Fake Healer wrote:
Since I run the site, I can answer this.
The Archives of Nethys is a compilation of all the 'crunch' in the Pathfinder Companion, RPG, Campaign Setting, Module, and Adventure Path lines. There are no houserules or 3rd-party material, all the material is straight from the Paizo-produced books.
That said, the tools I wrote (Magic Item and Background Generators) do have *some* of my own interpretations in them, but primarily use the random rules already provided in Ultimate Equipment and Campaign.
As I use the OGL and CUP (no stores or anything associated with the site), I am able to use the real names and Golarion-centric information.
It is a bit slow at times (I've been looking into other hosts) and the updates don't come *as* quick as I'd like. I abide by Paizo's request to wait 2 weeks after a book is out in stores before posting its material online, but am not always able to have things up right then if there are a lot of books in that month. For example, I was able to have the books up relatively close to the mark two months ago, but last month I had the Bestiary 4 to deal with and ended up being a couple weeks later. I'm only one guy, so it happens. :)
If you have any other questions, feel free to email me: asknethys at karuikage dot net
1. When a spider successfully uses its web attack against a PC, are the Strength check and Escape Artist check the only options for escape? HP is listed, implying they could be cut free, but it also says that the HP is only used when they run into a 5-foot square of webbing, not so much for the direct attack.
2. Could a PC use the spark spell to free themselves from the web? It targets an unattended Fine object. Is the web unattended if stuck to the PC? Would it still be Fine? We have ruled in my games that web doesn't so much as 'ignite' as it does melt (like when you move a flame close to webbing IRL), but I have allowed the spell to work on unattended webbing against a flat surface before (just to clear the path). Not sure if it should work on a PC currently entangled by it. Maybe it should, but use the HP with this (burn away a small portion each time until free)?
2B. If the PC wasn't entangled by the web, could he use spark to free other people?
Any advice is appreciated. Initially I ruled that the player could use spark on a patch of unattended webbing near an enemy to possibly deal 1 Fire damage (much like the fire damage from a torch), though the enemy would get a Reflex save to negate. That's about as far as I've ruled anything when it comes to spark and damage so far.
I guess I'm among the percentage of GMs that always have ruled that retrieving anything out of a backpack is a move action, it just provokes. The main benefit of the HH (besides the awesome weight capacity) is that it stops provoking.
Man, I must be. I'm thinking the case is definitely just like the adventurer's sash. It doesn't change how you retrieve the item at all mechanically, it just adds flavor and weight.
I get all of that from the linked description, sure. Are you saying that a scroll *box* would take two move actions then, whereas the case is only one? Personally, I'd think either both are two or both are one. I can see arguments either way.
I guess the argument is still: why? Get a backpack, or a handy haversack, dump all the scrolls in there. What benefit does the case carry over them? Presumably you'd have to destroy either of those containers to get at the scrolls as well.
I've been going over this with a player recently and am starting to wonder what the point of scroll cases are. Not scroll boxes, those are obviously meant to be waterproof. I'm just talking generic scroll cases.
First, it sounds like it takes an extra move action to get a scroll out of either? One move action to "retrieve the stored item" (box or case), and another to get it out?
If it does take two move actions, that's already pretty harsh. Why not just keep them loose in your backpack? Then it's a single move action to retrieve it out of your pack, with a similar amount of protection.
If it doesn't take the extra move action, and the scroll case is fairly equal to a backpack in terms of accessing it (I can see that), then why carry it at all? It still takes up extra weight and cost.
Is this like the adventurer's sash, where there's no real point, just for flavor?
Curious about two things:
Keep this in mind: "Identify a common plant or animal - Nature 10" From the Knowledge section in the Core rulebook. If an animal is relatively common, it's a flat DC 10 no matter the CR (this is important for high CR animals like an Elephant, Hippo, Rhino, etc.). I suppose it depends on your region, but it's kind of a GM Call. If an animal is common, it's just a pure DC 10. With an average +0 int, you should be able to auto-succeed on knowing all common animals with a +9 knowledge (nature) [+2 nature sense, +3 class, +4 ranks) by level 4.
PFWiki Scribe wrote:
Am busy checking off everything from your list to make sure it's been included in the Wiki. One thing that I have a question about is your entry for "Ghol-Gan". I've only ever seen it referring to the ancient cyclopes civilization, never their language. What is your reference?
You can probably cross that one off as a worry, unless you guys want to include stuff that appears to have been 'updated'. The only instance of Ghol-Gan as a language is from the original Gholdako in Isles of the Shackles (page 49). The latest version, from Bestiary 4, replaces this with Giant.
Hmm. A bit more time consuming, but not impossible. I'll see about playing around with that next week. Just got done entering Bestiary 4, so I'm a bit burned out for the weekend, haha.
Very true. Common is just a placeholder for 'most common language'. If you set your world in Tian-Xia, then replace Common with Taldane, change Tien to Common. If you set your world in ancient Greece, change Common to Greek. Whatever works. :) I'm just saying that, if you are using Golarion, then Common (no matter what stat block it's in) is likely referring to Taldane, and they'll say other languages when they mean them.
In any event, it's neither here nor there. Getting on a bit of a tangent. :)
I did a little more digging on this, but didn't find any instances where a monster was listed with Common but meant something else. This is likely for very good reason: a GM needs to be able to know that when his players speak Common and a monster says Common... that they mean the same thing. The designers can't expect that the GM will always look at the history and background of the monster first and go "oh, it's Common, but this guy is from Tian-Xia, so it must be Tien".
Again, check out the Dragon Empires books. They never refer to Tien as Common in them, it's always Tien. :)
Really, the term Common is basically a hold-over from 3.5. If it makes it easier, replace the word with Taldane every time you see it. Common is just to make it easier to say 'this is the prominent language'.
Oh, as for the citations you spoke of: I looked in the book from Jade Regent, and I think it refers to this: "Tien, the “common tongue” of Tian Xia, is not at all similar to Taldane, Avistan’s Common, nor are its letters remotely related." That may be where the confusion derived from. Despite the mention, all the stat blocks in that book (along with others) always list Tien and Common seperately. Sometimes a monster just has Tien, sometimes it has Common, sometimes both (even though the adventure is in Tian-Xia). If you do find cases in the Paizo books where a monster is listed with Common but it *has* to mean Tien, I'd be very interested to know.
tl;dr. My point is that, when it comes to the stat blocks that I analyze, Common = Taldane. Tien = Tien. This is a purely mechanical distinction, whether the definition of Common is appropriate or not.
[Archives of Nethys] October 2013 Releases Added - Pathfinder #75, Towns of the Inner Sea, The Dragon's Demand, Blood of the Moon, and Bestiary 4
The latest releases have been added to the Archives. You can find links to what has been added below in the New Additions section.
stuart haffenden wrote:
You might like THIS then?
Cool! That doc is basically how my own database is set up, minus the statistic extrapolations. Very nice :)
Excellent set of links :) I make use of all of those for my home games. I'll have to adjust my site to start hot-linking a lot of those languages from the Archives to the Wiki. I already do that for Deities and some Nations (in the Background Generator) but that's about it.
Definitely. I have a feel for some just because I've run so many, but it's not something I can query as easily as the above (mostly because I don't track AP specific NPCs, and I definitely don't track simple mentions of languages).
That's easy. :)
Out of the 1,968 monsters in my database so far (not including the last 50 or so monsters in Bestiary 4):
Keep in mind I'm only looking for the exact text "can't speak". There are other possibilities, such as "understands" (12 monsters include "understands Common" or some variant).
As far as I know, "Common" is always Taldane. When something speaks Tien, the stat block always lists it as such. Flip through Jade Regent or the Dragon Empires books, most of the NPCs speak Tien instead of Common (note that "Tien" is one of the languages put in statblocks, at least with 5 of them). The Inner Sea World Guide also lists Common as Taldane. I imagine that Kelish, Tien, and Varisian are considered 'common' in their respective popular countries, but when it comes to stat blocks, "Common" = "Taldane".
I did mention this in my first post (last line), but the list is not meant to represent the languages most common on Golarion (or anywhere). It's really a list of languages most common in *monster statblocks*. I gave an example of Hallit and Skald only having 11 each, yet these are probably two of the more common languages in Golarion, simply due to the proliferation of the human race.
Today, my players were curious about the more popular languages in Golarion. A SQL query and some excel manipulation later, and I had the answer.
Below is a link to the spreadsheet that shows all the details. It includes a full list of every instance of a language being spoken by a monster entry. A monster entry is anything found in the Monsters section of my site, which does include civilized races like the Changeling, Dhampir, or Samsaran. Basically, if it ever appeared in a Bestiary fashion (including books outside the normal Bestiaries), then it's in here.
I did remove languages that weren't actually languages: things like telepathy, tongues, truespeak, speak with animals, etc.
After that, I grabbed a list of all the "unique" languages for a final list of each one, then counted up every instance. You can get the full details on the sheet, but here are some fun facts:
1. In total, there are 3,137 counts of the languages appearing throughout all of the stat blocks.
This includes every entry up through the latest Paizo releases, including the Bestiary 4 (I'm still 65 entries short of full statblocks in the Archives, but went ahead of my work and grabbed the languages from those I hadn't finished to make sure they were counted). It also counts "can't speak" or "understands" entries as a count for that language. Understanding it matters.
Anyhow, I find this sort of thing interesting, and I hope you do too!
Edit: To clarify, I'm not implying that these languages are the most popular in all of Golarion. Obviously the size of a race plays a factor there. Hallit and Skald only appear 11 times each, but depending on where you live, those may be two of the most important ones. Something to keep in mind. :)
If you want to play with it, shoot me an email (asknethys at karuikage dot net) with your google account and I can add you to the users. You'd be welcome to play with new formulas to analyze the data in a separate tab.
I added saves on (new tab), though they can't be compared as easily to the suggested numbers since I believe those are meant to be base numbers (maybe?) and I really only have the grand totals. I'd have to hack some way to extrapolate the base numbers with feats, ability scores, etc. being taken out, which would take too much time.
Still, the numbers are up there now if you're curious. :)
Ignore this thread if you aren't a fan of statistics or raw data. :)
Not sure if this is the best sub-forum for it, but it might be useful for those who like to calculate the feasibility of hitting a monster of X CR. I always wondered if the values in the Bestiary were accurate in terms of Average AC, so I did my own calculations (I got bored and hey, I have the data, so why not?)
The linked sheet below includes over 1,800 monsters taken from all 1st-party Paizo sources using my Archives of Nethys database. The only ones it is missing are the last half of Bestiary 4.
Summary: Yeah, those average ACs are still pretty dead on, even given so many data points. I expected them to actually be pretty divergent, but overall, Paizo has managed to stay true to the given averages even with nearly 2,000 monsters. Impressive. Less so at early CRs, but 3+ are all pretty exact.
Fun Note: Touch ACs, on average, never go above AC 14 until CR 25, at which point they jump. Keep those touch attacks handy!
Totally agree, that is worse than being staggered. Honestly, I have no problems with the ability as written concerning the staggering portion. My only dislike is the extra 'touch again and get sleep' ability. I think that deserves at *least* a save, or a simple HD limit like the Charm domain.
Sadly agree with OP. I did want to like this book, I love most things Paizo puts out, but these classes just leave me feeling a bit meh. Only one or two actually seem interesting, the rest just feel like pandering. "Do you hate that your spell progression suffers when you combine the sorcerer and wizard? Well not anymoooore!" -shrug- Not really my bag of tea. I'd so much rather they cut the number of new classes in half (at least) and focused on making those ones more imaginative and innovative.
A Will save is better than nothing at all, and the Witch hex also has the 'once per creature per 24 hours' limitation. If you make your save, they can't try again. Heck, even if you need a natural 20, that's still a 5% better chance you'll negate the effect then what this ability has (IE: no way to prevent it).
Sure, a spell can prevent the first part, but it does nothing against the sleep. Two clerics with this ability (or one with quicken) just needs two melee touch attacks, then bam, done.
As for other enemies, sure, that's going to be a hassle no matter what effect you use. You can't use the excuse of "there will be other enemies" or "you need to touch" as a valid reason that this ability is fine, those are arguments that can be made against a *ton* of abilities. What you need to do is compare and contrast this one against other 1st-level abilities.
To make this comparable to other, similar, abilities, I highly recommend to negate the sleep part (stagger is still crazy powerful as is) or implement a save or HD limitation.
Definitely overpowered. No save, no HD limit? If it had either of those it'd be fine, and still very useful. Without those... it's just silly.
One cleric, with quicken spell-like ability, could put down
Spoiler:on the first round with a single touch. By that point, PCs are likely 17th-18th level, so beating an
Karzoug the Claimer
Spoiler:isn't all that difficult. Granted, still need to get to him to touch... but if you can, game over man, game over! lol.
SR of 24 and touch AC of 22
Huh. Well, I'm convinced. The more I think about it, the more it makes sense as well (especially with larger movement speeds). Half-speed through any threatened squares you wish to avoid, normal speed through the rest.
I've always gone with the 'move action is half speed' interpretation as well, but can see the argument. It doesn't really specify the whole action, and it can seem a bit silly in points. If you're a monk with some 80' speed, and you want to move 60' up to an enemy and then tumble around... that has to take two move actions? First ruling, you use one move action to get close, then the second (at half 40' speed) to tumble around.
Second ruling, you move up 60', then use the remainder of your movement (20') at half speed to tumble past.
Relevant Skill Description:
In addition, you can move through a threatened square without provoking an attack of opportunity from an enemy by using Acrobatics. When moving in this way, you move at half speed. You can move at full speed by increasing the DC of the check by 10. You cannot use Acrobatics to move past foes if your speed is reduced due to carrying a medium or heavy load or wearing medium or heavy armor. If an ability allows you to move at full speed under such conditions, you can use Acrobatics to move past foes. You can use Acrobatics in this way while prone, but doing so requires a full-round action to move 5 feet, and the DC is increased by 5. If you attempt to move though an enemy's space and fail the check, you lose the move action and provoke an attack of opportunity.
Question: In regards to the 'half speed', does that apply to the entire move action, or just the square in question? Essentially, would a normal human (30' move) taking a move action trying to avoid one threatened square move at 15' (entire move action is half speed) or 25' (just treats threatened square as half).
I hadn't really thought of the second interpretation before until a player brought it up, and now I'm curious. Thoughts?
Heal Skill here.
This is something that has come up in our current game, and I've never really settled one way or another on how this use of Heal is intended to work. The skill seems to imply that it's on some other creature, but it doesn't say so right out.
An argument can be made that it makes perfect sense for a healer to try tending to their own wound. Applying medicine and such. However, you could make a counter-argument that it's much easier for the non-infected person to treat the other, they aren't being impacted by the pain, have better access to the poisoned/diseased areas, etc.
Interested to hear what the Rules forum thinks. Currently, I'm thinking treating yourself would be allowable, but with some kind of penalty (maybe -4) as it's more difficult to do.
Edit: A player pointed out that in Long Term Care it does say 'you can't do it to yourself', which does seem to imply that the other Heal options are usable on self.
Eh. Gandalf fell MILES into the earth. You want to know what happens to someone that only falls ~150 ft. like in this example?
Thanks for mentioning this! I don't have an easy way of telling when Additional Resources makes an update (unless there's some button to send me an email whenever they make a change that I'm missing), and none of the new books were up when I first added them. Making all the Blood of the Moon legality changes now. :)
The Thing from Beyond the Edge wrote:
I don't know 100%, but he could have very well been saying that the fighter had 30 hp *left*. Not total. They did have a fight before he fell asleep, after all.
Victor Zajic wrote:
As another person pointed out, you can cast feather fall as an immediate action. I've had players want to wait until near the ground before activating it, so I don't see why the villain couldn't do the same. Immediate implies that it is the quickest possible action, so the villain waits until she is 50 ft. off the ground, then bam. Feather fall.
Read the messages above. he didn't create the encounter, it's part of an AP. And, if memory serves, this is a *hard* encounter. The GM didn't do anything unfair, the villain was losing, and there was a PC asleep right at the edge. It acted evil, and took the PC with it.
The GM isn't always at fault. In this case, it sounds like another GM doesn't like being in the back seat. I've seen this come up more than once. If people throw tantrums because someone died, and walk out... the game is better off without them.
Yes. Not sure if it's RAW or not, but I always allow a Knowledge check to be retried if the bonus increases. It represents new knowledge, and who knows, maybe that failed check was part of it. :)
You had NINE combatants fighting her off? Yeah, you did things just fine. She could have *easily* done a ranged coup de grace close enough (or melee) instead of dragging him off. Dragging him off is arguably the better decision (as the dice *could* have rolled poorly and allowed him to survive the 15d6... not likely, but possible).
Get rid of the problem player. I give players 3-4 games to get an average on their attitude before I decide I need to talk to one. If they don't improve after that, they're gone. Been running with some core players since, met some new ones, but overall have survived long enough to run every AP (except S&S and RoW) once. :D
Fix the core problem here. The rules aren't the issue.
Yeah, it's all abstract. In the end, it comes down to value for me. If you want to do 1d6 fire damage (plus an extra 1d6 if they don't put themselves out), buy the alchemist's fire. You can't expect to get anything close to that effectiveness with a simple oil.
Realism speaking... I had read about this in the past, and did some searching to find more evidence for this, but this post does the best job at explaining it. Simply put, it's a myth that oil ignites as we believe it does. That you can pour it on the ground and light it already seems to put it above what simple lamp oil could do.
Lazlo Woodbine wrote:
4 rounds either way, sounds like.
Round 1: Move action to get out oil, start full-round action to prepare (can be done as two consecutive standard actions).
Really, oil is a last resort for an alchemist's fire, as it takes waaaaay too long to be worth the damage (especially considering there's a 50% chance it wasn't worth it). However, you're also only spending one silver, so what do you expect?
A 50% chance of getting 1d3 fire damage for just throwing the oil onto something already aflame is *infinitely* better than the above, so that's a pretty huge gain. Even if the GM ruled that the oil just added 1 extra point of damage would still be better (over those same 4 rounds, you could throw 4 things of oil and do 4 damage, as opposed to 1d6, which may not even be that).
Anyhow, it's all house rule territory at this point. Thanks for the thoughts DM Blake.
Thanks fellow DM Blake ;) And yes, this is pretty much a question on "is there an official rule for it, if not, is this a fair house rule/call"?
By RAW, I don't believe there is anything that says oil does more damage to a creature already on fire. As you said, they're already in flames, what more would extra oil do? You did bring up the extra alchemist's fire damage. Perhaps there is something more to the actual explosion, less to the burning itself.
I didn't even think of the tindertwig part in my initial calculation. The cleric in question had spark prepared, so I assumed that was how it would be lit. Still would take just as long though, multiple standard actions. I didn't want the 'oil throw with no prep' to do a whole lot, since you're moving from 3 rounds down to 1.
Hi all! I've seen this question pop up a couple times in the past, but the threads I found really didn't seem to have a final resolution. Though it may be a repost, I was hoping to get some perspective on this question.
The Scenario: A party of PCs is fighting a bat swarm. One of them has hit the bats with an alchemist's fire, and the bats are currently in flames (they'll take more damage next round unless they spend a full round with a Reflex save). One of the PCs wants to throw oil to 'add fuel to the fire'.
The Question: How effective is oil when thrown onto a burning creature? Or, in this case, a burning swarm?
RAW Answer: It does nothing. RAW does not really cover adding oil to an already burning creature.
What RAW does allow: Oil can be used a few different ways. You can spend a full-round action to prepare it and throw it, having a 50% chance that it is as effective as alchemist's fire (needs to light just right, the oil maybe isn't as flammable as what's used in alchemist's fire, etc.).
You can also pour oil on the ground, then light it on fire (at least a couple actions here). That ground will then deal 1d3 fire damage for 2 rounds to anyone that moves through it. Not as effective to flying swarms though, I ruled.
GM Additional Option: You can throw oil onto an already burning creature with no additional prep-work for a 50% chance at doing an additional 1d3 fire damage. This does not increase the duration.
Thoughts? Does this seem appropriate for an item that, when it comes down to it, only costs 1 sp (compared to 25 gp for alchemist's fire)? My thinking is that the oil only has a chance at splashing/hitting in such a way to help fuel an existing fire on a creature in combat (or thousands, as is the case with a swarm), so the 50% chance no matter what makes sense. If you want to rely on the oil hitting the flames just right to help, then sure, it'd just be 1d3 extra damage (as opposed to preparing a fuse and lighting it directly for the full 1d6). I'm very hesitant in allowing it to be too effective (otherwise, why pay 250% for an already prepared alchemical weapon?), as it seems like this oil is fairly cheap, made mostly for a slow burn in lanterns.
How does anyone else do this? Does the above ruling make sense? Really I'm just looking for confirmation here, or thoughts on how it should work within the rules. :)
If it helps, my group has played with Mike's interpretation the entire time (that a card which boosts Charisma also boosts any skill based off of Charisma). We didn't even realize there was a dispute for a while, truth be told. It seemed like if you have:
Then by adding an extra two dice to Charisma, you'd also be improving things based off of it.
The game is still plenty challenging playing this way, I assure you. We've gone through the "Intro" Scenario and Burnt Offerings twice now, and done part of Skinsaw. We've had plenty of close calls, had to restart a scenario more than once, and really have to plan our moves out to have a good chance at survival. This game is *not* lacking in challenge.
Also, most of the Blessings *do* say 'non-combat' check. The main one that boosts Charisma says 'non-combat Charisma check'. So that one wouldn't work on Seoni's spells, when used for combat (I believe, I don't have the cards in front of me).