** 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.
** 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.
Actually the Sai grants +2 to disarm foes, because it has got the Disarm special ability
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 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.
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.
This section introduces monk vows, which any user of ki can take to increase his ki pool.
But every vow benefit reads like
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
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).
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.
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.
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.
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.
Same here, until I realized that hitting a lot and dealing crappy damage leads you to death. :)
J.J., Agent of the Decemvirate wrote:
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.
J.J., Agent of the Decemvirate wrote:
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.
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.
J.J., Agent of the Decemvirate wrote:
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.
Yes, if he is the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th or 5th player...
The Ranger gets Favorite Enemy Humans. All enemies should be humans.
Specially, there's one guy that can't stop moaning, but I guess there's one of those in every party.
J.J., Agent of the Decemvirate wrote:
I disagree, altough I'm not sure what I have to factor to meet your definition of weak.
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
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:
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).
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.
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.
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.
*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.
*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.
Silent Saturn wrote:
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:
However, IMO, sometimes you will read complaints that have a point or at least do something more than saying "X class sux".
Hard to find something less Tolkien-esque, yet pseudo-medieval than D&D/Pathfinder.
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).
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.
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
Beastmorph ( Alchemist Archetype )
Beastform Mutagen / Improved / Greater / Grand
Do the abilities stack?
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.
Funny when someone says that nobody wants a staff when there're guys in this thread that use them.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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?" ).
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:
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:
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".
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.
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 .
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.
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.
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.
Note, however, that mage armor and shield spells are force effects. Sometimes it matters if the AC comes from force effects or actual items.
(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.
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).
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.
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).