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

IkeDoe's page

787 posts. Alias of IkeFromSpain.


RSS

1 to 50 of 787 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

** Existing specific weapons and armors applied to new items, or rules to make their abilities more generic (when intended/possible/balanced) without breaking the current game balance.
I.e. How much would cost a Celestial Full Plate or Chain Shirt? What's the price of a +5 Dwarven Thrower or a more powerful "javelin of lightning?

** A material or property that gives the mithral benefits to leather/studded leather/padded armors could be a good idea, otherwise high dex characters end up wearing bracelets or mithral chain shirts.

** Not replacing existing objects with similar items that have cheaper prices, we've got enough powercreep already.


Strife2002 wrote:

Whoa, wait a sec...

Sai description wrote:
A sai is a metal spike flanked by a pair of prongs used to trap an enemy's weapon. With a sai, you get a +2 bonus on Combat Maneuver Checks to sunder an enemy's weapon. Though pointed, a sai is used primarily to bludgeon foes and to disarm weapons.
Emphasis mine. Shouldn't that be to disarm, not to sunder? It's always been disarm in the past, and I don't see how you'd use the tool to destroy weaponry (simulationist buffs out there, feel free to educate me)

Actually the Sai grants +2 to disarm foes, because it has got the Disarm special ability

Page 144:
Disarm: When you use a disarm weapon, you get a +2
bonus on Combat Maneuver Checks to disarm an enemy.

(until they modify the combat maneuver rules)

But yes, the Sunder bonus seems out of place, if it isn't meant to be a Sunder weapon the line about the bonus should be just removed. Aside of intentions and simulatinism it seems correct.


As said before, they don't seem unbalanced when playing something different than a Cleric (or whatever that can benefit from both high Wis and Cha). Your GM will prolly allow one, i.e., Aaasimar Paladin, or Sorcerer, or Monk.
I'm not sure if an Aasimar cleric (or some combination that benefits from Wis and Cha) would be unbalanced, but odds are your GM doesn't like the idea.


I support you, but I'm afraid it isn't going to happen.

Actually the Pathfinder GameMastering Chapter is hilarious, you've got a table that pretends to tell you the WBL you should use for your homebrew low magic and high fantasy campaigns (or however they call it), they say that you should adjust the encounters in those cases, and there isn't any kind of suggestion about how to do it.
The GameMastery Guide Chapter has got some suggestions that are useless from the side of game mechanics.

If they can't support the different WBL progressions written in their CoreRuleBook, they can't support low wealth+limited magic. WotC didn't for 3.5, after years of publishing odd accesories and splatbooks, all we got was 3rd party stuff (thanks god some of it was really good).


Open Beta Testing is ok, but it's useless if feedback isn't filtered.
IMO asking players and DMs that play different editions of the game to decide what's wrong is like asking people how to deal with macroeconomics: doesn't work, it's just cheap populism and leads the nation to ruin.
After all, many flaws of Pathfinder are courtesy of the don't-change-anything lobby on those boards, it's unbelievable the 3.5 crap that's still in Pathfinder and the modifications that were rejected thanks to some all mighty fans that have nothing to do except writing 100 post a day moaning about the same issue.
I hope they forget about pseudo-democracy, ignore all the non-sense feedback they will receive and stick to actual playtesting reports. The game doesn't need more WotC boards false "consensus", it needs common sense, reasoning and options. An horde of betatesters can suggest all the options needed, but until humans get a hive mind a bunch of people can't provide any kind of reasoning.


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

Bump.

Quote:
This section introduces monk vows, which any user of ki can take to increase his ki pool.

But every vow benefit reads like

Quote:
A monk with this vow increases his ki pool by 1 ki point for every 5 monk levels (minimum +1).

A monk gets that, and any other user? should I replace monk by X class? is there some text missing? (plus questions mentioned above)


A Musket Master isn't a class, it modifies the gunslinger class, it doesn't get another weapon, she "must take a musket when
she chooses a battered firearm at 1st level" as stated in the archetype.

Rapid Shot gives you another attack, but doesn't remove any kind of penalty or condition that prevents you from doing that attack. Guns have to be loaded before being used and you have to choose one type of ammunition if that gun can fire many kinds of ammos. If you are using a light crossbow you would need a special ability or feat that allows you to reload using a free or swift action, same for guns (lightning reload and/or rapid reload).
Musket Masters get the Rapid Reload feat, which allows them to reload a musket using a standard action instead of one full-round action, so it isn't enough to use Rapid Shot.

Level means character level unless stated otherwise. The description of class abilities use level instead of class level i.e. and I think that it's the only place where they work that way.

Note: You can make two attacks using Rapid Shot if you have two loaded guns and the Quick Draw feat, but I would go for other kind of feats.


meatrace wrote:
IkeDoe wrote:
meatrace wrote:
Tilnar wrote:
it gives people a reason to have expensive weapons (since, otherwise, the marginal +1 to hit and damage after is assuredly not worth the cost of entry after +1 or +2).
The math disagrees with you. Hitting is more important than damage, because if you don't hit you do 0. I used to feel the same way until I really looked at it. :)
Same here, until I realized that hitting a lot and dealing crappy damage leads you to death. :)

As does hitting seldom and hitting for over 9000.

Flaming for example. Compared to a weapon with just +1 hit/dmg it has -5% chance to hit, and a +2.5 average damage, which creatures can easily be immune or resistant to. Anything with fire resist 5 will laugh at your flaming weapon.

As a preemptive response to Tilnar, Holy is one of the only exceptions I'd make to my rule of thumb and an excellent choice. Nonetheless it is only worthwhile if you are fighting evil creatures to the exclusion of all else. Not necessarily a rare thing in D&D, but it's nonetheless not a guarantee.

Keen is another one that is worth the price IF you're a crit build and/or using a high crit weapon. There's very little else in my opinion that is.

It depends of your build, your campaign and your level, as everything.

If my character does an average 10 damage per sucessful hit, attacks once per round and hits 50% of the time against the average foe; the +1 enhancement increases the average damage by roughly +1.05 (taking in mind the failure chances), while the flame weapon gives him +1.75.
The flame ability is better for this character, unless the GM gives fire resistance to almost half of the monsters.

Now, if my character has got high Str, wields a greatsword and deals say 20 damage per sucessful hit, the +1 enhancement gives him +1.55 damage while the flame weapon grants +1.75.
A few encounters with flame resistant creatures and the +1 enhancement would look better for this character. Plus the extra attack makes you more realiable.

Also note that at high level your first attack is usually autohit. What's worth +1 to attack when you already autohit? Less than it does when you don't.


meatrace wrote:
Tilnar wrote:
it gives people a reason to have expensive weapons (since, otherwise, the marginal +1 to hit and damage after is assuredly not worth the cost of entry after +1 or +2).
The math disagrees with you. Hitting is more important than damage, because if you don't hit you do 0. I used to feel the same way until I really looked at it. :)

Same here, until I realized that hitting a lot and dealing crappy damage leads you to death. :)


J.J., Agent of the Decemvirate wrote:
IkeDoe wrote:
In the last Pathfinder Errata they only updated the rules for moving through a foe's space iirc.
There's errata on that? Do you recall what it is? (I'm at work and can't download an errata file.)

Long story short: If you fail the Acrobatics check you suffer an AoO (as happens when tumbling) and the move action you used is wasted (so you can't try again using this action).


It is a very personal decission imo, some players want to stick with the same character for a long time, some GMs ban resurrection spells and try to avoid harsh stuff.

My party, i.e. thinks that resurrection is cheap and doesn't fit our concept of fantasy. So resurrection is banned, or an adventure hook at most.
On the other hand we avoid stuff that kills people due to bad luck:
-Enemies with x4 Critical weapons
-Enemies with huge Str, Power Attack and x3 Critical weapons
-Situations without any chance to flee
-Massive Damage Death optional rule, we don't use that.
-Enemy Spellcaster with the XXX feats that casts three empowered spells in a round killing a character in the first round.
-Save or Die spells (actual save or *die*).
-etc..


J.J., Agent of the Decemvirate wrote:

And this is a change from 3.5?

I just wasn't sure if he meant that, or meant that the PF rules had actually changed without me noticing. :P

In 3.5 the DC was 15 iirc (with some modifiers), so every 15th level character in light armor (wizards, sorcerers..) was a tumbling artist. Far too easy (back then).

In the last Pathfinder Errata they only updated the rules for moving through a foe's space iirc.

Edit: Ninja'd! (i'm too slow)


I'm pretty sure that they are affected by sight magic, and most of them require their heads to see.
Take in mind that in Pathfinder (not 3.5) constructs and undeads are subject to critical hits.

In any case undeads haven't got eyes in most cases, but you can say that the red evil light most artists draw in a skeleton skull is obviously a sensory device.


If you want to replace Sneak Attack by feats, you can *roughly* replace +1d6 sneak attack for 1 feat.
However you may fall short of damage output, so you'd prolly need access to Fighter feats if you need to get feats to increase damage or ignore DR if needed. Many sinergies (or lack of) involved in this approach.


J.J., Agent of the Decemvirate wrote:
Jason S wrote:
Sometimes it's impossible to get into flanking position because of the revised PF rules for Acrobatics and tumbling.

Would you mind expounding on this? I'm not sure what you're referring to, and I like to be up-to-date on Core rules.

Thanks!

In order to use Acrobatics to avoid AoOs you have to roll Acrobatics and beat the foe's CMD.

Mooks have low CMDs, but big foes (the guys you want to flank ASAP) have got high CMDs. Some NPCs built using APG archetypes get CMDs even higher.

I could be cool, Acrobatics that work far best for Dex based characters sounds good.
But the rules are too harsh, your max Acrobatics modifier and the foe's CMD changes every level, there's some point at low level when Acrobatics is great. But there are some points (specially high level) when Acrobatics is too difficult. Believe me, I played an archer with Dexterity and Acrobatics maximized, using acrobatics against two of my team-mates would have been autofail O_o, difficult against many monsters too.


Yes, if he is the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th or 5th player...

The Ranger gets Favorite Enemy Humans. All enemies should be humans.
Somebody has got Evasion, there should be a wizard casting fireballs in every encounter.
Another guy has got a huge AC, creatures with touch attacks are banned.
A spellcasting PC? How do I dare using one of the zillion creatures with SR in the Bestiary once in 5 levels?
So we are going to play a campaign without magic, the guy that never played a spellcaster wants to play a sorcerer now... and after ruining the new campaign he finally plays a fighter.

Specially, there's one guy that can't stop moaning, but I guess there's one of those in every party.
My answer: Since everyone wants something different and everything can't happen at the same time, I'll make every encounter different, as clearly intended.


J.J., Agent of the Decemvirate wrote:

Just so we're all clear here:

Does anyone actually disagree with the assertion that the rogue is generally a weak class? We clearly all have different opinions on how weak they are, but is there anyone here who wouldn't still describe them as "weak"?

I disagree, altough I'm not sure what I have to factor to meet your definition of weak.

However:
I think that it is one of the worst designed classes since AD&D. Any modification to what the developer had in mind for the standard campaign and the Rogue won't have the tools to adapt to the homebrew campaign. And given that everyone is playing a homebrew campaign odds are the Rogue will be in trouble in most games.
For me it is a huge difference, the Rogue doesn't need BADLY a general boost (say d8 sneak attack dices for free), what it needs BADLY is tools to have a decent performance in most campaigns (i.e., an Improved Talent to cast Improved Invisibility at high levels). I haven't found those tools in Ultimate Combat, the Ninja has got a plenty.


Ravingdork wrote:
IkeDoe wrote:

The least expensive staff in the CRB is worth about 18000 gp, for a balanced approach you shouldn't have an item so expensive until level 9 (not because the item breaks the game, just because you also need other magic items).

There're less expensive staves in the APG, but I don't like the selections of spells.

Actually, the prices for the CRB staves are all in error, with many being twice the price they should be (according to the staff pricing formula rules). For example, the cheapest one (staff of charming) is listed at 17,600gp market price and 8,800gp cost when it should be 8,800gp market price and 4,400gp cost.

That sound more reasonable to you?

No, that's not the problem I have with staves. I think that the staves with a nice selection of spells are worth its price in the CRB. Staves with a bad selection of spells are worth nothing IMO.

What I don't find reasonable is the lack of "lesser staves" with less maximum charges, spells of lower level, etc..


Mearls admits 4th edition might have gone too far in creating a perfectly balanced game
LOL

Now I admit they tried, and whatever they couldn't fix or adapt to their new system was just destroyed and replaced with something far from perfectly balanced and not specially fun.


IMHO, and it's just my opinion, the DR/+X system was removed so different campaings (low/med/high treasure) can be played without having to modify that stat, the game already rellies too much on the quality of your equipment.


Tiny Coffee Golem wrote:
Caliburn101 wrote:
I just have staffs and wands all in my camoaign created using the charges per day rules - the whole issue is sidestepped this way

[...]

Only slightly off topic-

How do you feel about minimum caster levels for staffs? Would you ever be open to "lesser staffs" with lower level spells or do you think this is part of game balance?

If that's a question for everyone, my answer is:

Yes, we do need lesser staves. I like its "high level" item aura, but they've gone too far with this. The least expensive staff in the CRB is worth about 18000 gp, for a balanced approach you shouldn't have an item so expensive until level 9 (not because the item breaks the game, just because you also need other magic items).
There're less expensive staves in the APG, but I don't like the selections of spells.

I don't think that having lesser staves would damage the game balance, after all you can only recharge one staff a day, so having a lot of staves with usefull 2nd-3rd level spells isn't so good.


Alienfreak wrote:

I always played my Rogues as Breastplate wearing Shieldusers. And Ninjas are really good at that. It somewhat balances them out because they need a really high Str to hit something reliably and can at least ditch Dex somewhat in favour of Str and Con and still have a good AC.

As a Ninja I would definately go Breastplate and Large Shield with a Katana. 1st level go Ranger, Fighter or Barbarian (depends on what you need most) for the proficiency and get a good starting boost.
16 14 14 8 10 12 may be a good 15ptb array (human bonus on Str)

Ditching Str in favour of Dex works out in campaigns in which you start at lvl 6+ because you can easily afford an Agility enchanted weapon. Now if you have an evil DM or nobody that can enchant weapons in your group this build again starts to suck because you can't just go shopping but will pretty much be limited to upgrade that weapon.
I generally dislike these "trick builds" that are heavily depended on one special magic item that makes their whole build work and without they are worthless (AMF here I come...)

The DPR research crew goes for the high Str falchion wielding Rogue, but would prolly agree with you.

I don't get why your Rogue can't use Evasion while wearing that Breastplate and the Ninja can use his Light Steps and any ability related to Ki Pool while wearing a Breastplate or Full Plate. That's the kind of stuff that makes people raise an eyebrow while reading the Rogue and the Ninja.
In my current campaing one player is a high Dex Rogue and another a Ninja with a few fighter levels (breastplate+high Str+two handed weapon). The Rogue is the only character with a decent Touch AC (useful against many monsters with touch attacks), and Evasion is ok. But his touch AC will become irrelevant at high levels (monster's attack raise far more quickly than his touch AC) and I think that the Ninja in armor is overall better.


Alienfreak wrote:
KrispyXIV wrote:
TOZ wrote:
It's not hate. It's disappointment that the class does not live up to expectations.
Compounded, too, I think by the general acceptance of Ninja being actually fairly competitive by comparison, and actually being strait better than the rogue due to the Ninja getting access to almost everything a Rogue has, WITHOUT the reverse being true (no Advanced Ninja Trick rogue talent).

Ninjas are especially better because they get a good weapon proficency (Katana 1d8 DMG 18-20/x2) for free. The Rogue not only has a 3/4 BAB he also has only really bad weapons to choose from. Ninjas are somewhat better here. The only thing I don't like about Ninjas is that they skip Trap Finding for Poison Use.

Plus Ninjas get a Ki Pool for an additional attack per round which heavily boosts their DPS compared to the Rogue.

So we have better abilities, a good weapon and an additional attack per round (if you need it) for the sake of sacrificing Trap Finding.
If you want Trap Finding take 1 lvl of Ranger (Trapper) at first level which gives you 1 additional HP (no fav class) and a full BAB with +2 to hit and dmg against a creature of your choice.
Otherwise I always like dipping into Fighter for two feats or dipping one barbarian and one fighter for extra movement, extra damage rage a feat (plus their good BAB) and good starting HPs.

Yep, the Ninja vs Rogue issue was a concern for the UC Playtest, yet very little changed:

*For most builds the Ninja gets better weapons, not solved.

*So Ninjas get Monk's Ki instead of Rogue's Evasion, but can get Evasion latter as a Master Trick.
Well if you devs think that Evasion is worth that, What about an Adavenced Talent that gives Rogues a similar ability? We get a Rogue Talent (at least it isn't an Advanced Talent) that gives us a very limited version of Ki Pool. You don't even get much for increasing your Rogue's Wisdom, Wis10->1 Ki point, Wis12->1 Ki point. C'mon, at the very least give me 1+Wisdom modifier.

*So Ninjas get Monk's Ki AND Light Steps instead of Evasion. Evasion can only be used while wearing light armor, Monk's Ki only works while wearing NO armor. Ninja's Ki Pool works even while wearing a Full Plate, and I can't think of any character screaming "ARMOR RESTRICTIONS" more than a Ninja.
Use a feat or multiclass, buy a Breastplate or FullPlate, get invisible and forget about Stealth checks, raise your Str and forget about Dex, destroy, enjoy your AC.

*At least let Rogue's disable magic traps. Nah, multiclassing one single level is enough to get TrapFinding.

*To be honest, in the "standard" ideal campaign the Rogue can get most things from magic items or a spellcaster. However most people doesn't play ideal standard campaigns, the Rogue just can't adapt because it has got serious desing flaws, which is different than being underpowered.


I don't know what "capable of casting" means, but given that staves can cast many spells, that those are mid/high level items (given its price and the caster level needed to recharge most of them) odds are you'll know one of the staff's spells before you find or purchase one staff.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

While you discuss if you can possess Zero of something and how do you own the incredible ammount of zero Ferraris, mark it for FAQ, plz: Link to UC Errata Thread


Silent Saturn wrote:

My biggest reason for disliking rogues is that the rest of my playgroup loves them to pieces. We ALWAYS have at least one rogue in the party, and they're usually annoying as hell.

Usually, the rogue spends a good third of the combat trying to reposition themselves without exposing themselves to an AoO, which ends up backfiring as most enemies tend to move around a bit during the fight. They probably spend another third of the fight missing, but when they do get to SA they just laugh and laugh at all those wonderful D6's they get to roll, marveling that they did all that damage with a dagger and 12 STR.

Out of combat, they usually start channeling Kender and stealing anything that isn't nailed down. Occasionally they'll roleplay a diplomatic situation, but they're usually letting the Charisma caster do that while they hang out near the back and steal the drapes when nobody's looking.

I understand that this is more a complaint about playgroup than about a class, but I think that the biggest problem is that in 3.X Rogues were about stealth, reconnaisance, and trickery, and Pathfinder just doesn't have the mechanics for that sort of play style. If you want to sneak attack, the best way to do it, counter-intuitively, is to get up in your enemy's face and either flank or feint. And when you insist on stealing everything in sight, WBL gets broken to pieces.

The mechanics in Pathfinder are just the same used in 3.X, the same for getting SA, and WBL has been here since 3rd Edition.

But I would agree on something: They take too much time to move around foes because Pathfinder is (IMHO too) harsh with Acrobatics, or at least more harsh than 3.X at med/high levels. The rogues my friends play do 5' steps or use Invisibility to get into SA position or perform SAs (if using Improved Invisibility at high levels), they only use Acrobatics against lesser foes or in desperate situations.

Anyway, glad to hear that at least someone gets fun playing Rogues and there's people kind enough to explain in detail what they don't like about them, the "Boost most classes, specially Rogue" Lobby is strong here.


I think (after reading all those annoying threads titled "Monks can't fight", "Fighter has got no saves but Monk's Saves are useless", "Rogue can't do anything", "Barbarians are the best", "Barbarian is the worst melee class", etc..) that most of the hate comes from many players that expected those classes (and even the game) to be something different than they are, try to play them the way they think those classes should be, and obviously fail; not that it isn't possible to make nice characters using the Rogue and Monk classes.

I.e. a huge ammount of posts complaining about the low damage output of the Monk go like this:
My Monks can't do any meaningful damage!
Your stats?
Str 10 Dex 16 Wis 14
... Yeah, in this game melee damage comes from Str and you don't need a strategy guide to realize so, my Str 10 Dex 16 Wis 14 Fighter is useless too.
Would be cool to have Monks that can kick ass using Wisdom or Dex? Prolly.
Yet there is nothing preventing a player to make a competitive Monk or a competitive Fighter, the key is playing the class as it is, not as YOU think it should be.

However, IMO, sometimes you will read complaints that have a point or at least do something more than saying "X class sux".
I.e. I will agree that you are gonna have a huge problem trying to play a mid-high level Rogue in a low magic setting without the skill Use Magic Device or a friend wasting standard actions to cast Improved Invisibility at you... while the Ninja just uses a Ki Point to vanish.


The description of a battered gun is just the description that is written in the Gunslinger class, you don't get the standard 1000+ gp worth weapon, you get a modified one.


Hard to find something less Tolkien-esque, yet pseudo-medieval than D&D/Pathfinder.
The only thing that annoys me is how many gunslinger archetypes are characters from a Western, or could be leading an expedition to hunt Rhinos in Congo.
Anyway, options = good.


As pointed out previously, creatures that use touch attacks (either spells or incorporeal creatures), they hit everyone no matter how much full of stell is your fullplate. Actually the rogue may have a chance to not get hit, and the wizard (mage armor and shield spell work against incorporeal touch attacks).
What's more, the bestiary has got many creatures that use touch attacks, you are supossed to challenge the players with different monsters, use them.
Furthermore, the Paladin can heal an ammount every round, so you better go for fast fights with enemies that hit hard, otherwise the guy does nothing than healing himself.

A few skill challenges may be also painful for the Paladin, i.e. you have to cross a narrow bridge in order to attack the archers on the other side. Acrobatics 20 or fall, 10d6 damage, then you can use the stairs that go from the pit to the archer's side.


1 person marked this as FAQ candidate.

Amulet of Mighty Fists: does it overcome DR as magic weapons do?

I.e. Does and Amulet of Mighty fists +3 (+3 enhancement bonus) confer the ability to ignore DR silver and cold iron to your unarmed and natural attacks? (page 562 and 496 of the Core Rule Book)

The question is also related to when "weapon" means weapon, or weapon+unnarmed attacks+natural attacks.

From this thread: Link


1 person marked this as FAQ candidate.

Beastmorph ( Alchemist Archetype )

Beastform Mutagen / Improved / Greater / Grand

Do the abilities stack?
That is, if I can use both Beastform Mutagen and Improved Beastform Mutagen... do I get 1 ability from BM and two from Improved BM for a grand total of 3 abilities?


The rules for creating a treasure are not related to WBL, you have a beautiful table with the value of treasure hoards and rules for treasures, and those are actual rules.
So yes, magic item creation feats will allow you to "break" WBL just following the rules, certainly there is no such rule that forces player characters to stick to the expected WBL (which, btw, doesn't mention crafting in the list of factors taken in mind).


Funny when someone says that nobody wants a staff when there're guys in this thread that use them.

Now:

Cheapy, the book says that "Staves follow the formulas closely", instead of exactly, so I agree with you to some extent, however I don't think that staves prices should be so different in the APG (as pointed out by ZomB)

I also agree with Erik542. Famous cheap wonderful pearls of power can't be used by spontaneous spellcasters, instead you have to use rings of wizardy (expensive), staves (expensive?) and many other items (again expensive), at least if all you have is the CoreRulebook.
Also note that if you are using a pearl of power you have to use one standard action to recall a spell, another one to cast it, and you provoke AoO as usual. A stave will just cast the spell, no AoO. On the other hand you can choose what to prepare using the pearl, and there are more advantages and disadvantages. I.e. If you spend all your spells today and for some reason you have to fight again this week, the staff won't be useful. Two different items with different properties and different prices.
Finally some staves are not that expensive compared to pearls of power. I.e. I can cast 5 Fireballs using a Staff of Fire, or 3 Walls of Fire. The staff is worth 18950 gp, 5x3rd-level pearls of power are worth a grand total of 45000 gp, a 3rd level ring of Wizardry is worth 70000 gp.
OR I.e. I can cast 10xCure Serious Wounds using a Staff of Healing, 29600 gp. 10x3rd level pearls of power are worth 90000 gp.


Some staves suck, but many staves are ok, you recharge them at home, and you unleash its power in a dungeon: mission acomplished.


Rumor says it worked for Zeus.


I can't see the problem, people that were trained to be warriors only knew about killing other people is many cases. It was true even for many XX century armies, you won't have any trouble finding information about veterans that are no more than unskilled labor when they leave the army.
And most characters have skills and abilities that allow them to earn money and are not named Profession or Craft: i.e. +7 to damage a.k.a. I'm a well paid mercenary.


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

ENHANCEMENT BONUSES (TO ARMOR/SHIELD AC)

I'm not sure if it's worth an errata, but certainly it's worth a FAQ entry or some improvement in the core rulebook wording.

Summing up, the problem could be expressed with the question, if a wear a +2 buckler and I cast the Shield Spell, my AC against physical attacks is (ignoring other bonuses): 14? 16?

--
The issue:

Back in the 3rdEd/3.5 days enhancement bonuses, and all bonuses, were explained in detail on some page of the Dungeon Master Guide. Unfortunatelly that description was never written in the d20 SRD.
Actually it isn't a big problem because most bonuses follow the same rules, but there are exceptions.
Enhancement bonuses, which is the problem here, is one of those exceptions.

The explanations about how enhancement bonuses work are different in different places of the book, and all the info is scattered. The wording about how enhancement bonuses to AC stack with other bonus to AC is sometimes terrible.

The issue isn't often asked, as many 3.5 veterans already know how it works, however it's confusing (even for experienced players) and I'm sure that many new players and GMs are doing it wrong... and don't know it.
Some past threads about the problem:
Link1.
Link2.
Link3.

As we know the enhancement bonus of an item doesn't apply to the user, it actually enhances a bonus granted by that item, subtle but big difference (for further info: Articles in the WotC site, look for "Does It Stack?" ).
I.e. My wizard wearing a +2 padded armor casts Mage Armor, his regular AC (ignoring everything else) is 14. It is NOT 16, the +2 enhancement bonus raises the padded armor's armor bonus to AC from +1 to +3, that's all, +3 armor bonus from the padded amror and +4 armor bonus from anything else (i.e. the spell) won't stack.
My wizard using a mithral +1 buckler casts the Shield Spell, his AC is 14 again.
If my wizard uses a +5 buckler and casts the Shield Spell, his AC is 16.

---

The wording:

Chapter 6 Equipment/ Section Armor (page 149) says that armor grants a armor bonus, shields grant shield bonus. And obviously a shield bonus to AC won't stack with another shield bonus to AC, same for the armor bonus. No info about enhancement bonus to AC, but works for me.

In Chapter 8 (Combat)/ Section Combat Statistics / Armor Class/ Other Modifiers (page 179), there's a nice text:

Quote:


Enhancement Bonuses: Enhancement bonuses apply to your armor to increase the armor bonus it provides.

As happen often in the Core Rulebook armor is used for "armors only" in some sentences and "armor and shields" in other sentences. Writting "They apply to the armor (or shield) to increase the armor (or shield) bonus it provides" instead, wouldn't hurt.

In Chapter 15 (Magic Items)/ Section Armor(page 461) the following sentence tries to explain:

Quote:


Magic armor bonuses are enhancement bonuses, never rise above +5, and stack with regular armor bonuses [...]

Regular armor bonus? What's a regular armor? or a regular bonus? What's not a regular armor bonus?

One could say that the armor bonus from Mage Armor is as usual and regular as anything else, and the magic armor enhancement bonus would stack with mage armor, if the set of armor bonus doesn't stack the enhancement bonus still do, nothing prevents that.
Enhancement bonuses raise the armor's armor bonus as said in chapter 8, the actual wording in chapter 15 is weird, overcomplicated and prolly wrong. In chapter 8 it increases the armor bonus, in chapter 15 it stacks with "regular" armor bonuses, not the same.

In page 462 shields are "explained".

Quote:


Shield enhancement bonuses stack with armor enhancement bonuses.

So, shield enhancement bonuses don't stack with a shield bonus? Do they stack with ANY shield bonus? maybe... magic armor means "armor" in some sentences, "armor and shield" in other sentences?

On a side note, "All magic armor is also masterwork armor, reducing armor check penalties by 1.", the same should apply to shields (nothing said in the magic item section), as explained somewhere in Chapter 6.


WhipShire wrote:

We did it for Carrion Crown. Alot of PC died, of the starting 6 onl;y 2 of the originals made it to the end. Its tough for the MAD character... Paly's / Monk's and so on... so most people ended up bring back a 2 or 1 stat build PC.

It makes it tough. A good idea if you have a large group (6-8)... So they don;t run over an adventure meant for 4 players.

Funny, we used 20 point buy with Carrion Crown, no problem, and 5 points wouldn't make such a huge difference. Actually the "MAD" players (Paladin[s]) were the most powerful characters, because they get a lot of good stuff from that MAD disadvantage.

However I wouldn't use 15 points, it is too low in comparison to rolling dices; ok ok random stats are not as good as point buy, etc..etc., 15 points is yet too low and encourages people to dump Cha to 7, and Int too O_o .


spore sex... what a pervert :p


Ki_Ryn wrote:
IkeDoe wrote:
(to OP) If you manage treasure as suggested in the Core Rulebook, over the levels, your equipment (buy value=price), money, etc.. will be worth (grand total) about the same ammount noted in the WBL.

That, empirically, is not the case. We play campaign paths exclusively and by mid levels there are huge discrepencies both between players and between the group as a whole and the WPL chart. Even with equal wealth distribution, using found vs bought items can double one PCs wealth with regards to another. By the time levels are into the double digits, that is making a clear difference in the ability of characters to contribute in encounters.

Then when a new characters wants to join with 50,000 gp worth of crafting materials instead of gear, it is clear that an extra sentence or two is really needed in the rule book.

I'm not trying to fix the system just for the fun of it. I'm trying to come up with something that will prevent a repeat of issues we have already seen (multiple times) in play.

I do appreciate the suggestions and information from those who understand the situation. At least it gives me an idea of the how the general population views the issue (or lack there of).

The Adventure Paths don't seem to follow the standard treasure rules closely, that's why the WBL doesn't make much sense in that case (oddly) and "empirically" works for games that use the standard treasure generation rules.

About disparity between characters, rules can't help with that issue, and AP's premade treasure hoards only make the situation worse. The Core Rulebook states that treasures should always be tailored to some extent and I suggest to do the same with AP's treasures.
I.e., a +1 rapier makes no sense in the context of this game, a +1 light or one handed martial weapon (GM choice) does, APs do the first thing, the Core Rulebook suggest you modify the treasure.

In any case if wealth is equally distributed you won't end up with one character having twice the wealth of another, if crafting isn't in the equation: it implies one of the characters selling almost every item found, even most of those he should use; and another character that never found or bought a more powerful item than the old item carried, which isn't a reasonable scenario if wealth is actually equally distibuted (another option is a deliberate bad management of items by one PC, which deserves a decrease in WBL, or bad management from GM).

The book falls short about crafting, but does NOT need any sentence in case someone wants to change most of its gear for crafting materials. It already suggest how many of the wealth should be expended in what equipment or actual money for a balanced approach. If your WBL is X and you want to join with X gp and no equipment you are not following the guidelines, i.e. the rules suggest 10% for money, 15% for consumibles, 25% for defensive devices, etc.. (iirc) the only question is how are you going to fine tune it as qualitatively suggested in the rules.

I strongly suggest to read the last sections of GameMastering chapter MANY times, until you can connect all the scattered information there; Mr Succint wrote that chapter, which is pretty much the problem.


Well, I'm not sure if that's about about options its existence I don't like, options I don't like the way they are, or what.

What I don't like is the lack of options in some area, but it isn't an option. Again in the league of no-options the mandatory overspecialization of Ranger's Favored Enemy.

About options, many options that are not well explained in the APG (i.e. the barbarian rage powers that give you claw attacks).

Samurais with shield proficiency. Even giving shield proficiency to Rogues would have more sense.

The alternative to Ranger's animal companion.


Always a tricky question.

You know, there's those guys that jump from a cliff to the sea and they never get hurt. Until they do.

There's always a chance for failure, but 1/20 is quite high.
I.e. I usually let people take 10 at climbing out of a combat encounter, and whenever they are flatfooted (if you are not trying to dodge potential attacks I'm pretty sure that you are not distracted). But I won't let them take 10 when climbing the Everest without ropes, you will eventually fail, they should use ropes and stop exploting rules that weren't never mean to cover every corner case, period.


UltimaGabe wrote:
IkeDoe wrote:

Mage Armor spell + Shield spell + buckler + "bracelets of armor +1" + "amulet of natural armor +3" while wearing a "+2 padded armor" will give you a grand total of:

+4 (mage armor spell) +4 (shield spell) = +8

I think you forgot about the bolded part.

It should be:

+4 (mage armor) +4 (shield) +3 (amulet of natural armor) = +11

Do'h!


Expanding the question...

Mage Armor spell + Shield spell + buckler + "bracelets of armor +1" + "amulet of natural armor +3" while wearing a "+2 padded armor" will give you a grand total of:

+4 (mage armor spell) +4 (shield spell) +3 (amulet of natural armor)= +11 [edited]

Shield spell won't stack with a shield.
Mage armor spell won't stack with an actual armor (neither the enhancement bonus to AC, which actually increases the armor bonus of the item and doesn't give an enhancement bonus to creatures -it's tricky because the enhancement bonus rules were part of the 3.5 DM Guide and the pathfinder explanation is terrible).
Mage armor spell won't stack with bracelets of armor.

Note, however, that mage armor and shield spells are force effects. Sometimes it matters if the AC comes from force effects or actual items.
I.e. incorporeal attacks ignore shields and armor, but won't ignore mage armor neither the shield spell.
And any effect that makes mage armor and the shield spell useless won't render the other stuff useless.

(Edit: Thanks UltimaGabe :D )


(to OP) If you manage treasure as suggested in the Core Rulebook, over the levels, your equipment (buy value=price), money, etc.. will be worth (grand total) about the same ammount noted in the WBL. That's the point of the WBL Table, nothing less, nothing more.

Also the WBL table is not a rule, the table is there to give you information about what is expected and isn't a replacement of the treasure generation rules, it comes FROM these rules. Using the WBL to overcomplicate the treasure management rules (as done frequently in those boards) makes no sense.

The text in the Core Rulebook already states that it asumes you are selling old items for 1/2 its price, among other things.

New characters will get about the same ammount of stuff the existing characters already have, using those guidelines. Note that the guidelines in page 400 already give hints about placing a few restrictions.

***
About item crafting:

Effects of item crafting aren't taken in mind, and yes, that's a problem because parties that craft items will get more money and stuff than parties that don't, using the standard rules. Which is ok because the guys waste feats and skill points in order to craft items, but we don't know the expected effect in the long run.

However there's no way you can predict the effect of crafting over wealth-per-level, because it depends of how much of your treasure hoard value is actual money (coins).
As you already know, selling and item and using the money to craft an item won't give you any benefit (in terms of wealth).
Instead, using money to craft items is better than using money to buy items (about twice better, in terms of wealth).
The Core Rulebook doesn't state the expected average % of treasure given as money, huge error imo (for what I would expect from a rpg designed in 200X).

House rule:
When needed we assume 10 to 25% (from "15% on disposable items like potions, scrolls, and wands, and 10% on ordinary gear and coins.", supossing than many disposable items are bought and other magic items are also bought, weak, I know, but works), which is just my house rule, but in my experience works well to balance item crafting.
I.e. About 10-25% of the treasure is money. A new character will receive 10-25% of his WBL as money, then he can use this money to pay the cost of crafting items. This way regular treasure generation and item crafting is simulated without modifying the WBL table (which is 100% valid unless you modify the whole treasure generation system or you give players a very different ammount of coins).
Again it's just my houserule.


At least, any ability scores damaged to 0 are raised to 1 (This spell functions like raise dead). However "you are able to restore life and complete strength to any deceased creature"... whatever it means.
I don't know if it restores every point of ability drain, it prolly does, but I clicked the FAQ button.


So what's first, the Eidolon or the Summoner?


The Hunter wrote:
Should the Bard (Archaeologist) get Disable Device as a class skill considering at 2nd level he gains an ability that gives him pretty much the same thing as Trapfinding for a rogue?

Note that one of the suggested multiclass options for the archetype is Rogue, so you stack the bard levels with your rogue level and you become an excelent device Disabler, while single class bards can't get as good as rogues in that skills (plus there is already enough characters that do something the rogue does as good as him/her, or better).


Rules: Ask your DM.
IIRC Caltrops are not actually weapons but a special item, any magic caltrop will prolly be a woundrows item with ad hoc abilities and prices.

1 to 50 of 787 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

©2002–2014 Paizo Inc.®. Need help? Email customer.service@paizo.com or call 425-250-0800 during our business hours: Monday–Friday, 10 AM–5 PM Pacific Time. View our privacy policy. Paizo Inc., Paizo, the Paizo golem logo, Pathfinder, the Pathfinder logo, Pathfinder Society, GameMastery, and Planet Stories are registered trademarks of Paizo Inc., and Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pathfinder Adventure Card Game, Pathfinder Player Companion, Pathfinder Modules, Pathfinder Tales, Pathfinder Battles, Pathfinder Online, PaizoCon, RPG Superstar, The Golem's Got It, Titanic Games, the Titanic logo, and the Planet Stories planet logo are trademarks of Paizo Inc. Dungeons & Dragons, Dragon, Dungeon, and Polyhedron are registered trademarks of Wizards of the Coast, Inc., a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc., and have been used by Paizo Inc. under license. Most product names are trademarks owned or used under license by the companies that publish those products; use of such names without mention of trademark status should not be construed as a challenge to such status.