Morval's page

Slow spell causes staggered, everything that follows that word in that sentence (the restrictions you're asking about) is just a repeat of what staggered says.

Slow wrote:

Creatures affected by this spell are staggered and can take only a single move action or standard action each turn, but not both (nor may it take full-round actions).

Staggered wrote:

A staggered creature may take a single move action or standard action each round (but not both, nor can he take full-round actions). A staggered creature can still take free, swift and immediate actions. A creature with nonlethal damage exactly equal to its current hit points gains the staggered condition.

Bolding mine. Presumably it's just reiterating what staggered means and anything that lets you bypass staggered works.

I guess my question is more when you use a free action to do lets say Amazing Initiative to get an extra standard action are you using just a free action ar a free action and then a standard action? If its the later then wouldn't staggered disallow it?

How does Slow work vs things like:
Mythic Amazing Initiative: free action to an additional std action
Mythic Distance Barrage: swift action, make a ranged attack at your highest bonus...
Mythic Arcane Surge: swift action, cast any one spell...
Hero Points: Extra action, gain an additional std....

You get the idea. Some of these are swift, immediate, or even free actions so are legal. But when you take a swift, immediate, or free action to gain a standard or move action are you doing a standard or move action or are you doing the action that it cost (swift, immediate, or free) :) Sorry if that was confusing.

I may be reading too much into this, but if lets say for example you use the Mythic Amazing Initiative and spend 1 MP. Is the swift action to spend the point and then you are actually executing a standard action or the standard action just takes one swift action to complete?

I searched and couldn't find anything which leads me to believe I'm just making it too complicated! :)

Thanks,

chopswil wrote:

FROST GIANT JARL p. 75

AC Value: Computed: 34 (+8 armor, +2 deflection, +4 Dex, +11 natural, -1
size) Stat Block: 35
AC = 10 +8 Armor +0 Shield +4 Dex Used +12 Other Bonuses +0 Rage
Other Bonuses = +2 Deflection +11 Natural -1 SizeMod

AC Value Flat-Footed : Computed: 30 (+8 armor, +2 deflection, +4 Dex,
+11 natural, -1 size) Stat Block: 31
AC = 10 +8 Armor +0 Shield +4 Dex Used +12 Other Bonuses +0 Rage
Other Bonuses = +2 Deflection +11 Natural -1 SizeMod

Being built around the Warhammer, throwing it , and having it return is a cool idea, but I don't think it's possible or practical. I think he would need to go down to Throwing Axes for the build to work. And even then there are errors.

I might be way off on this, but warhammer isn't a thrown weapon so it can't have returning special ability put onto it?

They have already included the -2 and -2 for two weapon fighting with two one handed weapons. So thats good.

You can throw a non thrown weapon, but you get a further -4 to attack, range increment of 10', threat range of 20, and critical only deals x2 damage (this is stated on page 141 of CRB). So the attack bonus needs another 4 penalty.

Also why do the thrown warhammers not get his strength bonus (p141 CRB)?

He would also need Quick draw to throw the hammers via his iterative attacks and like they show would only get two of them since he only has two returning warhammers (if you could put returning on them) and returning weapons don't return until the beginning of your next turn (and you can't move form that spot).

He could throw them as part of his Two Weapon Fighting feat, one from each hand, but would have another -4 penalty due to fighting with two weapons, would be down to +20 for each weapon.

The ranged Warhammer does have its attack corectly figured with regards to going from Str to Dex when throwing it.

I reread the returning weapon, communal spell which I've never used before and I guess the last sentence allows you to put returning even on weapons that aren't thrown weapons? "This spell can be used as the prerequisite for the returning special ability"

FROST GIANT JARL p. 75

AC Value: Computed: 34 (+8 armor, +2 deflection, +4 Dex, +11 natural, -1
size) Stat Block: 35
AC = 10 +8 Armor +0 Shield +4 Dex Used +12 Other Bonuses +0 Rage
Other Bonuses = +2 Deflection +11 Natural -1 SizeMod

AC Value Flat-Footed : Computed: 30 (+8 armor, +2 deflection, +4 Dex,
+11 natural, -1 size) Stat Block: 31
AC = 10 +8 Armor +0 Shield +4 Dex Used +12 Other Bonuses +0 Rage
Other Bonuses = +2 Deflection +11 Natural -1 SizeMod

Being built around the Warhammer, throwing it , and having it return is a cool idea, but I don't think it's possible or practical. I think he would need to go down to Throwing Axes for the build to work. And even then there are errors.

I might be way off on this, but warhammer isn't a thrown weapon so it can't have returning special ability put onto it?

They have already included the -2 and -2 for two weapon fighting with two one handed weapons. So thats good.

You can throw a non thrown weapon, but you get a further -4 to attack, range increment of 10', threat range of 20, and critical only deals x2 damage (this is stated on page 141 of CRB). So the attack bonus needs another 4 penalty.

Also why do the thrown warhammers not get his strength bonus (p141 CRB)?

He would also need Quick draw to throw the hammers via his iterative attacks and like they show would only get two of them since he only has two returning warhammers (if you could put returning on them) and returning weapons don't return until the beginning of your next turn (and you can't move form that spot).

He could throw them as part of his Two Weapon Fighting feat, one from each hand, but would have another -4 penalty due to fighting with two weapons, would be down to +20 for each weapon.

The ranged Warhammer does have its attack corectly figured with regards to going from Str to Dex when throwing it.

Update!

Diplomacy is now more detailed, trade routes have been fixed, expanded settlement statistics have been introduced, forms of government... yeah, I think that's everything for this one.

Here it is.

For the record, I still have a copy of the last version stored - I'll share it by PM to anyone interested. Since we're getting into the realm of the optional rules, I'll try to be careful about maintaining backups of each version.

Not quite as big an update as I was hoping for, but I wanted to get it out there for everyone. Plenty more to come!

This thing just keeps on getting better!!! Awesome job!

A few things if I could.

When I add Improved weapons to an army it increases the DV, but I think it should increase the OM.

I may be misunderstanding Healing Potions, but when I add healing potions to an army it increases the consumption by 3 automatically. But healing potions are only supposed to increase consumption for the week each time they are used. So it really shouldn't be added to the consumption and the player should just take it off each time he uses a healing potion.

Maybe add a spot in an army for Reserve? Then the consumption is only added once instead of four times. Would even be nice for a note on where it is in reserve.

Thanks for all your hard work!!!

Konrad

Gunslinger does not have to enchant each barrel separately on a double barreled pistol.

And ShadowcatX's points on the gunslinger presented here being underpowered are valid. In addition to everything else ShadowcatX stated, he should have signature deed (Up Close and Deadly) at 11th level. Provided the gunslinger can survive getting within 40 ft (I always put the distance enchantment on), he would destroy these two classes. Especially the TWF.

I should probably just deleted this thread (if we had the ability :) )since I obviously didn't describe the intent at all well! :) The point is not for the three builds to fight each other! The point is not to prove how much damage each build can do. Its was to compare the mechanics, # of attacks, etc. of three simple builds to see if the gunslinger's # attacks was unfair vs the other two builds and discuss the free actions capping.

But instead its the gunslinger is gimped, he should have this feat and that feat. Why do you under power the gunslinger, etc.

Thanks, but lets just close this thread now and I won't post something so obviously poorly written again. Thanks!

No, I know quite well what the purpose of the thread is. You're trying to post 3 builds, with one of them intentionally gimped, and show that the gimped build isn't broken.

My fault I guess since that's exactly opposite with what I'm trying to discuss. I actually think the Gunslinger is overpowered, especially with double-barreled pistol. They are not gimped, they simply are not tricked out since they don't need that to discuss the amount of attacks a gunslinger gets in a round vs free actions in a round vs the other classes.

Morval wrote:

:) Only took one post to get attacked. :)

Dude, that wasn't anything close to an attack. An attack would be more along the lines of "You're stupid and your mother is ugly."

Quote:

I think I didn't explain the purpose of the post well I guess. Its not to see who can make the build with the most damage dealt or the best pluses. Its to compare the three builds and see if there really is a problem with the gunslinger vs the other two that would warrant changes (capping free actions, etc.)

No, I know quite well what the purpose of the thread is. You're trying to post 3 builds, with one of them intentionally gimped, and show that the gimped build isn't broken.

Quote:

1. Herolab didn't add the Damage for Gun Training so yes you are correct.

I know. Now do you see why people constantly say "don't trust hero lab on rules questions"?

Quote:

2. Just making them all the same build, I said yes they could all be made better, but that would just inflate each builds bonuses. We are just trying to compare here, not show the best builds for each.

Except they don't help each build the same. Drop all 3 builds down to an 8 strength and see how comparable they are. If you want to post builds and do this type of analysis you can't use one size fits all.

Quote:

3. again what will magical weapons help, they would all get them so they would all increase in bonuses.

Actually, no. Because the archer is only using one weapon he'll get more gold to put towards his one weapon. However, because the gunslinger can get extra attacks virtually at will by taking -4 to hit, every point of to hit helps him SIGNIFICANTLY more than it helps the other 2 builds.

Quote:

4. again Deadly aim doesn't really help with the comparison I was trying to go for. Sure add deadly aim and you can add other stuff to the other two builds to get them more damage. Thats not what the post is about.

Again, if you're going to try and declare that the...

Wow, I must be stupid! I'm actually trying to show that the Gunslinger is overpowered, but changing the amount of free actions you get isn't the way to help it and you actually think I'm trying to prove the Gunslinger is under powered. Sorry, I bow to your vast knowledge.

Herolab wasn't wrong as I edited after the post, I didn't choose Double-barreled pistol as the Gun Training. Wow you really don't like Herolab either.

I guess you haven't read any of my other posts.

Yes you add magic, feats, etc. the Gunslinger can do vast amounts of damage. Again, not really the point. There are ways to add damage and bonuses to the other builds. I just wanted to compare the amount of attacks each build gets, the general bonuses, and see if there really is a problem with the amount of free actions vs the amount of attacks a particular build gets.

Sorry to waste your time with this thread, but thanks for reading.

1) You forgot gunslingers get dex to damage.

2) Why does your gunslinger have a 16 str and a 19 dex at level 11?
3) Why does no one have magical weapons?
4) Why does your gunslinger not have deadly aim?

When you put forth a "let's compare these builds" you really REALLY need to make the builds at least somewhat decent. Putting forth intentionally gimped builds really takes away all credibility from an experiment like this.

:) Only took one post to get attacked. :)

I think I didn't explain the purpose of the post well I guess. Its not to see who can make the build with the most damage dealt or the best pluses. Its to compare the three builds and see if there really is a problem with the gunslinger vs the other two that would warrant changes (capping free actions, etc.)

1. Herolab didn't add the Damage for Gun Training so yes you are correct. **Edit: Herolab wasn't wrong. :) I forgot to choose Double-barreled Pistol for Gun training!
2. Just making them all the same build, I said yes they could all be made better, but that would just inflate each builds bonuses. We are just trying to compare here, not show the best builds for each.
3. again what will magical weapons help, they would all get them so they would all increase in bonuses.
4. again Deadly aim doesn't really help with the comparison I was trying to go for. Sure add deadly aim and you can add other stuff to the other two builds to get them more damage. Thats not what the post is about.

The Archer and the TW Fighter seem fairly even to me. The Archer has some advantages, not having to go toe to toe with a big bad guy perhaps? The TW Fighter has some advantages, possibly easier to get more bonuses and extra damage dice with melee attacks?

At first glance (ignore the double barreled pistol for now) I don't really have a problem with the Gunslinger if you ignore the massive amounts of reloading he has to do (in an emerging guns setting) and give him the right feats and gear so he can do this as free actions.

The Gunslinger only having to hit Touch AC even though he has lower bonuses could be seen as an advantage since not a lot of creatures/NPC's will have great touch AC, its usually not thought of. Getting more attacks than the TW Fighter is an advantage as well. But again I think the Gunslinger will be even more hard pressed to find ways to add dice and pluses to his attacks vs the Archer and the TW Fighter.

But you add the double barrel into the equation and it really starts to seem cheesy to me and unfair to the other two builds. The archer has to take a feat (Manyshot) just to get one extra arrow off with his first attack only. The Gunslinger only needs to buy two guns to get a second bullet with every attack. Yes its at an extra -4 for every attack he chooses to shoot both barrels at the same time, but still it does seem a bit over powered. I'd have to try it out in a game to see how well it worked I guess.

Well those are some of my thoughts.

I built these three using Hero lab and tried to make them as close to each other as possible for comparison. I then output the stat block and removed everything that wasn't needed to compare attacks. So numbers should be accurate. Yes there are better ways to build each (using Ranger perhaps instead of fighter for the Archer?, using a better weapon than the Shortsword for the TW Fighter, etc.), but I tried to keep them as similar to each other as possible.

Why did I do this? The big argument on the forums lately is this free action FAQ update. As I was reading it all, the Gunslinger kept coming up as the reason for it and its cheesy build. So I thought I'd have a look at the build vs an Archer and a TWF to see if its really over powered or not. I've never built, played, or GM'ed a Gunslinger before so was interested in how it compared.

A civil discussion on this would be nice. I'll comment in the next post so this one isn't so long! :)

Gunslinger
Human Gunslinger 11
NG Medium Humanoid (human)
Ranged Double-barreled pistol +11/+11(Rapid Shot)/+6/+1 (1d8+5/x4) and
Double-barreled pistol +11(TWF)/+6(ITWF)/+1(GTWF) (1d8+5/x4)
Str 16, Dex 19, Con 12, Int 13, Wis 12, Cha 10
Base Atk +11; CMB +14; CMD 31
Feats Greater Two-weapon Fighting, Gunsmithing, Improved Two-weapon Fighting, Point Blank Shot, Precise Shot, Quick Draw, Rapid Reload (Double-barreled pistol), Rapid Shot, Two-weapon Fighting, Weapon Focus (Double-barreled pistol)

Archer
Human Fighter 11
NG Medium Humanoid (human)
Ranged Longbow, Comp. +18x2(Manyshot)/+18(Rapid Shot)/+13/+8 (1d8+5/19-20/x3)
Special Attacks weapon training abilities (light blades +1, bows +2)
Str 16, Dex 19, Con 12, Int 13, Wis 12, Cha 10
Base Atk +11; CMB +14; CMD 29
Feats Clustered Shots, Combat Reflexes (5 AoO/round), Critical Focus, Deadly Aim -3/+6, Dodge, Greater Weapon Focus (Longbow), Improved Critical (Longbow), Manyshot, Point Blank Shot, Precise Shot, Rapid Shot, Weapon Focus (Longbow), Weapon Specialization (Longbow)

TW Fighter
Human Fighter 11
NG Medium Humanoid (human)
Melee Shortsword +17/+12/+7 (1d6+7/17-20/x2) and
Shortsword +17(TWF)/+12(ITWF)/+7(GTWF) (1d6+5/17-20/x2)
Special Attacks weapon training abilities (light blades +2, bows +1)
Str 16, Dex 19, Con 12, Int 13, Wis 12, Cha 10
Base Atk +11; CMB +15; CMD 29
Feats Agile Maneuvers, Combat Expertise +/-3, Combat Reflexes (5 AoO/round), Critical Focus, Dodge, Greater Two-weapon Fighting, Greater Weapon Focus (Shortsword), Improved Critical (Shortsword), Improved Two-weapon Fighting, Two-weapon Fighting, Weapon Finesse, Weapon Focus (Shortsword), Weapon Specialization (Shortsword)

Ground Pound: take double the damage normally dealt by that bludgeoning weapon

Does this mean double the damage that the creature can do with the weapon (STR and other dam bonuses) or just one more die that weapon uses?

Looks like Herolab implements it as one extra die plus the usual damage bonuses. So a weapon that does 1d8 +8 for example would do a ground pound of 2d8 +8.

Ground Pound: take double the damage normally dealt by that bludgeoning weapon

Does this mean double the damage that the creature can do with the weapon (STR and other dam bonuses) or just one more die that weapon uses?

I'm thinking of subscribing to the Monster in a Box lineup. My question is, is there a way to get all of the past offerings sent as a subscription so I get the free PDF? I like the idea of printing off more minis.

Thanks,
Konrad

Morval wrote:

Alejandro Acosta wrote:

Normally, if a weapon's designation would be changed to something other than light, one-handed, or two-handed by this alteration, the creature CAN'T WIELD THE WEAPON AT ALL.

normal medium human can use light one hand or 2 hand only. Can't wield anything larger. incorrect size means if I use a 2 hand weapon one handed (no feat required) -2.

with lighten weapon, can use a large weapon 2 handed for -2. otherwise he wouldn't be able to use it at all. The keyword is OVERSIZE WEAPON (like Cloud from FFVII with his ginormous Materia Blade).

I understand lighten weapon allows a medium creature to use a large two handed weapon where as without the feat he couldn't, I actually say that in my post. :)

My question is, the feat gives a medium creature the ability to wield the large 2handed weapon at a -2, no problem there. But the weapon still is an Inappropriately Sized Weapon for a medium creature. Do they also still get the -2 for this. You get -2 even if you are wielding a small lighthanded weapon since its not sized for you (not balanced right, different length screws up your attack, etc.). Lighten weapon makes no mention of helping with this penalty that I can read. It simply makes a weapon feel lighter in your hand (you know how to balance heavy weapons in such a way that a 2handed weapon can be easily used in one hand by you).

p144 Core Rulebook...

Inappropriately Sized Weapons: A creature can't make optimum use of a weapon that isn't properly sized for it. A cumulative –2 penalty applies on attack rolls for each size category of difference between the size of its intended wielder and the size of its actual wielder. If the creature isn't proficient with the weapon, a –4 nonproficiency penalty also applies.

So lighten Weapon feat makes the large greatsword light enough to wield by a medium creature, but the sword is still a large weapon and is still hard to wield (not balanced for medium creatures, etc.)so they would take a

...

Thanks for the attempt at helping, but I think we are not communicating to each other very well. :) I said a few times I am talking about a large two handed weapon, not a medium two handed weapon. I also said I realize a large two handed weapon could not be wielded without this feat by a medium. But thats all it does, it allows you to wield it. It doesn't change the weapon into a weapon sized correctly for a medium. At least how I read it. So you would also get the extra -2 for wielding a weapon not sized appropriately for your size. Added to the penalty this feat gives you for making the weapon lighter so you can wield it, there would be a -4 penalty. Thats all I'm trying to check on.

Thanks!

Normally, if a weapon's designation would be changed to something other than light, one-handed, or two-handed by this alteration, the creature CAN'T WIELD THE WEAPON AT ALL.

normal medium human can use light one hand or 2 hand only. Can't wield anything larger. incorrect size means if I use a 2 hand weapon one handed (no feat required) -2.

with lighten weapon, can use a large weapon 2 handed for -2. otherwise he wouldn't be able to use it at all. The keyword is OVERSIZE WEAPON (like Cloud from FFVII with his ginormous Materia Blade).

I understand lighten weapon allows a medium creature to use a large two handed weapon where as without the feat he couldn't, I actually say that in my post. :)

My question is, the feat gives a medium creature the ability to wield the large 2handed weapon at a -2, no problem there. But the weapon still is an Inappropriately Sized Weapon for a medium creature. Do they also still get the -2 for this. You get -2 even if you are wielding a small lighthanded weapon since its not sized for you (not balanced right, different length screws up your attack, etc.). Lighten weapon makes no mention of helping with this penalty that I can read. It simply makes a weapon feel lighter in your hand (you know how to balance heavy weapons in such a way that a 2handed weapon can be easily used in one hand by you).

p144 Core Rulebook...

Inappropriately Sized Weapons: A creature can't make optimum use of a weapon that isn't properly sized for it. A cumulative –2 penalty applies on attack rolls for each size category of difference between the size of its intended wielder and the size of its actual wielder. If the creature isn't proficient with the weapon, a –4 nonproficiency penalty also applies.

So lighten Weapon feat makes the large greatsword light enough to wield by a medium creature, but the sword is still a large weapon and is still hard to wield (not balanced for medium creatures, etc.)so they would take a further -2 I think,

Thanks,
Konrad

DM Papa.DRB wrote:

Where is Lighten Weapon (and improved) from please?

-- david

Feats‎ > ‎3rd Party Feats‎ > ‎Kobold Press‎ > ‎Combat Feats - 3rd Party - Kobold Press‎ > ‎

Lighten Weapon (Combat) You can balance heavy weapons, making them easier to wield.

A quick question on Lighten Weapon if you don't mind a quick hijack of the thread? :)

With this feat a medium creature can wield a large greatsword two handed, the feat imposes a -2 penalty. Do you also get a -2 penalty for using a weapon not your size. The weapon is still large, the feat just enables you to wield it which is not even possible without the feat (large two handed weapon).

Thanks,
Konrad

No, I don't think so. The round structure is largely geared around a cycle rather than a beginning and an end. I think "your turn" here is the same as "a turn."

Look at it this way: if the character is going to have a turn soon, he can move it up in initiative order, but at the cost of only having a single action. If he's just recently had a turn, he can take an additional action, but at the cost of moving his initiative later in the round.

Take the counter examples in the way you're asking about where the character is either acting first in the round or last. As you're thinking it, the character acting first can never take the Act Out of Turn. The One acting at the end of the round can always take one and additionally moves his initiative earlier in the initiative count in future rounds. No equity here.

You must be right since when I search on this subject I only see two other people in three years asking this question and no one ever answered them so it must be just how everyone sees it.

I just don't see how "your turn" equals "a turn". Why would they not state you get an extra turn for spending a hero point? :) But since no one else has responded I'll assume its a non-issue and I'm over thinking it.

Thanks for your time.

You can use a hero point at any time. You can take your turn and then immediately use an Act Out of Turn if you wanted to take another action. Resolve it as a readied action; your initiative moves to just before the acting character.

Using your examples...

1st example
Joe starts casting a spell. Bob uses a hero point to Act out of Turn and does something (a single action). Bob's initiative moves to just before Joe's. Bob doesn't act again until his initiative comes up next round just before Joe's.

2nd example
Joe casts a spell and completes it. Bob starts casting a spell. Joe wishes to use a hero point to Act Out of Turn, so he does something (a single action). Joe's initiative moves to just before Bob's (where it already was).

Thanks for responding.

We have always played it that way (the few times we have used this action), but after rereading it during last session I'm not so sure. If you don't mind a bit more discussion here it is. I may just be over thinking this?

Here is the actual rule as per the APG. I added the bold.

Act Out of Turn: You can spend a hero point to take your turn immediately. Treat this as a readied action, moving your initiative to just before the currently acting creature. You may only take a move or a standard action on this turn.

Doesn't "your turn" infer your turn for this round. Otherwise it would say possibly "...to take a readied action immediately" or maybe "...to take an extra turn immediately as per readied action". So if you had already taken your turn this round you could not do an Act Out of Turn" action.

To me after rereading Act Out of Turn it simply is letting you take a readied action without having to specify readying an action or the actual trigger for that action.

Thanks,

Konrad

Every now and then my group comes upon a rule that we either assumed one way because we didn't read it carefully or thats how it used to work in 3.5, etc.

For some reason we all assumed Act Out of Turn actually gave you a 2nd turn in the round, but after rereading it I think it behaves like this, correct?

Basically it lets you ready an action without stating a trigger for that action, but this is your action for the current round. So if you have already acted earlier in the round you could not use Act Out of Turn to interrupt a foe that acts after you?

I hope I explained that correctly. I'll use two examples just to further explain.

Two combatants, Joe and Bob. Joe goes first, Bob goes 2nd.

1st example
Joe starts casting a spell. Bob uses a hero point to Act Out of Turn and does something. Then when its Bob's initiative count he has already used a readied action so he is done.

2nd example
Joe casts a spell and completes it. Bob starts casting a spell. Joe wishes to use a Hero Point to Act Out of Turn, but he has already taken his turn for the round and can't.

Thanks for your help,

Konrad

Most Golems have a height and weight in their description, Mithral and Adamantine don't have this. Just forgotten?

Morval wrote:

*snip* And all adventures should come out with Herolab files like Adventureaweek does.

If you weren't aware, there is fan-created HeroLab content for books 1 through 3.

Click
Just scroll down or search for Way of the Wicked. Right now there are two .zip files; includes NPC portfolios and Events. I imagine material for books 4 through 6 is forthcoming.

Thanks, I found that. I even asked how to volunteer. :)

I have all the maps set up for fantasy grounds ( numbers removed, re-sized). I am not sure if the publisher would consider it copyright infringement to share them with you. Maybe Gary could tell us.

Ya I'm hoping the publisher would put together a pack of all the artwork for people who have bought the AP. :) Otherwise I'll just recreate it myself with Dundjinni, CC3, and Photoshop. Thats the easy part. Putting it all in to Realm Works I think will take forever. :( But I'm going to give it a try once its out. That you couldn't share for sure since it would basically be the adventure.

I hope publishers see Realm Works and think it would be a great opportunity for them. I'd pay extra for a realm works file! And all adventures should come out with Herolab files like Adventureaweek does.

I'm going to be running my group through this AP in the summer and was wondering if there was any way to get the artwork for use with VTT (virtual table tops). Maps without all the numbers and GM stuff, even without the grid is nice. I'd also love all the other artwork so I don't have to go through all the modules and rip out the artwork myself.
Any chance of people who have bought all the modules getting the artwork separately?

Also is anyone planning on entering the modules into Realm Works? I see that the first three books' NPC's and monsters are entered into Herolab which is great. Just imagine how much easier this would be to keep track of everything with realm works! And a much better experience for the players as well.

James Jacobs wrote:

It'd also hurt Wisdom-based spellcasters, now that I think of it. In fact, making concentration part of any Knowledge skill immediately makes wizards the best at the skill and makes ALL OTHER spellcasters less good at it. Why? Because wizards are the only core spellcasting class that uses Intelligence to cast spells, and thus they'll generally always have better Intelligence modifiers (and thus better Knowledge checks) than other spellcasting classes.

This whole line comes from me saying that the mechanics of Spellcraft - identifying spells as they're cast and learning new spells for your spellbook - should be rolled into the Knowledge skills. It has nothing to do with the Concentration checks.

I do like the idea of putting Spellcraft into knowledge. I never liked the idea that divine casters could figure out what arcane casters just cast.

Something that never realy hit me before was that Wizards have an advantage over all the other spellcasters when it comes to spellcraft since its based on Int. Same thing will happen if knowledge is used. But it just doesn't make sense to base it on CHA or WIS for the other casters. So it should be the same.

With the way we have always interpreted the Buckler I think a better description of it would be....

Buckler: This small metal shield is worn strapped to your forearm. You can use your shield arm to wield a weapon (whether you are using an off-hand weapon or using your off hand to help wield a two-handed weapon), but you take a –1 penalty on attack rolls while doing so. You can use a bow or crossbow without the -1 penalty. This penalty stacks with those that may apply for fighting with your off hand and for fighting with two weapons. In any case, if you use a weapon in your off hand or your off hand to help wield a two-handed weapon, you lose the buckler's AC bonus until your next turn. You can cast a spell with somatic components using your shield arm, but you lose the buckler's AC bonus until your next turn. You can't make a shield bash with a buckler.

Dilvish the Danged wrote:

I thought that using a two handed weapon prevented you from including a buckler's AC bonus. Is this accurate?

Its correct as Bows and Crossbows are an exception.

Buckler: This small metal shield is worn strapped to your forearm. You can use a bow or crossbow without penalty while carrying it. You can also use your shield arm to wield a weapon (whether you are using an off-hand weapon or using your off hand to help wield a two-handed weapon), but you take a –1 penalty on attack rolls while doing so. This penalty stacks with those that may apply for fighting with your off hand and for fighting with two weapons. In any case, if you use a weapon in your off hand, you lose the buckler's AC bonus until your next turn. You can cast a spell with somatic components using your shield arm, but you lose the buckler's AC bonus until your next turn. You can't make a shield bash with a buckler.

Hmm, I always took it to mean when you were using a Bow or Crossbow you did not take the -1 penalty, but you still didn't get the AC bonus.

Does the last part "if you use a weapon in your off hand, you use lose the buckler's AC bonus.." not apply to the Bow or Crossbow? If not then could you not get the AC bonus with any two-handed weapon?

Konrad

Edited:
I read the Pathfinder version of Buckler and they did clarify it a bit, but I still think its worded not that well.

It now lists two handed weapons as having a -1 penalty. But at the end it does not list two handed weapons as losing the AC bonus, only off hand weapons and spells with somantic components.

I'm not arguing that two handed weapons should keep the AC bonus, just that I don't think Bows or Crossbows should get the AC bonus.

Buckler: This small metal shield is worn strapped to your forearm. You can use a bow or crossbow without penalty while carrying it. You can also use your shield arm to wield a weapon (whether you are using an off-hand weapon or using your off hand to help wield a two-handed weapon), but you take a –1 penalty on attack rolls while doing so. This penalty stacks with those that may apply for fighting with your off hand and for fighting with two weapons. In any case, if you use a weapon in your off hand, you lose the buckler's AC bonus until your next turn. You can cast a spell with somatic components using your shield arm, but you lose the buckler's AC bonus until your next turn. You can't make a shield bash with a buckler.

With an unarmed attack, yes, with a ranged attack, no. The reason you can't use it with ranged attacks is the requirement that the targets be "within reach." Reach has a specific rules meaning, tied to your weapon and size, most normal weapons for a medium character have 5 ft. reach, polearms have 10 ft. reach, etc. Ranged weapons have no reach, and thus no target could qualify for the cleave.

It definitely could have been a bit clearer, if they had left he word "melee" in and used the more common wording of "an opponent that you threaten" instead of "within reach."

Ah, I took "within reach" to be just that, within reach of any of your attacks. Not the game term "Reach".

Thanks,

Konrad

This may be an obvious or silly question, but here it goes.

Can you use cleave with ranged or unarmed combat? I would say yes. Cleave and Vital Strike have almost the same description stating "a single attack..." and I have read that Vital strike can be used with all three types of attacks. Spring attack specifically states a melee attack.

In 3.5 it specifically stated a melee attack. But Pathfinder doesn't. Since cleave is a bit different animal in Pathfinder I thought it isn't all that crazy to be able to do it with a bow.

Thanks,

Konrad

Cleave
As a standard action, you can make a single attack at your full base attack bonus against a foe within reach.

Vital Strike
When you use the attack action, you can make one attack at your highest base attack bonus that deals additional damage.

Spring Attack
You can move up to your speed and make a single melee attack without provoking any attacks of opportunity from the target of your attack.

...Spellcraft to be rolled into Knowledge (Arcana) and Knowledge (Religion)....

Not a bad idea... but it does immediately put Charisma-based spellcasters like bards and sorcerers at an unfair disadvantage, since even if those skills are class skills, they're more likely to have a much lower Wisdom or Intelligence.

I'm sure I'm just missing something, but isn't Spellcraft and all Knowledge skills based on INT? How would getting rid of Spellcraft and using Knowledge(Arcana or Religion) put CHA-based spellcasters at anymore of a disadvantage than before? They don't get to use their CHA bonus either way?

I love Pathfinder so far! I am thinking of converting a D&D3.5 over to Pathfinder. Characters are at 6th level right now.

Konrad