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

zylphryx's page

Goblinworks Executive Founder. RPG Superstar 2013 Dedicated Voter, 2014 Star Voter. Pathfinder Adventure Path, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber. FullStarFullStarFullStar Venture-Lieutenant, North Carolina—Asheville. 4,588 posts (4,988 including aliases). 1 review. 1 list. 1 wishlist. 24 Pathfinder Society characters. 52 aliases.


1 to 50 of 405 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | next > last >>
Taldor

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

That's it, I'm quitting PathfBWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAAA ... I just can't ... I can't say that with a straight face ...

Taldor

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Board game submitted.

Taldor *** Venture-Lieutenant, North Carolina—Asheville aka zylphryx

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Congrats Mike!

Taldor

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Article on Osirian Tomb Curses submitted.

Taldor

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

It says I appreciate a person with a good mind ... their brains taste so much better than folks who ... NOTHING! THE AVATAR SAYS NOTHING ABOUT ME!!!!

Taldor

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

He was a true actor, able to make us laugh (Mrs. Doubtfire, The Birdcage, and too many others to list), make us cry (What Dreams May come, The Fisher King, and Awakenings are the first ones to come to mind), and make our skin crawl (Insomnia and One Hour Photo). But personally, it was the off the wall roles he played that will stick with me the most (Death to Smoochy and World's Greatest Dad).

He will be missed. :(

Taldor

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Anthony Adam wrote:

Yes! 723 words, sending a really nasty nasty for consideration. It is indeed possible to get a really nasty creature at CR 15 in under 750 words - not easy, but can be done :D

And no laundry list either - I managed to reign myself back some. Kind of. But it did eat my party when I tested it out - lol - poor souls, 5 pc's went in, 3 ran away, 1 crawled away after stabilising herself and, ummmm, one didn't.

So that's 2 out of my possible 3 and a couple of weeks left to try and come up with no 3 ;)

that means you have 27 words you can play with to bolster it's descriptive text ... or the top blurb for a bestiary listing. ;)

Taldor

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Timitius wrote:
We generally prefer .psd files, color.

*cough*300dpi, layers intact*cough*please do not flatten the image*cough*


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ambrosia Slaad wrote:

I am the eggslaad, we are the eggslaad

Potato am the Batman, groot groot groot joob

You called?

Taldor

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Vancouver WA is a bit of a drive from WNC for a weekly game. ;)

Have fun y'all and I look forward to gaming with y'all over next Memorial Day weekend.

Taldor

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Lady Ophelia wrote:

So while I am figuring out what to write still, I do want to say thanks for being clearer about article word count. It really helps for those of us who are word count conscious (like me) and want to stay on target.

*sets a course for 1,500 words for her gazetteers*

Glad to hear you are word count conscious, Lady Ophelia. It is definitely a good way to be.

In fact, EVERYONE who submits an article should be word count conscious. I hear that aside from being completely off theme, it is one of the quickest ways to get your submission bumped ... or at least put into the maybe bin ... which with the number of submissions we have been getting is not where you want your submission to be.

This PSA brought to you by the Keep Tim and Paris Sane a Little Longer Foundation, with assistance from Lady Ophelia by supplying a great point for a segue.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Or took part in a good egging ...

Taldor

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
TOZ wrote:
That Gruumash is pretty awesome, I hear.

Gruumash ., TOZ. Gruumash ..

Why do I feel like I am typing out some weird variant on Morse code?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

yay! Doodlebug likes me! <crosses the picket line>

Taldor

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
thunderspirit wrote:
zylphryx wrote:
You still have your hard copy of the Beta rules.
Well, if you count printing it out...

Which means you still have it in your downloads, which means ... ;)

Taldor

13 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

You still have your hard copy of the Beta rules.

Taldor

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
houstonderek wrote:
Orthos wrote:
... you know how the original FAWTL got started without digging through the archives.
You're on the first page of the origin :-)

And ONLY the first page of the Origin (really, honestly, I swear looking in on those threads sporadically was like jumping into Twin Peaks on every other prime numbered episode and hoping to know what the heck was going on ... of course, that could have been the point ;) Thankfully I never spotted any reverse talking little people when I did pop in).

EDIT: Apparently, I was able to keep up with y'all for 5 pages .. .and then made the mistake of pausing in the posts ...

Taldor

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Glad to hear it! So what were your favorite parts? Were there any articles that really stood out for you? How was the art?

And before anyone actually posts their answers to these questions, why not take that minute or two you were going to spend posting a reply and post a review instead?

What? Too soon after my other request for product reviews?

You know, there is one definite way to get me to stop posting requests for product reviews ... one guess, that's all you get. ;)

EDIT: Seriously though, I am glad to hear everyone is enjoying the issue. I just see "reminding folks about the importance of product reviews" as a secondary job once an issue gets released into the wild.

Taldor

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Set wrote:
A lot of stuff that looked a lot like a review ...

Too subtle? ;)

Seriously, thanks for all the positive feedback folks. If you get a chance we would love to see some reviews posted ... the glow from a positive review (or the insight from a negative review) is, after all, the only form of payment anyone involved with the project gets. ;)

Taldor

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Alzrius wrote:
Kydeem de'Morcaine wrote:
I don't think I've ever met anyone with any experience that thought "Paizo published it, so it must be balanced" was true. Not saying there couldn't be a few people like that out there, but I've never met them.

I have.

To be fair, they don't say "everything Paizo makes is balanced" flat-out. Rather, they simply take it for granted that everything Paizo publishes is allowable in play - there's no discussion about if they can use something, they just show up with a new book and expect that they can use it, being honestly surprised if the GM objects.

Assuming material is balanced and assuming material is allowed are two completely different things. If you run a table and do not outline what is and what is not allowed, you alone are to blame.

Taldor

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Senet-styled tile/board game in the works. Kinda like quad-dominoes meets a senet board and chaos reigns supreme ... at least until I get the rules worked out. ;)

Taldor

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Ooo ooo, I know what #13 is! It's <WHACK>

<gets dragged out of the thread by Tim and Paris until they do the official reveal>

Taldor

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

To quote Danny Kaye: An unemployed jester is nobody's fool.

Taldor

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Well, Tim usually assigns the art assignments to the artists. You will want to let him know you are interested and send him a link to you portfolio.

If you do get assigned a piece, and for all artists who do, preferred format is .psd at 300dpi with layers intact (so we can turn off any background to the image if needed). Otherwise, .jpg/.png/.tiff are also acceptable (again at 300dpi), but .psd is preferred.

Taldor

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Y'all know I will be checking this thread for updates on the game ... I may not be able to be there, but I would love to hear how it goes.

Taldor

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Man, I was just going to ask about when to expect that paycheck. ;)

Tim's spot on, everyone involved in putting these publications together are all doing this from our love of the game, love of the subject matter , some other driving force that leads one to freely give one's efforts, or a combination of one or more of those things. We get no payment other than well written and honest reviews once the product is released.

What?

Too soon to ask folks to be sure to review #11? ;)

Taldor

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Michael Brock wrote:
zylphryx wrote:

And yet another reason I get to be bummed about not getting to Seattle this year. :(

Mike, will this possibly be a recurring thing for 2015 as well, or does this look more like a single time occurrence?

If we do a play test again in 2015, it will likely apply then as well. But, if I can make my fortitude and Will saves, I hope to eventually make the Grand Convocation a thing again.

I would be so psyched to see the GC come back! I'll be crossing my fingers that you roll well on those saves.

<hands Mike a cloak of resistance +5, a headband of inspired wisdom +6, and a belt of mighty constitution +6 ... then sets about to find clerics with the Luck and Good domains to keep tapping his shoulders while he makes the saves>


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Phhfffft! All this talk of yer fancy shmancy "recharging staff". Back in my day we used a staff and at the end of the day, you know what we had? We had a stick!

<pulls out a dead 2E staff and starts whacking people whining about it being difficult to recharge, let alone even being able to recharge, a staff about the thread>

Taldor

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Claxon wrote:
Stealing is always evil (little e not big E), but the reason and justification behind can negate the slight evil of theft. As well as the financial circumstances of who/what you're stealing from.

If the justification can negate the "evil" aspect of stealing, then you have just proven that stealing is not always evil (big or little e).

Taldor

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Summon Monster I could be kinda cool. Swim with the dolphins whenever you go the beach.

Cure Light Wounds would be cool.

Lesser Restoration could come in handy as well (1st level Pally ;) ).

Beguiling Gift would be fun for the pranksters out there ...

Invigorate and Restful Sleep would both be nice to have on occasion. Especially over the last couple of weeks.

Keen Senses to get low light vision.

Air Bubble could be handy, as could Endure Elements ...

I could totally see Don Juan Doodlebug picking up Unnatural Lust ... ;)

When all is said and done though, I think it would either have to be Cure Light Wounds, as it can be used for the good of anyone (and I could have Cult Leader as a fallback gig if I needed work), or Color Spray as it is the ultimate in self defense spells (assuming pretty much everyone would be considered in the 1 HD to 4 HD range).

Taldor

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Timitius wrote:
Mikaze wrote:


I was wondering:

Are writer/artist collaborations allowed for submission? That is, is sending artwork in along with the corresponding article kosher, or does the editing/formatting process make that unfeasible?

(I can't recall if I've asked this before or if I've only thought about asking...huh, brain)

Paris has the right of it.

No, I do not have an problem with articles having art accompanying it. If I like it, and think the artist has: 1) rendered an illustration that fits well with the style of the fanzine, and 2) has drawn something that really reflects that article, then I'm going to actually be quite happy. That is one less illustration I have to assign, AND I have picked up a potential artist that might be willing to illustrate something else too (which is why, yes, I would need the contact info, and perhaps link to the online gallery, of the artist).

*cough*image submitted in proper format*cough*

*cough*that is 300dpi and preferred .psd with layers intact though .jpg/.tiff/.png will work if the resolution is met*cough*

Taldor

7 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

The rough draft for #11 is done. Many thanks to Garrett Guillotte for knocking out a ton of the initial layout. It made getting the rough together by June 1st a lot easier.

Cheliax

1 person marked this as a favorite.

that "wake him up every few hours" plan won't work ... the 8 hours do not need to be consecutive.

prd on bards and sorcerers wrote:
Daily Readying of Spells: Each day, sorcerers and bards must focus their minds on the task of casting their spells. A sorcerer or bard needs 8 hours of rest (just like a wizard), after which she spends 15 minutes concentrating. (A bard must sing, recite, or play an instrument of some kind while concentrating.) During this period, the sorcerer or bard readies her mind to cast her daily allotment of spells. Without such a period to refresh herself, the character does not regain the spell slots she used up the day before.
prd on wizards wrote:

Rest: To prepare his daily spells, a wizard must first sleep for 8 hours. The wizard does not have to slumber for every minute of the time, but he must refrain from movement, combat, spellcasting, skill use, conversation, or any other fairly demanding physical or mental task during the rest period. If his rest is interrupted, each interruption adds 1 hour to the total amount of time he has to rest in order to clear his mind, and he must have at least 1 hour of uninterrupted rest immediately prior to preparing his spells. If the character does not need to sleep for some reason, he still must have 8 hours of restful calm before preparing any spells.

Recent Casting Limit/Rest Interruptions: If a wizard has cast spells recently, the drain on his resources reduces his capacity to prepare new spells. When he prepares spells for the coming day, all the spells he has cast within the last 8 hours count against his daily limit.

So they can keep waking him up every few hours, but after 10-12 hours of interrupted sleep, he should be able to regain his spells and when the "wake him up" again, he can charm the guards to release him. And then he can go to the people with true tales of repression and torture ... a fallen paladin AND a large increase to the kingdom's unrest would be a hell of a double whammy.

It would also make for a great foot in the door for a religious group to make a more permanent presence in the kingdom (Erastil at the old temple, the Green God at the mite's tree, whichever diety the kobolds now follow if they are still around, etc.). Give the paladin atonement in exchange for the establishment of a temple within the capital (or a cathedral if you want to make it really hurt on the BP front).

Taldor

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Ckorik wrote:
Heheh non spoiler stuff finally really - I agree with you as to the tactics - however when reading about where people get frustrated because the boss went down with a whimper - overwhelmingly the posts go 'running the monster as written they died in the (1st, 2nd - pick one) round - I get the feeling that many of the monsters (especially if they have multi round tactics blocks) get run as written often. That's just how it seems from reading through the threads - I like to read through these because it helps me to figure out how I can avoid 'dumb boss' syndrome.

Yeah, I agree. I've run RotR twice and both groups had multiple PC deaths. Whenever I hear that it was a cakewalk, my first thought is GM Fiat, but running tactics solely as written with no variance or consideration of what the NPCs are actually experiencing could definitely play a role as well.

Ckorik wrote:

I try to play my encounters so that monsters with intelligence lower than 10 are a bit random in targeting - and or focused as they lack the wits to think about 'biggest threat' - those with low wisdom I try to play up making tactical mistakes. That being said the rest of it I try to base on my group - tactics to me are just a starting point to think about how the big bad is going to react, not a script.

I tend to follow a similar route when GMing. NPCs get played to their Int and Wis and react to what happens around them. The tactics section is always a good start point and a glimpse into an NPC's intended mindset, but if what they are experiencing goes counter to the tactics section (i.e. - "hmmm that fireball did not seem to do anything to them. The script says I should hit them with scorching ray next ..."), the tactics section goes out the window and they start utilizing other abilities/spells/etc.

Ckorik wrote:

For the sake of argument however - ignoring that point - would you agree that looking at pre-AV and post-AV snake woman is a great place for any GM that feels the AP's aren't challenging to look at in terms of how just a few changes to a single encounter, changes the difficulty level drastically?

That was my underlying point. It's a great way to look at how to make things less like a meatgrinder as well (as in how to tone down things when party is getting stomped).

Honestly, yeah, with the caveat that you have to use the tactics section of any encounter as a guide, not some unbreakable rule that must be followed to the letter regardless of the situation. Villains that continue to follow a course of action that obviously lead to their doom without using other potential tactics at their disposal is not a serious villain.

And yes, looking at her build before and then after could work as a means to modify other encounters to make them less meatgrindery.

Oh, and regarding Big K

Spoiler:
he can get insight to the PCs' abilities and tactics through the sihedron medallions. If he knows they use a "delivering the package" tactic (DD in the heavies so they can cut opponents up first round), I expect he would taken some additional precautions when the PCs were getting close to the Eye. As long as they had on the medallions, of course. ;)

Yep, had to throw in a spoiler. ;)

Taldor

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Ambrosia Slaad wrote:
Matthew Pittard wrote:
Deadly spam
Then you're really not going to like next-month's Cheliax-themed Wayfinder with the BabbiMcJi archetype, the Spam Devil & Spam Imp, and the dreaded wand of wondrous spam.

That would be July, not June. ;)

Taldor

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
BigDTBone wrote:
zylphryx wrote:

Mromson, you may feel that you should get to set the price for the work of Mr. Awesome for the price you listed. But you don't get to price the work of Mr. Awesome. Mr. Awesome (if he self published in all the formats) or his publishing hose gets to set the price. If they want to offer a bundle, great, that's a bonus for you, but you are not entitled to anything other than the specific item you purchased.

You can always scan the copy you purchased to make a digital backup. It won't have the additional features of a .pdf (being able to search the text, bookmarks, hyperlinks, etc.), but then, you didn't pay for that now did you?

He didn't say he should get to set the price. What he did say is what he feels the products are worth to him as a customer. Regardless of whether that feedback is used, it is always good information to have.

Edit: also, your snark at the end there was uncalled for. Particularly because he didn't complain about the lack of those features in a backup he generated himself. Also because he said he would be happy to pay for development costs of the PDF above that of the game content.

No snark intended. In the previous post, where he was listing what he felt he should pay for a publication in multiple formats (which is him setting a price that he feels he should pay), he placed the value for the digital version at $1 ( an underestimate to it's value IMO).

By pointing out that, with a scanner, he could make his own PDF, but lacking in the functionality of a professionally produced version, I was emphasizing the actual value to something he feels he should receive free of charge, or at a MUCH reduced rate, all due to a sense of entitlement.

Such a sense of entitlement is misplaced, however, as by purchasing one format of a product does not entitle you to anything else, unless the seller grants it (such as with Paizo giving a free PDF with subscription purchases).

Additionally, companies that sell items for development cost do not tend to stay in business for long.

Taldor

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Lamontius wrote:
Are bad alligator wrestlers bad people :(

No. They are tasty alligator treats.

Taldor

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
MattR1986 wrote:

I can't tell if the above is sarcasm or if he can't tell I'm using kind of an onomatopoeia of the word "poor" to imitate the woman's accent in Blazing Saddles.

And there is a difference between nerfing a core class ability and having one "traumatic moment" where the suffocation rules didn't go just the way you wanted. Did he build his character around being Captain Unsuffocatable? I f***ing doubt it so quit being so dramatic Mr. PFS.

po', not poo' ... ;)

and it shocks me to have folks take either of my first two comments in that post seriously. The instant rigor mortis feat? Really?

As to the last part of your reply I can't tell who that is aimed towards, but I will address anyway. For PFS, yeah RAW is god. However, this sounds like it was more of a "let's give a little tension to the encounter" type concept which was just poorly executed. The OP did not appreciate it and the others at the table, from what he has said elsewhere in the thread, didn't really care one way or the other.

No resources were burned and no one died. I would agree that the OP (and a few others) are overreacting to this. However, I would also like to point out that your attitude is pretty much crap. You need to chill out as well and stop being so dramatic with your own indignation to the OP (and really anyone who is voicing a concern based on RAW).

Taldor

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

As a humorous aside, and since talk has been about weapon types, at one point I had to deal with a player who took the stance that if he took the martial weapon proficiency feat, he could choose "one type of weapon", so he chose to be proficient with slashing weapons. ;)

Taldor

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
seebs wrote:

Now, there's a problem already, which is not all weapons are classified according to the type, singular, of damage they deal. Rather, some weapons have a classification like "P or S", which means they can either "deal P" or "deal S", with the wielder choosing which for each attack. But the weapon's classification is the entry in the table, which is "P or S". And a morning star's classification is "P and B".

So I'm saying that the classification is the thing in the table, and the damage dealt is of a type which has to be compatible with that classification, but isn't necessarily of the same type. But the weapon itself always retains its classification.

For single typed weapons it is not an issue, so we can ignore those, which just leaves us the X OR Y weapons and the X AND Y weapons.

The X OR Y weapons become either X weapons OR Y weapons depending on the damage dealt. So if the weapon deals X damage it is an X weapon. The OR statement makes the type singular. It can be one or the other, but it cannot be both (at least not at the same time).

The X AND Y weapons are both X weapons AND Y weapons. Which is the point where the original debate hinged. Does the DR activate because it is X regardless of the fact is it also Y and the interpretations of the conditions spelled out in the double weapon type entry? This is the main point of the original debate and I am not going to delve into any further. As I said before I am basically done with the debate over a poorly designed armor entry.

As to the vorpal experiment, sure enchant the dagger with vorpal. As long as it is used as a slashing weapon, the vorpal quality (that is being able to cut off your target's head, which is why it required the slashing weapon type) would function. If you are using it as a piercing weapon, it would not (RAW reason it is not a slashing weapon at that point ... common sense reason, how are you going to cut off an ogre's head by just poking it in the neck?)

Taldor

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

<sigh> I told myself I was done with this thread. Oh well. ;)

@Gaberlunzie - Nonlethal is not a damage type as far as weapons are concerned. The DR 5/- vs. nonlethal is not dependant on a specific weapon type / damage type, so it blocks nonlethal bludgeoning, nonlethal slashing, nonlethal piercing and any combination therein.

@ seebs as to the weapon type != damage type, I still have to disagree, based solely off the following excerpts:

Ultimate Equipment wrote:
TYPE: Weapons are classified according to the type of damage they deal: B for bludgeoning, P for piercing, or S for slashing.

As to the oft touted dagger example, it is an "S or P" weapon.

Ultimate Equipment wrote:
In other cases, a weapon can deal either of two types of damage. In a situation where the damage type is significant, the wielder can choose which type of damage to deal with such a weapon. For example, the damage caused by a dagger depends on whether the wielder is thrusting to deal piercing damage or slicing to deal slashing damage.

Since a weapon is classified by the damage it does, a dagger can be either a Slashing weapon or a Piercing weapon; it is not a piercing weapon when it deals slashing damage nor a slashing weapon when it deals piercing damage. It is one OR the other.

As to the whole QCA debate, I am pretty much through with it at this point.

The armor was poorly designed; aside from the poor wording, there is the implementation of DR where no other mundane armor grants it. Indeed the only other way to get DR from armor is to have it enchanted as either defiant (which grants DR 2/- and and extra +2 enhancement against a specific creature type along the lines of bane) or invulnerability (which grants DR 5/magic) ... for the price of either a +1 or +3 enhancement ... which translates to an extra 3000gp or 15000gp (as you need a base +1 enhancement on the armor to get the special ability enhancement).

EDIT: You could run with the alternate armor as DR Rules as well, I suppose, but you should not have to.

Compare those to gaining DR 3/- against, if one point of view is followed, an entire group of weapons regardless of what type of creature uses the weapon and whether or not it is magical. All for the low price of 100gp.

BAD. DESIGN.

The wording, as has been stated numerous times, is not clear, as the fact this debate has gone on for far longer than it should have.

Technically, if you really want to be a stickler for RAW, the term small in the description would mean that when the ranged weapon used is sized for a Medium of larger creature OR a tiny or smaller creature, the DR is not present.

Ultimate Equipment wrote:

DMG: These columns give the damage dealt by the weapon on a successful hit. The column labeled “Dmg (S)” is for Small weapons. The column labeled “Dmg (M)” is for Medium weapons. If two damage ranges are given in the same column, then the weapon is a double weapon. Use the second damage figure given for the double weapon’s extra

attack. Table 1–8: Tiny and Large Weapon Damage gives weapon damage values for Tiny and Large weapons.

So a "small range piercing weapon" would be, by RAW, a weapon built for Small creatures ONLY. For all the other "but this is in the rules" arguments thrown out, this one pretty much got glossed over, but it is as valid as any of the others and cannot simply be dismissed.

Silly? Yes. And why is it silly?

BAD. DESIGN.

The use of terminology which, by RAW, has specific meaning, and then trying to use it for other purposes is ...

BAD. DESIGN.

Now, I could see this armor granting a +4 untyped armor bonus vs. the subset of weapons ... it makes the armor slightly better vs. most ranged weapon attacks than a chain shirt (a +4 Armor bonus for the same price point). That would be reasonable.

I could see the condition be "against either ammunition from ranged weapons CAPABLE OF INFLICTING PIERCING DAMAGE or thrown light weapons CAPABLE OF INFLICTING PIERCING DAMAGE." That would be far more clear.

Bottom line is as long as the entry remains as written, there will be table variation. I can accept it. I recommend you do as well.

Most importantly, if this is for a home game, what gets posted in these forums really doesn't matter. It's your game, so play it as you will and don't get bent out of shape about someone "playing the game wrong" at some other table at which you are not a player. There is no "playing it wrong" in a home game, play how you want to play. The only place where this will really have any bearing whatsoever is in Society play (and there will be table variation).

OK, I'm done. Have fun, roll dice. :)

Taldor

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

perhaps ... but you also take a step toward evil. ;)

Taldor

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
seebs wrote:
zylphryx wrote:
No, it does not state that those are "small ranged piercing weapons". It gives specific weapons AND THEN states "AND small ranged piercing weapons". Two completely different things. If it were being inclusive to the specific weapons being listed as "small ranged piercing weapons", it would have been listed as "and OTHER small ranged piercing weapons." The wording calls out "small ranged piercing weapons" as their own group to meet the qualifier.

...

Uh.

"This enhanced form of padded armor has internal layers specifically designed to trap arrows, bolts, darts, shuriken, thrown daggers, and other small ranged piercing weapons."

Emphasis is mine, but the word "other" is there in the original text.

In plain English, this sentence unambiguously communicates to you that the writer believes a thrown dagger to be a "small ranged piercing weapon". In fact, since daggers are the last item in the list, this is true without the usual ambiguity of whether you think the "other" refers just to the nearest item or to the whole list.

Correct ... quick reply post bites me in the ass. :)

Taldor

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

right, but the point is in meeting the qualifier (and truly the qualifier makes the DR 3/an extensive list of things that are not part of the qualifying group ... if the qualifier is not met, there is no DR). In this case the DR 3/- is controlled by the qualifier of the weapon group. The issue of precedence comes into play for the final bit of that qualifying group: small ranged piercing weapons.

Firearms:
ranged? definitely.
small? this one could be a point of contention that was not brought up until earlier this page ... it could very well refer to the weapon size
piercing? yes AND no ... which one takes precedence? The yes or the no?

This is the point the debate boils down to.

Taldor

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
seebs wrote:
zylphryx wrote:
Except there is a mechanical difference between a piercing weapon and a bludgeoning and piercing weapon. This also falls into specific vs general in that there is a specific rule for weapons which have deal two types of damage.
This feels like a significant stretch of the "specific vs. general" terminology. These are both general rules, neither is a specific exception.

Not really. The general rule is:

Ultimate Equipment wrote:
TYPE: Weapons are classified according to the type of damage they deal: B for bludgeoning, P for piercing, or S for slashing.

The rules dealing with multiple damage types then become the specific rule for weapons of those types.

seebs wrote:


I guess there's two questions here that are interesting.

First: If the list of weapons had not been included in the armor's description, would people generally conclude that it did, or did not, apply to daggers? Would they conclude that it applied to daggers only when those daggers were being used as piercing weapons?

This would fall into the category of folks specifying they are doing Slashing instead of Piercing to ignore the DR.

seebs wrote:


Second: Does the distinction between "A and B" and "A or B" matter? If we were told that bullets were "piercing or bludgeoning", would people think that the armor provided DR if and only if the attacker had chosen piercing?

By RAW, yeah.

But RAW also has different rules for "A and B" vs. "A or B", so yes, the distinction does matter.

seebs wrote:


My inclination is to think that the list of weapons was offered purely as an example of how the writer understood the rules to operate. I don't think the intent was to create additional rules, merely to illustrate how the writer believed the category of "small, ranged, piercing weapons" applied.

Answered in a different post. :)

Taldor

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
seebs wrote:
zylphryx wrote:

OK, so here are a few points that (I hope) every one can agree on.

1) Specific trumps general: That is a specific example always trumps a general rule.

Not quite.

A specific rule trumps a general rule.

A specific example indicates that the writer thought that the rule already worked that way.

An example does not create a ruling, it gives examples of how the ruling already works. That's the entire point of calling it an example.

Contrast two hypothetical bits of text (made up to illustrate the point):

1. "Creatures named Joe are immune to this attack, and do not take the penalties."
2. "Creatures immune to this attack (such as those named Joe) do not take the penalties."

The first creates a specific ruling: If you are named Joe, you are immune to this attack. The second presumes that creatures named Joe are immune to this attack, but it is not intending to create a new rule, rather, it implies that the writer believed this rule already existed.

I do agree with you on this one, but for the example of Quilted Cloth Armor:

Ultimate Equipment wrote:
This enhanced form of padded armor has internal layers specifically designed to trap arrows, bolts, darts, shuriken, thrown daggers, and other small ranged piercing weapons. When these kinds of weapons strike you, they tend to become snagged in these layers and fail to harm you. Wearing quilted cloth armor gives you DR 3/— against attacks of this kind. The special layers of the armor have no effect on other kinds of weapons.

The armor calls out a list of weapons that are affected by it in sentence one. In sentence two "when these kinds of weapons strike you" refers back to the list established in sentence one. And sentences three and four outline the rule for the armor stating "gives you DR 3/— against attacks of this kind" referring to the previous established listing of weapons and "have no effect on other kinds of weapons".

This is not a case of example. This is a case of rule. Granted it is a rule to this specific type of armor ...

Taldor

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

So for this debate, there are several elements to consider. Alot of this is rehashed from earlier in the thread, so bear with me. And yes, this will be long post. I ask you read it and dismiss it out of hand for looking at the entire debate rather than a single issue.

quilted cloth armor listing in UE wrote:

This enhanced form of padded

armor has internal layers specifically designed to trap arrows, bolts, darts, shuriken, thrown daggers, and other small ranged piercing weapons. When these kinds of weapons strike you, they tend to become snagged in these layers and fail to harm you. Wearing quilted cloth armor gives you DR 3/— against attacks of this kind. The special layers of the armor have no effect on other kinds of weapons.

Looking at this description and taking the three points above, we get the following:

1) Specific trumps general.
Since specific weapons are called out, these will trump any other rule (as they are specific examples). This means regardless of any other rule to the contrary, the specifically named weapons (arrows, bolts, darts, shuriken, and thrown daggers) are included with "small ranged piercing weapons" for the purposes of the effects of the armor.

2) DR/- cannot be bypassed.
Indeed this is true. If it is listed on it's own.

3) Qualifiers attached to conditions or properties.
In the first sentence of the description we have a group of weapons. In the second sentence we have a description of the effect the armor has on the group of weapons. The third sentence gives the condition or property (DR/-) and the qualifier (against attacks of this kind). The final sentence is an additional qualifier (no effect on other kinds of weapons).

This means that the DR/- is effective only against arrows, bolts, darts, shuriken, and thrown daggers (as they are specifically listed) and small ranged piercing weapons. Your PC gets hit by a mace or sling stone or ballista bolt, you do not get the benefit of the DR as these items are not of the affected weapon group.

Now this brings us to those weapons which have either the choice of two damage types or inflicting two damage types simultaneously.

First, a clarification. The argument that seemed to pop up about a difference between a damage type and a weapon type is nonsense (sorry to sound a bit harsh, but really it is a bit on the silly side). The weapon type dictates the damage type ... for all intents and purposes they are synonymous. A piercing weapon inflicts piercing damage. A bludgeoning and piercing weapon deals both bludgeoning and piercing damages. A bludgeoning or piercing weapon deals either bludgeoning or piercing damage.

Ultimate Equipment wrote:
TYPE: Weapons are classified according to the type of damage they deal: B for bludgeoning, P for piercing, or S for slashing.

There is, as always, an exception. If you use a piercing weapon as an improvised weapon to deal bludgeoning damage, you will not get past DR X/piercing. But this is not really an exception in the true sense, as the piercing weapon actually becomes an improvised bludgeoning weapon in this case, but I wanted to call it out to keep it from popping up later.

As to the weapons with multiple damage types, the following is listed in Ultimate Equipment:

Ultimate Equipment wrote:

TYPE:Some weapons deal damage of multiple types. If a weapon causes two types of damage, the type it deals is not half one type and half another; rather, all damage caused is considered to be of both types. Therefore, a creature would have to be immune to both types of damage to ignore any of the damage caused by such a weapon.

In other cases, a weapon can deal either of two types of damage. In a situation where the damage type is significant, the wielder can choose which type of damage to deal with such a weapon. For example, the damage caused by a dagger depends on whether the wielder is thrusting to deal piercing damage or slicing to deal slashing damage.

So for those weapons which deal either piercing or bludgeoning damage, they can be counted as either weapon/damage type at the determination of the wielder.

But what about daggers with their P or S damage? Well, since they were specifically called out as being affected by the armor, and specific trumps general, thrown daggers are affected by the armor regardless of their weapon type.

For those weapons which deal both types of damage, a creature (which, say, a hobgoblin wearing quilted cloth armor would qualify as) needs to be immune to both types of damage to ignore ANY of the damage caused by such a weapon. The damage dealt is of both types

The armor only gives DR/- vs. arrows, bolts, darts, shuriken, thrown daggers and small ranged piercing weapons. Firearms deal B and P ... you may want to qualify them as piercing weapons, but they are really bludgeoning and piercing weapons and there is a mechanical difference between the two. To argue that it gets qualified as one and not the other is erroneous (it is both ... it is described as both ... it is mechanically treated as both). As it is treated as both, it is not a small, ranged piercing weapon but is a small, ranged piercing AND bludgeoning weapon mechanically speaking and as such would not meet the requirement to be affected by the DR.

Taldor

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Blaphers, would you prefer to receive a paycheck for an expected amount every 2 weeks or would you prefer to receive a paycheck every 6 months for a potentially extremely variable amount. Keep in mind this blind amount will be directly impacted by your ability to determine how many hours you will be able to work that are paid; anything above those hours will get rolled over to future paychecks over time in varying amounts, anything below those hours will reduce your total pay.

This is what you are basically saying is unconvincing. The subscription model is Paizo's "2 week paycheck" (technically monthly, but hey, we're talking analogy), where they get a solid idea of how many units of Product X they require to fulfill the immediate demand and then add in a buffer. Undercutting their subscription model would put them in a position where they would need to blindly guess how many people will be buying Product X in 6 months time, tie up their resources and hope that their estimates (read as best guesses based off of questionable data) are extremely accurate.

Taldor

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
GreyWolfLord wrote:
zylphryx wrote:


Bottom line is this. The subject line of this thread, the thread you created, states the topic as "Should we be shamed publically for what we say in private?" ... now if folks...
If you read my original post, my topic is still the same, not sure why you think it's changed.
GreyWolfLord wrote:

Part of me wants to cheer, because it's like a really bad guy getting his comeuppance. At the same time, the other, more logical part of me...is saying...WTH just happened.

We took someone's private conversation that was never meant for the public, was not stated in the public, and was between two individuals for private interests...and used it to justify a major action. By approving this, I'm approving of invasion of privacy, blackmail, and extortion.

Statement of "the issue" number 1. To paraphrase, "the releasing of the material was unjustified and as such supporting action based upon it is supporting those unjustified actions".

This was countered with the explanation these are actually two separate issues: his statements (as they were now in the public arena) and the means by which they were released (and the ethical/moral/legal questions around that). As they are separate issues, the method of release is moot when discussing the reaction to the statements themselves (in other words "you can't unlearn what you learned").

GreyWolfLord wrote:

Now just remember, his remarks were gathered by invasion of privacy, blackmail, and extortion.

To support the actions done to him ALSO means you support, invasion of privacy, blackmail and extortion...

Regardless of to him...or to yourselves.

That's the BIG kicker in all of this...these were not public items nor were they given for public...but were obtained through several ways which were not exactly legal...

Still sticking with the violation right to privacy trumps the public knowledge of his statements. Not to mention the bastardization of Martin Niemöller's quote (for which someone should probably have tagged your post as a Godwin moment).

GreyWolfLord wrote:

You can say...ah...that's a far extreme...but really...it doesn't take much to slowly inch along that deadly post until it affects you, me, and many others.

That's what's concerning about this...this is why some have called it a slippery slope.

It's what has happened before...when they came for our fellow businessmen we said nothing, because we didn't like them...when they came for our neighbors...we said nothing...because it was not us and we didn't like them...and then they came for us...

There IS a point where free speech and freedom is protected by the government whether or not it is by the government or someone else trying to take something due to that.

Again bastardizing Martin Niemöller's words and changing "the issue" to that of freedom of speech. Which it was quickly pointed out it was not, though in retrospect I am shocked no one linked to this during that segment of the discussion ...

GreyWolfLord wrote:

Actually, in these cases where it needs two party consent, it is always on the person claiming that both parties consented to provide that proof, or it didn't happen.

This is standard in business and other aspects of law. Otherwise whenever you had a criminal take a car, you'd have them get off by claiming the other person told them they could "borrow" it. They have to have proof in order to allow them to do certain things.

Two party consent is a lot like a contract, but normally easier to prove. For a phone conversation all that would be needed is to inform he other person that it is being recorded (on EVERY conversation of course) and give them the opportunity to not continue talking...or even better, get their agreement on each call vocally each time.

You don't even have to get the signature...but without some sort of evidence showing consent...there was none.

Happens all the time in criminal, business, and civil court cases. This is why it's important to document EVERYTHING.

Seeming to shift back to the right to privacy stance ...

GreyWolfLord wrote:

The bigger stint seems to be a PR stunt by the NBA commissioner. It should be interesting if the other owners condone blackmail if the vote is private, because if they do, I expect this will NOT be the first owner to lose their team...and actually expect people like Cuban to be in the crosshairs after that.

This is where it gets more problematic. The biggest threat was actually from a player coalition threatening their own boycotts...which interestingly to a point was led by someone who had a vested interest in buying a team that was not for sale. In that, it appears the NBA shows favoritism in forcing a sale...but one that if you look at it, economically could end up disastrous for the very owners that the commissioner wants to vote on it.

And on to the realm of conspiracy theory ...

GreyWolfLord wrote:

I think the key here isn't freedom of speech, but freedom of privacy.

There are those here that feel people should NOT have privacy, and it is not an inherent right.

Others feel you have a right to privacy and the invasion of privacy is ethically and morally wrong.

And back to right to privacy ...

You want to know why I and others think you have changed what "the issue" is for the discussion? I could keep going but I think I have answered your question.

1 to 50 of 405 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | next > last >>

©2002–2014 Paizo Inc.®. Need help? Email customer.service@paizo.com 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.