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

Matthew Downie's page

4,150 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists.


1 to 50 of 4,150 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

You're basically asking, "What is the cash value of a feat?"
That's going to change as you level up. Look at the feat you're currently giving up for the crafting feat. How much cash would you pay for an item that gave you that feat? Some feats have a fairly quantifiable cash value - the Dodge feat, for example, is +1 AC, so you could compare it to the price of an Ioun stone that does the same. Other feats seem almost priceless.

But it doesn't seem worth measuring. The disparity between two characters, where one has taken a crafting feat and is using it to benefit the other, is small compared to other forms of disparity.

I played through a campaign as a cleric. I took Craft Wondrous Item and crafted for the other characters without charging them extra. I made it my number one priority to keep everyone alive. I spent my own money on scrolls to take care of any nasty conditions that might afflict them. The question of whether my character fell behind theirs was meaningless, because I rarely did anything in combat beyond buffing and healing them. Towards the end of the campaign they pooled their money and bought me an expensive Metamagic Rod of Quicken Spell. Did I come out ahead? Who knows? I wasn't keeping count.

My preferred interpretation is that adamantine armor uses lower grade adamantine than adamantine weapons. If someone in adamantine full plate gets the 'ignore hardness lower than 20' applied to their entire body, they could basically run through a mithral wall.

Vidmaster7 wrote:
that is not how I read it. it seems that having even 50% more loot as a result of the crafting system is acceptable.

It specifically says you "allowing a crafting PC to exceed the Character Wealth by Level guidelines by 25%". Not allowing the entire party to exceed WBL by 25%.

Actually, the next sentence says:
Ultimate Campaign wrote:
If you are creating items for other characters in the party, the increased wealth for the other characters should come out of your increased allotment. Not only does this prevent you from skewing the wealth by level for everyone in the party, but it encourages other characters to learn item creation feats.

So you can craft for the rest of the party, but instead of charging 60% or 50% of the item price, you should charge 0%, and the recipient of the item should contribute nothing.


Vidmaster7 wrote:
I would guess that the system assumes you are going to craft items for party members at a cheaper rate.

Actually, the rules say:

Ultimate Campaign wrote:
Game balance for the default campaign experience expects you and all other PCs to be close to the listed wealth values, so the GM shouldn't just let you craft double the normal amount of gear. As a guideline, allowing a crafting PC to exceed the Character Wealth by Level guidelines by about 25% is fair, or even up to 50% if the PC has multiple crafting feats.

The system appears to think that crafters should never use their abilities to help the rest of the group.

EpicFail wrote:
As others have noted, it would inspire each individual to want to charge for their particular service.

It probably wouldn't, but it's an interesting thought experiment:

"Hey, I noticed you keep casting Fireball on our enemies."
"You're welcome."
"Couldn't you cast Haste first?"
"I like exploding our enemies."
"But we're a party with lots of martials. If you cast Haste, that would boost our DPR a lot more than the damage output of your Fireballs."
"Hmm... Only if you guys give me 100gp each time I do it."
"What? Why should we?"
"I'll be giving up actions and spell slots that I could be using to explode things. You all get boosted AC, attack rolls, reflexes, speed, and an extra attack every round - stuff I don't need. How much would you have to spend on gear to get all that? You're free to spend 375gp on a scroll of Haste and UMD it if you don't like my terms."

Gray Warden wrote:
Many of the counter-arguments compare a "less-than-expected-discount" to a "charge", which is logically wrong.

It's a charge for your time.

Within the game world, NPC crafters typically charge 500gp a day for their time. (So if you buy a Cloak of Resistance +1 for 1000gp, you're paying 500gp for the raw materials, and 500gp for a day of work.)

If you're crafting the same item for a friend in exchange for 60% of the item value, you're charging 500gp for materials and 100gp for labor. That's one fifth of the going market rate for labor.

Whether that's 'fair' or not is hard to judge. Some people have seen it done for free so much that they think of it as normal. From that viewpoint, you're charging 100gp for something that 'ought' to be free. But to look at it another way, in a world where no other crafter charges less than 500gp a day, an 80% discount on labor is pretty good.

The situation is further complicated depending on whether you're seeing it from the character viewpoint or the player viewpoint. "I spent nine days making you a new sword while you were hanging out in the tavern!" "Nine days of game time. It was only a minute of table time. What's the big deal?"

"Easy to touch" is a description, not an explanation. "Overconfident" shouldn't affect Touch AC and nothing else. "Magnetically attracting magic" wouldn't lower Touch AC unless he also magnetically attracts thrown vials of acid. "Shut up it's magic" only applies to the Silence spell...

The precise fluff seems important here because if you start modifying numbers without good reason it harms both the 'simulation' aspect of the game (because things are happening without logical cause) and the 'game' part of the game (because the players cannot make logical tactical decisions when the normal rules of what should be effective aren't being applied).

Cubed wrote:
This additional damage stacks with effects such as align weapon and those granted by a weapon with the holy weapon special ability.

I'm confused by the idea that Align Weapon is something that it would need to stack with since Align Weapon doesn't do extra damage, and damage in general stacks by default except in rare 'same source' cases. (E.g., Evil Outsider Bane and Chaotic Outsider Bane don't stack because the source in both cases is 'bane'.)

But the damage here is stated as stacking with other similar effects, and Celestial Blood is a similar effect, so I don't see the problem.

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Here's a thread from a couple of years back.
Some players believe that parties should work together to maximise the success of the team as a whole - a caster who doesn't do his level best to craft for his buddies for free is little better than a traitor.

Others favor characters with personal goals that may not match that of the group, enjoy moderate internal party conflicts, or believe that it's important that casters not craft loot for the entire party for game balance reasons.

Going by that thread, this is one of those RPG things you can have an opinion about that will make other people hate you.

Optimized bomb-focused alchemists can do massive damage per round, for a pretty limited number of rounds per day (the more bombs you can throw in a round, the quicker you can run out). An alchemist focused on melee can be pretty good too. They won't usually out-damage a fighter in the long run, but their skills and extracts give them more flexibility than any traditional martial class.

greencarr wrote:
Is there any benefit for going with a Light starting armor

Generally you want to go with either a Chain Shirt or a Breastplate, assuming your character is strong enough to handle the weight.

Medium armor (if not made of expensive mithral) slows down your character. A human will move at 30 feet per move action with a Chain Shirt, but only 20 with a Breastplate. So for those 2 extra AC, you might find you can't get to your ally in time to heal them. If you're going to fight toe-to-toe with the enemy, the Breastplate is probably better.
Mostly you don't need to worry about ACP (unless you fall into the ocean and drown).

greencarr wrote:
I am also still a little clueless with ranged weapons, since Abilities in a game like WoW work differently. If I were to get a bow of some kind to use during combat when I don't want to use spells, would my attack roll and damage still be based on Strength?

All ranged attacks use dexterity for attack rolls and none add dexterity to damage. Only composite bows, slings and thrown weapons add your strength bonus to damage.

There are two basic types of archery in Pathfinder: characters who specialise in it and do massive damage most rounds, and characters who carry a backup missile weapon so they can attack enemies on rounds where they would otherwise be useful. Clerics aren't the best class for archery.

mekka2000 wrote:

The secret weakness is that he is absolutely helpless against touch spells from afar.

This not seems a crazy concept to me.

The thing is, to an experienced Pathfinder player it is a pretty crazy concept without further explanation. The only normal reasons to have low touch AC are being very big, or having low dexterity.

What reason would this guy have to be easier to hit with a touch spell than the average peasant? We've established that he's not a big target, or particularly clumsy. So why is he vulnerable? Is he intentionally throwing himself into harm's way? Is he magnetically attracting ranged touch attacks? If it's some kind of curse, that makes some sense:

"(Su) Magical beacon: This creature is cursed by Nethys. Ranged touch spells used against him get +8 to hit."

That would be more of an explanation than "Easy to touch".

mekka2000 wrote:
If I want a monster with a TERRIBLE weakness against touch attack for example, that's right, with AC 20, TOUCH 3 without explanation could look like a typo BUT, we're not limited to "not possible sorry", we could "Easy to Touch (Ex) : The creature suffer a -12 malus to touch attack" and that's it.

It's not like it's hard to get that using standard monster creation. Here's an even more extreme example than yours:

Living Lake CR 22 N Colossal ooze
AC 23, touch 2, flat-footed 23 (+21 natural, -8 size)

Anguish wrote:
Take that same creature and apply 2 points of Int damage. Now they're Int 8.

With Int Drain, they'd be Int 8. With Int damage, they're Int 10 with 2 points of Int damage.

Well, if it somehow landed in a perfect 5%-chance position that would cause maximum damage, and then you pick it up and drop it randomly within a few feet of you (I don't think there's a rule for accidentally dropping it on your own feet), on average it's no longer going to be in such a dangerous place.

The most unrealistic thing is if the danger of the grenade isn't made worse by standing right next to it.

Vidmaster7 wrote:
LOL So They throw it at me Critical hit confirmed Oh no! So I pick it up throw it back at them. So is it no longer a crit?

Your new attack roll replaces the old attack roll for whether or not it crits. This is consistent with my 'a crit represents good grenade placement' fluff above.

In general I'd prefer to know that my opponent's Touch and Flat Footed AC are calculated by a logical system rather than random numbers made up by the GM, because then my tactical decision to switch to alchemical weapons or turn invisible can be made on something other than blind guessing.

Having said that, departing from the standard enemy creation rules can have advantages. For example, if you want minion enemies who have very low hit points, and boss enemies who have very high hit points, it's quite hard to do that in Pathfinder without also giving them very low / high offensive capabilities (or doing weird stuff like making guards with a Constitution of 3).

Vidmaster7 wrote:
Yeah the fact you threw it just right into an area it set there for a few seconds and somehow does more damage because of how you threw it doesn't make any sense.

In any terrain other than a vast featureless plain, there are some places for a grenade to land that are more dangerous than others in terms of how the shrapnel will spread.

Ability damage doesn't subtract from your attribute; it applies penalties.

If I have 2 Int damage, and then my Int drops to 1, I am now unconscious because the damage exceeds my attribute.

How Feeblemind would interact with ability drain is a bit harder to figure out...

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I guess there are two reasonable ways to look at it. Either the crunch is "A brilliant energy weapon ignores nonliving matter" and the rules after that give examples of what that means, or that line is fluff and the crunch is "Armor and shield bonuses to AC (including any enhancement bonuses to that armor) do not count against it because the weapon passes through armor... A brilliant energy weapon cannot harm undead, constructs, and objects."

I favor the latter interpretation because it's easier to adjudicate but I wouldn't resent a GM who was willing to go to the effort of doing it the other way.

Recent battlefields or historic battles?
If you mean recent battles, any intelligent race with a 'scavenger' flavor - eg, Tengu, Gnoll - could work.



Vulture, Giant

I see 'passive' and 'reactive' as the same thing.

There's no Pathfinder rule specifying that a perception check is made on a 5' square.

According to Pathfinder Unchained (which admittedly isn't the most official of official rules sources) "Each move action spent allows you to search a 10-foot-by-10-foot area."

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Chad Nedzlek wrote:
"Passive Perception" is just shorthand for the player saying "literally every 5 feet I take 10 on looking at stuff" so that the game doesn't crawl to boring, pointless tedium.

That's not what Passive Perception means to me. Let's say someone broke into your house in the night and placed a trap in your kitchen. You have no idea there's a trap there and you have no reason to suspect a trap, so you won't make any effort to check. Would you still get a perception check? With 'Trap Spotter' the answer is an unambiguous yes.

So this is a weapon that normally counts as masterwork but not magic if you don't sacrifice Con? And you can take 7 Con damage to turn it into a +5 weapon for 10 minutes?

It seems like how useful this is depends a lot on (a) character build - someone with 10 Con is going to be at a relative disadvantage, (b) availability of Lesser Restoration - at low level Con damage is a serious threat, while at high level you can probably get wands to quickly heal the attribute damage after any battle, and (c) frequency of combat - if you have a few days to rest between battles the attribute damage isn't such a serious threat.

I'd say a value of 14,000gp (50K - 36K, using the items you suggest) isn't too far off.

I wonder if it might be simpler to use regular damage instead of Con damage? For example, it costs 1HP to use it as a +1 weapon for one round, or 5HP to use it as a +5 weapon for one round.

Force AC is effective against the attacks of Incorporeal creatures but not against most attacks that target Touch AC.

Brilliant Energy is not defined as an incorporeal attack.

All AC bonuses apply except for Armor and Shield bonuses.

So the Mage Armor and Shield spells would provide no protection against a Brilliant Energy weapon. But insight, luck, and the other things you list would all work.

I once found a Tarrasque lodged in my swimming pool filter. It really creeped me out.

It varies - multiple low level creatures generally have trouble hitting the Armor Class of higher level opponents. Also, they tend to annoy the rest of the group by taking up too much time. But it's good for providing battlefield control and flanking.

In the case of the Young Grizzly, it's generally better than other creatures of the same summoning level - good AC, hit points and attack bonuses - plus they appear immediately instead of next round. So summoning them is usually the best option until you get to a much higher level.

As a level 6 bear shaman you can wild shape once a day into a small or medium animal - the same wild shaping ability as a level 4 Druid - but not into an elemental yet. Or you can wild shape into bears as a level 8 Druid. This means you can do it three times in a day, and you could wildshape into a huge bear if huge bears existed. Unfortunately, normal bears aren't huge, so playing by the rules as intended, you can really only use that ability to turn into Large bears. (The rules are confusing here but they say "Polymorph spells cannot be used to assume the form of a creature with a template" and huge bears only exist by applying the "giant template" to regular bears.)

Not sure what you mean by "I have nothing available"... You can summon a young grizzly bear with your level 3 spell (and do it as a Standard Action, unlike a normal summoning). When you get level 4 spells, you can use them to summon 1d3 small grizzlies, which is on average better than one big one.

The question is, how much information is 'a bit of useful information'. For example, if you meet a dragon and it's red and you meet the DC, I could say, "This is a Mature Red Dragon. Its creature type is Dragon." That's information - is it enough?

My solution would be:

The players say, "We're checking for traps any time we're in an unchecked room or corridor and not in combat."

As GM, I remember that they're doing this and assume they're doing everything roughly half the speed they would otherwise. This means buffs wearing off after fewer rooms. If there's ever a trap, I have them roll a perception check, or I could roll in secret if I didn't trust them not to metagame a failed perception check.

None at low levels.

The Lantern Archon (Summon Monster 3) can cast Aid at will, which grants temporary hit points. The Bralani Azata (Summon Monster 5) can cast Cure Serious Wounds a couple of times. The Trumpet Archon is a decent healer if you're willing to wait until you're a level 17 cleric.

greencarr wrote:
Is that still a relevant way of thinking and approaching the healing role for the party?

If you're playing Core only, things won't have changed from how they were six years ago on these forums.

It's generally better to make a character who can heal but who does something else as their primary combat function. All positive-aligned clerics can heal roughly equally well (with a few exceptions - see Healing Domain), so they should aim to find something else they can be good at and heal only when the other options aren't looking so useful.

greencarr wrote:
Are wands very common in the game, or will they possibly be impossible to get depending on what the GM wants?

By default, you get lots of money from questing, and after a few levels you can afford enough wands of Cure Light Wounds, which are (by the rules) commonly for sale in towns. Similarly, you can buy scrolls to replace other useful Cleric spells. Your GM might decide to change things (or send you on adventures in the middle of nowhere where there are no shops) so it might be worth checking if this is likely to happen in your game.

greencarr wrote:
Can other classes with UMD and wands really heal in a competent way?

Wands are hard to UMD early on. However, anyone with Cure Light Wounds on their spell list (such as Paladins and Rangers) can use that wand without needing to make a check.

Whether out of combat healing will work for you is hard to say. Players who are accustomed to being in a group of effective characters usually find they don't need in-combat healing to survive a battle. In which case, in-combat healing just means you're healing some damage that could have been healed cheaper later on, and you were using up high level spells when you could have been attacking and finishing the battle faster, reducing the total damage you take. This is not everyone's experience - some people come to think of in-combat healing as a necessity. (Which leads to tedious arguments that you've probably already seen. "It isn't a necessity, that's a self-fulfilling prophecy!" "What would you know? You're not in my game!" etc.)

I find that Cure spells heal on average about half the damage dealt by a typical enemy. So if you're healing constantly, you might be enabling your melee guy to go on fighting for twice as long, which usually wins the battle, but not in an efficient manner.

Core Rulebook errata (when they're done) can be found here.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

You have to remember that some hands are metaphorical hands.
For example, you can't two-weapon fight with a two-handed (melee) weapon and armor spikes, because your main weapon uses two metaphorical 'hands' of effort.

I guess you can probably two-handed-two-weapon fight if you have four metaphorical 'hands' as well as four actual hands.

I don't see why not.

But Power Word Kill has no saving throw.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Quandary wrote:

The claim bows are not 2H weapons is silly. They use 2 hands.

There is no explicitly defined category of "2H weapons" in the first place, never mind one that excludes bows.
The Equipment chapter has "2H MELEE WEAPON" category that excludes bows, but nobody claims bows are melee weapon.

"Two-handed weapons" is generally used to mean "two-handed melee weapons". Otherwise an ability like this would apply to archery:


Overhand Chop (Ex)

At 3rd level, when a two-handed fighter makes a single attack (with the attack action or a charge) with a two-handed weapon, he adds double his Strength bonus on damage rolls.

N N 959 wrote:
a PC encountering a dragon and goblin at the same time, for the first time, would have no way of knowing which would be harder to hit/poison/grapple from a K. check. That's fundamentally broken.

In Pathfinder, the goblin could be a level 20 barbarian.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
TxSam88 wrote:
we are having a hard time getting our players from always optimizing their characters. So by getting rid of the classes we've seen to be most troublesome

Isn't that like saying, "We have a problem with people driving drunk, so we're going to ban the types of car they tend to drive"?

2 people marked this as a favorite.

The usual example given is that if you attempt the DC one billion Acrobatics check to jump to the moon, a natural 20 shouldn't automatically succeed.

The player could say to the GM, "I'll use my reroll ability if I get less than 5 on the first roll".

The GM could then say, "You did get less than 5 first time, so I'm rerolling and you can't use that ability again today."

The player still doesn't know the result, but they had a chance to benefit.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Gilfalas wrote:
leo1925 wrote:
In my group we go with questions, one question for every 5 you beat the DC.

Do you give one for succeeding on the skill check and then one for each 5 over? So if your 10 over you would get 3 questions?

That is basically how we do it at our table.

Your table is doing it correctly.

A successful check allows you to remember a bit of useful information about that monster. For every 5 points by which your check result exceeds the DC, you recall another piece of useful information.

Leo1925 was writing in 2011 so I wouldn't be too confident of getting an answer.

Tarrasque is immune to acid, though not to cold, so "buried in very cold ice" could be a valid win.

I'm pretty sure suffocation isn't a death effect. I'd allow a character who drowned to be restored with Raise Dead.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

A fixed DC? Really? The rules say it's harder the higher the CR of the monster.
"Hey, what's that creature stomping on the palace?"
"No idea."
"Isn't it that Tarrasque thing?"
"Never heard of it."
"It destroyed half the city last year!"
"Nope, it's just too powerful for me to recognise or identify."

I guess your system makes as much sense as anything else...

NobodysHome wrote:
If you have a good group of players, a player will roll a 2 while searching for traps, shrug, say, "Oh, well, I don't see any traps," and cheerfully open the chest anyway.

If I checked for traps and the GM rolled in secret and said I didn't find any, I'd probably check again a couple more times to be sure. Or I'd use the Take 20 rule.

To roll a 2 and then act like my character was 100% sure there were no traps seems like intentional self-sabotage.

The idea is that the player says he searches for traps, and the GM rolls a d20, and the player doesn't know if he rolled low or high. Did he not find traps because they're well hidden? Because there weren't any? Or because he messed up?

But I'd advise letting the players roll for themselves unless you can see a good reason not to. Most players like rolling dice.

Those guidelines don't allow for a crafter character who doesn't directly participate in combat. Three characters with extra gear isn't normally going to be more powerful than four characters at WBL.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I'm sure the people from the year 2010 will be grateful for the information.

1 to 50 of 4,150 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

©2002-2017 Paizo Inc.® | Privacy Policy | Contact Us
Need help? Email or call 425-250-0800 during our business hours, Monday through Friday, 10:00 AM to 5:00 PM Pacific time.

Paizo Inc., Paizo, the Paizo golem logo, Pathfinder, the Pathfinder logo, Pathfinder Society, Starfinder, the Starfinder logo, GameMastery, and Planet Stories are registered trademarks of Paizo Inc. The Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pathfinder Adventure Card Game, Pathfinder Player Companion, Pathfinder Modules, Pathfinder Tales, Pathfinder Battles, Pathfinder Legends, Pathfinder Online, Starfinder Adventure Path, 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.