|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
From the description I would say it should. But from the rules text it doesn't. As the 'stone shield' appears in your square it doesn't actually impede the attackers movement in any way so it doesn't interfere with their ability to charge anymore than a normal shield would.
To correct the original poster. The fauchard came from a much more obscure source than the adventurer's armory. To my knowledge its only ever appeared in Classic Horrors Revisted. A book which I believe pre-dates the official release of the core rulebook (but my timeline might be a bit fuzzy) and thus designed more in conjunction with 3.x rules that Pathfinder.
Is it balanced? Compared to what? Its clearly above average (ie not balanced) in terms of damage. Its probably one of a relatively few weapons actually worth an exotic weapon proficiency in my opinion. But I doubt it will break your game even if its leverage extensively.
Purple Dragon Knight wrote:
Wow. I've always viewed the FAQ/Errata system as a train wreck. They intentionally fragment the system between the forums, the blogs, the faq, and errata system. Its virtually unsearchable unless you are already aware of the rule in question. The FAQ/Errata system largely ignores the non-hardback material (because they don't reprint it). They used large swaths of 3.x rules language. And didn't bothered to address the already existing errata's/faq for that content for years. And it takes multiple years from product release to the issue of corrections.
I did laugh at the original poster saying he came from 3.x and though Paizo was over the top with errata's/faqs. I think Paizo intentionally tries to steer clear of the minefield the errata/faq world. It really is a no win world and you make very few people happy when you issue them. They would much rather push new content, and I believe that is the reason that rulings come out so sporadically and disjointedly.
Where as WotC was releasing them regularly monthly (via Paizo's Dungeon/Dragon magazines for quite a while) and occasionally before the book had even hit store shelves. I think there are some serious rose-tinted glasses going on (or he didn't handle the 3.x material until years after WotC abandoned the edition.)
I think Paizo puts out a good product with Pathfinder. But I find its errata/faq system is a total lost cause.
.... You came from 3.5 and think Pathfinder has incessant erratas. What did you think of WotC's FAQs/Erratas? Essential 3.0 to 3.5 was one really big errata, except you actually had to buy new books to get the updated material.
Now I'm not exactly thrilled with how slowly Paizo rulings trickle out from Paizo, or how Paizo try to organize them... but I think they've made a concerted effort to have fewer erratas than their predecessor.
Of course if you mean WotC isn't still issuing erratas for 3.x era material now that they are two editions and a decade down the road. Well I guess that's understandable.
What is the radius of a 20 foot spread? A player and I were discussing the area of a Dust of Sneezing and Choking, which is described as having a 20 foot spread. I interpret this to mean an area with a ten foot radius, like the Dust of Appearing; but the player said that a 20 foot spread effects only 4 squares (a 5 foot radius) in total because that represents a 20 foot total movement (5 feet in each direction).
Without intervening terrian. A 20' spread is the same as a 20' radius. Where a spread is different then a burst or emanation is that you can count the distance from the origin point around walls and other objects that would block line of effect.
Honestly I wouldn't get too hung up on CR. CR paints with a very broad brush.
Instead look at your party and determine what kind of difference do you think the change will make to the encounter. For the most part regeneration is just a few extra hit points. Once a creature is unconscious its generally pretty trivial to keep unconscious for long periods of time.
Can the creature act while below 0 hp? If yes, then regeneration can be very significant.
Is the regeneration vulnerable to something the party has easy access too? Regeneration (fire) you can generally expect your party to have. Where as regeneration (Sonic) might be harder to cancel.
Does the creation have a valid escape mechanic? If it can teleport, go invisible, or fly etc. then its ability regeneration is much more likely to come into play.
Try to guess how much adding regeneration will change the encounter and adjust the CR based on that. Rather than looking for a universal regeneration is worth CR +x
Actually the cauldron is pretty close to right on what the chart says.
They did fudged the material component by changing that in herbs every time you use it, but that's always really tricky when the component is so variable. And it does seem strange that the controllable undead is only 12hd, when I'd expect 20hd at CL 5.
But's right at Spell Level (3) * Caster Level (5) * Use Activated 2,000gp = 30,000gp.
Technically it seems really easy to drop it to Spell Level (2) * Caster Level (3) * 2,000gp = 12,000gp, for your lesser Animate Dead ring.
But I tend to think your ring is actually still fairly close the cauldron. So I would more likely go something like:
1) Unlimited to 5 uses per day. No discount. Why, because if I discount this you are going to want the same discount on every item you craft when in terms of power level 5/day is a lot of uses.
2) Does not grant you control over any animated dead. Okay something to that, so -10% discount.
For a total of 25% off the standard price. Or 30% if you leave it as a cauldron which I would prefer.
But that's more art then science. And I am going to try to have a really firm grasp of what you are trying to accomplish before I go even that far.
The "Charged (50 Charges) 1/2 unlimited use base price" is for items with a finite number of charges (ie Wand like). Since you aren't making an item with a finite number of charges you don't get the discount.
Instead you get the Divide by (5 divided by charges per day) which you accounted for.
I think most GMs will nix the discount for class restrictions but you are right in that it exists.
But first and foremost the price guideline for magic items is find a similar item and price it comparatively. So depending on what spell you pick you could see some pretty drastic fluctuation in pricing.
Anger Nogar wrote:
1st change. Make them simple weapons rather than exotic. This makes them much easier for average Joe to wield effectively. Which is effectively a +4 to hit (in addition to being a touch attack at close range) for anyone not automatically proficient with firearms.
2nd change, give guns free vital strike feats at BAB 6/11/16. So the damage isn't totally irrelevant.
3rd change, give guns a dex (or maybe int) to damage cost modifier akin to a mighty bows strength for an extra 100gp per point.
If the party members don't (want to) feel any respect for the flag. They probably shouldn't get the bonus (or penalty). But if they do want the bonus they should be able to get it.
If it has your personal device on it, then perhaps they respect you. It could bear your group identity in which case they are loyal to the group. Honestly if the group has 0 respect for you or the group as whole, I would not expect your party to hold together for very long and the GM probably has bigger problems to worry about.
Askdal Aleheart wrote:
He might have meant silver weapon blanch. Which is slightly cheaper, has no drawbacks, and is sourced from the same book as the blunt arrow.
1st, 3.x carryover. 3.x didn't allow templates because you became that actual creature with stats. Since a lot of template add raw stats without a HD increase it would have dramatically upgraded polymorph power levels (which were very high anyhow).
2nd, Stupidity of templates. There is no limit to the number of templates you can apply to a creature as CR has no relevance with regard to polymorph. While you put forth marginally realistic templates as examples. You could just as easily had an Abomination, acid creature, aggregate, alacritous, alchemically invisible, amphibious, angelic vessel, arboreal, artic....(continue on) bear . So that your templates creature has only minimal resemblance of the baseline creature which isn't really the ideal of what they wanted for the polymorph spell.
Yes I know its their policy. I get that they don't like to publish rule books that are out of date and with incorrect information mere hours after they send them to the printers. I still think its a terrible policy.
If its so broken it warrants the magnitudes of changes brought forth in the errata, then its worth the effort to publish that fact (via FAQ or whatever) when you reach that decision. Waiting years to tell anyone, letting customers invest hundreds to thousands of hours into it, so that you might push a extra copies of your new printing is not a good policy in my opinion.
James Risner wrote:
I tentatively agree. If these changes had come out 90 days after ultimate equipment was release I'd probably be fine saying the nerfs were gross overkill but yes the items were too good as written. But I have a really hard time swallowing the fact that it took them nearly 4 years to realize these items were broken enough to warrant a change.
I despise Paizo policy of ignoring balancing until the arbitrary point in time that they decide reprinting is necessary. If the item needs a change, change it. Don't let everyone assume its fine for YEARS then spring the change on them unless you can point to something recent that changed that made them go from being acceptable to unacceptable.
No. Eidolon abilities function as eidolon abilities not what they close resemble.
*Edit= That comes from the playtest, but I am pretty sure its been answered again since then but my search fu is lacking a bit.
If you're happy with the mount spell, in PFS, just spend 2PA get a wand of mount and go on your way. It will probably last most if not all of your adventuring career, certainly should cover the lower levels.
1. It needs to be a masterwork weapon before being able to be enchanted. This can be done with the spell Masterwork Transform which a material component of 300gp for weapons. (150 for armor/shields)
2. No. (above)
4. Yes the costs stack. Going from a +3 equivalent bonus to a +4 equivalent bonus is 14,000 gp. (32,000gp - 18,000gp)
My Self wrote:
Without expending spells or feats, how do you beat reach-based enemies in melee combat?
1. Use ranged attacks.2. Use acrobatics.
3. Use cannon fodder (animal companions/familiars/trained dogs/allies) to take the AoO then move in afterward.
4. Win initiative and close before they can act.
In all honesty though. If you plan on being a melee character I suggest having an high enough AC/HP that taking an AoO isn't a big deal.
I would judge it very differently. I find skill points are much more valuable at lower levels. So I am much more likely to swap out my 1st-5th fcb for skills than my 6th-20th.
After a given point you get a bigger boost to skills via magic than anything else. And get 1 point in a skill enables you activated the class bonus and allows you to make rolls for that skill so the 1st rank is by far the most valuable.
That said if you can get 1/6th a feat or class feature then that so much better than 6 skill points or 6 hit points its rarely even in the same ballpark.
The Mortonator wrote:
If I wanted to make throwing good enough to stand on its own:
I'd go with the 4th edition throwing "Any magic light thrown or heavy thrown weapon automatically returns to its wielder’s hand after a ranged attack with the weapon is resolved."
If I wanted to make throwing good enough to work with some investment:
I'd change the +1 returning property to function immediately after an attack resolves (allowing a full attack with it).
But in truth I'll just say screw it. Just leave it as written, and never touch throwing weapons once you get iterative attacks. Because after 20+ years (3.x > present) of inertia its not worth the effort.
Charon's Little Helper wrote:
Lol. This debate is so pointless. As we are arguing semantics. And the line between acceptable and annoying behavior is personal and going to vary widely from table to table. But I would define those terms very differently.
I see Min/Max as putting the minimum investment to get the maximum return.
I see Optimization as making improvements in order to be the best possible at doing whatever task you are optimizing for.
In character terms I see the min/max character being more balanced. He defines goals and invests the minimum possible to achieve that goal so he has the more resources to invest in the rest of his character.
The optimizer says I want to be absolute best at doing X task. He says things like... I want to be the strongest; or I want to be the fastest; or I want have the biggest damage per hit/round. And if something isn't improving your ability to do task X, then investing in it is optimizing for it.
And of course this ignores the person I least want to see at the table. The I don't want to be a Min/Max, Optimizing, munchkin... so I make all my choices totally at random without any rhyme or reason.
His attack bonus doesn't charge with regards to your class level so the -2 doesn't apply. At level one is your BAB+attribute mod at level 20 its still BAB +attibrute mod.
The -2 is only really go to effect Natural Armor Adjustment, the familiar int score, and what 'specials' he has access to.
Loots effect is not easy to judge. It is also highly dependent on what they purchase with the loot. As there are lots of not very effective yet very expensive items out there.
That said, going from NPC wealth per level, to PC wealth per level is +1 CR. You might try and use that as standard, but mileage will vary significantly.
Mechanically I find small to be generally advantageous to the creature compared to medium. +1 to hit, + ac, +4 stealth, 50% gear weight are more useful than -1 CMB/CMD at 75% capacity. On just about any character not planning on regularly becoming large (or bigger) and/or using combat maneuvers regularly.
But you are tossing out +1 templates, and I tend to think the difference between small is going to be vastly overshadowed by the templates selected which have a much wider power variance in my opinion.
And so, I'd really try to picture his character as a whole and compare it power wise to the other player characters at the table and see where it fits and make any adjustments from that prospective rather than looking at just this one character in isolation.
*Edit: The young template is probably ideal for what you are looking at as well. Don't get hung up on the name, consider it a small size template. Though if designing a character around it, I'd probably reclassify it as a +0 template (rather than a -1) especially with all the dex bonus being tossed around in this example.
I don't think I've seen any text that implies a scizore is a shield. It doesn't show up on any shield tables to my knowledge. It certainly doesn't have the rules text that a shield (or spiked shield) has that allows it to be enchanted as a weapon or shield.
As a GM I'd probably say go for it. But as a question on the rules forum, I don't think it works.
I think they probably can... since the Chosen One (Paladin Archetype) seems to get a improved familiar with emissary template. All from the same source book.
True Form (ex) is different from bonus feat Improved Familiar you ask me. That said I'd clear it with a GM before trying it, as Dev posts have stated they didn't intend for improved familiars to have the templates.
From a PC perspective, I find slow to much more useful. The biggest reason is that more creatures are immune to mind affecting abilities than transmutation. It also requires less coordination between party members, as confused people attacking whoever attacked them often leaves them still attacking your party.
That said, from a DM perspective. Confusion is much more fun. Parties are vastly more likely to be able to fix slow with haste, than deal with confusion. Also they are generally not immune to confusion. And as all the NPC are controlled by the DM, its generally easier to coordinate them.
Howling agony... mechanically I don't really like, though as a necromancer its thematic at least. It strikes me as an anti-melee spell (reducing AC and melee damage) but it targets fortitude which is generally the strength of melee characters.
...Technically conclusions your ideas are wrong. 99% of the time you use the +50% price when combining magic items. When you use the 'multiple similar abilities' clause they are almost always talking items with charges sharing the same pool of abilities.
So if your super meta rod, has only 3 uses per day and on each charge you can use either quicken or concussive, you get the multiple similiar ability discount on the lesser ability. Because its less effective than having two individual items.
If your super meta rod, has 3 charges per day of quicken, and 3 charges per day of concussion you use the +50% cost on the lesser rod. For the advantage of not having to juggle items.
If your extra super ultimate meta magic rod, gives both quicken and concussion, you try to price it like a +6 level increase.
a shadow wrote:
Yes. Because when he uses it, it will not be his turn. His turn will have finished by the time step up is triggered again and thus he can take 5' steps again. A turn is not a round, its a specific portion of a round.
Imps don't.Quasits don't.
I'm not checking them all, but I don't think any of the familiars options without special rules in their bestiary entries allowing them to be familiars (ie not actually listed under the Improved Familiar feat).
If you are depending on specific rules from a different source book to add additional creatures to the improved familiar list, then you need to follow the requirements listed in that particular source which may be more or less restrictive than the default feat allows.
If the text of snap shot specifically said you get a flanking bonus you'd be correct that specific trumps general. It doesn't state or imply that however.
Being required to run the modules as written. LOL. Screw that. The GM should totally customize anything and everything to make the game better for his players and himself.
It would be disappointing. I am not thrilled with the alignment system but prohibiting players from being evil and/or taking abilities from an 'evil' like class frustrating.
Banning (nearly) all magical crafting. While I personally don't want my player PCs to be crafting with all the downtime for a variety of reason... I like that it exists.
Ending campaigns at 11th level (effectively). While I believe the game breaks down to rocket tag at a certain point I want the freedom to set the cap where I see fit.
And book keeping... I don't think I need to keep an account of every purchase and sale for the duration of a character lifespan.
I see nearly zero benefits to using PFS rules for a self contained game. If you want to use some of the PFS framework for your own game use it, but cherry pick the parts you like and ignore the rest. PFS is set up to get random strangers working in the same direction. Your home game probably isn't random strangers so you can better deal with the outliers.
It simply allows the monk to use something like a bite or tail slap in place of an unarmed strike during a flurry. The benefit of this is that you are allowed to apply your unarmed strike feats to the natural attack, possibly causing it to be more powerful than it normally is.
This part of the feat was errata'd out of existance. Now all it does is let you use the natural attack as part of a flurry of blows. It can be very useful, say if your natural attack lets you deliver poison, trip on hit, or lets you grab then you can trigger those rider actions additional times.