about the item posted here is this: are these items meant to be bought by PC's or crafted by them? What is the intention? Over all the items do seem pretty awesome. I'm just missing the price gap of the buying price.
Sorry, I meant, wrote. Typing on a tablet has not been kind to me :P and as my books are PDFs, can you tell me where that item can be found so I can have a look?
I do not believe that anything that I write is incorrect, however I did just find the entry about creating items at lower caster levels. My only real problem remaining is that it seems that the writer goes out of their way to say "lowest level caster" instead of lowest caster level which would have been a copy and paste. Minimum level for the ranger to make wondrous items would still be level 7 or CL 4, though he could make items that acted at CL 1.
So I don't really want to throw gas on the fire here, but how is a 4th level ranger making any items? The feat to make wondrous item require CL 3rd, whic h means the ranger couldn't even take the feat til 6th level minimum, but since feats are gained at odd levels, it means the ranger would have to be level 7. Did you miss this or am I missing something.
First off let me say that I love the questions you've raised. As a Sociology major, I actually think of a lot of these things when world building or just trying to flesh out NPCs
Captain Marsh wrote:
I think a good popular example of how people would react to this is in Dragon Age. For the most part, access to magic would have to be controlled as close as possible. This may even include specialized groups to hunt down and deal with dangerous magi.
Captain Marsh wrote:
Here you hit on an interesting note. Because we don't have any species on Earth who can be compared to our intelligence but still being so vastly different its hard to think how people would handle it. Many human governments might outlaw cross species relationships due to problems that could arise due to life span difference. I think any acceptance between races would be tense if anything.
Captain Marsh wrote:
I think you would find a lot more people being neutral than anything. In an RPG its easy to forget that there's actually a scale of how evil something is because normally adventurers are just worried if its evil at all. More of a shades of grey scale than just place and white. Also, remember, for all the magic that detects alignment, there's just as much that hides it. Though it does make you wonder about politicians and lawyers.... :D
Captain Marsh wrote:
I think that you would find laws very similar to current laws about drugging people or manipulating them into doing something. It may be much harder to prove in courts though.
Captain Marsh wrote:
Training. Just because you're religious, doesn't mean you can cast spells like a druid or cleric. Clerics and Wizards most likely have to attend schools to be taught how to do what they do. According to the CRB, this can take between 2-12 years. Most likely the people have to pay some form of tuition, which makes the option unreachable for most. I think the only "common" magic you would see are Sorcercers, who would most likely be taken to a place to learn to control their magic once they should talent.
Really, the problem with pre-painted minis in general is the amount of time it takes to paint each one by hand. Say that you sell packs of 6 to 8 minis for $20 a box. That means that each mini costs about $3.34-$2.50 each. Now think about how much the person painting them is getting paid an hour and how long it takes to paint each mini. My friend and I have considered starting up a small homemade mini company for our Pathfinder games using AutoCAD and a small C&C mill. Making the mini's themselves isn't that hard or expensive after a moderate one time cost, but painting them is much more time consuming and expensive.
Well there's a lot that goes along with running a privately owned mine. Who pays the works? the security? the transportation of equipment and the moving of the raw ore. Who are they selling the raw ore to? sure Kingdoms may buy it, but if their own kingdom is buying it, that could cause some major unrest. *just think of how much scandal is caused when a politician gets discovered for only working with their friends* And remind the players that first all the expenses come out and then they can start mining. You may also have them have to buy the land from the kingdom. If they still go through with it, I'd say just pick a figure for how many pounds of ore they sell and give them cash for that. 50gp per a pound is the going rate I think, but that's pure gold.
Quick question: there is no errata for Monuments? The +3 loyalty for such a small cost (esp if you have a Temple) may create some monument-heavy cities...
In this case I would take an approach similar to graveyard or dump heavy cities, have some sort of negative consequence. Perhaps a magical storm rolls in and all the monuments become animated at start rampaging and fighting each other. The main idea is not to power game the stats, which is very easy to do with the RAW.
This just gave me the mental image of a group of druids flying over a city using this tactic to carpet bomb them...a wonderful challenge for my kingmaker game :D
James already confirmed that there would be a write up in Bestiary 2. So hopefully just another month til we see the base stats
I would just like to say how much I love this adventure. I personally think that it is a great end to the Kingmaker AP, with the underlying force behind everything coming out hard and fast. Up until this point I suspect that my PCs will be overly confidant that they know they can handle whatever is going on. (Especially since they started asking me for rules for building armies right after they started building their cities) With all the fey hitting against them within the course of one month it will throw them off their toes, which I like. Rulers get too comfortable, and things should catch them by surprise. After all, a good mastermind doesn't revel he (or she) is behind everything until it's pretty much too late to do anything about it.
Owen K. C. Stephens wrote:
I'd pay for it in smaller installments, especially since I'm mainly interested in buying/maintaining house and such. Though I'd prob buy the complete works if they were offered in a print edition.
First allow me to clarify my use of the word broken. When I think something is "broken" is when it does not work correctly, be it due to complexity, over/under powered, or any other reason. Secondly, the comment about line of sight and range was in response to a few posts that said "But if there's line of sight, then stealth is impossible. Not to be flippant or rude, but that's the RAW." in response to a comment about distance.
So on the omni-vision issue: My group has questioned this at great length before and we figured the reason you are "aware" of everything around you in combat is due to allies calling out warnings, turning to look for new problems, etc. I'm not saying it makes perfect sense, but creating a rule that would deal with all possible situations would be very difficult from a Dev stand point. If you can do better (not an insult/challenge, but an invitation for how to make it work) then by all means suggest it. Edit: We have never found any rules in any form for facing, just going off what we learned from others.
On the flanking/moving issue: I can agree that it would be difficult to defend against multiple foes, but if the bonus stacked think about how easy it would be for goblins or kobold to kill 1st level PCs, or on the other end, how easy it would be to hit/damage the BBEG just cause everyone focuses on him.
I can agree that the stealth rules COULD be more specific, however I also understand how tedious and hard that can be from the Dev side, although admittedly I'm still new to that side of things. Also compare the number of people on the board who ask for this to be changed against the total number of people on the boards. If it really is a small minority then I can understand why Paizo hasn't changed them.
I'm not right about this, neither is anyone else. We each have our own ideas and opinions on how to make things work and so we have variation. Makes life more interesting. Also thank you both for your polite arguments, sorry if I ever came off as attacking or hostile.
Ok, so I'm pretty sure this is going to get me some flames my way but,
1. To everyone saying how it's broken: Have you developed a table top system without any flaws that requires no interpretation and can be play by using the book word for word?
2. House rules exist for a reason, the Devs know they can't make a system that's going to make everyone happy, it's actually pretty difficult to make a system realistic and still keep it balanced overall. So they allow for some custom rulings. I don't see how this is really a problem.
3. With my SCA experience, I've been in 3-1 fights in melee, sure its hard but I sure as hell know where my opponents are.
4. Line of sight can't always beat stealth. If something is too far away to see, then you don't even need to be stealthing.
5. This is a fantasy game. The characters are expected to be able to do things that there's no feasible way for us to do. If you want realism go play a system like HackMaster. Sure you can hide on the ceiling and such, but you're going to be dead long before you hit 0 hp too.
There was more, but that's enough for now. I'm not saying the rules are perfect. I don't expect them to be, I enjoy the game because it's fun and something different from the day to day grind.
James Jacobs wrote:
So there you have it. Kinda...
Fear not! Fear still stacks...apparently...Page 563 from the Core Rulebook:
Becoming Even More Fearful: Fear effects are c umulative.
A shaken character who is made shaken again becomes
frightened, and a shaken character who is made frightened
becomes panicked instead. A frightened character who is
made shaken or frightened becomes panicked instead.
I don't know what this means for the intimidate skill though. Fixed in one errata but not included in the following 2 printings...
I'm looked in both my 3rd and 4th printing books and couldn't find this. Any chance you have a page number or such?
The reason armor hampers spells casting is because of how precise the movements must be. A MU is not use to how armor effects their movement (hence non-proficiency), so they suffer a spell failure chance. Note that there is are 2 feats that reduce this chance by taking armor proficiency and Arcane Armor Training. This compensates for the MU learning how to move in armor. Oh, and there is always the Meta-magic feat Still Spell.