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

TwoWolves's page

633 posts. Alias of Twowlves.


1 to 50 of 633 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

Think "helicopter".

But seriously, IMC I described him as having chains wrapped around his torso, further binding his arms into holding the scroll tube, and the lose ends of these chains were animate. Thus it was not "him" but his animated chains making the attacks.

I think a lot of people who claim that touch spells are so easy to land that the auto-hit aspect of Magic Missile is negligible aren't using the ranged touch rules correctly. Firing into melee is at -4 to hit, firing at an oponent that has cover is -4 to hit, and usually both will apply to a caster of ranged touch/ray spells. If your buddy is between you and the target and is in melee with your target, a wizard/sorcerer with a piss-poor BAB and no stat points left to put into Dex after pumping Int/Chr to the stratosphere is NOT likely to land that hit!

FLite wrote:

No we don't. There is no light shield.

There is:

Shield, Light Wooden
Shield, Light Steel
Shield, Light Spiked.

Not in Table 6-4 there isn't.

As much as I hate to say it, I don't think Bashing stacks with a spiked shield, and here's why I came to that conclusion.

Pathfinder Core Rulebook wrote:
Bashing: A shield with this special ability is designed to perform a shield bash. A bashing shield deals damage as if it were a weapon of two size categories larger (a Medium light shield thus deals 1d6 points of damage and a Medium heavy shield deals 1d8 points of damage). The shield acts as a +1 weapon when used to bash. Only light and heavy shields can have this ability.

Looking at Table 6-4: Weapons, we see separate entries for "Shield, light" and "Spiked Shield, light" (same for heavy shields). Therefore, I conclude that the Bashing property cannot even be added to a spiked shield, so the question of their ability to stack is moot.

I'm pretty sure "tie in" means that there will be cards and quests in the upcoming chapters of the Skull & Shakles card game that will share names and themes with the three adventures in this adventure module. Nothing more. There won't be cards in this adventure for use in the card game, or anything like that.

SCPRedMage wrote:
TwoWolves wrote:
Finally, a data set is a lot cheaper than the accumilated costs of the PDFs for the books contained in the data set. Saying "I'd rather buy more PDFs" is disingenuous, because you can buy 5 PDFs for over $50, or one data set that contains the HeroLab files for the same 5 books for $5, less if you get it in a bundle.

The bit about coding it yourself may indicate you already know this, but to make sure this is absolutely clear: buying the appropriate data package for Hero Lab is absolutely not a replacement for buying a PDF of the material. The PFS Additional Resources rules state you have to own the book the material is from in order to use it, and buying the data package is not the same.

In other words, in order to use the material included in said data package (which, yes, is cheaper on its own than the PDFs of the books said package supports), you also have to buy the PDFs of said books. That means the cost of the data package is in addition to the cost of the books, not instead of.

That said, I don't have a problem with the relatively inexpensive cost of the data packages.

Yes. Hence the paragraph I wrote just prior to the one you quoted.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Usually if you mouse over a number, HeroLab will tell you at least the types of bonuses it used to calculate the final result (i.e. Armor Class has base + dex + dodge + deflection etc etc). It's YOUR job to know when situational modifiers apply, such as when you are making an attack you get a bonus for (i.e. Sundering with Improved/Greater Sunder).

Every Feat, Trait and Spell (and gear too, I think) has a reference noted in it's entry, so you can tell what book it came from. It's YOUR job to make sure you own it outside of HeroLab.

Clicking the "Pathfinder Society Organized Play character" box in the "Configure Hero" menu should usually show you everything that's currently legal for PFS play. If you don't own the data package for a book, obviously it won't show up. You can manually click on boxes for every book that you DO own the data set for in the same menu. It's YOUR job to make sure your clicked boxes coincide with books you actually own.

Finally, a data set is a lot cheaper than the accumilated costs of the PDFs for the books contained in the data set. Saying "I'd rather buy more PDFs" is disingenuous, because you can buy 5 PDFs for over $50, or one data set that contains the HeroLab files for the same 5 books for $5, less if you get it in a bundle. AND you could just use the included editor to code it all in yourself for FREE if you want. The data sets do cost more money, but the money spent has value and it is not necessary. Try coding in some data yourself and see if your time is worth more than the $5 it costs to just buy the set.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

My group took the Black Arrows along, plus Orik (who was sentenced to join the rangers, and transporting him there was the tie in from book 2). They came up from under the fort through the shocker lizard caves, which they bypassed thanks to the druid and the smoke advice, and ran right into Lucretia. She promptly did her "welcome home, Kaven, and thanks for delivering the last of the Black Arrows to me" speech. Upon hearing that, all eyes turned to him, he started to sputter a denial (piss-poor Bluff check) and Jakardros blew his top and turned from the lamia to attack Kaven! Kaven, who was "bringing up the rear" anyway turned and fled back down the tunnel, and by the time the party had dispatched Lucretia and went looking for him, he was nothing but a barbecued shocker lizard meal.

MP, I feel your pain. My group are all older, with kids, and are alo geographically spread over hundreds of miles to boot! If we are lucky, we can meet every 6-8 weeks, and often in the winter/spring we have to miss one of those sessions because we just can't coordinate schedules. We have me plus 5-6 players, and getting everyone around the table is hard. When we do meet, we play for 8-12 hours (with meal breaks etc), so we do get a lot done, and we do have a dedicated adventure chronicler. Can't get people to coordinate via email anything but play dates, so we spend too much time updating characters/crafting/dividing loot, which all could be done via email. We use HeroLab, so the paperwork itself is fast and easy, but still.

And on top of this everyone wants more, not less APs. We have been playing RotRL for 4 years now, and are about 1/4 into book 5, but we have picked out the next AP for me to run, and one of the players has kicked off WotR as well. I've suggested we do more PFS or modules instead of APs, but nobody wants to do that. We've started to invest time and effort into VTT play, with yet another player running Thornkeep, and the idea that WotR is also to go mostly VTT, but our problem is the same: everyone wants to play, no one has time, and no one wants to exclude anyone (we are all friends for 20+ years). So we are right back to tryijng to fit square scheduling pegs into round calendar holes, no matter if we are talking online or in person.

1) Don't think so.
2) Don't think so.
2 part Deux)If they try, they will be sorely disappointed, as anything preserved in the library will instantly crumble to dust when removed.

So, what about a Skirnir Magus? They get a shield as an arcane bond. I assume that they are limited to +1 until 5th level, and they must pay full price until then as well? What if they want to enchant it as a weapon also? Same deal, +1 (full price) until 5th level? And the total price for a +1 shield enhancement/+1 weapon enhancement bonus heavy mithril shield would be 4020gp, full price?

Seems like the half-price discount for arcane bonded objects is nearly worthless before 5th level for weapons, and really limited for this particular archetype since their shield and weapon are a single object for the purposes of Prestige purchase limits.

Thanks! Glad you can get some use out of it.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Geralt: No. Telepathy is communication only, nothing about it grants control of any kind. And being mindless, the skeletons can't be contacted with telepathy anyway.

Slayer: I posted a link in this forum somewhere, possibly earlier in this very thread, that connects to an open Flikr gallery of my raid on sandpoint set up, complete with cardstock buildings and minis. If I get time, I'll repost the link.

EDIT: Found it. Here you go: Raid on Sandpoint

1) Yes. Mostly a red herring.
2) She was very heavily worshipped by Shalast's perpetual enemy, Bakrakan. It's only fitting that an immortal being pick back up where she left off in her schemes for Varisia.

Plus when this AP was written, there was little to no information about any of the major gods. The first 3 APs were a whrilwind tour of Varisia and the major deities worshipped there.

Orik was captured in my game and went to trial in Magnimar. Before Jusice Ironbriar, of course. He was sentenced to life with the Black Arrows, and escorting him was my lead-in to book 3. Once there, he helped infiltrate the fort and stayed on, having a major change of heart/life altering moment when he sees what happens to Kaven Windstrike, a guy he easily could have wound up as. Now he's a proud member of the most recent generation of rangers as Fort Rannick.

3 people marked this as a favorite.

I'll bet if you could flip the Starmount over and clean off a section of hull, it'd have the word "Warden" written on the side...

3 people marked this as a favorite.

You pay $11-$13 for a companion book from Paizo (i.e. Orcs of Golarion).

You pay $5 (or less) for a data package for HeroLab that contains the material from 4-5 companion books (Race bundle). Do people really consider that "buying the same thing twice"??

My group uses HeroLab, and never looked back. Any bugs are either corrected in their frequent updates or are corner cases that never once have come up, and if they did, we'd make a note and work around it.

So sorry for your loss. My prayers go out to you and your family.

4 people marked this as a favorite.

The best answer isn't the most popular, and it's probably the hardest: Be more interesting than the distractions.

2 people marked this as a favorite.

In my game, not only did he (and Lyrie, and Ripnugget, in fact) stand trial before Justice Ironbriar, he was sentenced to life with the Black Arrows. Escorting him to Fort Rannick was my lead-in to book 3.

I watched this video when I saw it on Google+ (with the sound down, however). I am somewhat amazed at how completely different our painting styles are, and I'm sure if you find 10 miniature figure painters you'll find 8-9 different ways of doing the same thing.

I guess I learned something after all!

I have a question, though. Since my sound was off, you may have said but I missed it, but how did you base the minis? Thanks!

It's not a subscription service, there's nothing to cancel. Just uninstall it and move on with your life?

Krune = The Sentinel??

I'm in!

Edit: next time, read the link before commenting, genius!

Well, this is all money spent AFTER I've already bought the adamantine axe. I might have to drop coin on the impervious feature and the fortifying stones anyway, but that's money not going toward AC-boosts.

*grumble grumble*

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Had I known this, I would NOT have made my PFS character use a battleaxe, nor taken the Weapon Focus: Battleaxe feat. It is basically punishing players for choosing flavor over crunch, for taking an axe instead of a sword because it "looks more like something a viking would carry".

Now, at least for organized play, any metal headed-wooden hafted weapon is out of the gate a sub-optimal weapon choice, for ANY special material, and their use will drop like a stone. Less diversity, blech.

My players bought potions of levitate and scrolls of fly and kited/bungie jumped off the irespan too. Without a ton of time to buff up, 3.5/pre-AE Xanesia isn't quite a TPK machine as she is as written.

I built a ton of cardstock buildings and used a modular pre-painted river, some bridges, several flip-mats, cardstock streets, walls and gate, modular wargaming hills, etc etc and built a 1"=10' (-ish) model of the town, just the main streets and the major buildings. It took up several folding tables, but we rented a cabin for the weekend for this anyway. Almost all of the party converged on the main gate/cathedral, and were out of position for the main attack. The wizard tried to teleport them closer to the action, but ended up misjumping to the swampy area on the other side of the river. They were able to stop all of the giants except the ones hitting the manor houses and the ones on the south end, which let the giants flee with about a dozen unnamed NPCs and half that named (Ameko, Mayor Deverin, the paladin brewer, etc). They drove Longtooth off (barely) and then had a merry chase across the land to Jorgenfist for a rescue mission-style next chapter.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Pathfinder Advanced Bestiary = Pathfinder Advanced AWESOME


I used this setting as my default 3rd ed campaign for many many years, and my players still would like to return to it someday. Scarred Lands were all over the place in terms of rule design, however. Some material was pure rubbish (getting into a PrC after 3rd level, and essentially getting multiple quickened spells out of the deal), but some of it was prescient (sorcerer bloodlines actually conferring powers and abilities, anyone?).

I told my group about this announcement, and they were all cautiously optimistic, but 100% of that caution was contingent on the rules used. Pathfinder or bust essentially. They have no desire to learn a new system, especially to play in a campaign where they had previously understood the system. I might get some of the new books for reading material, but if I run it, it'll be for Pathfinder or not at all.

If it doesn't have a tail it's not a monkey
Even if it has a monkey-kind of shape
If it doesn't have a tail it's not a monkey
If it doesn't have a tail then it's an ape.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
DM_aka_Dudemeister wrote:
In that case Knights vs Dragons is the next logical step. I think Lastwall (The orcs are using dragons as weapons, or the dragons are using the orcs as an army), Taldor (an empire in decline seeks a return to glory, by questing for the end of dragonkind) or Mendev/Worldwound (Demons and Dragons!) or Brevoy (return of the red tyrant)

Instead of a fractured Taldor instigating a grand crusade to wage genocide vs dragon kind, flip it around: they see the success their former vassal state Cheliax is having militarily with their Devil-alliances, so they offer up their vast riches of old to a series of dragonlords. The dragons move in and become essentially regional governors of Taldor and the unified nation of Taldor wages a war of reconquest vs Andoran, Galt, Cheliax, Nidal, etc etc. Or turns their attention to their ancient foes in Qadira. The AP revolves around the growing threat of Taldor resurgent, then all out war across the inner sea to stop the dragons when they inevitably enslave the native Taldans and move to conquer all the lands around the Inner Sea.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Drogon wrote:

To be clear, the fact that a clarification has to be made to clarify the clarification is a "new rule" in its treatment. Kinda like what I'm doing right now, we have to argue about its meaning.

If the "clarification" had never existed in the first place that would have been better for all involved. But, it existed, and word spread of how it was being ruled. Thus, everyone has an expectation of how this rule works. Now, in order to reverse that expectation, a new "rule" has to be put out there. Just because it's a new way of looking at the rule...

I find it ironic that you start a sentence with "To be clear", then rattle off a tongue twister about clear clarifications of clarifications that isn't in the least bit.... well, clear.

Nevertheless, the very scenario you say is so horrid (revisiting a "clarification") has happened multiple times in the history of PFS, and the walls ain't come tumbling down yet. I realize you are the OP and want Weapon Cords banned. But I disagree, and the counterpoints raised by myself and others seem to me compelling and valid (obviously, I made them). The pro-banning arguement seems overreaching and vicious overkill. I'm sure you and I are destined to disagree about this, but I feel compelled to have the opposing viewpoint expressed loudly and strongly, especially when it will affect my non-gunslinging, non-cheesy characters.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Drogon wrote:
Andrew Christian wrote:
You do realize that re-clarifying that reloading is considered a finer action is not creating a new rule right?

Not really, no. It's a clarification that people will have to be made aware of. Every time a player sits down with a weapon-corded two-gunslinger they're going to have to be made aware of the re-clarification of the clarification of the rule and told, "You can't do that anymore." Arguments will ensue.

Ban weapon cords, no arguments necessary.

Wait, what? A rules clarification is not the same as creating a new rule from whole cloth, and you disagree?

How is telling a player who sits down at your table "Weapon Cords are banned, you can't play your Four-Barrelled Two-Gun Kid gunslinger any more" any different from telling the same player with the same character "You can't reload guns as a free action with a weapon hanging from your weapon cord anymore"? You think telling someone their whole character concept doesn't work as intended anymore WON'T cause an arguement no matter what the reason? I can see that putting something in the "Additional Resources" section hits more eyeballs than "Go look at this online FAQ", but neither hits as many eyes as one sentence in the Guide to Organized Play.

And all of this is beside the point, it doesn't have to reach a lot of players, just the ones playing two-double barrelled pistol-wielding gunslingers.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Drogon wrote:
TwoWolves wrote:

Secondly, the idea that "This is PFS, we can't do house rules" is hogwash. There is a huge list of "Additional Resources" that can be used in PFS, and conversely anything NOT on that list can't, and this constitutes a giant pile of house rules. Not only that, the boards have a metric crap-ton of "clarifications" on rulings that are essentially the same thing. I know Mr Brock has said we ain't changing the rules, so don't suggest fixes that require a rule change, and I respect that. But the whole idea of "no house rules in PFS" is bunk.

Now, how did I know that would come up? (-;

You're correct: PFS is loaded with house rules, all on that list. But the "house rules" consist of a single statement that is easy to administer: You can/cannot play <this>.

Going beyond that statement is writing all new rules, and is significantly more difficult to administer. Awareness of no/yes rules is easy to achieve. Awareness of how to correctly apply a rewritten rule for weapon cords is most certainly not, as proven by the number of people who are unaware of PFS "clarifications." Frankly, I wish they'd all go away. Starting here would be a good thing.

It would be as easy as adding a line to the Guide in the section under Gunslingers (where there are already "House Rules" regarding Gunsmithing, the price of ammo, etc) stating "reloading a firearm counts as 'fine manipulation' for the purposes of what cannot be done with a weapon dangling from a weapon cord". There are legitimate uses for weapon cords that would suffer by indiscriminately swinging the ban hammer, when the real problem lies elsewhere.

Damiancrr wrote:
And like i said i openly and obviously admit i was wrong. But it wasnt for the reasons anyone stated but Umbral. While its true that the lines mean unavaliable till a certian level, that is not stated till you look elsewhere, so giving mean lines means nothing in a rule dispute, which is why it wasnt wrong till Someone pointed out the Ruling for the Ranger/Paladin Class. But i was indeed wrong, but meh dont really care about your opinion, I got my question answered l8r :p

"I wasn't wrong until I was wrong!" wha???

Welcome to the boards. Good luck with getting anyone to take any more of your forum posts seriously in the future with that attitude of yours.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

First off, I don't think Weapon Cords should be banned. They made it through two rounds of designer scrutiny and emerged intact and unchanged (AA and UE). If there is a problem with abuse, it's not the cord's fault, it's the combination it's used with's fault.

Secondly, the idea that "This is PFS, we can't do house rules" is hogwash. There is a huge list of "Additional Resources" that can be used in PFS, and conversely anything NOT on that list can't, and this constitutes a giant pile of house rules. Not only that, the boards have a metric crap-ton of "clarifications" on rulings that are essentially the same thing. I know Mr Brock has said we ain't changing the rules, so don't suggest fixes that require a rule change, and I respect that. But the whole idea of "no house rules in PFS" is bunk.

Thirdly, a Weapon Cord does NOT replace a feat (Quick Draw). Not even close, so quit using that arguement in your Cord-Discord arguements.

Fourthly, a Weapon Cord does NOT do the job of a Glove of Storing. The glove keeps an item in an extra-dimentional/non-dimensional space, where not only is it safe from any and all environmental effects, it's also 100% undetectable. What's he got in his glove? A scroll of Breath of Life? A lit torch? A bouquet of roses? Who knows?? Also, accessing the item in a GoS is a free action, not a swift action. You can access it as many times per round you want (assuming you had a reason). You can access it and still have your swift action for the round (Hello Quicken Spell!), which seems to make this a must-have for Magi. It's WAAAAYYYY better than a Weapon Cord, with zero of the drawbacks. There is no comparison.

Fifthly, it's a common sense item that should not be banned because it has multiple legitimate uses that have nothing to do with gunslinger cheese. Both of my main PFS characters have one, because both are weapon/heavy shield casters. Without it, they would be massively penalized, mainly because of the apparant lack of love for the sword'n'board fighting style. No one should ever fear losing their prized magic weapon because they are in a water-themed or airborne adventure either. Disarms aren't the only thing that can make you drop your weapon, and dropping your weapon when on a bridge over a chasm, or while swimming, or flying at high altitudes means a massive wealth dump. "Yeah man, sorry you lost your 18,000+gp blade because you got stunned while swimming in the ocean. Better luck next time I guess."

Finally, instead of just griping, I'll contribute my option toward a solution. The item description clearly states that having a weapon dangling from a cord "might interfere with finer actions". Clarifying this statement to better define "finer actions" A) changes no RAW and B) falls right in line with many of the message board clarifications that already exist. Instead of lobbying to ban the cords, working together to make a list of PFS "finer actions" would be a better use of our efforts.

In my opinion.

The hand was waived many years and editions ago: despite the differences in actual density of 100% pure elemental metals, for game purposes, the coins of the realm are actually impure/alloys, effectively working out to roughly 50/lb and a size of roughly 1 US $0.25 piece.

"Virtuous" doesn't really fit well with my players' party.....

It's not like having a ton of points makes any difference, it's just a way of leaning for book 5. It doesn't matter if you have 1 point or 1000, the effect is the same if it's the highest among all sins. More of a "default" setting, I guess.

Speaking of which, you might want to sprinkle a few around from the very start, because if your group doesn't do a lot of role play, they might not stand out much as far as assigning them goes. I gave out (in secret, of course) a point based on the players' race and class combos before the first die was rolled. For example, elves got a Pride point, dwarves a Greed point, half-orcs a Wrath point, halflings a Gluttony point, while some classes like rangers (favored enemy = Wrath point), specialist wizards (easy and obvious), some bard builds (Pride, etc). Then during play some tendencies and actions merited more as outlined in the text.

It's better than Weapon Specialization/Greater Weapon Specialization.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

My fighter/bard grappled one (a white) and then carried it physically into a Flaming Sphere to finish it.

Note that he had neither Improved Grapple nor any defense against fire himself, other than just being a Real Man!

Yeah, me too.

40lbs worth, or 2000gp.

Not going to find it in writing in Pathfinder, but it was given in early 3.0 ed and many have houseruled this forward ever since.

Thod wrote:

The issue with sundering holy items of bad NPCs - they aren't described.

Ever killed a character in Shipyard Rats as GM? There was one very famous encounter that lead to whole TPKs.

But there is an issue: None of the clerics in the whole scenario even HAS a holy symbol.


Isn't this from Season 1? As in the very first scenario in the very first Pathfinder Core Rules-using era? Got anything more out of date to use as an example? Better yet, can you go back and see how many wizards in season 1 have spell component pouches listed? How about bards?

It's not as big of a deal as you are making it. And honestly, I can't see why a DM would be ok with a grapple-monkey grappling a caster to prevent casting but HELL NO! DON'T YOU SUNDER MY SPELL COMPONENT POUCH!!! Or Steal it. Or Disarm it. It's a viable tactic from the core rules. It had a bad reputation in 3.X because it did destroy treasure, but Pathfinder changed the sunder rules to ease the blow, and PFS in particular makes it even less of a disadvantage, since you can pay to get your stuff fixed (even if it takes a 30th level caster to do it).

Consecrated Shields/Sanctified Weapons from the Adventurer's Armory can be used as holy symbols.

When I played in that one, my friend and I (the dwarven fighter and human cleric) were the stragglers due to the chase. The rest of the party was being beaten soundly by the hounds, and the Mauler was at the door, ready to end the chase and put us all out of our misery. The summoner (who's eidolon was gone) was up, and he had zero offense without his pet. He cast a Grease in desperation and the Mauler spent the next 4-5 rounds rolling around in it, giving the party time to get their act together and deal with the minions before moving on to him. Every round the whole thing could have been lost with a successful reflex save and every round, Mr Brock rolled poorly!

Both are untyped bonuses, so yes.

Inner Sea World Guide, I believe, as it is Golarion specific.

1 to 50 of 633 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

©2002–2014 Paizo Inc.®. Need help? Email or call 425-250-0800 during our business hours: Monday–Friday, 10 AM–5 PM Pacific Time. View our privacy policy. Paizo Inc., Paizo, the Paizo golem logo, Pathfinder, the Pathfinder logo, Pathfinder Society, GameMastery, and Planet Stories are registered trademarks of Paizo Inc., and Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pathfinder Adventure Card Game, Pathfinder Player Companion, Pathfinder Modules, Pathfinder Tales, Pathfinder Battles, Pathfinder Online, 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.