|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
Paladin of Baha-who? wrote:
The fleshcrafts you can use with this feat are not listed in either the D20pfsrd.com site, or the archives of nethys site, probably because they're considered outside the scope of what the OGL allows one to republish. If you're committed to using this, you may want to purchase that AP, or find a used copy to buy somewhere, or ask your gaming buddies to see if anyone has a copy of that AP. Well, look at that, seems that there's a sale going on for older AP volumes:AP#16
Additionally, if you ever want to see if I've added something from a specific book, like Pathfinder #16, just go to the Sources area and there are handy links for everything.
Do a lot of GMs really stick that hard to the Diplomacy rules and treat it like Charm? I've always thought it was never intended to be a "forced" act, just... very persuasive if persuasion is even possible. I mean, there's this from the skill:
"Diplomacy is generally ineffective in combat and against creatures that intend to harm you or your allies in the immediate future."
Even with a skill trick that lets you do it in 6 seconds, that line doesn't change. If the guy is very intent on harming you, Diplomacy is probably going to fail.
I mostly don't agree just because it wasn't announced. The post made it very clear that Unchained Rogue and Rogue are both a thing now. Nothing about the Ninja, which is why I wouldn't recommend anyone do a rebuild for a Ninja.
My opinion on the Ninja not needing its own power boost is a separate thing. :)
Edit: Also, I'm dumb. This has been answered already.
I'm on the other side of the fence here. The Ninja, Samurai, etc. are still just the way they are, in large part because their base classes (Rogue, Cavalier, etc.) are still legal.
We now have Rogue, Ninja, and Unchained Rogue. Nothing about the announcement indicated the Ninja was getting an update. Imo, they don't need one as much as the Rogue did, and the lack of direction concerning *how* to update the Ninja (if they did want that) is rather unclear.
I'd hold off on any Ninja updates for the moment at least. I'm sure they'll make it 100% clear given time.
Bardic Masterpieces was a code bug. The header was using a pre-formatted plain text name, instead of the one I have with the PFS label. That's all fixed now, should look accurate if you visit the page.
Otherwise, I did some validation on all the animal companion entries from Bestiary 1-4. Few things I came across:
Bestiary 1 and 4: In terms of animal companions, no changes here. All are still accurate as of the current Additional Resources.
Bestiary 2: I think the legal companion here should be the "allosaurus" instead of the "compsognathus". The latter doesn't get an animal companion entry in the book, even though the back (page 312) implies they do on page 90. The entry on page 90 belongs to the allosaurus. I've left both marked as NOT legal for now until it's cleared up.
Bestiary 2 and 3: The rest should all be correct now. It seems like the largest change was in the megafauna being removed as an option, along with a few dinosaurs.
There's a lot of this to dig through, could someone help me out and tell me what's incorrect on the Archives? Totally believe there is something, I don't catch every change to legality, but I'm doing work on it today and may as well fix the error. :)
And in the future, if you guys ever see anything wrong, please shoot me a mail and I'll correct it asap (nethys at archivesofnethys.com)
My personal preference:
1. The Combat Stamina feat has an additional prerequisite of "Fighter 1".
Without #2, you're just encouraging a single level dip in Fighter. With #2, it buffs the entire Fighter class as a whole.
I'm half-tempted to make it a free feat for level 1 Fighters, or possibly a replacement of their 1st Bonus Feat.
Yup. My exact thoughts. An Unchained Fighter would have been neat, but honestly all I wanted was a way to make Combat Feats more useful *just* for Fighters. I now get that option :D Background Skills + Stamina for Fighters only, and the Fighter gets a nice improvement that puts it back on par with a lot of other classes.
I am happy.
No... as I said, that's what the feat does at it's core. It *also* gives additional options with all the RPG-line combat feats and how they can interact with Stamina.
So if you take the feat (assuming it's open to non-fighters) and have ZERO combat feats, then yes, its utility is less. For fighters, who have a ton of combat feats, it becomes quite useful.
Honestly, it's still a great improvement (if you restrict it to the Fighter). At it's core, the ability allows you to use your Stamina (which refreshes with a small rest, in minutes) to improve your attack rolls after they are rolled (before you hit/miss). That alone helps make the Fighter a more reliable combatant, especially once AC has been narrowed down.
All of the other uses are just extra options. Some help with damage, some saves, some allies... honestly, giving a "fighter-only boost" to all the combat feats is *exactly* what I wanted.
It's not huge. It didn't need to be. It's a small improvement that makes the class feel worthwhile. I love it.
The Summoner was absolutely a Tier One class, at least in my mind. Granted, I've had more than a few in my games, so I've had a good amount of players on all ends of the spectrum. It's just a very easy class to make broken things with. With a Wizard or Cleric, it takes some effort, but it's much easier with the Summoner.
For what it's worth: I love the Unchained Summoner. It does two things:
1. Adjusts the Spells to be more in line with other classes.
James Jacobs wrote:
As the guy that runs the AoN, I second this. If you use my site or the d20pfsrd a lot, then you're going to get the most value out of a big book of setting material, since that is the one thing that neither site has a lot of (d20pfsrd not at all, and my site just in the flavor of other items/feats/"things").
By the rules, the Rage part of the Barbarian is just for the new Barbarian... *but* I personally apply the rules to any class that uses Rage in my own home games. I expect a lot of GMs that use the Unchained Barbarian would do the same.
PFS, I'm not sure on. We'll be seeing their own rules for it soon I imagine.
As the title says: assuming you are the GM, which Unchained Rules will always see a place in your games? I'm curious which ones people seem to value the most.
Personally, my own list:
For what it's worth, I've been toying with the idea of an API that hooks into the database behind the Archives of Nethys. That said, while I've become fairly proficient with C# and ASP, I've never touched an API thus far.
If an experienced developer wanted to work with me on getting one setup, and was happy being extremely patient with my time constraints, then that is something worth looking into. :)
AP SPOILERS BELOW
Yes, my reading does seem a bit harsher at first. I did want to make sure that the PCs would still get enough wealth to account for the usual "wealth by level" table though. As it turns out, my interpretation still gives them plenty to work with.
The AP expects the PCs to go from 4th to 5th level on the open seas, before the Rock. That's an increase of 4,500 gp each, or 18,000 gp in total for the average four person party. This means that, assuming they give the crew 1 plunder for every 1 they keep, that they'll need to acquire 36 points of plunder.
This also assumes they would go to Senghor to sell it (but really, why wouldn't you? It's not far, a metropolis, and you just don't do piracy in their waters, easy enough), and I'm still low-balling it. Assuming bare minimum sale price of 1,000 gp per plunder, and that they won't be able to sell anything else from anywhere (considering all the officers they attack have magical armor and even the crew has some masterwork gear, they'll get lots more after a few ship battles).
Before the Rock (and expected level 5), it's fair to assume the PCs have had a few ship battles, maybe a village battle, and probably the "Famished Mane" and "No Honor Among Thieves".
Each Ship Battle: Kurstav, Dowager Queen, Sanbalot. Each ship can (assuming not much damage, which is easy to avoid) be sold for half its worth in Plunder, or 5 Plunder each with these guys. In total, they also carry 7 points of Plunder on board.
Village Raid: The PCs can gain 2 points of Plunder here. 1 for the goods, 1 for the people.
Famished Mane: The ship, like the others, is worth 5 Plunder. There's an additional 1 point of Plunder in the hold.
No Honor Among Thieves: Huge catch here. A warship like the Devil's Pallor is worth 25,000 gp! That's 12 Plunder for sale. The Sea Chanty is worth another 5, and they have 3 Plunder on board both ships. 20 Plunder from this one event!
So with not even all of the available Events prior to the Rock, the PCs can gain 50 Plunder. With my reading, the crew would get 25, and the PCs could sell the other 25 for 25,000 gp (at *least*). That's more than needed to get them above the wealth by level threshold, especially if you add in the sale of other equipment and non-plunder treasure found. If we were going with the other assumption, the crew may only have taken 5-7 Plunder. We'll say the PCs still and keep 44 Plunder for themselves. 44,000 gp, or 11,000 gp each. That's enough to take them from 4th level gold all the way to 6th level gold.
And yes, this also assumes they have enough crew to always skeleton each ship (not hard) and that they aren't keeping any ship for themselves (not necessary).
When selling plunder, it seems like most of the people (including myself) on here assumed that the line "the PCs should simply deduct 1 point of plunder from their total each time they attempt to sell plunder." meant that each time the PCs went to a port and sold 1+ plunder, they would subtract 1.
Some had issues with this, as the share system seemed to break down depending on when they went into port. If they go into port with 20 plunder, spend 19 days to sell 19 of it and give 1 away, then all they've lost is one. Alternatively, if they sell 5 at one port, 5 at another, and 5 at a third, then they're giving up 3 plunder (one per port).
On a re-read, I'm starting to wonder if perhaps this has been misinterpreted. It says that they should deduct one plunder "each time they attempt to sell plunder".
Each attempt to sell plunder is made on a daily basis, selling 1 per day. Could it possibly mean that the PCs should be giving 1 plunder to the crew everytime they sell 1 for themselves?
This seems like a lot (50% of plunder), but makes some degree of sense. If the crew has 20 people and the PCs have 4 officers, then share-wise, the officers are still getting a much larger share of the plunder. Assuming a full 1,000 gp for plunder, the crew is getting 50 gp each while the PCs are getting 250 gp each.
This also helps account for the first issue mentioned above. It no longer matters if the PCs are stopping frequently or infrequently, they give up 1 plunder to the crew everytime they sell 1 of their own.
Does this make sense? Seem too harsh? I'm not sure how much the AP accounts for the PCs and plunder, but it feels more fair that the crew gets 1 plunder for every 1 the PCs keep for themselves.
Again, this is a case of game mechanics differing from rule life. Young = smaller. Adult for humans = 16. Younger than 16 thus equals Small.
It's really not much more complex than that, I'd think. Does it make perfect sense? No, not really, humans generally hit Medium earlier. But it's a game, so Young decreases size. -shrug-
I get why they did it, even if other GMs would rule that Val is Medium (I did in my game).
Haha, I've been getting myself back into a place where I only need to worry about updates once a month now, and am pretty much there. :)
Brinebeast, I still have those on my mind. I'm holding off on including anything like that yet until I'm confident I have the time. There's still lots of work I want to get done, so no ETA yet, but they are on my list.
We're diving into Book 2 soon of S&S, and I had originally set my mind on converting everything to Fire as she Bears. As I begin conversion and realize the daunting task I've set upon myself, I began to wonder if the original ship rules are really so horrible.
I initially read that some had poor experiences with them, that they were very cut and dry, only one person really got to do anything, etc. I'd be interesting in hearing more details. Namely, are they so bad that the large amount of effort in converting everything to FaSB is worth it? Or are they bad, but not so bad that it's worth taking the extra time?
Would really appreciate any input in this. :) Thanks!
Why is Val Baine Small? I thought she was human. I don't find any rules in Ultimate Campaign/Young Characters saying young characters are one size category smaller; did I miss the rule, or is this some house rule by the maker of the Iron Gods Pawns?
Granted, this is for Monster Advancement, but I imagine the same logic applies. The Young template decreases size by one step. Halflings (small) are always likened to being child sized, it makes sense that a 12/13 year old girl would still be in Small range.
The following new releases have been added to the Archives.
No problem :) Whether you agree with the whole interaction between magic and water or not, it makes thematic sense in the setting. Glitterdust, for example, is a common invisibility-exposure method at early levels, and all that really does is make a bunch of glitter fall down in an area, covering any invisible people underneath.
The underwater 'bubble' fits with the same logic, and is easy to do with the rules. You're easier to spot, and have reduced concealment. This came up in my own game recently actually: I also ruled that the user could still have a Stealth bonus, albeit with half the normal bonus that Invisibility would convey.
So still useful, just not as such.
It doesn't work as effectively at all. From the Core Rulebook, Environment section on Aquatic Terrain:
"Invisibility: An invisible creature displaces water and leaves a visible, body-shaped “bubble” where the water was displaced. The creature still has concealment (20% miss chance), but not total concealment (50% miss chance)."
Ah, yeah. The headshot was the only part that isn't an easy fix. What I did with those:
1. Delete the original headshot.
That's about it. Green looks awesome! :D