Globetrotter's page

Pathfinder Battles Case, GameMastery Maps Subscriber

An awakened Giant Owl?

Pathfinder Battles Case, GameMastery Maps Subscriber

The inner sea world guide talks about this. People up to 5th level are pretty common, whereas 6-8 are uncommon. Teens are rare...

Something like that.

Pathfinder Battles Case, GameMastery Maps Subscriber

How does improved channel allow you to heal and harm at the same time?

There is a domain ability that allows this, but not the feat.

Pathfinder Battles Case, GameMastery Maps Subscriber

With the mobile hate, sign back in. I waited forever to see it on my S3, because nothing gave the indication that I wasn't signed in. Signed back in, loaded right up.

That did it. I signed out and it loaded fine.

Odd feature.

Pathfinder Battles Case, GameMastery Maps Subscriber

Is this link not ipad friendly?

I can't get it to work :(

Pathfinder Battles Case, GameMastery Maps Subscriber

What happens when armor is reduced to zero hit points?

I get the broken condition halves the AC and doubles the armor check penalty, but what about when it's ruined?

Des the armor fall off?

Does it grant a zero AC bonus but still the doubled armor check penalty?

Pathfinder Battles Case, GameMastery Maps Subscriber

Isn't water a passive impediment?

I was with you until you said this part. How is water and difficult terrain different?
It lets you move through water without trouble, but not a thorn bush?

Pathfinder Battles Case, GameMastery Maps Subscriber

9 people marked this as a favorite.

Sounds like you're premeditating murder... If that's not evil, I'm not sure what is.

Pathfinder Battles Case, GameMastery Maps Subscriber

I am guessing this was never errata'd?

Can you throw multiple rocks per round? I thought you had to have the quick draw feat to do that.

Are giants exempt?

Pathfinder Battles Case, GameMastery Maps Subscriber

It's a free action to draw an arrow for a bow... Sounds like this item brings you in line with a bow and not giving you some form of burst attack.

Sounds like it eliminates the feat tax of rapid reload... Until your cartridge expires.

Pathfinder Battles Case, GameMastery Maps Subscriber

That's a hard thing to do. I hope you can find a replacement.

Pathfinder Battles Case, GameMastery Maps Subscriber

My thoughts are it is just 18 tiles, since the price is $2.99.

I would need a bunch too since I am a subscriber and I have a lot.
Doesn't seem worth the expense at that point.

I am not as wealthy as Mark to buy 41 of them, lol :)

Pathfinder Battles Case, GameMastery Maps Subscriber

What FAQ?

Pathfinder Battles Case, GameMastery Maps Subscriber

Yeah, this is probably my least favorite.

I don't think I could use it.

Pathfinder Battles Case, GameMastery Maps Subscriber

Since it's a move action for the paladin, does it provoke?

Standard action spells do, swift don't. What about move action spells?

Pathfinder Battles Case, GameMastery Maps Subscriber

You might find this thread useful: Reach weapon hafts as improvised weapons.

I'd go with the spiked gauntlet/armor spikes, though. :)

Thanks!

Pathfinder Battles Case, GameMastery Maps Subscriber

I had found a thread with Gauss and Doomed Hero arguing about it... I'm thinking you're right and it can't be done... Would be pretty sweet though.

Pathfinder Battles Case, GameMastery Maps Subscriber

Like most questions, this has probably been answered.

The PRD says, "Large or larger creatures using reach weapons can strike up to double their natural reach but can't strike at their natural reach or less."

This is regarding large creatures, but still applies to my question. If I'm wielding a polearm (or a giant in the case of the example), wouldn't I threaten all squares since I could always use the shaft as an improvised weapon?

Would this allow me to take attacks of opportunity?

My current character plans on taking the catch off guard feat to be a machine with his bardiche and I don't want this to be cheese. I also want balance on both sides of the screen, which is why I'm wanting the clarification.

Pathfinder Battles Case, GameMastery Maps Subscriber

Like most questions, this has probably been answered.

The PRD says, "Large or larger creatures using reach weapons can strike up to double their natural reach but can't strike at their natural reach or less."

This is regarding large creatures, but still applies to my question. If I'm wielding a polearm (or a giant in the case of the example), wouldn't I threaten all squares since I could always use the shaft as an improvised weapon?

Would this allow me to take attacks of opportunity?

My current character plans on taking the catch off guard feat to be a machine with his bardiche and I don't want this to be cheese. I also want balance on both sides of the screen, which is why I'm wanting the clarification.

Pathfinder Battles Case, GameMastery Maps Subscriber

And it wasn't clear to me MPL. This was why we had the discussion. I think Mergy understands a bit better.

l do appreciate the attitude, nice to know people care :)

Pathfinder Battles Case, GameMastery Maps Subscriber

The black raven wrote:

The new rule is more elegant and clarifies things BECAUSE this thread clearly states that "10 feet away" is the same thing as "1 square away".

Previously, I (and my whole party) always saw "10 feet away" as meaning "2 squares away", because you know, 1 square = 5 feet, and thus 10 feet = 2 squares.

The fact that we are not native speakers probably contributed to the misunderstanding.

What has been clarified for me is that you have to include the squares that are occupied. I had always read it as 10' empty feet.

Jacob, I was in the same camp. The ruling they are removing reinforced the belief we both had. I made a really easy to read diagram in excel showing the relationship, but I could never show it here. I did try to illustrate it in words, probably poorly, by immediately afterwards SKR said the rule would change.

I think he understood me. I have a bit I pie on my face now, but it's not the first time, lol.

Pathfinder Battles Case, GameMastery Maps Subscriber

I see what you're saying... Although I never thought about it. I could see a person in leather having an easier time firing a bow than full plate... But it is what it is.

Lol. For simplicity sake... No diff

Pathfinder Battles Case, GameMastery Maps Subscriber

One more time, as we seem to be talking past each other:

The text will be revised to say this:

Shooting or Throwing into a Melee: If you shoot or throw a ranged weapon at a target engaged in melee with a friendly character, you take a –4 penalty on your attack roll. Two characters are engaged in melee if they are enemies of each other and either threatens the other. (An unconscious or otherwise immobilized character is not considered engaged unless he is actually being attacked.)
If your target is at least 10 feet away from the nearest friendly character, you can avoid the –4 penalty, even if the creature you're aiming at is engaged in melee with a friendly character.
If your target is two size categories larger than the friendly characters it is engaged with, this penalty is reduced to –2. There is no penalty for firing at a creature that is three size categories larger than the friendly characters it is engaged with.
Precise Shot: If you have the Precise Shot feat, you don't take this penalty.

Therefore:
A target of any size will work exactly like a Medium target: you're always going to have to deal with the penalty, which is usually –4 (unless you have Precise shot, in which case there is no penalty).

But if the target is at least two sizes larger than your ally, the –4 penalty is reduced to –2 (unless you have Precise shot, in which case there is no penalty).

And if the target is at least three sizes larger than your ally, there is no penalty at all.

So, not to beat a dead horse (and I'm really trying to pay attention), does my above diagram spell it out correct?

Pathfinder Battles Case, GameMastery Maps Subscriber

Sean K Reynolds wrote:

A Large creature is an entirely separate issue... and it turns out we're talking about a rule we inherited from 3.5. That rule basically means you almost never have to deal with the "firing into melee" penalty when shooting at a Large creature, so long as some part of that creature is at least 10 feet from the nearest ally.

There would have been no issue with the rules had they used a battle mat example like the one for cover and said one empty square instead of 10 feet.

Like several people and of course you Sean have said, the rules were not as clearly written as was originally though.

Yes... This.

Pathfinder Battles Case, GameMastery Maps Subscriber

Midnight_Angel wrote:

(or the part of your target you're aiming at, if it's a big target)

SKR just stated that the italicized part of the rule is going to be deleted.

Er, wasn't he talking about that whole sentence?

Meaning, if either one threatens the other, regardless of how far apart they are, then they're in melee and you'll take -4. (Unless two size categories larger etc.)

I don't think he is saying exactly that. What I think he is saying is

TT
TTV

M

This would still be a penalty

TT
TT V

M

This wouldn't.

GGG
GGG
GGGV

M

this would be at -2

At least I hope that's right.

Edit: fixed some spelling errors

Pathfinder Battles Case, GameMastery Maps Subscriber

So the new text would read:

Shooting or Throwing into a Melee: If you shoot or throw a ranged weapon at a target engaged in melee with a friendly character, you take a –4 penalty on your attack roll. Two characters are engaged in melee if they are enemies of each other and either threatens the other. (An unconscious or otherwise immobilized character is not considered engaged unless he is actually being attacked.)

If your target is two size categories larger than the friendly characters it is engaged with, this penalty is reduced to –2. There is no penalty for firing at a creature that is three size categories larger than the friendly characters it is engaged with.

So now, if you are fighting a medium size, you take a -4

A large size, still a -4
Huge -2
And Gargantuan no penalty.

Is this correct? This would be regardless of ally positioning as long as they are threatening.

This would be easier to understand.

Pathfinder Battles Case, GameMastery Maps Subscriber

Wait a moment... Wouldn't that complicate the problem?

If we removed that text, in the above diagram, Marisiel would be taking a penalty vs the troll (-4), a small penalty vs the giant (-2) and no penalty vs something larger. Since there wouldn't be targeting of a specific creature square. Am I thinking wrong on that?

Pathfinder Battles Case, GameMastery Maps Subscriber

I would think you're still at an advantage for Precise Shot, since many (most in my limited experience) enemies are humanoids, who tend to be medium or smaller.

I suppose there is merit, but now it seems like a bigger feat tax. People are already irritated at my table because they have to take it. I mean, it's more of a situational feat now that requires you to take it for all the great archery feats. Yet, I suppose this is no difference than combat expertise.

Pathfinder Battles Case, GameMastery Maps Subscriber

That's a part of my problem. If that rule wasn't there I may have looked at it differently. However, it is there and I kind of like it, lol.

It is to an advantage to fight larger creatures then, since that entire penalty goes away. It also means that the precise shot feat is that much more useless since its only purpose is to remove a negative for medium and smaller creatures.

I had viewed it as

TT
TT V

M

this would eliminate the bonus.

I'm not sure even how to use the rule regarding two size categories larger ( the -2 instead the -4). Can you explain that one to me? Or should I ignore it? The reason is

GGG
GGG
VGGGV

M

let's say there are two Valeros (I can't recall the other iconics names), this rule would normally state Merisiel would take a -2 instead of the -4. But now, we are saying there wouldn't be a negative at all since she can fire at the center of the giant. Se would still take a -2 if for some reason she wanted to shoot to the left or right side.

Seems like an odd rule.

Edit: adding some thoughts.

Pathfinder Battles Case, GameMastery Maps Subscriber

Globetrotter wrote:

This is the level of heat that exploded at my table.

It seems the problem is agreeing on how to measure. The problem is the core rule book never tells us to measure from the middle, the outer edge or the inner edge. Therefore, we need to make our own determinations. All this talk of abstraction and RAW is ridiculous. My table, I see each square as a block and I measure the closest sides to determine distance. If I'm talking affecting the square, I need to add that' square into the equation. It's not wrong, it's now I measure.

If its buildings, you measure the walls. Just like when you describe a Hallway that is 10 feet wide, you done say the wall are 15 feet apart. If you do, well then that's how you do it.

I view simple distance as squares apart and range as including the square. You can be a jerk and say I'm wrong or that I'm viewing the abstract wrong, but you can't really support yourself beyond using interpretations of position within a square, which is not stated anywhere except in your interpretation.

Keeping the discussion civil would be helpful, so I do apologize for my "you can't count" statement. That was out of place.

The problem here is you are counting from middle to middle, wall to wall, edge to edge, or whatever, when Pathfinder counts BY SQUARES. Your buildings are 10ft apart because people standing on top of them are counted as being two squares away from each other.

Quit trying to pick a point in the square, and just count by the entire square itself, and all your problems will fade away.

I suppose that's where the comedy lies. I'm not counting by point, I'm just counting squares.

XOX

I count one square between the X's. one square is 5 feet.
What would be the jump DC to jump over one square? Would it be 5 or 10? I count it as 5. If you count it as 10, is it possible to have a DC 5 jump check?

Pathfinder Battles Case, GameMastery Maps Subscriber

Sean, thanks for your input. Can you explain some points to me then?

What does this mean? With a normal melee weapon, you can strike any opponent within 5 feet. (Opponents within 5 feet are considered adjacent to you.)

This is going to sound a little silly, but the within part matters to me, and I'm really not trying to split hairs. Adjacent characters are within 5 feet since they are adjacent. Being one square away is 5+ feet. I don't know...

My real points come from the rules are larger creatures. This is why my original call required two squares between to eliminate the -4. If the creature is large, any archer can fire at the back square and eliminate the -4. So, why is there a rule for 2 size categories different giving you a -2 instead of a -4? Wouldn't that be a useless rule?

I can't really draw the square here to make sense, but if a medium creature is fighting a huge creature, two size categories different, the rules say he takes the -2. But by this view, he wouldn't take a penalty since he can shoot to the left of the creature and avoid the penalty entirely. Yet, if we really do need 2 squares separating the target and the melee character, then the rules make sense vs a gargantuan creature since there would be two square of the fighter was on one side and the archer targeted the right side. No penalty at all.

Anyway, I hope that makes sense from my perspective. And at my table, I will continue to run it as such.

Pathfinder Battles Case, GameMastery Maps Subscriber

This is the level of heat that exploded at my table.

It seems the problem is agreeing on how to measure. The problem is the core rule book never tells us to measure from the middle, the outer edge or the inner edge. Therefore, we need to make our own determinations. All this talk of abstraction and RAW is ridiculous. My table, I see each square as a block and I measure the closest sides to determine distance. If I'm talking affecting the square, I need to add that' square into the equation. It's not wrong, it's now I measure.

If its buildings, you measure the walls. Just like when you describe a Hallway that is 10 feet wide, you done say the wall are 15 feet apart. If you do, well then that's how you do it.

I view simple distance as squares apart and range as including the square. You can be a jerk and say I'm wrong or that I'm viewing the abstract wrong, but you can't really support yourself beyond using interpretations of position within a square, which is not stated anywhere except in your interpretation.

Keeping the discussion civil would be helpful, so I do apologize for my "you can't count" statement. That was out of place.

Pathfinder Battles Case, GameMastery Maps Subscriber

@Globetrotter, the buildings in your example are 10 feet away from each other in the game of Pathfinder. End of story. You would need 10 feet of rope to get to the other side, and you would need a reach weapon to hit someone. If you dislike how the game works, homebrew something else up, but don't ask for clarification on your rulings here.

I'm not asking for that. But it's good to know you think a building one square away is really 10 feet. It shows you can't count squares. It also means in your game , there are no alleys 5 ' wide, since it would be impossible.

Good logic.

Pathfinder Battles Case, GameMastery Maps Subscriber

In your XOX example, they can also be counted as 15' apart. If you measure from the edges that are farthest away from each other, that is what you get.

Really, 15' apart?

Hmm... Yeah, I don't think this is productive.

Pathfinder Battles Case, GameMastery Maps Subscriber

Where does it say a person is in the middle of a square?

The rule simply say you take up a square.

Pathfinder Battles Case, GameMastery Maps Subscriber

Funny, but you guys are not focusing on the right thing... Which was the point of this thread.

H-H

If H is a wall and the hyphen is the alley and the H is the other wall, how far apart are they?

The game doesn't focus on parts inside a square, it's the entire square or nothing. This is an 8 bit game. It doesn't say measure from the middle or the left, a square is a square. Measurement from the borders is how it's done. Why do we say they are 5 feet away? Well, you need five feet to affect the object in the square, but the squares are adjacent.

That's is the point. You guys are talking about interactions in a square and this thread is taking about distance between two squares.

XOX

X is a person.
O is a square
X is a person

They are one square apart. There is one square between them. One square equals five feet. They are 5 feet apart. To strike the opponent, you need to reach 10 feet.

Pathfinder Battles Case, GameMastery Maps Subscriber

Although it's probably not ethical to do, I'm going to chime in here. This happened at my gaming table, me being the GM and the OP the player.

My ruling is along the same lines as Jacob; to remove the penalty for shooting into melee I ruled 2 squares needed to be between the opponents. My reasoning was since you can target any square ( in this case it was a large creature) as a ranged attack, if the above was true, any medium creature fighting a large creature would avoid the penalty by selecting the rear square while the melee combatant is still adjacent. This defeats the purpose of the precise shot feat and the rule of size difference in for shooting in melee. Remember, there is no penalty for a three size category difference, and only a -2 for 2 sizes different for this reason.

I also debated the difference between reaching into a square ( which the above example I agree with being 10') and being 10' away. With the above logic, any building with one square separating would be considered 10 feet apart. Not the way I see things.

Either way, the discussion devolved into a 20+ minute debate that ruined the session and may destroy the game due this happening in the past. As a GM, my ruling is law. Discussions like this are meant for out of game and not to disrupt everyone's good time. Not every ruling I make is correct at the table, but a ruling is a ruling and to conserve the game, players should abide. That is the contract we all agree to for the game.

Sorry to possibly derail or add to a confused discussion.

Pathfinder Battles Case, GameMastery Maps Subscriber

Has anyone pointed out yet the fire cleric on page 52 is using a heavy shield?

It's my understanding to cast spells you need a light shield or a buckler. Heavy shields are too ... Heavy.

Pathfinder Battles Case, GameMastery Maps Subscriber

This is very good.

Can I request the ability to select the population number instead of it always being random?

I have to keep hitting the random button until I am close to the population I wanted.

Also, when will we be able to select the population percentages? My cities usually have more humans than anyone else.

This is amazing work!!!

Pathfinder Battles Case, GameMastery Maps Subscriber

@ Chopswil, next sentence, actually. "If a domain spell is not on the cleric spell list, a cleric can prepare it only in her domain spell slot." CRB, p 41.

So, no multiple casting of domain spells NOT on the class's spell list.

I noticed the same thing and posted it. I ran my group against this guy and caught it.

If the spell isn't on you class list you can only memorize it using your domain slot.

You can empower, but that takes up the newly adjusted slot. So only one fireball and one empowered fireball.

Pathfinder Battles Case, GameMastery Maps Subscriber

I'm running a game with a cleric, witch, sorcerer and a summoner. They are 11 level and are disparate for a tank.

They can deal a lot of damage, but they all drop fast.
I put them up against the fire Druid from the NPC codex, he is 14th level. They knew he was a fire Druid so prepared resist and protective spells. They had him surrounded in conversation before melee...

The end of round two the sorcerer and summoner were dead ( so the eidolon was out). Round three finished the witch and the cleric surrendered.

A front line warrior could have taken a few more hits allowing the others more time.

This is a common occurrence. One zen archer, 9th level nearly cleaned their clock because they can't take damage.

It COULD work, but probably won't. At least at my table where enemies tend to learn the weaknesses of a Mage party fairly easily.

Pathfinder Battles Case, GameMastery Maps Subscriber

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I like what Chopswil is doing. I don't think he is trying to cause problems; I think he is trying to help.

The Paizo staff have their hands full and it is great to have access to a dedicated base of players working hard together to improve the game.

This is a great book and deserves a purchase.

Pathfinder Battles Case, GameMastery Maps Subscriber

Fury of Flame: p 73

has empowered fireball twice. Since the druid does not have fireball on his spell list, he can only take empowered fireball once.

Any spell that does not appear on the druid's spell list granted by a domain can only appear in the domain slot.

Pathfinder Battles Case, GameMastery Maps Subscriber

Globetrotter wrote:

Sorry... Super long thread..

Where are these changes announced?
I feel lucky to be one the boards today and see them.

How can I learn of these, and upcoming changes, in the future?

They do not tend to post that the updates are out so much, but you can usually catch wind of it by scanning through the forums.

They can be found Here

and occasionally news bout them can be found in the Blogs.

Thanks, that's what I was looking for :)

Pathfinder Battles Case, GameMastery Maps Subscriber

Sorry... Super long thread..

Where are these changes announced?
I feel lucky to be one the boards today and see them.

How can I learn of these, and upcoming changes, in the future?

Pathfinder Battles Case, GameMastery Maps Subscriber

Not sure where I got the breath weapon thing either, I think my player told me that.

I was thinking about the line of effect aspect as well. Thanks for the thoughts.

Pathfinder Battles Case, GameMastery Maps Subscriber

Will this work?

What if the subject is trapped inside a resilient sphere for minutes per level? Could you spam hexes until the subject fails their save?

I know that once you save, a new hex needs to be attempted (barring feats), but could you keep trying?

Walls of force block all spells, but say nothing about supernatural abilities. Gaze and breath weapon attacks also bypass... So it's hard to find a precedent.

Pathfinder Battles Case, GameMastery Maps Subscriber

These are good suggestions. I was thinking about the tape option as well.

I was trying to do the desert/oasis suggestion to (but I got sidetracked by the latest episode of Dexter).

I want to hear more on what/how people use them. My campaigns lack the visual element to really make it pop, which is the purpose in being a mini/map pack subscriber.

Pathfinder Battles Case, GameMastery Maps Subscriber

So I own a bunch if these and to this day I haven't figured out a way to use them.

I need help.

I even bought a clear plastic sheet to cover it so the sides don't pop up each time a mini is moved - of course it does take about 10 minutes to successfully align them so there are no gaps.

Have I wasted money?

Can they be used with flip maps (I know the city buildings one works with the town map)?
How do you guys use them? What can I do with all of these maps?!?!

Pathfinder Battles Case, GameMastery Maps Subscriber

Is there a list or a page somewhere with suggestions on how to synergize (sic)the map packs and flip maps?

Embarrassingly, I own a lot of them, but I rarely have time to look then all over and try to find ways to make them work together. I am surprised I even have time to put my games together.

Where can I go to get people's suggestions?

(yes... I am lame)