Mosaic's page

I much prefer "Blackguard" to "Antipaladin."

How about darkwood studded leather for druids? Ironwood is an obvious yes, right? But you'd need a set of wooden studded leather to begin with, to enchant whenever you wanted the ironwood.

I signed up at $50 a while back. Have possible mechanics discussions begun yet? Or are we waiting for more funding? Where will these discussions tAke place? Thanks all.

Okay, so I kept fiddlin' with it this morning and got them to show up.

Before, I had done Add Row between row 137 and 138. Whatever formula controls the Class_Ability_Summary list didn't seem to like that. This time, I tried adding the new abilities I needed by overwriting level 20 Ranger abilities I wasn't going to need (I'm multi-classing - although, come to think of it, for a Spell-less Ranger, I could overwrite the 5 Ranger Spells lines...). That worked and the abilities now show up on the Abilities & Feats tab.

BTW- I also tried overwriting some Paladin abilities ('cause I won't need those), but my new Ranger abilities showed up as Paladin abilities, even when I moved the Class_Ability_Summary_Rgr tag in column G up; that tag's location seems to be hard coded into a formula somewhere.

So I guess I have it figured out well enough at this point. My only question, I guess, would be if there is an easier way to add abilities to existing classes (for variant classes and such)?

How-to Question:

I'm trying to create a Spell-less Ranger from Kobold Quarterly #11. It has a few more class abilities in exchange for no spells. So to do it I inserted a row on the Class Abilities tab between two other Ranger class abilities of the appropriate level. I named the ability in cell A138, used the same Qualify and Taken formulas in B138 and C138, left D138 blank, and wrote what seems to be an appropriate description in E138. So far so good (neither ability requires a formula or calculations). I also copied the formula in F138 [=IF(C143,"- "&A143&": "&E143,"")]. The problem is they aren't showing up once I qualify for them on the abilities list on the Abilities & Feats tab.

Is there any easy way you can explain what I need to do to get them to show up?

No. There are occasionally partially full wands on available via Chronicles, but otherwise, no.

I'm REALLY happy with the direction this discussion has taken. Thanks James for listening. I suspect that whatever system comes out of this will be good for fans and the company too.

I say make sure the new PC is the next of kin. Your new PC will probably start a level or two behind the other players, but probably not all the way back to level 1. Inheriting some equipment may help make up for the level gap. Also, starting PCs at higher than level 1 are entitled to a certain amount of loot. Just have the inherited equipment be that loot. If there is too much for the appropriate level, or something that would be unbalancing, just bequeath the new PC some of the equipment and say everything else went to other family members or to retire old debts and pay for funeral expenses.

BTW - the new PC as kin of old PC also help explain why a new guy is joining an established adventuring party.

Make sure the new character you roll up is the next of kin. Seriously, you'll probably start a few levels lower than the rest of the party, but not at level 1. Having some equipment handed down from a previous character will ease that gap. Plus, a new character starting at mid-level is entitled to a certain amount of starting loot. Why not make it the old character's stuff. If the value of the old character's stuff is too high, give the new guy some of it, up to the appropriate amount for a starting character of that level. The rest went to other family members, or was used to retire debts and pay for funeral expenses.

BTW, the new guy as next of kin also help justify why a new character suddenly joins an existing party.

Thanks for the pics. Those are some really nice - and versatile - minis. Looking through the ones that are available, is there any way to know which ones are pre-painted and which ones aren't? Is it only pre-painted if is says somewhere in the description that so?

Anyway, that's about all I can really do to personally address the situation on a Saturday night. I'll see what I can do once the business week starts.

Dude, enjoy your weekend. Any issues I ever raise are #1 meant to be at least constructive, and #2 never personal with any of you. It's got to be hard to not take flurry of opinions personally, especially when your name is on everything, but don't. I (and probably everyone else here on the boards) feel nothing but awe and respect you guys. I want Paizo to be successful as much as anyone else who doesn't actually work for the company, and that would be awesome if you'd bring that up at the editorial meeting, but it's Saturday. Right now, do what you enjoy. Ignore us 'til Monday.

They're also working on other products that will actually bring in revenue and keep the company afloat and themselves employed. They're also working on clearing a backlog of product that built up owing to the release of the main game last year. The FAQ and Errata are in their priority list, but it's not at the top...

Problem is they're working on supplementary products while there are still questions about the CORE rules. Look, I'm a subscriber, I'm gonna' buy the APG no matter what, and I'm sure I'm gonna' find a bunch of good stuff in there and be satisfied, but I'm probably never going to play one of those new base classes. So much time and effort has gone into the current batch of PHB2 and DMG2 products (less than a year after the PHB/DMG1) that putting the finishing touches on the CORE rules hasn't happened. People aren't looking for clarification on something from a splatbook or regional supplement, they're looking for explanations of the CORE rules, the center piece of the Pathfinder RPG and the Pathfinder brand. A new customer isn't going to start with the GameMastery Guide, they're going to start with the Core Rulebook, and if they can't find answers to their questions, they're going to sour on the whole thing. How's that a good business decision? Paizo's reputation is built on quality work (and great customer service). They've said repeatedly that it is more important to get products right than to get them out on time. I support that 100%. To me, it seems like not putting timely errata and FAQs at the top of their priority list runs counter to that philosophy.

I'd actually like a Rules Questions forum somewhat like what Troll Lord Games uses for Castles & Crusades ie, ONLY Paizo staff can respond.

This is what I keep thinking about for a FAQ - a Paizo-staff only forum - rather than some big production that has to be "published" every few months. Why not just have a living FAQ that takes 5 minutes to update. Ex - James officially answers the trip-weapon question in a thread. He then copies that post and re-posts it in a Paizo-staff only thread called "Answers to Frequently Asked Questions." Boom. Done. That's it. Any new customer can look there for answers before searching the rest of the forums. Quick and easy to use. Maybe once a quarter or so it gets tidied up and turned into a pdf, but I think an offical answers forum would satisfy most people's needs.

Good ideas. Just trouble shooting a bit:

I can't remember what spell, but in the last game I played, being at -1 and unconscious actually helped someone avoid some mind-effecting spell; he's was unconscious so no need to make a save. While there isn't much damage between "unconscious" and " barely conscious, unable to do anything except stabilize," the PC may now be susceptible to mind affecting spells. What happens when someone down but awake at -3 hp gets hit with a Fear spell? Like I said, just trying to trouble-shoot the idea a little.

Here's a crazy question...

What about Ghostwalk?

LOVED the ideas in that book. The setting was fine, but the variations on ghosts were FANTASTIC. I'd buy a Paizo just-different-enough-not-to-get-sued knock-off in a second.

Wow! Don't know anything about this game but these look awesome.

Piety Godfury wrote:

Do we dare hope for Halfling War Slings and Skip Rocks?

Why would we hope for recycled boring material from 3.5?

'Cause if it appears in this book, it'd be Society legal!

There is a reason this game has a DM. There is absolutley no way that a book will cover the rules for every situation. It isn't going to happen. There is also no way you are going to get an official answer for every situation. Everytime an answer is given there wil be another question.

Problem is, some of us play with more than one GM. We may not even have a "regular group" but jump around to a number of local games when we can. I also play in the Pathfinder Society, where I GM and have been GM'ed by eight, nine different GM's. It makes it hard when each one has a slightly different interpretation of the rules. I can handle "GM opinion" when its something weird and inconsequential like the effect of farting in the wind on enemy's Perception checks. But for things like combat and stealth rules that come up in almost every game, it would be nice if there were one official answer. The Core Rule book is great, but it is unclear is some areas, or at least open to interpretation, in some major areas. The whole trip weapon thing is a good example. Especially when it turns out that the official answer is counter to common sense - you really can't trip someone with a quarterstaff? So, yes, official clarification is more than a selfish luxury for some of us.

The other part of it is the lack of an updated FAQ. Say there is some guy out there who buys the Core Rule book tomorrow and has a question about trip weapons. Is he really supposed to come here and search through multiple forums and read a bazillion post before he finds James' post finally clarifying what you can and can't trip with? Or does somebody from Paizo at some point just put the answer to questions like that - or the Headband of Intellect question that seems to pop up once a week - in a FAQ so people can find the answers to the most common questions quickly. Now, whether or not people like and accept those answers in another issue...

I generally like the idea of NPC classes to represent "everyone else," but I agree - the whole thing of a fighter being a better blacksmith than an expert blacksmith has always bugged me. It always struck me that NPCs ought to be pretty good in their niches, albeit, in their non-combat, non-competitive with PCs niches.

To make experts better at what they do that the average PC, I always thought they should have a higher max skill ranks than other classes in Craft/Profession/Perform. Whereas all other classes have max skill ranks = level, why not allow Experts max skill ranks = level +2 ? That way a Expert blacksmith could always be better than a non-Expert blacksmith. Don't even change his/her number of skill points, just let an Expert sock all his/her points into one skill - a skill I might add that's not very adventurer useful, but essential for mooks with regular jobs.

I also think Profession ought to be cross-class (non-class now in Pathfinder) for everyone except Experts.

Part of the problem is that D&D/Pathfinder is pretty good at modeling combat and magic and what not, but the rules for mundane stuff like crafting items and day jobs are just there to fill in story, not model anything with any accuracy. But mundane is what NPC classes do. The Profession skill, for example, is well enough defined for you average adventure with one or two ranks that he puts into Profession for role-playing reasons, but if you actually try to explain what a barrister does using ranks in Profession (barrister), you're going to have a hard time. It's just not what the game is about, so the rules are weaker here, and that's fine, but it means that you can't look too closely at NPC classes to accurately represent everyday folks.

BTW- I always wanted to see NPC classes called Acolytes and Thieves to round out the less-than-heroic party where Warrior<Fighter and Adept<Wizard.

Aristocrats are the other weird one - what are they good at? Court intrigue? Diplomacy? Seems like they might actually deserve some class abilities. Or are they just Experts with a little more combat training?

I'm in for $50.

I always thought that disabling a magical trap ought to involve both a DD check and a UMD check, due to the magical nature.

Love this idea and have suggested it before myself. Two things came up in prior discussions - 1) that there has been as +2 holy symbol or something similar in one of the adventures. It wasn't named that simply, but that's basically what it was. Unfortunately I can't remember which adventure. And 2) that we might see something along these lines in the Adventure Gear book. Probably not +1 - +5, but at least a few enchanted tools and holy symbols. Cross your fingers.

My only gripe with this set is that the background is mundane, as in it matches all the mundane gear, yet some of the treasure items say they are magic - arcane dagger, magic dust. I suppose they could be fake magic, you know, "magic." Still, only a minor quibble.

Found a problem ... and may have fixed it. I added a few levels of duelist, but they were showing up in red (ineligible) even though I had all the pre-req's. I went to the DataClasses tab and checked out the Qualified column. In cell U59 it said "Dodge",Feats_Known. I remembered that everywhere else, the Dodge feat had been written DODGE (so as not to confuse it with Dodge bonuses, I assume). So I changed U59 to "DODGE",Feats_Known ... and it came back TRUE. No more red! Did I actually just find a problem and fix it?

However you decide to run it, allowing readied actions outside of combat is just asking for trouble.

Agree. Just 'cause you ready an action for a certain trigger doesn't mean you see the trigger when it occurs. That's what determining surprise is all about. You may have a readied action, but if your opponent sees you before you see him, it's all for naught.

Any chance there will ever be a set of Item Cards using the object art from this book?

Any chance of seeing some of it recycled into a set of Item Cards?

Classic Horrors has a nice aklys, brain-in-jar, ouija board, hag twig holy symbol, scarab, and skull goblet.

Seekers of Secrets has a ton of stuff - warded book, adventurer's sash, ioun stones, wayfinders, etc.

The Andoran book has broken shackles, a sword and scabbard, a bunch of nice trade goods.

Mother of Flies has a nice keyring/lock-pick set.

Anyway, it seems like there is a bunch of quality object artwork already out there, paid for and everything. Just a thought.

I know WotC owns the rights to the content, but is there any chance any of the artwork still belongs to Paizo? I was flipping through the Dragon Compendium and there is some great object artwork in there. (I'm a big fan of Paizo's item cards and would love to see some of that artwork recycled into a set of cards.)

Stefan

PCGen Developer, Pathfinder project lead

Hi there Stefan -

Any word on when if/when Pathfinder Society feats and traits will be integrated into PCGen?

What about stuff from the country books like Cheliax and Andora, etc? or Seekers of Secrets? Do you all have the ability to include that kind of material? (assuming you had the time :)

Thanks

Do you have the Weapon set to Ranged rather than Melee (there's a little selector right above the weapon name field)? Both crossbows and bows should be set to Ranged, while spears, slings, bolas, etc. should be set to Thrown. I'm working on a more elegant solution for that, but this sounds like the problem.

Yup, that was it. I guess ideally it would do that automatically, but it's also nice to be able to select melee vs. thrown for some weapons. Actually, being able to create multiple stat blocks for the same weapon used in different ways is one of the chief advantages of your spreadsheet vs. the program I've used in the past - that and all the Golarion-specific data.

Hi Erian. I tried the finesse/weapon training build an a fresh sheet and it worked fine. Then I built my guy on a fresh sheet, and it worked fine too. I must have accidentally erased something in those rogue talent cells to make them stop working.

New observations:

1) Bards can use all Knowledge skills untrained. That's not showing up automatically. I found the code for that on the DataSkils tab and changed it for my bard, but it should probably get built into the sheet.

2) I added a light crossbow and it seems to be adding my Str bonus when I hold it one handed and 1.5 Str bonus when I hold it two handed. But crossbow shouldn't get Str bonuses. Right now they're working like melee weapons.

2.5) I added a longbow just to see what happens, and it did the same thing. I don't know bows as well, but I think that's only supposed to happen if you get a strength bow.

Oh, and I tried Sorting just the skill name column (and not the modifiers and everything) and it seems to be working fine; all the modifiers auto fill based on the skill name.

I look forward to playing with the new version! Thanks

Its vestigial from 3.0, where it gave a +2 synergy to Heal checks. It obviously no longer does this

I miss synergy.

Keep skills as they are is my vote.

Fair enough. It was just a thought.

Erian- I added and pulled feats quite a few time, so I'll try a fresh build later and see if I can get Finesse Rogue and Weapon Training to work. I probably erased something along the way.

Quote:

1A. I see the Weapon Training box at the bottom of the rogue options menu, and it has Weapon Focus [] as a choice, which I've selected, but I can't figure out how to add rapier.

2. On skills, I want to take some ranks in Profession (gambler). I see Profession []/ How do I add the word "gamble" to that? I tried just typing it between the brackets but I got an error message.

Both of these are handled in the Character Options Tab. N37 is the start of where you enter the block for Weapon Focus and Improved Critical feats. D38 is where you enter professions and have them show up on your list.

Okay, I tried these, with mixed success. Once I selected "rapier" from the drop-down list in N38 I was able to select "Weapon Focus [rapier]" for my rogue weapon training. However, when I look at the stat block for my rapier on the Front tab, I'm not seeing the +1 to hit reflected. And it doesn't show up on my feat list on the Back tab; it shows that I have the rogue talent that gives it to me as a bonus feat, but doesn't show the feat. Also, N38 and N39 seem to offer the full list of weapons to choose from, while N37 only offers exotic weapons. Is that intentional?

On skills, once I entered "gambler" in D39, I was then able to type "gambler between the brackets of "Profession []" in the skills list. So that works, but is there any particular reason you didn't just make this a drop-down list? Typing it in twice works, and is probably a fine solution for oddball professions that people create themselves, but there is a finite (albeit long) list in the core rules. Your drop-downs just seem more ... elegant.

Quote:

2A. Because I've multiclassed, skills are out of alphabetical order. Do I just use Excel's sort function to alphabetize them?

Yes. Though the skills are automatically sorted in a very useful way - they're sorted alphabetically first by those that can be used untrained, and then those that can't be used untrained.

Just personal preference - I like 'em alphabetical. But I see Erian's point about not sorting - those are some complicated fields and they're TINY and it'd be hard to know which one to sort by. So I'll go with manual. I just noticed that the skills are also drop-down menus, so I can just select which feat I want where. If anyone else does this, just jot down your skill ranks first 'cause they won't port with the skill (not that they should, I just didn't think of it before I started re-ordering them).

Question (and not a criticism) - Any reason not to give skills their own tab? I'm used to using PCGen, which does have a separate skill tab. It's kinda handy 'cause you can sort skills by alpha, ranks, or total bonus while adding skill points, but they always show up in a fixed order on the character sheet. Again, not a criticism, just food for thought.

Quote:

3. The hit point column in the level-by-level progression list. My total hit points are showing up correctly on the Front character sheet, but the level-by-level HP column is blank. Is that how it supposed to work? Is this column only supposed to be used to over-ride for rolled HP or something? Just curious.

Click on cell J5, and it will explain which of four hit point options the sheet will use. The default is option 1, which is full HP at 1st level and half plus one thereafter. Option 4 lets you manually input whatever you rolled for each level.

Right, I see that. I picked Option 1. I guess - because of the blank column - I expected to see little HPs showing up at each level, even the 1/2+1. Certainly not necessary, and like I said, the total comes out fine, that empty column just looks a little lonely :)

4. And my Weapon Finesse is definitely NOT showing up. Do I need to do something to trigger it? I'm trying to get it via Finesse Rogue, not as a feat. If I select it as a regular feat, it works. When I select Finesses Rogue, I get Finesse Rogue, but not the feat effects. And like Weapon Training/Weapon Focus, it doesn't show up on my feat list on the Back tab; it shows that I have the rogue talent that gives it to me as a bonus feat, but doesn't show the feat.

BTW- Erian asked, I'm using version 0.7.11. And please take any nit-picking in the context of my utmost appreciation for the fine character builder you've put together and a recognition of the hours of work you've put into this. Thanks again.

I was a bit vague. Anything available to you on your chronicle sheet is always available so long as you can afford it.

Always available for the next three chronicles.

Pathfinder isn't very clear on whether or not ability increases are retroactive.

? As far as I know, ALL ability increases are retroactive in Pathfinder, including Intelligence, including those granted by magic items (after 24 hours and while the item is worn).

What a wonderful tool! Thanks you so much Erian and everyone else whose working on this.

I have a couple of questions (I assume they're not problems with the sheet, just me not knowing how to use it).

1. I'm building a rogue with the Finesse Rogue and Weapon Training talents. I select them 2nd and 4th level from the rogue options menu. Then what? They don't seem to be registering as feats. When I look at the Abilities & Feats tab, they list as talents have, but the corresponding feats don't show up as feats, and I don't get the benefits, so I think there is something else I need to do to actually get them as feats. What? [Note: when I choose Weapon Finesse from the little DM-granted feats menu, it does show up and I do get it calculated in.]

1A. I see the Weapon Training box at the bottom of the rogue options menu, and it has Weapon Focus [] as a choice, which I've selected, but I can't figure out how to add rapier.

2. On skills, I want to take some ranks in Profession (gambler). I see Profession []/ How do I add the word "gamble" to that? I tried just typing it between the brackets but I got an error message.

2A. Because I've multiclassed, skills are out of alphabetical order. Do I just use Excel's sort function to alphabetize them?

3. The hit point column in the level-by-level progression list. My total hit points are showing up correctly on the Front character sheet, but the level-by-level HP column is blank. Is that how it supposed to work? Is this column only supposed to be used to over-ride for rolled HP or something? Just curious.

Thanks again.

BTW - Sorry for the how-to questions if this is meant to be just a development thread.

In short, I too disagree with the ruling, on both mechanical and conceptual grounds, but I accept what he said as "official" until we hear otherwise, either from him, Jason, or anyone else at Paizo.

+1

Why not drop the price of the old pdf to $4.99? Make it cheap so anyone feeling nostalgic or actually running a 3.5 campaign can get it, and if they like what they see, the $9.99 for the new one won't be that bad.

Another reason to keep the original pdf is if any of the material from that one won't be updated. Whether the folks at Paizo think it's good material or not, someone out there might like it and if you don't continue to make it available, its going to be really hard for them to find. Then you get into issues of people copying pdf's because its the only way to access certain things... slippery slope.

Level 13 special events at cons would be fun.

Especially when we're talking about questions regarding the CORE rules. This isn't something about an obscure PrC that appeared in a regional splatbook. Given that these are the core rules that everyone is using, and that every other company who produces a Pathfinder-compatible product will be using, this stuff needs to get nailed down.

I'm in line to buy the APG and the GM's Guide, but those are secondary resources, not even the adventure paths that Paizo says make up most of its sales. I'm totally okay with the idea that Paizo is still getting used to being as successful as it is, and may have over-reached a little, and I'll continue to be supportive. I just hope that in the very near future, finishing off the core rules becomes the priority again.

Maybe this veers into house rules, but what would makeTWF worth it? If it worked more like Rapid Shot and only cost a single attack action for both primary and off-handed weapon attacks?

Something as simple as a Darkness spell can easily spoil a Rogues day unless hes got something to counter or see through it, that 20% concealment bothers Rogues more than any other character, since ANY amount of concealment completely negates precision based damage such as Sneak Attack. It doesn't matter if hes got Darkvision, he suffers like everyone else does.

Can you explain why the rogue is still out of luck even if he/she has darkvision? I though someone with darkvision could see "normally" in Darkness, thus no concealment, thus sneak attacks are okay.

I don't believe that Jason is 'undecided' about it, though. That's absurd.

It's easy enough between however many drafts and revisions for something like this to have slipped thru the cracks. But for it's INTENDED functioning to be something that he would say "Oh. Haven't thought about that one. Hmmm... Let me get back to you" just doesn't make sense.

I meant more "we as a staff." That's the only thing that I can figure, that there's some pretty stubbornly divided opinions on the Paizo staff, so they can't come to a consensus, and it's not important enough to Jason risk p***ing off half the folks he works with.

Oh well, guess it's back to bump and hope...

Sorry, man. Rules board, please. :-) I'm not opening that pandora's box in this thread.

Seriously though, Paizo folks, can somebody please just post "We're undecided at the moment and will make an official decision in the next 30 days" or something like that?

Sorry, man. Rules board, please. :-) I'm not opening that pandora's box in this thread.

Figured it was worth a shot, at least to get a for-the-Society ruling. Thanks anyway.

bump

BTW- I posted this question in the Pathfinder Society forum as well and will try to trip someone in a Pathfinder Society game this weekend using a spear. We'll see what happens...

Okay, sorry to do this to you Joshua (got the name right this time ;), but there's been no answer to this up in the rules section for weeks...

Can I use a non-trip weapon to try to trip someone? What happens? I ask because I'm gong to a con this weekend and am going to try to trip someone with my spear (a non-trip weapon) just to see if I can. Thanks.

M. Butterfly, by David Henry Hwang.

I was actually inspired to read this play by one of the other threads on the Off Topic messageboard; I saw the movie a long time ago, and the only line I remembered from it was that line. It gives me chills thinking of how B. D. Wong performed it.

It was awesome - I saw it in college.

Off-topic: Zeugma - You going to OrcCon? Hope so, haven't seen you in like a year.

I'm not much of a sports fan, so I don't know the rules of any particular sport very well, but I thought it might be interesting to try to model a sport using the Pathfinder rules.

Any takers? What about baseball? Or maybe football?