So just a quick clarification. I tried searching for this in the Rules Questions thread, but I didn't find an answer. When Crafting ammunition (arrows, shuriken, etc.), do you assume that you're crafting a standard sale lot (20 for arrows, 5 for shuriken, etc.), crafting 50 (standard magical lot), or crafting individually?
I ask because I have a Ranger in one of my games who's crafting arrows during watches, and so I was trying to figure out progress by the hour for arrow crafting. So far, I've been assuming lots of 50 is the standard arrow crafting, so I have the following formula for hourly arrow crafting:
Check result * 12 (arrow craft DC) / 7 (days in week) / 24 (hours in day) * hours crafted = completed sp of arrows
I have some other modifiers in there from circumstances, but that's the gist of the formula I've been using for ammunition-crafting. Anybody find anything particularly wrong with it, or am I wrong in assuming that basic ammunition crafting is in lots of 50?
As a note, on a 4-hour watch, the most I've seen him craft was 12 IIRC.
And regarding familiars, I was mostly pointing out that the strict wording doesn't make any allowances. I do realize that brains have to come into play, but text is text. And in your example, the next 10 familiars wouldn't be able to survive 10 minutes. It's just as reasonable to rule that they are limited to the air that was present, as the text does say "up to" 10 minutes.
As far as the reverse-permeable filter, thing, there is clearly a filter across extradimensional barriers of some sort, otherwise spells would be able to pass outside a rope trick. They can't, so something is filtering something, even if air is being allowed to pass.
Yes, me being a nitpicker. I'm not actually invested in the familiar-in-the-bag scenario.
Dimensional Anchor wrote:
The fact that it bars extraplanar travel indicates that extraplanar is a type of extradimensional travel. My apologies if my meaning before was unclear, I was just using that as an example of something that says extradimensional and then very blatantly includes extraplanar as part of it. No form of travel is cited that is extradimensional without being extraplanar.
As far as the Planes are dimensions citation, the first two sentences of "The Planes" section under Environments:
The Planes wrote:
While endless adventure awaits out in the game—there are other worlds beyond these—other continents, other planets, other galaxies. Yet even beyond this existence of countless planets exist more worlds—entirely different dimensions of reality known as the planes of existence.
Individual Planes are also in multiple places referred to as dimensions themselves, and the only other thing that I've seen that may be pertinent is the definition given for Demiplanes:
This catchall category covers all extradimensional spaces that function like planes but have measurable size and limited access. Other kinds of planes are theoretically infinite in size, but a demiplane might be only a few hundred feet across. There are countless demiplanes adrift in reality, and while most are connected to the Astral Plane and Ethereal Plane, some are cut off entirely from the transitive planes and can only be accessed by well-hidden portals or obscure magic spells.
The problem with that being that it is never defined what "function like planes" means.
Also, not to poke holes in arguments again, but Teleport is extraplanar travel.
Astral Planes wrote:
...Powerful spellcasters utilize the Astral Plane for a tiny fraction of a second when they teleport, or they can use it to travel between planes with spells like astral projection.
True, except if you actually read up on what a Plane is, it is a "dimension of reality." Ergo, something that does not exist on any dimension exists outside the normal Multiverse Planar structure.
Looking at other spells, items, etc., dimension and Plane are used interchangeably. Notably, the Dimensional Anchor spell, which blocks extradimensional travel (like Gate, Shadow Walk, Ethereal Jaunt, etc.), and then references travel between the Planes instead.
Dimensional and Planar are essentially used interchangeably in the books.
Blahpers, one hole I must poke in your extradimensional argument:
Extradimensional spaces wrote:
These spells and magic items create a tiny pocket space that does not exist in any dimension.
So they aren't geometric anomalies on the same plane, they exist outside the Material Plane.
As far as the boulder-drop thing, I personally would rule that if the boulder can't normally fit through the opening in the bag, then forcing it through in either direction would rupture the bag and ruin it forever. It is still a bag, not a birth canal.
As far as gravity, since it does call out that extradimensional spaces are not of this plane, then this plane's gravity probably don't affect the interior of the bag.
Regarding familiars, they have 100 rounds, then they die. The bag description doesn't make allowances for size of bag or size of living creature. :)
RJGrady, look at it this way: Clerics, as bonus feats, gain Simple Weapon Proficiency, Light Armor Proficiency, Medium Armor Proficiency, and Shield Proficiency (plus Martial or Exotic Weapon Proficiency in deity's favored weapon as applicable). Shield Proficiency as a feat doesn't grant you the ability to use it as a weapon, just the ability to use a shield without applying the shield's penalty on attack rolls and all "skill checks that involve moving."
This interpretation is actually called out by the special section on the Shield Proficiency feat.
I don't know that anybody has done that prior, although I've thought about it before. The wording for the Draconic bloodline does say it must be Chromatic or Metallic, not just a "true dragon," so I've said in the past that it's not permitted. If you're looking for a houseruling that allows it, I would think you'd just need to come up with the stuff on the chart for Draconic Bloodline (dragon type, energy type, breath shape) and that would be it.
Ex: Lunar dragon, cold, line
Wouldn't really know how to give it a distinct "Outer" feel to it without building a new Bloodline, although that has possibilities.
Higher INT also grants you additional language slots, but you do not acquire them without effort as a "bonus".
I thought the Devs had ruled that if your Int Bonus went up, you automatically gained bonus languages as if you had started with said Int score. Don't have a link, but thought it had come up.
As far as I know, one of two things would happen:
1) The inner bag would be rendered impotent, meaning that it would be just a bag that couldn't be accessed while inside the former bag,
2) The inner bag would be rendered inert, meaning all of its contents would spill out into the outer bag, and the inner bag would be just another piece of cargo in the outer bag.
I'm inclined toward the former, given the Rope Trick example they state.
1 - Sort of. I don't remember the exact balance, but it's in Appendix 4 of the Bestiary (Monsters as PCs). You're effectively changing your character to be more powerful, so it does unbalance things a tad. With a template like that, how out of balance you are depends on your HD.
2 - Absolutely. If you get a permanent increase (level-up bonus, Manual magic item, Wish spell, or wearing a Int-boost headband for 24 hours), you get more skill points.
Hello, all. My apologies that this is coming so late. Things went to the handbasket with work and the holiday. As far as my selection:
I'd like Harkon Dormun and Ignatius Potter to send me PMs for regarding background and how we'll work you into the game. Thank you to all the others for submissions, and I'm sorry that I won't be able to take you this time.
My apologies, yes. Prestige Classes are also available from listed references. Others may be considered upon request.
And with that, I'm going to close recruitment for the time being. I should have a decision soon, in the next day or so. I'll post here, then talk to the selectee(s) about fitting them in.
The theory behind the idea was, in fact, repairing each subsidiary part (board, nail, etc.) and putting it back together. I had noted the object limit, I was more referring to the possibility of repairing each constituent piece one at a time in an attempt to repair the entire ship. It sounds like, though, to actually pull that off, each piece would have to be removed from the whole, then mended, then put back in, otherwise the piece would be a part of the whole ship.
So question: how powerful is the Mending spell? My party in my RL game had thoughts of using it to repair a wrecked ship to escape a deserted island. I figured it would take several thousand castings, if it worked at all.
Stats on my character. Shifted the animal companion to a Giant Gecko instead of a Giant Chameleon.
Male Elf druid 2
Male Giant Gecko animal companion 2
Still working on gear and backstory. Just wanted to get the bulk of the crunch up and running.
Starting wealth is average for class. Second time I've forgotten to include that. *facepalm*
@Ignatius Potter: Good to see you. Ignatius looks good. As far as gear, average starting wealth. Background: something that puts you in Westcrown and gives you a reason to dislike the government, preferably tied in with your campaign trait.
@JustJacqui: Catfolk unavailable. Please review creation guideline.
@Algar Lysandris: Shadowcaster archetype isn't on the table. Looks like a decent character otherwise. Also does not appear to include your human skill bonus, ability bonus, or a campaign trait.
Good evening, all. I find myself in need of a replacement player for my new Council of Thieves PBP. We're still in the introductory stage, but it's about to take off into the adventure, so I'd prefer to find this replacement sooner rather than later. The party currently consists of
Auriona: Half-Elf Ranger
As you can see, we're rather deficient in the caster department. I'll need one or two persons to fill that gap, depending on what is available from posts. I think I can give folks a couple of days to create something. I won't expect huge amounts of posting across Thanksgiving, but after that I'd hope for the ability to check in once-per-day.
I'm seeing a distinct bias against short-folk in the applications. ;)
I propose Harsgrakl Frimblethrommer, a Gnome Bard of no small skill with the illusory arts. As a worshipper of Calistria, Harsgrakl has always had a fondness for the first sting, that of trickery. This is helped by his study of the thespian's arts, which he uses to great effect when mimicking others. It's all in good fun, however, to give life a little spice.
I'm interested. I can usually post once or twice a workday, with more frequency on days I don't have work. Hope that is frequently enough. My personal preference would be for Second Darkness, but I can work with any of the above APs.
Any resource restriction as far as race/class, or open Paizo?
Part of that is the element of realism. A rapier is a weapon that really doesn't work to its fullest capacity without finesse. It's a weapon for somebody with high agility. And it isn't just piercing weapons. Any light-class weapon can be finessed, even if it's a hammer. :D
Yeah, Dervish Dance breaks the normal rule about Scimitar not being a Finesse-able weapon. The only reason it's a prereq for the feat is because you need to be "trained" in fighting with finesse before you can apply that to a weapon that isn't designed for such an attack.
Late reply, but as best I can read it, Fiery Shuriken is still a "targeted spell," and thus would only get 1 sneak attack by SKR's reasoning for every wave of shuriken fired. It still has the potential to get sneak attack on every shuriken, but they'd have to each be fired by a separate action and each would have to qualify.
Also, THREAD NECRO! Sorry. :)
Okay. I have the updated version of Robert, with the final gold spent and the spellbook filled out. Just have to come up with a name for the familiar.
Male human conjurer (teleportation) 4
CN Medium humanoid (human)
Init +11, Senses Perception +3 (+5)
AC 14, touch 13, flat-footed 11 (+3 Dex, +1 natural); +4 with Mage Armor
HP 26 (4d6+4)
Fort +1, Ref +4, Will +4
Speed 30 ft.
Melee quarterstaff +0 (1d6-2)
Ranged mwk light crossbow +6 (1d8/19-20)
Wizard Spells Prepared (CL 4th; concentration +11)
2nd––glitterdust, invisibility, levitate, summon monster II S
1st––grease (DC 16), mage armor, ray of sickening (DC 16), summon monster I, touch of gracelessness (DC 16), vanish
0 (at will)––acid splash, detect magic, mending, prestidigitation
Forbidden Schools evocation, enchantment
Str 7, Dex 16, Con 10, Int 20, Wis 8, Cha 10
Base Atk +2; CMB +0, CMD 13
Traits Bastard, Focused Mind
Feats (Alertness), Fast Learner, Improved Initiative, Scribe Scroll, Spell Focus (conjuration)
Skills Appraise +9, Escape Artist +4, Knowledge (arcana) +12, Knowledge (dungeoneering) +10, Knowledge (geography) +10, Knowledge (history) +10, Knowledge (local) +10, Knowledge (nature) +12, Knowledge (nobility) +10, Knowledge (planes) +10, Knowledge (religion) +10, Linguistics +12, Perception +3 (+5), Spellcraft +12
Languages Abyssal, Aquan, Auran, Celestial, Common, Draconic, Ignan, Infernal, Sylvan, Terran
SQ arcane bond (greensting scorpion), empathic link, share spells, shift (10 ft., 8/day), summoner's charm (+2 rds)
Gear amulet of natural armor +1, ring of sustenance, handy haversack, pearl of power (1st level), mwk crossbow with 30 bolts, quarterstaff, 15gp misc gear
CG Tiny magical beast
So I'm curious how people weigh in on something. I was wanting some more feedback on the "interpretation of simultaneous" deal for sneak attack. Anybody mind dipping into another thread to discuss?
I tend to agree that if you're looking at a set of attacks formatted like that, then it isn't simultaneous. I'm just offering up the dissenting opinion (not my own, as a note) that spells worded like Fiery Shuriken are not disincluded from that format.
Oh. I suppose I should throw this in before we get too deep into this. As far as my expectations:
I'm hoping you'll all be able to commit to checking the Gameplay thread once per day (more is always accepted), even if you don't post that day. If you miss one once in a while, that's fine. If you're going to miss a few days in a row, please let me know ahead of time so I can Bot your character. You've all been doing a good job of this, so keep it up. :)
I'll spoiler text that is only meant for certain characters. I won't discourage reading of text spoilered for other characters, but I may call you on it if you start acting on information I know I didn't give you.
As far as Initiative, I'll probably just roll it for the sake of speed. I'm not the kind of person who does Party Init and Foe Init. If you want to pre-post your actions out of Initiative, that's fine with me. Just give me what you'd like to do, and a backup option if circumstances prevent your initial action choice from occurring (such as the enemy you wanted to attack falling before your turn). Failing such, I can improvise your action using your stated action as a guideline, but it may not be perfect.
As far as combat maps, when they come up, is there a preferred method?
The issue with this is two-fold. A) Simultaneous is not defined in the FAQ, thus leaving it open to interpretation. B) The example of a "simultaneous" spell used explicitly uses the word Simultaneously, thus suggesting that such wording is necessary for the FAQ to apply. I can only find maybe 4 other spells with similar wording.
The most common interpretation that I'm seeing is that Fiery Shuriken can do what Scorching Ray cannot because it isn't "simultaneous." I do actually agree with your interpretation, but there is plenty of legit argument against it to make it confusing.
You missed something that is the explicit contradiction given in the FAQ. Emphasis mine.
—Pathfinder Design Team, 06/19/13 wrote:
They explicitly call out that multiple attacks per round that are not simultaneous get SA on all attacks that qualify. That kind of knocks down your entire argument, unfortunately.
I tend to agree with the intent of your reading. The way the FAQ is worded locks it to only affecting corner cases with spells that use the word "simultaneously." Unfortunately, unless they change the wording, that's what it says, and they do call out that spells that grant multiple attacks per round get SA if they all qualify. What throws it off is the fact that they used a spell getting multiple attacks from iteratives as the example.
If you're referring to my second example, Surprise Spell is unnecessary. If you're talking about the former example, then you're right, it only applies once. What I posted was probably the logic behind it, though. Lord Malkov's rule of thumb is also inaccurate by the rules at present. Only if the word "simultaneously" is used in the spell do you apply SA damage once, except when using Surprise Spells. If the spell doesn't say simultaneously, every attack in a round can carry SA dice if they otherwise qualify.
Thus, Fiery Shuriken wins on damage output. It functions even without having Surprise Spells, and I might be able to tweak it to get more sneak attack damage. Tired, so can't think of where I know I can dip for extra sneak attack dice to replace blank levels.
I do actually agree with the ruling provided by the PDT on the Scorching Ray issue, but it does have the problem of there isn't anything in the Core Rulebook to directly support it.
Citing Manyshot as an example doesn't work because it can very easily be interpreted as only applying to Manyshot. Precision damage is never defined with regard to spells, and the only mention of applying it once is in Manyshot. Such could easily be attributed to applying it once per attack roll.
Technically, using Fiery Shuriken, you can get sneak attack on all attacks even if you fire them all simultaneously because the word simultaneous isn't part of the spell. I personally would prefer that the Scorching Ray FAQ was adjusted to factor in spells like Fiery Shuriken, which winds up being the significantly more powerful spell for Arcane Tricksters. At level 16, that's 8d8+56d6 damage against a single target if they all hit touch AC (Avg 232 damage). As a note, significantly better than the Ball Lightning combo. At level 20, assuming 4 more Rogue levels, it turns into 8d8+72d6 if all hit (Avg 288 damage).
Ball Lightning = base damage 3d6 per sphere; medium range
Rogue 3/Caster 7/Arcane Trickster 10 = Caster level 17
Magical Knack trait = +2 caster level, can't go above character level; effective caster level 19 (which gets the 5th ball lightning sphere)
Surprise Round: Cast Ball Lightning, placing the balls on the enemy initially. Target is denied Dex to AC by flat-footed condition, and so suffers sneak attack damage on all attacks. Base damage is 3d6, + 2d6 SA from Rogue, + 5d6 SA from Arcane Trickster.
5 x (3+2+5)d6 = 5x10d6 = 50d6.
In theory, could be. But why would they pay for a service that is already offered for free? Questions are answered according to their validity and the necessity of their being addressed. And your system has no way of guaranteeing that the promise made is any more or less full than the one made for free, or that the question is answered any more rapidly than it would have been otherwise.
Sometimes it takes time to figure things out, so paying for it isn't going to speed it up any unless they turn around and use that money to pay a new team to interpret rules created by the design team, which will lead to yet more problems when the design team says one thing and the new faq team says something else.
As your idea stands, it's not a good one. Perhaps put some more thought into how such a system could be made to operate effeciently, and you might get less opposition.
Except his original question wasn't about identifying magical items, but identifying spell effects. Knowledge(arcana) check, and all can be made simultaneously. I digress, though. That discussion is tangential to the actual thread.
Not quite accurate.
Detect Magic wrote:
You can identify the strength and number of all detectable auras in range in 3 rounds. Identifying school or actual spell requires a separate skill check for each.
Saying that nobody has answered your question doesn't mean nobody has. Several of us have, even if we were a bit abstract in doing so. It's not a difficult jump to assume that somebody who says "this is a bad idea" is answering your question with a tacet "no."
My position stated in one very small word: No.
And for what it's worth, this is in entirely the wrong forum. This isn't a Rules Question. It should probably be in General Discussion.
At best, this will probably make a great number of people extremely angry and lead to a boycott by many of these boards and of Pathfinder. At worst, it could lead to a complete crash of the boards by people unhappy with rulings they paid for and disagree with and the loss of the FAQ system entirely. I tend to think it would end more in one of the latter options more than the former.
Personally, I'd rather have faith that the PDT can address the issues that are really necessary to address, even if it takes them some time. The fact that it takes them time is overshadowed by the fact that they're doing it at all, and that they're willing to engage in discussion with us on the boards.
I don't agree with every ruling they make, and I don't always take Dev rulings as gospel, but I do appreciate that they take their personal time to do this. Paying them for rulings feels to me like it would cheapen the ruling.
Saying that footing is irrelevant for higher ground bonus isn't accurate, though. In the case of the Mounted Combat, the effective footing of the Mounted character is several feet above the footing of the character on the ground. Using your reasoning, a human will always have high ground over a halfling.
If you want to ignore footing, then think of it this way. Assume character A wants to swing a sword at Character B of approximately equal size. To hit his chest, does he swing level, up, or down? If level, nobody has high ground bonus. If up, character B has high ground. If down, character A has high ground. Now ignore the actual size of the combatants, but that isn't figured into the abstraction.
The halfling on a hillock against the giant below it doesn't strictly scan to me. I don't know that I would give it to him. A halfling on a table against a human, though, I might. I'd imagine part of that, though, is an unstated assumption that how I think of higher ground only really applies within one size category. Applying higher ground outside of one size category differences, though, is a nightmare in any event. If there were a corresponding low-ground penalty, then it would be much easier to adjudicate how things applied between multiple size-category differences.
Cato Taldinius wrote:
Since there isn't any text regarding high ground other than [mounted combat], it's pretty clear to me footing doesn't matter.
False statement. There's also the trench rules, which are most easily interpreted as based on footing.
Templates were not permitted, no. That was only part of the reason why I ultimately passed over Norbat, though.
As a note, Gameplay thread is up for those of you who want to get started. I don't have anything up for Sarianna this instant because I'm still waiting to hear back and see if she's in. Otherwise, I'll figure something out for you folks. Here's to a good round of gaming.
Here's that Sin Specialist that you wanted to look at. I don't actually have a backstory for him, just crunch. Sounds like he wouldn't be first choice in any event, but I can hack together a backstory for him. Thanks for the consideration of Robert. Also, I forgot to edit Robert's alignment. I copied the format from another character. Robert is actually Chaotic Good.
Male Elf sin specialist (greed) 4
Oops. Forgot a few things.
HP: 6 + 9 + 3d3 + 4 ⇒ 6 + 9 + (2, 2, 3) + 4 = 26 1st-level, half-max, rolled half, favored class
I do have experience with this AP as a GM. My group managed to destroy their own kingdom mid-level 6. :)
I have a submission for this as well. Two, really. One is dependent on if Sin Specialism is permitted. If not, then I can submit Robert "Kingsblood," a Conjurer.
Male human conjurer (teleportation) 4
Robert's mother always told him that his father was one of the lost Rogarvian princes. He took this in stride, always believing it to be true. This led him to put on airs with some of the other children, and they were the ones who gave him the mocking nickname "Kingsblood." More often than that, they just called him "Bastard." His only reason to really believe his mother about her claim of his parentage was a book bound in soft, red leather, with the seal of house Rogarvia embossed on the cover. On the inside of the cover was a note penned to Sylvie, his mother, and signed by a man calling himself Surtova. The first few pages were filled with cantrips.
Robert's home life wasn't easy, between the other children's teasing and occasional violence, and his mother's sorry state. The disappearance of her lover had hit her hard, and she had to sell many of the things that he had provided for her to live comfortably. Robert has few memories of his childhood and his father, other than to remember that there was a man who was there sometimes and that they used to live much better than they do. His mother eventually had to turn to any kind of make-work that she could to get by and put food on the table, and Robert determined to study the book and use it to become a powerful wizard so he could bring his father back and they would all live happily.
Unfortunately, Robert's dream was cut short by his mother's death of a nasty chill. With nothing left to tie him to his home, Robert has decided to join the expeditions to the Stolen Lands to try and reclaim some glory for his family, and maybe to find his father again.
I have a couple of thoughts for a Wizard that could be integrated here. Do you have any particular preference with regards to the Thassilonian Magic Schools? I've been wanting to try out a Human Greed Sin Specialist. I also have a couple of ideas for a fresh character, including reviving a character from another campaign that fizzled at level 3.