Robert Matthews 166 wrote:
It's one simple change. Playing above your tier gives you 2 XP. That's all.
This would only work if there was also a 0 XP 500 gp option so people don't level out to retired after having screamed past their youth.
Mark Moreland wrote:
John, Mike, and I have talked over a few options and come to a decision
So we have to wait several months to learn the nature of the nerf?
Hayato Ken wrote:
Why would you punish a cleric or oracle that doesn´t need that much consumables? Or someone who regularly plays with one?
Presuming we are in the punishing game (punishing players who play up by nerfing gold), then the next step is punishing players who deliberately choose to not buy consumables so they have more gold for gear. They would in effect be as "powerful" as those that spend money on consumables.
Another thought I had, what about players who never use any of their gold for consumables. They get the 2PP/750GP consumables and nothing else.
Say a scenario where someone plays on tier from level 1 to 12, but never spends a single gp on consumables. Wouldn't they also be vastly out of WBL calculation? Without ever playing up and gaining additional gp? Do we need to punish these players as well?
Even with twice WBL is a character really going to ruin the game worse than a slumber hex happy witch?
A point few in the nerf wealth camp could understand.
The question becomes if the benefits are smaller than the costs (increased difficulty making tables, increased pressure to play up when out of tier) why should we bother adopting the new system?
To be clear, it is something that can be done that will appease the very vocal minority of folks screaming for a fix to a problem they probably don't fully understand anyway. What the minority calling for a fix like this doesn't understand just yet is this fix won't fix the problem they are witnessing. There will still be people dominating combats due to having a heavily optimized character. And everyone who isn't a part of the problem will be made to suffer as a result in the quest for fixing a problem.
There isn't much to do about it. So I'd say try to ignore it.
If something must be done about it, then the campaign needs to do some or all of the following (many of which are hard/impossible to do):
In short, I think it is an intrinsic problem with organized play involving a rules system that allows for optimized characters.
People keep saying "it isn't optimized characters it is wealthy characters causing problems".
I'm not convinced this is true, I believe optimization has more to do with making encounters trivial and the wealth has very little.
I'll try to work up a chart of the difference between playing up every mod, playing on tier and playing down by total wealth.
Then I'll look at every character I have, how often I played up, on tier, and down. Compare my wealth to the chart and subtract the amount of difference to see what items I'd be missing or how much this would effect me.
I think we are in one of the two states and I think this might help illuminate which one:
Is it due to consumables? I've bought across all my characters 0 in consumables ever in roughly 60 adventures. The only consumables I'll buy are ones I can get with 2 PP. I don't ever spend gold (waste gold) on consumables. Does this make me more effective? (my quirk) or less effective? (because consumables are more powerful?)
Care Baird wrote:
I think both of these options fix the "wealth" by level issues
Does it actually fix anything or just make us happy we fixed something?
It seems everyone I know likes to optimize PC's, and I'm not seeing people with obnoxious wealth by level.
You could say I'm an abuser, because for level 1 to level 7 of my Chan character I played every single encounter up. Every one of them. I was the lowest level in most of the sessions.
I'm currently level 11 and I have 5,630 gp more than Core p399 WBL chart suggests.
If we fixed this problem, here is a real world example of a character that would be directly harmed by the rule. I would be at least 10 to 15 thousand below WBL for my level.
I would have drastically changed my play behaviour to avoid playing down ever under any situation. Period. Am I a jerk? Maybe. But if you are under the curve, you are not going to catch up by playing down.
True but I can optimize to the point of being a problem with little or no (0 gp), so it is fix that doesn't actually fix anything. It make people happy the problem was fixed tho, so I guess if we are content with a pat on the back that we "fixed" the problem then it does it's job.
On another thought, I don't know if it is relevant to this discussion (I think it may be.)
I DM a level 14 group that started at level 1 as PFS and left PFS at level 7.
We couldn't find enough modules that could be played together by level 1 (new players replacing ones that left) and the current level 7 players. If they got to level 8 the problem would have been worse.
So for level 8 the group voted to stop doing PFS and request me to do homebrew, which I have done.
Maybe we wouldn't have this option now with the AP added and other "one group together" options. But I feel the tension from the player base that want an optimized character and feel their reward isn't being provided if gold is reduced and the players just wanting to play will be increased by any thing that encourages players not to play for fear of being nerfed.
6 is impossible. Its like trying to ban bad art, there's no objective standard.
I assume you mean my #6.
But the desire to fix the optimizers is where the idea to limit their wealth originated. I don't think the wealth changes will accomplish the goal.
1) I'll start off saying I don't think there is a problem and I wonder if the problem is either in a vocal minority of players or frankly in whiny GM's hosting tables full of optimized players. There isn't anything wrong so don't fix it.
2) Doesn't fix OC's. You can OC Druids, Fighter/Monk Maneuver Masters and Archers to break games with little or no gold. I've DMed level 1 to 14 of a group with a game breaking Monk and Archer that dominates anything but severely overpowered encounters.
3) Not a problem, creates another problem of "what to do after level 11"
4) Lowering this is a bad idea, as most players I know have money saved up for big ticket items and are just waiting. Prolonging the wait won't make them spend it on smaller items. It just makes them unhappy they have to wait more.
5) This is a fine solution if you believe the problem exists (I don't) and you need a fix. This is the only good solution I've seen mentioned.
6) In the end, gear plays little in the power of a OC PC's. I'm pretty sure if no gold was every provided past the 150 gp starting, people could still build OC to dominate mods. This is the only true solution.
You grow the claws when you take the feat.
Typically I'm inclined to believe that is RAI.But all other feats that do grant weapons like:
Benefit: You gain two claw attacks
Instead of the way Claws of the Beast is worded:
This combined with:
So since they bothered to point out it is an Ex ability, it makes me believe there was at least some intent to allow you to activate it.
Or does it summon the materials that you need to create whatever you wish?
Need materials on hand, but it could (in theory) tear down one building to build another.
This is really an "Ask your DM" question, since I just gave you my answer I'd use in a PFS game if a player used it.
Can't cast, then can't copy.Ask your GM is the real answer.
Nobody is criticizing him for something that would be fun to roleplay. They are criticizing the system that makes the "fun to roleplay" option also the "mechanically bad" option.
I don't see that they have to joined in that way.
I also don't agree that Vital Strike (standard action) is all that "bad".
Are you looking for barbarian pounce type stuff so that everyone can full attack after a move? Because I'm certainly not looking for that. I consider that a flaw in the system when that type of mechanics is beyond a minority.
Because I'm looking for a RAW/RAI answer.
You will be looking for a while.I've wanted this clarified since AA and APG came out.
The best answer is a SKR comment that they couldn't use unarmed strike benefits since they are unarmed weapon attacks and not unarmed strikes attacks.
But the actual RAW is debated and hasn't officially been clarified.
They don't seem to be to me - which begs the question (unless for RP reasons) why spend a feat to learn one. But, I'd like to hear other opinions.
I'm pretty sure they are all superior.In 3.5 days there was a weapon system calculator, that showed all (or most) exotic were in fact better than 100% (which was the baseline for martial.)
Weapon Focus: Unarmed Strike, and use Brass Knuckles, as a Monk, would you lose the +1?
I have played 33 games of PFS with a character that had WF Unarmed Strike at first level and BK as soon as he could afford.
In my experience, about half the tables (GM's) rule you can and the other half you can't.
The creator's caster level must be as high as the item's caster level, so you're looking at a minimum level of 7 before an Amulet of Spell Cunning could be crafted.
Caster Level in an item is simply the caster level the "generic" item of that type is found.You can make a lower caster level so long as it is at least the minimum for a spell component contained in the item.
Is there any limit on what spells you can put in the X/day or continuous use magic item?
No limit, but remember item creation is about power.
So a permanent shield item is going to be more expensive than 16000 (+4 shield AC) + brooch of shielding cost + something for brooch of shielding that never expires.
In that scenario, this is the options the Fighter has (using my interpretation that I use unless requested by GM to use alternate):
Without Charge Through:
With Charge Through:
This is how I start (with this interpretation) for my Druid with all these feats in PFS. I frequently run into GM's that scratch their head about why Charge Through exists because it doesn't "do" anything. Which is why I'd appreciate a little FAQ love from Paizo. Because I have two feat slots (as expensive as they are) taken up by feats that over half the GM's say they don't do me any good (Charge Through and Elephant Stomp.)
Do people actually pay attention to SKR's rule interpretations?
Ok, let me rephrase then.
I do pay attention to SKR, and if you sit at my PFS table that is how I'll be interpreting BK's.
I should make it clear I have a 12th level character I'll be playing the 12th arc at Gencon that has BK and I use (prefer) the "BK are not unarmed strikes" interpretation unless the GM overrules my interpretation.
I'd love it if you could get Jason to answer one way or another. I couldn't care which way to interpret them, but with a known answer online (SKR way) I won't be intentionally ignoring his advice.
brass knuckles is an unarmed attack and thus follows all pertinent rules, and this also means they can be used along with any unarmed strike abilities one might possess. At least, that is my interpretation.
That has been mentioned a number of times in the past.
A fine interpretation, but there are a number of people (me included) that disagree that table proves your assertion.
It disagrees with posts by Paizo staff (including SKR) saying that BK attacks are not unarmed strike attacks and things like weapon focus unarmed strike won't help a BK attack.
Without this ruling it is possible to argue for an Overrun and Attack during a normal charge, which is clearly not the intent of the designers since they created the Charge Through feat.
While I appreciate your view that it wasn't intended, the existence of the feat Charge Through doesn't prove your point.
Even if they didn't wish you to Overrun & Attack, Charge Through allows a second Overrun, as you can't Overrun with Charge Through your Charge Target. It is my interpretation that you can't Overrun anyone by your Charge target without Charge Through.
I am going to need a quote for that, mostly the part about the mw qualities, enhancement bonuses, and flaming. How does the weapon turn itself off?
Your not likely to find a quote for it, but you aren't using the weapon. You are using the stick that the longspear is part of. So any balancing (the MW property) wouldn't factor in since you are NOT using the longspear as a weapon, but rather using it as an improvised weapon.
No MW properties would be in use.
reach weapon ... do you still threaten your 5' adjacent space ?
Depends on if your GM allows you to use a reach weapon as an improvised while not on your turn.
Otherwise you need spiked gauntlet/armor to do so.
Only if you're Tiny.
That is a 3.5 rule (3.5 DMG p29 iirc), they removed that in Pathfinder. Tiny do not threaten even with a Reach weapon now.
You have 4 debated issues. There are no firm answers in the RAW to any of those questions, as the RAW spawns different interpretations for each.
I can give you my RAW interpretations, and I can say these 4 issues are heavily influenced by your GM's thinking (my 10th level Overruning Druid has lots of GM interpretation experience.)
1) I think this is very unlikely to be true. Nothing in the RAW says this, and the Overrun text is materially different than the Bull Rush text which explicitly says that it replaces the attack of the Charge.
2) That is not at all clear in the rules. Overrun just says you move into their space. I see no rule requiring you to go beyond the first square of theirs. With Elephant Stomp, you don't even enter their space during the Overrun action.
3) I say you may not, at least not using a Charge. Charge requires you move to the first square you can attack. Overruning with a Charge would allow you to move into their space at the closest square and then attack them while they are prone.
4) If you are performing an Overrun of the target (and not an Elephant Stomp Overrun) then you avoid AoO from the target for all movement as part of the Overrun (the Move or the Charge double move.)
I don't get it. You use your standard action to overrun (sort of), your immediate/swift action to make an attack, and your move action to...make another attack?
I misspoke, for the move+attack example you are right. Elephant Stomp doesn't do anything.
For the Charge Example it does:
Actually, now that I look at the feat Elephant Stomp, it makes Charge Through look like a model of clarity. Why would anyone ever want to use Elephant Stomp? Doesn't it just turn a successful overrun into a move + attack? If I wanted to move + attack, why wouldn't I do that in the first place?
Because the only way I can make sense of Elephant Stomp is it is an addition attack (especially since it is Immediate action.)
You get (with Elephant Stomp) move+attack+attack or charge+attack+attack
You left the following paragraph out of your rules quotation.
I did in fact. That essentially means the paragraph I posted ("either threatens the other") is erroneous.
The rules only care about adjacency threaten, they don't actually care about threaten in general.
This rules block:
To this block:
Pole Fighting (Ex)
Doesn't matter, since if you want to take a -4 to hit (with a reach weapon as an improvised weapon) there is no rule preventing you from doing so.
Of course the GM can always rule 0 you away from using Improvised Weapons rules.
Reach weapons check one thing; are you adjacent to an enemy? If yes, you cannot attack that enemy
PHB p145 "You use a reach weapon to strike opponents 10 feet away, but you can’t use it against an adjacent foe."
You are adding "This means if the target is both adjacent and 10 feet away, you may not attack it." which isn't in the rules.
By the way, there was an older thread on the same topic:
Yea, I just read that thread. It mostly solidifies my interpretation.
use the attack as your overrun
It is very clear the difference between Bull Rush and Overrun, clear enough to me that you keep the attack of the charge.
which is counter to the point of Over-running, namely that you move past the target after the maneuver.
I think of it more like you move into their square (not beyond them) and the Charge attack is made against them with you in the nearest square to you of their space. I don't think you get to move past them or through them (without using Charge Through.)
1) & 2) see above
3) The Bull Rush happens instead of the attack, you get a +2 CMB bonus to the Bull Rush and you take -2 AC.
4) PHB p141 10 ft
6) First PC class level is max, so 6 for Wizards. Don't roll.
7) Only if [evil] tagged.
9) Ask your GM, it changes how many points to spend on abilities the players have.
10) If chosen as favorite, yes.
11) 8 hours, ask your GM about overtime (not in the rules explicitly allowed)
12) GM calls for a roll, tells you results.
13) No way to combine, the ring acts before you get a chance. If you ask can you put a higher level spell in Ring using Improved Counterspell then No. But ask your GM, as this is a grey area.
14) No, look at "Alignment Channel" feat. It has a line "You can gain this feat multiple times" without that you can never take a feat multiple times.
15) Yes, unless the target used a Standard action to lower his SR for 1 round.
16) Yes and No (ask your DM on the No, as that is grey area.)
18) Stand alone, but if your side change comes from a spell/effect it will tell you all the changes.
19) Typically 60 ft for some effects (like Fly expiring) or ask your GM for anything not explicitly mentioned.
20) Not sure a rule exists for this, ask your GM.
Just found this thread.
I've played a Charging Overruning Wild Shaping Druid for 10 levels now in PFS.
Every game is different interpretation of the rules.
I'll shortly post these points in the "What are Highly Debated Rules Topics Crying Out For FAQ / Errata / Blog Treatment?" thread. But for now, I'll put my interpretation here.
I have the following feats:
With this armor:
Rules Interpretations I use (several are debated):
About half the DM's ask how I'm doing what I'm trying and ultimately change how my mechanics work (which I always accept without question.)
Chris Mortika wrote:
James, the author of Boon Companion has posted about his intended interpretation, which correspond to your "Middle" position.
Sounds like debating... ;-)Yes, Russ did. But James Jacobs said in the same thread that he wouldn't allow that interpretation (so it wouldn't help single classed Rangers.)
Domain: animal ... At 5th level take boon companion and have your companion at full HD.
Using the above Conservative interpretation: No Middle: Yes Liberal: Yes
Boon Companion for single classed Druids/Rangers
Conservative: Single class Druids gain no benefit, as their character level limits their Druid level to the same. Single class Rangers have a -3 effective level (their druid level is -3 their Ranger level), but their ranger level is still capped at their character level. So Rangers also gain no benefit for example: 5th Ranger = ((5+4) limited to 5)-3 = 2nd level companion.
Middle: Single class Druids gain no benefit, but Rangers get to negate the -3 because the feat works on their effective Druid level and not their effective Ranger level for example: 5th Ranger = (5-3)+4 limited to 5 = 5th level companion.
Liberal: Single classed Druids/Rangers gain a benefit if their AC has less HD than they do. For example: A 5th Ranger's AC has 3 HD, so he would gain 2 additional levels. A 20th Druid's AC has 16 HD, so he would then have a 20 HD AC.
I subscribe to Conservative view.
There is another thread that comments on the author (Russ) view and has a dev saying it doesn't help single classed rangers. I couldn't find it, but I did find this one where James Jacobs recommends against allowing it to work with single classed rangers.
It certainly does not read that way, and I could not find a supporting post for this interpretation.
I see three valid interpretations for the feat (your interpretation is one of them.)
Boon Companion: "as though your class were four levels higher, to a maximum bonus equal to your character level"
To demonstrate my interpretation, here is a sample 5th level Ranger:
"as though your class (ranger 5) were four levels higher (ranger 9), to a maximum bonus equal to your character level (5)"
So in excel:
Since your character level is 5, your class (ranger) can not gain any effective levels over a ranger without the feat.
Christopher Dudley wrote:
Text vs Table, go with Text.
PHB p567 says you lose -4 DEX. So you don't become Sneak Bait.