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

Jiggy's page

RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32. RPG Superstar 2013 Marathon Voter, 2014 Dedicated Voter, 2015 Dedicated Voter. FullStarFullStar Pathfinder Society GM. 17,853 posts (19,587 including aliases). 17 reviews. 3 lists. 1 wishlist. 13 Pathfinder Society characters. 15 aliases.


RSS

1 to 50 of 17,853 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

ElyasRavenwood wrote:

I have a quick question.

I was playing in eyes of the ten last year. One of our opponents was casting a spell. After a successful spell craft roll to identify the spell as a fire ball, One of the other casters in the group said I cast Emergency Force Shield. The GM ruled that the emergency force shield wouldn't form in time to protect the party from a fire ball.

What do you all think?

Thank you

I think your GM either doesn't know what an immediate action is (unlikely) or doesn't like emergency force sphere (very likely).

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

Core Rulebook, Magic chapter, Casting Time wrote:
You make all pertinent decisions about a spell (range, target, area, effect, version, and so forth) when the spell comes into effect.

If the wizard's been targeted, then the spell has come into effect. If the spell hasn't come into effect, then the target hasn't been decided yet.

There is no point in time at which the final decision of the target has been made but the spell has not come into effect.

EDIT: Ninja'd.

Grand Lodge ** RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

2 people marked this as a favorite.
redward wrote:
But if we get supreme pizza every week, and some people really want cheese pizza, I'd have to be a real jerk to ask the pizzeria to not offer cheese pizza just to ensure I get the pizza I want.

If you get 5 supreme pizzas every week, and then you announce that you're going to start ordering 2 cheese pizzas every week, I don't think it's an unreasonable concern (let alone jerkish) to think you might only be ordering 3 supremes from now on, rather than assuming you'll be ordering 7 total pizzas.

Especially if your venue is only ordering 1 pizza each week because you can barely scrape up the money for it.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

Core Rulebook, Magic Items chapter, Potions section wrote:
The drinker of a potion is both the effective target and the caster of the effect
Core Rulebook, Magic Items chapter, Magic Item Creation section, Potions subsection wrote:
The imbiber of the potion is both the caster and the target. Spells with a range of personal cannot be made into potions.

Can potions be made for spells with a range of personal?

Can a frightened creature stop running once the source of its fear is no longer present?

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

blackbloodtroll wrote:
Jiggy wrote:
blackbloodtroll wrote:

This:

pfsrd wrote:

Frightened

A frightened creature flees from the source of its fear as best it can. If unable to flee, it may fight. A frightened creature takes a –2 penalty on all attack rolls, saving throws, skill checks, and ability checks. A frightened creature can use special abilities, including spells, to flee; indeed, the creature must use such means if they are the only way to escape.

Frightened is like shaken, except that the creature must flee if possible. Panicked is a more extreme state of fear.

Did not do the research.
You mean this is not one of the examples of what the OP is talking about, or do you just like sounding snide?

I meant it sounded like you were just saying "Here's the fear rules, mystery solved" when there's an additional set of fear rules in the same book.

But seeing your later post, it seems you now see the issue. :)

Grand Lodge ** RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

1 person marked this as a favorite.
grandpoobah wrote:
It would be nice for the players, but if the badguys had that defense, then players would be less inclined to use those abilities (flesh to stone, Sleep).

I disagree. People still use the Evil Eye hex even though it never progresses beyond -2 to one stat/type of roll. People still use slow even though it never fully incapacitates anyone. So it stands to reason that an effect which started with a -2 (or similar condition), and had a chance to stack on a slow effect, and further had a chance to fully neutralize the target, would indeed be used by PCs (assuming it was appropriately leveled/resourced for its power level, of course).

Grand Lodge ** RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

Kevin Ingle wrote:
Jiggy wrote:
Wraithcannon wrote:

What about core spells that use other resources?

RAW, Summon Monster allows you to summon Elementals from Bestiary I and II.

Polymorph spells like Beast Shape, Plant Shape, and Form of the Dragon also allow you to transform into creatures that are from all 4 current Bestiaries.

It's been clarified that if the CRB points to the Bestiary for something (like with summon monster) then you can use that thing from the Bestiary. Not sure if that includes 2-4, though.
You can't use Bestiary 2 elementals via SNA or SM in PFS, so I wouldn't see why you could in CORE...the regular Bestiary I agree with 100%

Dunno about those other spells he mentioned, though. Haven't looked.

Grand Lodge ** RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

Wraithcannon wrote:

What about core spells that use other resources?

RAW, Summon Monster allows you to summon Elementals from Bestiary I and II.

Polymorph spells like Beast Shape, Plant Shape, and Form of the Dragon also allow you to transform into creatures that are from all 4 current Bestiaries.

It's been clarified that if the CRB points to the Bestiary for something (like with summon monster) then you can use that thing from the Bestiary. Not sure if that includes 2-4, though.

Grand Lodge ** RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Charon's Little Helper wrote:
I think that's a common mistake because people carry it over from MMOs

Really? I thought it came from people seeing the concept-defining fighting styles that are locked behind feat chains/level prereqs/prestige classes and wanting to actually use them.

Grand Lodge ** RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

David Bowles wrote:
I just tell people to use as many books as they are comfortable with. Core-only PCs are still usable in the standard campaign, and are still better than pregens most of the time. It's hard for me to see how the number of books warrants this offshoot campaign. Maybe I'm not seeing everything, though.

I think the idea is that, to someone who hasn't tried Pathfinder yet, it's hard to believe that they really can get by with just the CRB, and so they don't bother joining up. Additionally, the prospect of beginning to GM can be daunting for those who want to know how all their players' characters work, when those characters collectively use 10 different books. So, kind of an "entry point" for those who might be intimidated by the (perceived) need to absorb thousands and thousands of pages of rules to get going.

Grand Lodge ** RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

deusvult wrote:
Stay classy, Jiggy.

Sorry, I realized a while after posting that my last line probably sounded terrible, but actual work kept me from getting back for an edit before the timer ran out. Sorry about that.

Anyway, my main goal was just trying to help clarify BNW's points.

Though I will point out you left some people out of Group C: those whose reason for never playing "vanilla" PFS is that the mountain of books is so unapproachable for a newbie. Maybe you think there are so few players who would (at least for a while) play strictly Core-only that the group is a "boogeyman", but the fact that the Core Campaign is partially aimed at exactly that demographic means that PFS leadership disagrees with you.

Grand Lodge ** RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

deusvult wrote:

People who drink Coke can also drink Pepsi; they just obviously don't drink both at the same time. Only the very rare fanatic will turn down drinking brown fizzy sugar water entirely if they can't have their preferred flavor.

I don't know very many PFS members who play only one character. I don't think I know ANY, in fact. There's nothing stopping you from participating in Vanilla and Core concurrently, and in fact the nature of PFS in general gives you every incentive to actually do so.

I don't think you're understanding what's being talked about here.

To some people, yes, it's basically a flavor choice.

But to some people, they've already played so many PFS scenarios that they CANNOT play PFS unless it's in the Core Campaign.

To others, there are things so objectionable about regular PFS that they WILL NOT play PFS unless it's in the Core Campaign.

And not only do both of these categories of people exist, but they've both been branded as intended targets of this new campaign.

I don't know how you missed that, especially since I told you in the post to which you were replying.

Grand Lodge ** RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

deusvult wrote:
Jiggy wrote:


Dunno about your venues, but at the ones I skip around between, people usually come in, find out what table they're at, and then socialize with their tablemates. If Alice and Bob are never tablemates, they never socialize with each other. I think that's what BNW's getting at.
I disagree. That fear is only applicable on a timeline of one night; there's no real incentive for those players to remain segregated on successive nights.

The entire premise of CORE seems to disagree with you: it seems to be an outlet for people who either can't (because of lack or replay) or won't (because of being newbies or disliking something about standard PFS) play anything but Core.

Although there will be some players flipping back and forth, all the branding/advertising so far seems to have been aimed at folks who would otherwise not be playing PFS, and therefore are not likely to mix with the standard PFS tables.

So no, it's not a one-night thing, at least if the reality comes anywhere close to the impression being presented.

Grand Lodge ** RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

Mark Stratton wrote:

One the second, he again is talking about "SOME" people, not all. There are MANY people who view PFS as "roll-playing" but not "role-playing." Here, he is talking about SOME people - I think it's clear that he includes himself in that statement - but not all. As such, one shouldn't presume that he is somehow denigrating PFS as merely "roll playing" because that's not what his sentence says.

At any rate, you can certainly read it however you want, but I am not convinced, for the reasons I've stated above, that his comment was meant as an insult to those who prefer PFS.

Uh... I think you misunderstand what the offense was. It's more that— actually, you know what? Let's not even go there. Though I'm not convinced it was the product of a language barrier (or of ignoring context), let's just go ahead and give him the benefit of the doubt and say he meant no offense.

Now, how does that factor into how best to respond to those who were offended?

Grand Lodge ** RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

Snorter wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
If you have 10 players locally and you go up to 20, but half of them play core you've at best gained nothing.

Nothing? Nothing at all?

How about, you've gained ten potential new friends?

As long as each group doesn't treat the other like they have cooties, and go talk to each other, they may find they have more in common than they think.

The guy who plays PFSCore, because it's a simpler pickup game he can play at the weekend with his kids, might have a seat free at his late-night, mid-week, anything goes game, on a night you're otherwise twiddling your thumbs.

Dunno about your venues, but at the ones I skip around between, people usually come in, find out what table they're at, and then socialize with their tablemates. If Alice and Bob are never tablemates, they never socialize with each other. I think that's what BNW's getting at.

Grand Lodge ** RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Mark Stratton wrote:
Imbicatus wrote:
This one uses the term cheese weasel, and this one uses roll playing.

You should read the two posts you cited again. In both cases, the posters placed their comments in a specific context, and in the case of the "cheese weasel" comment, the poster said that he didn't know if he could even exclude himself.

If you are intent on just picking out a word or two or using them out of context, I can't help you.

For one of those posts you are correct. For the other, you are the one who needs to re-read it, because it absolutely was what it was made out to be.

Either that, or maybe explain the "context" that makes it mean something other than what it very plainly says?

Again, you're right on the "cheese weasel" post; I actually remember that one and was going to jump in with a correction, but saw you beat me to it. But it really undermines your position to claim that the other one is in the same category.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

blackbloodtroll wrote:

This:

pfsrd wrote:

Frightened

A frightened creature flees from the source of its fear as best it can. If unable to flee, it may fight. A frightened creature takes a –2 penalty on all attack rolls, saving throws, skill checks, and ability checks. A frightened creature can use special abilities, including spells, to flee; indeed, the creature must use such means if they are the only way to escape.

Frightened is like shaken, except that the creature must flee if possible. Panicked is a more extreme state of fear.

Did not do the research.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

Paladin of Baha-who? wrote:
just wanted to throw that out there.

Was that on purpose?

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32 , Marathon Voter 2013, Dedicated Voter 2014, Dedicated Voter 2015 aka Jiggy

GM_Solspiral wrote:
I'll start with Chris Shaeffer: Nice freakin' job man that is one hell of a map and it tells multiple stories.

Uh, you know each map has its own thread, right?

Grand Lodge ** RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

LazarX wrote:
But it's still a campaign and a viable one, just as viable as it was in Season Zero.

If someone in this thread was saying otherwise, I must have missed it.

Grand Lodge ** RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

Kevin Ingle wrote:
Lorathorn wrote:
I do have to ask the obvious question... customization aside, how optimized DO you have to be to survive Pathfinder Society games?

You don't really.

Base characters played well can do very well in PFS.

On the other hand, over-optimized characters can ROFL stomp many scenarios with or without backup.

As long as you built a base balance, you're fine.

I believe that's the level of optimization he's asking about.

And to answer the question:
The best answer I've ever encountered—one which gives you something tangible enough to actually mean something, while still remaining sufficiently flexible for all the different possible builds/roles/etc—is to look at the Monster Creation chart in the Bestiary/PRD and calculating backwards to get numbers you're comfortable with.

For instance, do you want your character to only get hit on a 17+? Or a 13+? Or maybe you have other defenses (like illusions or sheer range) and are okay with your AC only screening out the rolls under 7? Look at the attack bonuses listed for CRs near your level and do the math.

This way, you can make a decision that's tailored to your specific situation, while still having a reference point so you don't vastly over- or undershoot.

Hope that helps!

Grand Lodge ** RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

BigNorseWolf wrote:
Federico Castrovel wrote:


[i]Do you wanna play a pregen?

Not with red box

Can't Play my Fox
No rules house
Can't play my mouse

I would not play one here or there
I would not play one anywhere

I'd rather drink the hoover dam
I do not like them sir or ma'dam

*votes for Federico*

Grand Lodge ** RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Federico Castrovel wrote:
cjtSparhawk wrote:
This is also going to make accommodating any player that shows up with a legal character a bit harder. "Sorry Joe even though we haven't seen you in 6 months, and you really want to play your lvl 5 Cavalier again, we only have core games tonight. Do you want to play a pregen?" Which also means there will have to be a set of pregens marked "core play approved".

<music box melody>

Do you wanna play a pregen?
We have several you can play.
See the sign, we put on the door.
Tonight, it's only Core.
Cavaliers another daaaaay!

You're still my dungeon-buddy,
And one fine day,
The gang will ride again once mooooooore.
But for now we've got a pregeeeen,
Made.
Of.
Coooooore.

I'm not even that into Frozen, but that was amazing. Bravo!

(Have you seen the "Do you wanna go to Starbucks?" version?)

Grand Lodge ** RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

Duiker wrote:

Exactly, the basic chain of conversation was:

"I'm going to break the game"

"People who try to break the game are bad for the game"

50 people Undone: "Why do you hate optimizers?"

Fixed that for you. Your post makes the same fundamental error as Undone did (attributing one person's statement to lots of people). That manner of thinking is the root of a lot of the community's problems. Please don't engage in the very thing you're attempting to call out.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Displacement grants a 50% miss chance "as if" the target had total concealment; this means that the 50% miss chance is the ONLY similarity to total concealment, and that the target does not actually HAVE total concealment.

What some people seem to think the spell produces is "total concealment, except X". But if that were the case, it would simply say that it grants total concealment and then specify targetability.

But that's not what it says. The only places it even mentions total concealment is when it says "as if" and "unlike actual".

The target explicitly does NOT have total concealment (or any concealment, for that matter). This makes a difference not only for IPS, but also for things like Sneak Attack and Stealth that care about whether or not you have concealment.

Grand Lodge ** RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

...Are you wearing a thong?

Grand Lodge ** RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

Sebastian Hirsch wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:

** spoiler omitted **

** spoiler omitted **

Hope this helps. :)

Grand Lodge ** RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

1 person marked this as a favorite.
GM Lamplighter wrote:
I love how I get told to not assume that all players think the same way, and how all GMs *do* think the same way, in the same post. :)

Yeah, Undone's lack of caveats is unfortunate. See also: my recent reply to Scribbling Rambler.

Sometimes I don't know whether it's genuine ignorance of how clauses work in a sentence, or unconsciously believing the sweeping generalizations and not realizing that it shows through in their words.

Either way, this is why explosives are not strictly superior to bullets, in a manner of speaking.

Grand Lodge ** RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

Scribbling Rambler wrote:
Jiggy wrote:
Scribbling Rambler wrote:
Undone wrote:

[

The real problem is GM's actually believe the bolded part of people who optimize.
What are they supposed to believe when somebody says they want to "break the game"?
Perhaps that that single individual might do something disruptive, rather than attributing that attitude to a whole category of people who have no interest in such a goal?

Mis-communicated.

As a GM, I don't believe that all optimizers wish to ruin a game. Almost all players optimize to some extent (including me).
However, I do believe that some optimizers do set out to spoil peoples fun. Which is what I quoted (EDIT: "people who optimize" not "everyone who optimizes").

"People who do X" is the same group as "everyone who does X". They are not different statements unless "everyone" includes specimens who are somehow not included in "people".

If you don't mean to include all members of the group "people who do X", then you need to add a qualifier (like "some"), because naming a category includes all members of that category by definition. "People" and "everyone" refer to the same group.

EDIT: Same to Undone, for turning this into "GMs" and "optimizers" as categories.

Grand Lodge ** RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Scribbling Rambler wrote:
Undone wrote:

[

The real problem is GM's actually believe the bolded part of people who optimize.
What are they supposed to believe when somebody says they want to "break the game"?

Perhaps that that single individual might do something disruptive, rather than attributing that attitude to a whole category of people who have no interest in such a goal?

Grand Lodge ** RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

The Masked Ferret wrote:
Jiggy wrote:

This just occurred to me: if I make a Core PC, they don't get to have my standard pair of criss-crossing bandoliers. How the frick am I supposed to make my PCs look like badass explorers without bandoliers?!

;)

Your characters can have bandoleers, they just can't use them for anything. Nor would they cost money. They would just be a fashion item. Part of Explorers clothing, perhaps.

Hey, not a bad idea... I'll say that the "pockets" listed in the Explorer's Outfit description are located in the leather straps crossing my chest. ;)

Grand Lodge ** RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

1 person marked this as a favorite.

This just occurred to me: if I make a Core PC, they don't get to have my standard pair of criss-crossing bandoliers. How the frick am I supposed to make my PCs look like badass explorers without bandoliers?!

;)

Grand Lodge ** RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Bob Jonquet wrote:
Philderbeast wrote:
Please please please please let core characters sit at the same table as non-core characters without losing there core only status.
I disagree. Reporting is not the driving issue here.

Really? Because Mike Brock has repeatedly responded to that topic by referencing the reporting system's inability to do a mixed game. That kinda gave me the impression that it is the "driving issue".

Quote:
If a player with a CORE character is sitting at a mixed table, s/he gets to benefit directly or indirectly from non-CORE content through their interactions with the non-CORE characters at the table. That is not what CORE is about.

Okay, then what is Core "about", that gets interfered with by being on a team with a non-Core PC?

Grand Lodge ** RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

Aaron Motta wrote:
Folks, please, read the announcement before posting questions. You're going to give Mike a heart attack. :P

I was just about to ask if "hear attack" was a typo, but you corrected it before I hit "Reply". Honestly, the typo would sort of work... ;)

Grand Lodge ** RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

Bob Jonquet wrote:
In regards to the latter, if think this is going to be any bigger blip in the forums than any other "argument" topic, I think you've been stricken with the "newest thing" disease.

If you think what's feared is something new, then I think you've been stricken with "little bubble world" disease.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32 , Marathon Voter 2013, Dedicated Voter 2014, Dedicated Voter 2015 aka Jiggy

2 people marked this as a favorite.

*starts to give Mark the stinkeye, then collapses and starts twitching*

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32 , Marathon Voter 2013, Dedicated Voter 2014, Dedicated Voter 2015 aka Jiggy

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Okay, call me paranoid, but all I see when I read this post is "CAN I STOP WORRYING ABOUT WHETHER I ACCIDENTALLY DQ'D MYSELF SOMEHOW?!"

Grand Lodge ** RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

2 people marked this as a favorite.
BigNorseWolf wrote:
Jiggy wrote:

And no one batted an eye.

I did because I lost 5 dollars. I had that post pegged as comming in in 5 minutes or less.

Well, let's be optimistic. There's still a chance for that type of thing to be the exception rather than the rule. Gonna try my best to give the benefit of the doubt. :)

Grand Lodge ** RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

17 people marked this as a favorite.
BigNorseWolf wrote:
I'll be happy to be proven wrong but I've got a bad feeling about this. Splitting geeks into groups can often split an already small group socially.

I have similar reservations. I mean, mechanically, the idea is fantastic. It addresses multiple issues pretty elegantly.

But on the "people" level... I'm less optimistic. As soon as I finished reading the blog, I was already wondering how this development would interact with existing elements of elitism in the playerbase. As I read through the comments, I pondered whether I should voice my concerns or just quietly hope for the best so I wouldn't risk fueling the very thing I fear.

Then I discovered that it only took 40 minutes for someone to proudly proclaim that the Core Campaign is the place for people who are better roleplayers than those who use more books. It even came straight from a VO.

And no one batted an eye.

Grand Lodge ** RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

Sarvei taeno wrote:

have sylph boon

want any other race boon

Sending PM.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32 , Marathon Voter 2013, Dedicated Voter 2014, Dedicated Voter 2015 aka Jiggy

Phil Greeley/Rochandil Calenlad wrote:
But it seems to leave no middle ground for a class of magic items that might be unique, but not artifact-level in power, no?

Correct; categorically, magic items are inherently non-unique. Something like that would have to be campaign-specific, so either a homebrew or something written specifically for a particular Adventure Path/Module. But that's the exception, not the rule. If you're being told to "design a magic item", you're designing the mass-market type. If you're told to "design a unique magic item connected to Dudeguy the Awesome, appropriate for PCs in such-and-such a part of thus-and-so module", then that's something else altogether.

Wanna guess which one RPG Superstar is? ;)

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32 , Marathon Voter 2013, Dedicated Voter 2014, Dedicated Voter 2015 aka Jiggy

Phil Greeley/Rochandil Calenlad wrote:

Thanks, Jacob; great stuff. That really helps a lot.

Question, then: How are artifacts or unique magic items dealt with in Pathfinder?

Thanks,
Phil

Core Rulebook, Magic Items chapter, Artifacts wrote:

Artifacts are extremely powerful. Rather than merely another form of magical equipment, they are the sorts of legendary relics that whole campaigns can be based on. Each could be the center of a whole set of adventures—a quest to recover it, a fight against an opponent wielding it, a mission to cause its destruction, and so on.

Unlike normal magic items, artifacts are not easily destroyed. Instead of construction information, each artifact includes one possible means by which it might be destroyed.

Artifacts can never be purchased, nor are they found as part of a random treasure hoard. When placing an artifact in your game, be sure to consider its impact and role. Remember that artifacts are fickle objects, and if they become too much of a nuisance, they can easily disappear or become lost once again.

Is it unique, unable to be recreated by "modern" spellcasters? Then it's an artifact. In a sense, Pathfinder's artifacts are what a lot of people intuitively assume magic items in general are supposed to be (except they're usually really powerful).

Hope that helps!

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32 , Marathon Voter 2013, Dedicated Voter 2014, Dedicated Voter 2015 aka Jiggy

mplindustries wrote:
The cost is also ridiculously high.

Now, this is interesting, considering the multiple critiques I got (including from Paizo) that the price was too low.

So I guess I'll go ahead and re-check my math (I was a bit rushed when I first did it) to see where the formula would put the price for just the spells.

Magic Item Creation wrote:
The materials cost is subsumed in the cost of creation: 400 gp × the level of the highest-level spell × the level of the caster, plus 75% of the value of the next most costly ability (300 gp × the level of the spell × the level of the caster), plus 1/2 the value of any other abilities (200 gp × the level of the spell × the level of the caster).

Okay, so for the highest-level spell (a tie between SL and BoL at 5th level) the price is 400gp x Spell Level x CL:

400 x 5 x 13 = 26,000gp

The next spell is the same formula, but with a 300gp base instead of 400gp:

300 x 5 x 13 = 19,500gp

All remaining spells (in this case, VT) use the formula with a 200gp base:

200 x 3 x 13 = 7,800gp

But wait, there's more!

Magic Item Creation wrote:
If desired, a spell can be placed into the staff at less than the normal cost, but then activating that particular spell drains additional charges from the staff. Divide the cost of the spell by the number of charges it consumes to determine its final price.

So for each spell price, we divide by the number of charges used.

SL = 26,000gp / 2 = 13,000gp
BOL = 19,500gp / 2 = 9,750gp

Now, let's total it up:
13,000 + 9,750 + 7,800 = 30,550gp.

That's the cost, so the price would be double that:

30,550 x 2 = 61,100 gp

So unless I missed something, the market price of a staff with just the spells I used is just a hair over 60k, or about two-thirds of the price of my staff. To put it another way, I took a spell-only staff and increased the price by about 50% to get my final price.

Overpriced? Underpriced? Apparently there's no consensus, but at least now I know I did my original math right! ;)

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32 , Marathon Voter 2013, Dedicated Voter 2014, Dedicated Voter 2015 aka Jiggy

Phil Greeley/Rochandil Calenlad wrote:
Thomas LeBlanc wrote:
Phil Greeley/Rochandil Calenlad wrote:
Thomas LeBlanc wrote:

These were just my thoughts during voting:

The Pen of Mirado - History = down-check. Way underpriced. Poor formating. Price/cost incorrect.

Thanks for the review, Thomas. Can you give me a little feedback on why the history was a down-check?
Besides the fact I feel only artifacts should have history in their description? First, you specifically name an individual who is not part of the Golarion Campaign Setting. Second, I can care less about the history of an item and more about it's description and mechanics. While you didn't go overboard on the history, I just don't care for it to be in an item.
OK; that's fair. Thanks.

Yeah, the issue with backstory on magic items is that magic items (in Pathfinder) are not unique things. That's why there are construction requirements: anyone who meets those prereqs can make as many identical copies of the item as they can afford. Any PC who decides to pick up crafting feats can produce your item, and every large metropolis in Golarion has a better-than-even chance of having one already sitting on the shelf when the PCs arrive.

When you state instead that this is a one-of-a-kind item connected to a specific person, it implies (correctly or not) that you don't fully grok the role and nature of magic items within this particular ruleset. Don't feel bad; Pathfinder's setup for magic items is pretty weird, really. But whatever your ideas about magic items might be (I've got some opinions of my own!), if you're designing for Pathfinder, you've got to be able to compartmentalize your own versions of how things should work and recalibrate to "default" Pathfinder.

And in default Pathfinder, your item was probably made by either a PC or by several professional item crafters around the world (possibly both).

Hope that clears up that issue; lots of people stumble on it, so you'll be ahead of the game next year if you absorb that. :)

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32 , Marathon Voter 2013, Dedicated Voter 2014, Dedicated Voter 2015 aka Jiggy

Phil Greeley/Rochandil Calenlad wrote:
But I'm missing something with the Bardic Knowledge issue; its clearly a Bard ability in the PRD.

Bards do have a class feature called "Bardic Knowledge", but there's no such thing as a Bardic Knowledge check. All Bardic Knowledge does is give a bonus to the same Knowledge skills that everyone has access to (and allows checks to be made untrained).

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32 , Marathon Voter 2013, Dedicated Voter 2014, Dedicated Voter 2015 aka Jiggy

Joel Flank wrote:
the only change I would make is simply remove vampiric touch entirely. It's way less sexy of a choice than slay living or breath of life, and it's bonus adjustment is pretty lame - you're not really splitting a lot of hit points around, and for a 90K item, that's not really what you want to be doing most of the time. It also would remove the issue that most potential users don't have it on their spell list.

After having submitted, I wondered whether including it might be diluting the item. Given more time, I might have removed it.

On the other hand, "one" is a valid number of allies. ;)

Grand Lodge ** RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

The important thing to remember is that every trap in Pathfinder is able to be spotted and disabled. So as long as you haven't decided that the trigger area reaches beyond where the PC would have to stand to disable it (effectively making it impossible to disable), then it probably doesn't matter too much.

That said, the few times I've seen traps in scenarios that I've run, the map has included an area with a dotted line around it with a great big "T" in the middle of it, and a map key identifying it as the area of the trap. Did you find a scenario with an unmarked trap or something?

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32 , Marathon Voter 2013, Dedicated Voter 2014, Dedicated Voter 2015 aka Jiggy

*starts spamming slay living*

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32 , Marathon Voter 2013, Dedicated Voter 2014, Dedicated Voter 2015 aka Jiggy

Mark Nordheim wrote:
The main downside for me is the name (I don't like it).

Truth be told, neither do I; it was a casualty of rushing. Ah, well.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32 , Marathon Voter 2013, Dedicated Voter 2014, Dedicated Voter 2015 aka Jiggy

1 person marked this as a favorite.
mplindustries wrote:

So, I guess I should post my own item, as I am about to create a thread analyzing every other item.

Stormcrow Tomahawk
Aura moderate divination and evocation; CL 9th
Slot weapon; Price 28,308 gp; Weight 2 lbs.
Description
The leather wrapped handle of this +1 distance shock throwing axe is adorned with long, black feathers. As an attack, the wielder of the Stormcrow Tomahawk can launch a blast of power in the form of a screaming crow, crackling with electricity. These blasts are resolved as if the weapon itself had been thrown at the target.
Construction
Requirements Craft Magic Arms and Armor, blood crow strike, clairaudience/clairvoyance, and call lightning or lightning bolt; Cost 14,154 gp

The only actual mechanical mistake I noticed (too late) was the cost--I accidentally halved the cost of the base weapon, as well. Since I got culled, though, I obviously made other mistakes. I believe I understand why it did not receive votes, but I don't want to lead the critiques in this thread, either, so I will just wait and see if I am confirmed.

Ultimately, I realized that I am a much better critic and editor than actual writer.

You made a throwing weapon whose special power is resolved exactly as though it had been thrown. The only difference is that when you use the blast ability (which you can apparently do as much as you want every day), you still have it in your hand. So... kind of like if you added returning to it, or had it on a blinkback belt.

So, mechanically, you didn't actually even design a new magic weapon. You just took something that already existed and described a different visual.

1 to 50 of 17,853 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

©2002–2015 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.