Daji

spartanfury1's page

Organized Play Member. 37 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists. 8 Organized Play characters.


RSS

Lantern Lodge

tl;dr

shifter is broken weak and needs major buffs. aspects (both major and minor) either are in need of rework, or are completely boring...and not exactly clear which as is. need more feats for a full martial class. and have several dead levels (levels with no meaningful advancement), even with the eratta, which doesn't add anything worthwhile in them.

herbology should all fall primarily under profession herbalist, with other skills potentially substituting or supplementing the skill.

Magical plants are overpriced, locked behind a feat chain, and most importantly they need to be preservable. As is, they are worthless to players and only useful as a deus-ex for GM's.

Lantern Lodge

While I was excited to see this book, and theres so many fun ideas to play with...it feels pretty half baked. There are so many issues and erratta problems..and things that just don't make sense.

First and foremost...muthuaf$$&in Shifters! Conceptually I love em...but they are just so horribly done here. even with the erratta that came out addressing some of the glaring problems (like owls that cant fly etc). They just do not compare...they aren't as good at shifting as their druid cousins...and they aren't as good at fighting as a fighter. They need heavy buffs on both ends. I mean I'm cool with having limited forms, but these forms should be beastly. The minors need to be reworked...especially the ones that give out of combat buffs like stealth, or the mouse giving evasion, or the horse's endurance, but only for minutes at a time, and you have to kick it on to get it which makes these near useless.
then we have all the druid restrictions and proficiencies...can't use heavy armor, and wearing armors nerfs out one of the class's other abilities (defensive instinct) for some reason...cause putting this piece of wood on my arm makes my instincts so much worse.
d4 starting claws that don't crank up till 7th...your supposed to be making me want to use them
And lets not even get into the feat starvation for a full melee class, and the feats that seem aimed towards them but have prohibitively high prereqs (wis 19), being about the only non monster feats in any book with stat requirements that high...and the few that comes close is late game stuff with feat chains and 10+ BAB requirements

ok but enough with the ranting about shifter...theres other things too like the herbalist stuff. where you need two differing skills to find and prepare. You need either knowledge nature or profession herbalist to find them (survival situationally), and then you need craft alchemy to prep them. trying to use herbalist imparts a +5 to the dc. That should not be there! If someone's going to dump skill points into that skill, then that skill should be including the skills to do the whole task. thats not a skill you would use in any other circumstance. If there needs to be the penalty it should be on the alchemist. Its like saying the alchemist would take a penalty to try and make alchemist fire...you need weaponsmithing to make that. It just doesn't make sense

the last thing I want to rant about are the rules for the Magic Plants...they just don't make any sense and are damn near worthless as written. The only thing they would be good for is GM use as a Deus-Ex-Machina. For one....they are quite expensive, and require a 3 feat chain to grow yourself (which puts the earliest they generally could be a option at 5th if you built specifically towards it).
here lets use the palm of decadent feasts as an example. nearly 10K, produces one fruit a year that works like heroes feast for up to 4, or extended heroes feast for 1. It also must be used within the week of the solstice or it becomes worthless.
Now...if I were to say...get scrolls of heroes feast. I would be able to afford the equivalent of 8 or 9 years worth of the trees production. Castings that could be used when needed instead of at a specific time...and that can affect almost 3 times as many people (11 for your standard scroll). And unlike the 500lb tree, I can carry the scrolls around with me through the wilderness!
Not convinced, ok here how about something a little more productive...the goodberry bush. At 8k produces the effects of goodberry year round, and can potentially have up to 42 berries on it if found (yes 42, it will never hit 50 naturally per raw). But for that 8k, you could instead get about 500 castings of the spell! nearly 2 years of the plants production! And while useful, its function is not exactly a necessity in most situations, as generally a survival check is easy enough to make even untrained. And again, they only last a day off the plant so you couldn't stockpile them for an adventure.

The biggest problem with them is the line that says "they can't be kept potent for longer than a day even by effects that preserve foodstuffs" that line should be thrown out entirely. Let preservation methods be effective, so they can be brought to where they are needed. As is...they are only useful to gm's as a plot device...or to stationary campaigns, ones that stay almost entirely in one 'city'. Where wildernes exploration and such are basically nonexistant, as the time limit makes them near worthless. And considering this is a book all about awesome wilderness stuff...that seems the wrong way to go.

Lantern Lodge

I'm aware that I am way late to this party, but for my 2 cents.

I am fully of the opinion that pinned could allow a coup-de-gras upon the victim. However...not from the person holding them. Both as written and in real life, it would be very possible to pull it off.

The grapple check is a best a move action (with greater grapple) which means mechanically the grappler can never do the coup against someone he's pinning. There is only one instance where it might be possible, and that would be on monsters with the grab ability (or snatch feat)...as that allows them to accept a -20 penalty to try and hold the creature with that limb only and not become grappled itself. Though like this even powerful creatures would have difficulty maintaining the grapple. (and I'm not sure I would allow it anyway as in most cases I would rule that you can't get them really pinned using only one limb, at least not in a way you could coup them)

However, as was discussed earlier in this thread being bound is listed as being helpless enough to perform a coup. And it is also listed that it should be treated as pinned, just using a static DC that would be equivalent to taking 20 on the check. And from pinned, the target is restrained enough that you can do this with another normal grapple check, something that would otherwise require unconsciousness. It should also be noted that in the chart for armor class modifiers....pinned and helpless have identical entries.

Good examples of this would be modern police officers making an arrest. Before they try putting on the cuffs they usually have the victim solidly pinned, especially if they are fighting, before they try and cuff em. And the times where they don't get the person pinned the cops tend to have much difficulty getting the cuffs on (a depiction of the -10 penalty suffered when you try to do it from just a grapple). Another example would be one of the first scenes from the game Shadows of Mordor (I won't say the scene due to potential spoilers, but those who have played will know...and those who haven't should play it), it demonstrates the condition of pinned quite well.

If you are in a helpless enough position that you could be tied up, you're in a helpless enough position that you could be coup'ed. And even if you aren't, you would be the following turn when you become bound.

The reason this isn't really much of a thing, is that grappled penalizes both sides fairly hard...and actually might be more dangerous to the grappler than the grappled.
This is because the grappled foe can still make a full attack against you (albeit at a -2, but you're taking the same penalty to your dex, so effectively non-finesse fighters can beat on you with no penalty to hit save they can't use a 2 hander), and his friends all now will have a bonus on beating you. And trying to pull someone into a pin will immediately pull pretty much all the aggro onto you, especially from the rogues who now get automatic sneak attack. To top it off, at this point...it's usually preferable to just bind the foe and remove him from the combat for later 'questioning'. It requires less of an action investment and doesn't need a teammate, and if you built a greater grapple build...you could potentially do this in the same motion as pinning the opponent, freeing you from the penalties of holding them pinned.

So in order for this to work, you will need to spend at least 2 rounds eating penalties and getting beat on, and then yell for one of your teammates to come over and murder this guy or have it pre-planned. And in order to do so, the teammate would have to come over or be standing right by you...and either be readied for your call to kill the guy (potentially wasting turns if you slip up or they break free) or do it on his natural turn, both of which leave him and you vulnerable.

Also as a gm, in this situation...I would likely give the victim a free attempt to break the pin with a bonus due to the imminent death, as though it were the provoked AoO from the coup. Success would let the victim break free of the pin and ruin the coup attempt (and the actions lost), and the victim is free of the grapple.
I would also call this a explicitly evil action in most scenarios, and could potentially threaten alignment change for both the participants (and possibly other party members depending on the situation and if it was premeditated).

Lantern Lodge

Ok another related question.

It was brought up by one of my friends about this spell.

Their comment was that they think that casters whom prep their spells would have to pick what manner of energy the spell is set to upon preparing spells. So they would have you prep "resist energy (fire)" that morning...or whatever other element.

what are the opinions on this?

Lantern Lodge

Matthew Downie wrote:

Ice Tomb Hex FAQ

Quote:
The general assumption for effects is if the creature negates the damage from the effect, the creature isn't subject to additional effects from that attack (such as DR negating the damage from a poisoned weapon, which means the creature isn't subject to the poison). Therefore, a cold-immune creature takes no damage from the hex and can't be imprisoned by it.

Yes Matthew that is the general assumption I work with, however The spell resist energy notes that side effects may happen. So I'm not sure if it follows that rule.

Yes, agreed norse, however I would say that is a separate issue, the fireball lit the barn on fire and now you have to worry about smoke inhalation on future turns due to that, which is it's own effect.

Lantern Lodge

I have a question about how something works. We have a warpriest character, who recently has run into a situation where things kind of in a grey area.

The enemy the party is facing has an energy based attack that carries a secondary effect of stun on a failed save.

The way I understood DR and Energy Resistances was that if they completely nullified the damage, then the attack is considered to have never hit. doesn't disrupt spellcasting, and any other effects that the attack would have on hit do not occur.

However there is an entry in Resist Energy that states "Resist energy absorbs only damage. The subject could still suffer unfortunate side effects."

Now normally I would not have any questionshere. However the current situation has me unsure of which would be the correct way to handle it. This creature's energy attack is not capable of dealing any damage through this spell. If it dealt any damage it would be no question. However with no damage being dealt, does it negate the attack entirely along with the associated effect...or does the character still have to save against the secondary effect?

Lantern Lodge

Ok I'm with Hilary there, that is both an amusing picture and something I feel gnomes would do.

And kevin, the incense was just a quick example. The book doesn't tend to positively identify things as being usable by other races, it restrictively identifies them as being only usable by the parent race. And it tends to be quite clear on if something is exclusively usable by only it's race. Something that it sets a precedent with using the other racial weapons.

And Rysky, you are again taking that part of the sentence out of it's context to try and claim it says something more than it does.
As I stated before...if you finish the sentence it is saying that ratfolk can add their full strength mod on damage. This is something that is an aberration from the normal rules on natural attacks.

Normally if you only have 1 natural attack (which a base ratfolk wielding this would have) it is treated as a primary natural attack and deals 1 1/2 strength as though you were wielding a weapon two handed. However in any other case, a tail attack is considered a secondary natural attack which is made at a -5 to hit and only adds 1/2 your strength modifier.
What that statement is saying rysky, is that ratfolk have special rules regarding the attack that do not follow the normal rules for attacks of it's type.

So what I see is a 1d3 secondary natural attack that requires a tail and the corresponding martial weapon proficiency.

Lantern Lodge

heh, and that persnickity-ness is exactly what is causing our conundrum.

And by that logic, then you couldn't even use something like incense...as there is no statement saying other races can use it in its description. Most of the terminology used is either restrictive, or not at all...so trying to come up with a 'positive evidence' is going to be few and far between. What you are looking for in this book is 'negative evidence'. Statements specifically saying that it does not work. Which is how the book was written. It doesn't say if everyone can use something, it tells you if everyone else cannot.

And that is exactly what I was accounting for in my assessment of 'ratfolk use it better'. but would you say a less flexible tail like that of a catfolk or kitsune would be unable to swing a knife around and cut you? or that it couldn't be attached because of the fur? I would say neither of those are very plausible that they would prevent it from being usable. That would be like saying they can't wear armor because of their fur, or they would take penalties to wield a weapon cause the fur on their hands makes it so they can't grip it.

Though I do concede that last bit is...weirdly worded. They don't say it's a primary natural attack...and tail attacks are normally secondary attacks by default. And it isn't treated like an only attack, which get strength and a half as base ratfolk do not possess another natural attack.
And as it's a manufactured weapon that gives natural attacks it makes it even more weird. Due to all this weirdness it makes it difficult to suss out how it should actually be handled... from which I think a good part of our conflicts arise.

Lantern Lodge

My point norse wolf...is that that is exactly how it describes it.

In the catfolk entry, it specifically says only catfolk may use them. In the kobold entry it specifically says only kobold may use them. In the solidsmoke pipeweed, it specifically says only a halfling gets any benefit and others cannot (and beyond that take penalty for trying).

And this is continued among the other equipment in the book. The book is fairly good at actively calling out what is only usable by their parent race.

and while i'm not sure I follow exactly that you're doing with your 'criteria' thing, I feel that it better fits the first than the second description.

I would look at it like this
"could it be used by races with tails?" yes
"could a ratfolk use it better?" probably

That is what the statement you highlighted in your first reply refers to. The bit you bolded was being taken out of context of the statement.

A ratfolk wielding a tailblade can make a tail attack, adding its Strength modifier to the tailblade's damage. <- You know that thing that isn't what normally happens with a secondary natural attack.

Lantern Lodge

SCP, that is not what it says. And it is a racial weapon, so that they used a racial term to describe the wielder is no surprise and not an implication that others couldn't use it.

Tell me where it says "this can only be used by a ratfolk". I can show you exactly where it says that on the kobold tail attachments...or the catfolk claws. But there is no such statement for the ratfolk tailblade. And other items that are race exclusive each have statements in them specifically saying 'this only works for my race' or 'this gives other races a penalty if they try to use it'.

So there is a precedent set for the racial weapons in the terminology, where they specifically call out if they are locked to their race...and by this precedent the ratfolk tail blade has no statement limiting it to ratfolk alone.

SCP, at best the line you are using line could be interpreted to read that another race would not be able to add their full strength mod to the damage (instead of half like is normal for a secondary natural attack).

Lantern Lodge

BigNorseWolf wrote:


Race Ratfolk

A tailblade is a small, sharp knife designed to be strapped to the tip of a wielder's tail.

Benefit: A ratfolk wielding a tailblade can make a tail attack, adding its Strength modifier to the tailblade's damage.

It takes a full-round action to strap on or remove a tailblade. The wearer can loosely attach the tailblade (without strapping it securely in place) as a move action, but using a loosely attached tailblade gives the wielder a –4 penalty on all attack rolls made with the weapon, and other creatures get a +4 bonus on disarm combat maneuver checks to disarm the tailblade.

Ratfolk are considered proficient with such attacks and can apply feats or effects appropriate to natural attacks to tail attacks made with a tailblade. If used as part of a full attack action, attacks with a tailblade are considered secondary attacks.

Bold seems to indicate that you cannot, as much as the thought of a nine tailed scion kitsune with one of these for every occasion amuses me

I understand your point Big Norse Wolf, and that line is largely why I have posted this here at all. However I disagree with your interpretation of it. That line sounds to me as though it is an assumption, not a requisite, as we are in the ratfolk entry.

When you look over at the other racial weapons, both of them actually say...right at the beginning of the entry, that they can only be used by members of their race who qualify. The ratfolk one however has no such entry.

The tailblade also has a weapon stat block that designates it as a light martial weapon...despite them ALL being automatically proficient with the weapon, and the weapon attacks treating as natural attacks.

This all tells me that the tailblade would be something that other races possessing tails would be able to use it.

and yes that would be fun to do, however...such a feat would be effectively all that character would be doing. as about only a kitsune fighter really could pull this off in society play since that would still take 9 feats (i think 7 if you spend all your favored class points on extra tails...still pretty much only fighter)

Lantern Lodge

1 person marked this as FAQ candidate.

Ok well this one is one that I think works...but I wanted to check here. I haven't found any threads addressing this directly, but as far as I can tell it works.

Ok in particular the item I am looking at is the Ratfolk Tailblade from the ARG.
According to addittional resources "Racial equipment and magic items can be purchased and used by any race as long as the specific item permits it." And by how I read the description of the tailblades, they are not something that is only usable by ratfolk. As I interpret it they would be usable by any race possessing a tail.

If they were exclusively usable by ratfolk, then I would think their entry would have mirrored the catfolk claw blades, or the kobold tail attachments. Both of the latter two have a statement at the beginning specifying that those can only be used by members of the race who possess a specific racial trait (admittedly I think they would be fine on characters who already possess the natural attacks said traits give members of their race...but thats off topic).

So by my interpretation, any race possessing a tail (but not a tail attack, as using the blade treats as a tail attack) would be able to use a ratfolk tailblade...although not automatically proficient with it.

Thoughts?

Lantern Lodge

Gary Bush wrote:

What level did you play the character? Level 1 or Level 2?

To me that makes a difference.

The character that played the module was a level 3 character and leveled to 4 after the second scenario in the series.

so to be specific, He played part 1 for no credit, played part 2 and leveled up, then played part three.

and if you're asking about my other topic, he's beyond level 1, so it would have to be retraining rules, as i recently found a weapon that fits in perfectly with how I have been depicting him fighting.

So i was hoping i could use the retraining rules to retrain one of the 'specific' innate weapon proficiency (not the blanket you are proficient with 'all weapons of this type') he gets to that, as opposed to having to burn a feat on it. be it treating as retraining a feat or a class ability I would gladly burn the gold to do it.

Lantern Lodge

I have two questions, one is for mike in particular as his and morphling's comment have brought it up.

now, say I was playing a module, but as i had played the first session with another character, I had to play the first session for no credit...but the character had played all three sessions. At the end of the module there was a boon that said the character had to have played all three sessions to access. Does he count as having played all three? By their comments I would say yes, as he did show up and risk dying.

My original question is this.

Can one use the rules for retraining a feat to retrain a weapon proficiency to a different weapon? I would think yes, but sometimes things are weird.

Lantern Lodge

Ok my question is this. In the text describing natural attacks it says that natural attacks always treat as secondary attacks when combined with unarmed strikes or manufactured weapons, and take the -5. however it specifies that TwF and multiattack reduce these penalties.

"You can make attacks with natural weapons in combination with attacks made with a melee weapon and unarmed strikes, so long as a different limb is used for each attack. For example, you cannot make a claw attack and also use that hand to make attacks with a longsword. When you make additional attacks in this way, all of your natural attacks are treated as secondary natural attacks, using your base attack bonus minus 5 and adding only 1/2 of your Strength modifier on damage rolls. Feats such as Two-Weapon Fighting and Multiattack can reduce these penalties."

However two weapon fighting makes no reference to it's interaction with natural attacks or how the penalties are reduced on them.

For the purpose I am assuming it functions like Multiattack (reducing the penalty to -2) however I have no idea if this is correct, or what the correct handling may be.

Lantern Lodge

Ferious Thune wrote:
Stephen Ross wrote:

lol... not to get into the language wrangling... BUT... it all depends on what round the healing from regeneration kicks in.

With a Con score of 12 on the round your hit points drop to -12 you have to heal via regeneration (or something else) before the start of your next turn else you are dead. So essentially it gives you that almost 1 round extra. It's not much but that's what a ring or ioun stone of regeneration will do for you in the going dead department. That is a reasonable interpretation of RAW IMO. If you disagree, that's fine, everybody has an opinion.

when you hit -13 or below, yep, you're dead.

You should wear an Aegis of Recovery.

The paranoid or conservative might buy an ioun stone or two to raise the Con point at which you die...

I'm not entirely sure this is true. Unless it's an instant/immediate effect, like the Aegis of Recovery or Heroic Defiance or something, once you hit -CON, you're dead. Healing before your next turn won't help that, I don't think. Only Breath of Life or something similar. Otherwise Breath of Life's limitation to within 1 round wouldn't matter.

The Injury and Death rules say in a couple of places, "When your negative hit point total is equal to your Constitution, you're dead." Not if you don't receive healing by the start of your next turn or when your negative hitpoint total exceeds your CON.

It's rough and never a situation I like to see come up, but it does appear to be the rule. If you're at -11 and fail to stabilize on your turn, you go to -12 and in this case (12 CON) are dead. At that point it's too late for regular healing.

I agree with your last two statements. The Aegis and/or Ioun Stones are wise investments.

Nah the issue here is that with the monster ability regeneration, you don't die when you hit negative con...at least not from straight up hp damage. (there's still a plethora of ways to kill you, just the pointy things won't work unless you disable the regen. and they will still have to heal from all that damage they take).

But the argument here is between people who are either a) claiming that regeneration is too op to give to a pc, or b) claiming that the items in question don't actually give regeneration.

The other side argues that a) it does give regeneration and that b) it's not op like the other side would claim as it's actually rather easy to get around the regen and the regen is extremely slow. c) if it worked like the other side claimed, then the items are almost completely useless (even in a home game)...especially at the price you are paying for them.

I myself am on this second side.

Lantern Lodge

even if your gm uses the variant rules, they would need to be hitting you with called shots for over half your hp in one hit (or possibly critting on the called shot) to deal injuries that would need regen, which even then does not come up often. and the boots would likely work in any permanent structure (exactly how and where they'd work would probably be up to an individual dm's disgression, but for me, i'd say they would work in any permanent grounded structure. so as long as you're not in a boat or the flying castle...you'd probably be ok.) also...hell yes i'd spend the action in most fights to end the bleed, 5ft step either in or out of combat as a free action (depending on preferred combat style), plant myself, and make whatever bloodied me regret it...probably with something pointy.

But my point wasn't that the boots were without their limitations, but to point out the vast gulf between them if you claim that they are the same ability. If thats the case the ring is laughably weak for 90 grand. maybe 10 grand...tops for fast healing 1.

But if it were actual regeneration like it would imply, I would honestly put it about on par with it's price tag. This ring makes me so balla that even when you thought you killed me, i'm going to get back up and choke the shit outta that mutherf&$&in velociraptor.

Lantern Lodge

I mean if you say the ring of regeneration is not 'regeneration' as it would imply...then whats the value of a 90,000 gold magic ring (which is one of the most powerful magic rings available). I can get an item that provides an equivalent amount of fast healing for 5000. The bleed immunity is provided by the ever present healing in both cases. And the regrowing limbs...that doesn't happen unless your gm is playing with variant rules that were not even introduced until well after the ring was (the ring of regen is a CORE item, where as variant rules introducing the kind of crippling damage that regeneration would heal don't even appear till several books later). In addittion the 5000 g method will heal damage done even when the magic item was not applied till after...something that the ring of regen doesn't. And i'll still will have enough money for about 80 castings of regeneration if i ever need it, which in society play...is never.

so either the ring of regen is the most worthless, overpriced, piece of crap in existence. Or it actually performs the effect implied by its price tag and naming...you know...like every other ring on the list

Lantern Lodge

Shifty wrote:

My view is that it (may) prevent you dying, if the death was due to -hp damage.

That being said, if you were hit to sufficient -hp damage, the healing rate is slow, and you may die from a range of other contributing factors. -Hp regenerating out in adverse conditions or in water? Sorry, you drowned or froze. Died because a bear smacked you into next week? Well you got eaten bro. Died in a vacuum? Well you still suffocated. Died while under a spell that was saving you from X condition? Well 1hp every hour means that spell probably wore off - now you are still dead.

Died in a small room? Hunger eventually kills you. Suffocation killed you. Burning lava killed you. The freezing cold killed you.

Let me add D)

D) They don't actually see the bigger picture and make this into more than it is and assume -hp damage = ALL damage.

This is exactly my point Shifty, regeneration doesn't affect all damage...and even then it still takes time...especially with the ioun stones. and you still have all the damage you took, and must still heal from said damage without falling victim to any of the other conditions you mentioned (except the bear, regeneration would keep you alive there as long as it didn't eat 'all' of you...you'd just have a shit ton of damage to heal and might die of exposure or starvation before you heal it).

and lets look at the other abilities it has...immunity to bleed, something that is stopped by ANY healing, even if it didn't heal the type of bleed inflicted. and something that can be easily inflicted and stopped/prevented by characters of any level with the right gear or builds.
Regenerating limbs or organs...absolutely useless in most campaigns and completely useless in society play, as the variant rules where that is even a possibility are not used in society play.

so going with the cheapest version, a tiny amount of healing (equivalent with a nights rest with long term care at 4th level), and bleed immunity for nearly the price of +2 armor. sorry, the cost/benefit is way off there

and again...it's an ioun stone...an intelligent being is gonna loot that shit if it is given the chance...and it's spinning around your head...all it would take would be a successful combat maneuver check to grab it. which means that it could be taken from a downed opponent while combat is still going if given a chance.

people act like it would be some game breaking immunity from death, but in reality it is quite far from it even at true regen

Lantern Lodge

FLite wrote:

Fine. If people want to get stupidly rules lawyery, lets go there.

Where does the language that regeneration prevents you from dying come from? It comes from the UMR regeneration(ex). Lets assume the ring gave you UMR regeneration. (It doesn't, it gives a specific effect. Note that it does not say "gives you regeneration" or "as per the monster ability regeneration")

UMR wrote:
Regeneration (Ex) A creature with this ability is difficult to kill. Creatures with regeneration heal damage at a fixed rate, as with fast healing, but they cannot die as long as their regeneration is still functioning (although creatures with regeneration still fall unconscious when their hit points are below 0). Certain attack forms, typically fire and acid, cause a creature's regeneration to stop functioning on the round following the attack. During this round, the creature does not heal any damage and can die normally. The creature's descriptive text describes the types of damage that cause the regeneration to cease functioning.

What does the Ring of Regeneration list as the attack form that shuts it down?

RoR wrote:
When worn, the ring continually allows a living wearer to heal 1 point of damage per round and an equal amount of nonlethal damage. In addition, the wearer is immune to bleed damage while wearing a ring of regeneration. If the wearer loses a limb, an organ, or any other body part while wearing this ring, the ring regenerates it as the spell regenerate. In either case, only damage taken while wearing the ring is regenerated.

gee. At first glance, no attack forms are listed. Oh wait, it says only *living* creatures, so that must mean (since it is required by the rules to designate a type of damage that bypasses regeneration) that any damage that would normally kill you bypasses the regeneration, and in that round you do not regenerate and can die.

there is also another way to look at it FLite. as you said there has to be a way to bypass the regeneration. The ring and ioun stones don't have this stated because there is another very obvious way to do so that everyone else had continually overlooked as they shout that it's 'game breaking'. The regeneration is linked to the magic items...the way around the regeneration...is to remove the magic item! especially with the ioun stone which are FLOATING AROUND MY HEAD! The ring at least isn't obvious at first, but an ioun stone...you might as well stick a sign on it that says HERE TAKE ME!

If you simply grab the ioun stone from the fallen enemy, guess what...no more regeneration...they would be left on the ground...alive and stable, somewhere in the negatives. At which point all the bad guy has to do is kick them in the side and they begin dying, with no regeneration to save them, or prevent the bleedout.

This ioun stone only makes sense if it's treated as regeneration...even the full powered stone is worthless in all situations across the board if it's not. as was pointed out earlier, to get an equivalent amount of healing through the ioun stone, you would have to spend a MONTH in game with it constantly churning out it's healing to get equivalent to it's cost in CLW castings. the ring of regeneration is one of the most powerful rings in the books, there are only maybe 5 rings bigger than it (one with 4 variants of the same ring). It makes sense that what it describes is a form of actual regeneration.

Lantern Lodge

GM Lamplighter wrote:
Next question: if you fall unconscious (and prone), do your ioun stones still orbit your head, or do they just keep whacking into the ground?

the text of ioun stones is that they change their orbit to avoid any obstacles in their path. this would include the ground. the orbit would shift to being over your face (or back of your head etc depending on your position)

and flite, unconscious is not equal to comatose. they still would function should you be unconscious or sleeping. it even notes that they may be caught for safe storage while their owner sleeps if desired

Lantern Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I would say yes, it would allow you to 'cheat death' and before you start raging, hear me out.

1) This is a game where terminology is very important as we all know, and most of the terms are very clearly laid out in their meanings. Regeneration...is one of these such words. It is clearly laid out in the rules what regeneration does as opposed to fast healing or regular healing.

2) It says it functions like a ring of regeneration, but i think you have misunderstood the ring's text. The part most of these arguments are based on is the line where it says it only affects a living being...and you guys claim that that line prevents it from allowing you to 'cheat death'. however this is not true. If you read the text for the regeneration, it says "they cannot die as long as their regeneration is still functioning". Thus so long as the magic still affects them, they shall not die and continue to remain a living being... the ring just has some alternate features that it handles differently which it explains in its text (only healing damage done while wearing it etc).

3) It does NOT break the game. While it can let you evade the reapers scythe, this is not gauranteed. And the ioun stone itself does provide healing, this healing is also almost worthless. I'm not going to go into why, i shall just refer you back up to Mistress Ashley The Sage above. She did an excellent job explaining how weak the healing is, and how many better ways to heal there are for your gold. So if it is not for healing, there has to be some worth to it.
In addittion, this would still be a very 'iffy chance to survive. As it was mentioned earlier, should you be left defeated at the hands of most sentient creatures...they would likely search you for loot. and should they find and claim the stone (which as it's generally spinning round your head is fairly likely), suddenly your regeneration is gone and you will die normally. This seems like it's only big function would be to try and keep you 'alive' long enough that your party could get over to you with some healing. (or for an enemy, for the main baddie to 'survive' his horrible deathtrap he made to kill the pc's before they can loot him).

ps- FLite, recovery of limbs happens in one round if they are still there, 2d10 rounds if not. thats as per ring of regen...I would say for the ioun stones, it would happen the same, just using the stone's healing increment (10,15,60 minutes depending on which stone).

Lantern Lodge

My bigger question is, would they count as thrown weapons or as ammunittion...or both, in regards to what things would affect them, like spells or such?

Turong Tai, and Ascalaphus...you two highlighted my main quandry. As they are thrown weapons that treat like ammo in many respects, which do they treat as. If i were to enchant a durable shuriken would it be a one shot thing like ammo, or would it treat like a thrown weapon?

and UnArcaneElection, i'm aware that pilum was a bad example, i was trying to say that i was not talking about shuriken exclusively...but about the handful of weapons that occupy the middle ground...treating like ammo in some aspects, but being thrown weapons.

Lantern Lodge

This would also apply to things like pilum

Lantern Lodge

Ok i have a few questions here.

One, these are in kind of a odd place being Thrown weapons but treating as ammunition in many respects. So I am wondering that since they are thrown weapons...would they qualify for special abilities that only affect thrown weapons?

My second question is that since they are 'normally' destroyed on use like ammo, would you be able to make them "durable" like the durable arrows from the alchemy manual. and if so how much would they cost? The durable arrows in the manual cost a flat 1g each be they bolts or arrows. So i'm not sure if a durable shuriken would cost a flat 1g or if they would cost 4g each (extrapolated from the price increase for a durable arrow as opposed to a normal arrow).

Lantern Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.

no, no, no, hell no...why the hell would you nerf abundant ammunnition like that!? you took what used to be a great utility spell and made it almost worthless by limiting it to only being able to replicate standard bullets. it's barely worth the time to cast it, and certainly not the cost of a wand now

a better fix would have been to modify the material component to be one piece of ammo of the most expensive variety that would be affected by the spell.

That would nerf it some, but it would maintain the utility of the spell which was the entire reason it's used at all. You take that away and the spell will go from being a great spell, enabling ranged characters to not blow their entire bank accounts on ammo (they are already sacrificing the best chance to get an ideal shot off by casting it, and most likely a charge on a wand).

Lantern Lodge

Jason S wrote:
spartanfury1 wrote:
Core practically killed our PFS. It very much alienated both the older hats and the new players. We used to have enough people that we oft had to go to three tables...sometimes four. But ever since they tried instituting core, we've barely had one table if that much, and the core games were as barren as a desert...could see tumbleweed blowing around the store.

The problem I see is that communities trying to introduce too many core tables. Should only be 10-25% of tables, max. So in your case, 1 core table every 2-4 weeks.

Instead it seems like 50% of the tables at some events are core. This will fracture the player base similar to what would happen with a new edition of Pathfinder.

Core is a great idea but it's not being implemented very well.

If it's a problem for your store events, just ignore Core, or reduce it to 1 table every 2-4 weeks.

1 table every 2-4 weeks was all that was implemented jason. Our gm has since decided to drop it all together...but the damage has been done.

Caps...no i cannot. I do not know the reason or the why...only that the instant it was implemented everything crashed.

Lamplighter, they have since been dropped. And while it is very possible that other factors are at play, I can not know them or if they had any effect on the attendance.

It still feels...gimmicky to me in any case, regardless of issues with people playing it

Lantern Lodge

The Fourth Horseman wrote:

TBH, I'm concerned about this.

How many players and GMs are going to walk away from regular PFS to play and run in Core Campaign?

We don't know what the overall effect will be, but I am concerned about Paizo possibly splitting the player and GM base. I guess we'll see.

I agree with death here's assessment, especially with core and non-core characters not being allowed to mix. This is both in my own opinion as a novice player...and from what i have witnessed at our society event.

Core practically killed our PFS. It very much alienated both the older hats and the new players. We used to have enough people that we oft had to go to three tables...sometimes four. But ever since they tried instituting core, we've barely had one table if that much, and the core games were as barren as a desert...could see tumbleweed blowing around the store.

This honestly feels like a poorly thought out gimmick rather than a fun new experience.

I would have enjoyed it more if the restriction on replaying scenarios was lifted some. perhaps a time limit, or requiring each playthrough be with different characters?

(ps) I call BS on you guys claiming that you couldn't work a simple way to allow gm's to report mixed groups. I have a little bit of programming knowledge and I can't imagine it would have been that hard to modify.

Lantern Lodge

vip00 wrote:

I'm sorry if this has been asked, I haven't been able to find it.

Does anyone have advice on how to handle flying and its effect on stealth?

It's obviously situational, but I had a situation where a Wizard PC was trying to use Fly to sneak into a guarded castle at night. He didn't have any stealth skill, so it's a difficult task. It seems like Fly should give a bonus to stealth, since it seems silly to say that you make just as much noise whisking through the sky as you do running around on the ground... Does this warrant a situational +5 to Stealth or something like that to account for him making less noise than he would otherwise?

I see no reason for a bonus beyond the one you could get for distance. the catch with trying to fly stealthily is that you have no cover and nothing to blend with. all they have to do is look up and you're busted. Flying at night would make sneaking possible, but i still would say it is no easier to sneak through the air than on ground (especially as they would unlikely have much training at sneaking while midair also)

Lantern Lodge

Christopher Dudley wrote:

Is there any reason a flying creature with the Fly-By Attack feat couldn't move half it's speed, use the attack to initiate a grapple, and carry the victim off with the rest of its move?

The way I played it is this:
Wyvern (fly speed 60) flies 30' into reach and bites.
It hits with the bite and starts a grapple.
Target gets an AoO (because the stupid Wyvern doesn't have improved grab for some reason).
I roll a grapple using its CMB vs target's CMD. It wins.
It uses the remainder of its movement to fly up.

Is that right? Or is there some restriction on moving with a creature in a grapple, if you're the grappler? My rules-lawyer said, "That's not how that's supposed to work." But was otherwise vague.

Ok well i would advise you look up the rules for the grab special ability.

"If a creature with this special attack hits with the indicated attack (usually a claw or bite attack), it deals normal damage and attempts to start a grapple as a free action without provoking an attack of opportunity."

it also states another detail that would be VERY important for doing something like this.

"The creature has the option to conduct the grapple normally, or simply use the part of its body it used in the grab to hold the opponent. If it chooses to do the latter, it takes a –20 penalty on its CMB check to make and maintain the grapple, but does not gain the grappled condition itself."

both methods would account for the struggling creature, -20 if it tries to hold it in its jaws alone (allowing it to still fight others or damage the grappled creature with its other attacks), or the grappled penalties if it grapples normally. and this would be in effect on each of the fly checks when the creature starts trying to hit it in the face to get it to let go. (as it has to make a fly check every time it gets hit to avoid dropping itself)

Lantern Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

assimar and tiefling alternate racial traits from blood of fiends/angels

there is so much to work with in there from both roleplay and a mechanical nature. even the flat +2 extra stat bonuses, while certainly powerful, i don't feel is brokenly so. I mean you're giving up a powerful 2nd lvl spell like ability (or a 3rd lvl for assimar) for one of these traits.

Lantern Lodge

Mark Seifter wrote:
David Neilson wrote:
Oh, silly question. If you use the talents that let you bullrush with your blast, does that blast still do damage? Also how are you supposed to determine the direction of the bullrush? I was originally assuming that I basically picked a direction.
It does damage. It's the direction of the blast. Blasts that lack a direction, like cloud, can't use that infusion. This does mean that with snaking, you can basically choose a direction.

That is one thing that never made sense to me, why limit the bull rush from the blast if you're using that? why just not let it work like a normal bull rush where it can potentially push them back as far as the check allows?

Lantern Lodge

Mark Seifter wrote:
DrakeRoberts wrote:
Quote:

If she has both hands free, as a move action, a kineticist

can visibly gather energy or elemental matter around her,
allowing her to reduce the total burn cost of a wild talent
used in the same round by 1 point (to a minimum of 0
points). If she takes any damage while gathering power
and before the kinetic blast that releases it, she must make
a concentration check (DC = 10 + damage dealt + effective
spell level of her kinetic blast) or lose the energy in a wild
surge that deals her 1 point of burn.
Does this move action option work for ALL wild talents or just blasts? It mentions a "kinetic blast that releases it" but otherwise seems to work for all wild talents, so I'm not sure how to rule this.

It should be only blasts and infusions (which affect blasts). But certainly not like a defense or something like that. Dear Shelyn that would be bad!

EDIT: Y'know what. My playtest-ready document I turned over right here says "blast wild talent" and not "wild talent" there. Heads will roll!

not really on the heads, but I totally wrote it to tell you it needed to be a blast

Actually I was loving that concept of gathering energy. But i can't figure out why you would be limited to reducing only one point of burn that way. I would suggest that it be tweaked a little bit.

The way I would do it is make it so you can continue to spend actions to gather more material and further reduce the burn, instead of limiting the reduction to 1. The counterbalance to this would be that they are burning actions to gather and hold the material, and should they be damaged while they are holding the charge then they risk greater damage from the wild surge, dealing burn at a rate of 1 plus 1 for every 2 points of burn reduced. This makes the process much riskier, as if you try to channel more than 1 point reduction, it actually leaves you open for the enemies to try and stop you as their turns come around.

I also would say it could be used to reduce burn on non-instant abilities, like the defensive talents, but only for a brief time. As unlike simply paying burn and overcharging the ability with more of your power, you're gathering material which is consumed in the using of the ability. So you could use it to reduce your burn on your defensive talent but only for a short time before the extra material has been consumed and your defensive talent returns to it's normal form (a minute tops, probably half that).

Its a time or money concept, if you're willing to spend 2 rounds charging up your blast in the middle of combat so you can drop your explosion blast without eating burn, go for it. Or if you see you're heading into dangerous territory and want to have your stuff ready so you can try to blast whoever you see with something nasty right off the bat, or bring up a powerful defensive shield, I'm all for it (as that also means that when you don't see them or lose in initiative, they'll get to hit you and cause you to burn yourself as they break your concentration).

Lantern Lodge

Combatbunny wrote:

I was considering multiclassing Barbarian/ninja. However, I'm curious if I could use Ninja abilities while Raging. Specifically can you use Ki to increase attacks? Or even better, can you actually use Ki powers-Vanishing Trick, etc?

ehh I would say probably not for most of them. The concept behind using ki is that you have to focus your ki to activate the ki powers, which would make it impossible to do during a rage.

While in rage, a barbarian cannot use any Charisma-, Dexterity-, or Intelligence-based skills (except Acrobatics, Fly, Intimidate, and Ride) or any ability that requires patience or concentration.

However I might also say that some direct combat uses for ki might still be useable even in a rage. like the extra strike, or using a ki charge (make a thrown weapon explode in fire)...but something like vanishing trick would not be something you could do in a rage...though you might do it and go into rage while it's still in effect

Lantern Lodge

Jeffrey Fox wrote:
Great stuff all around.

OH HELL YES! Finally! I've been wanting to play a kitsune since i started before i started pfs, but was crushed when i looked through the rule and found that they were not legal for play without the special boons. While that's not a horrible idea, it severely limits people from even gaining access to them as i believe they are convention only boons, where I could never make my way to the conventions to do the special quests that give you the race boons.

This is awesome to hear, I think this is a great idea to cycle through non-standard races, allowing those of us not lucky enough to secure spots at the convention tables to not be completely shut out. It always felt to me that the casual and semi casual players were being shut out because they couldn't afford/arrange to go to the con's.

Lantern Lodge

I was wondering the same question. Just about every other source I can find regarding being on fire mentions that an action is required, usually a full round action.

The fire wouldn't just go out naturally unless you made a concerted effort to put it out, or it ran out of fuel to burn. If you chose to ignore the fire in favor of another threat it would continue to burn.

Thats how I would assume it works but I don't really know if that's the official ruling.

Lantern Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Joesi wrote:

I thought I recall hearing about normally fragile magic items being somehow able to lose their fragile trait due to some sort of magic addition?

oh right, it must have been from reading the description of Viridium:\

Quote:
Viridium weapons have half the hardness of their base weapon and have the fragile quality. Viridium can be magically strengthened at an additional cost of +1,000 gp for a weapon or +20 gp for ammunition. This removes the fragile quality from the item but does not otherwise affect its abilities.

It only applies to Viridium RAW, but you could probably house-rule it for any fragile item (I don't really see many circumstances where someone would want to un-fragile a fragile weapon*; weight is an issue, but it's a minor one.

Aparently also:

Quote:
Masterwork bone weapons[/armor] also have the fragile quality, but magic bone weapons[/armor] do not
*I guess crystalline (and viridium) are the two cases it might be desired. Adding only 1000g to make [true] crystalline non-fragile might be too cheap. (true crystalline weapons cost ~1000-3000+ gold)

Fragile: Fragile weapons and armor cannot take the beating that sturdier weapons can. A fragile weapon gains the broken condition if the wielder rolls a natural 1 on an attack roll with the weapon. If a fragile weapon is already broken, the roll of a natural 1 destroys it instead.

Armor with the fragile quality falls apart when hit with heavy blows. If an attacker hits a creature wearing fragile armor with an attack roll of a natural 20 and confirms the critical hit (even if the creature is immune to critical hits), the armor gains the broken condition. If already broken, the armor is destroyed instead. Fragile armor is not broken or destroyed by critical threats that are not generated by natural 20s, so if a creature wielding a weapon with a 19–20 or 18–20 critical range scores a critical hit on the wearer of this armor with a roll of less than a natural 20, that critical hit has no chance to break or destroy the armor.

Masterwork and magical fragile weapons and armor lack these flaws unless otherwise noted in the item description or the special material description.

that is the the description of the fragile weapon quality as per UC.

What you read about the viridium is an exception to the rule, it says that masterwork is not enough to remove it's fragility, though the 1000 is not enough to make it a magical item. I'd just suggest you wait and spend the 2k to make it a +1