|
Prerequisites: Arcane Strike, Sleight of Hand 5 ranks.
Benefit: You can throw a card as though it were a dart, with the same damage, range, and other features. You must use the Arcane Strike feat when throwing a card in this way, or else the card lacks the magical force and precision to deal lethal damage. A card is destroyed when thrown in this way.
Harrow cards are treated as masterwork weapons when thrown using this feat, but are still destroyed after they are thrown. A harrow deck can no longer be used as a fortune-telling device after even a single card is thrown.
A spellcaster with this feat can enhance a deck of cards as though it were a ranged weapon with 54 pieces of ammunition. This enhancement functions only when used in tandem with this feat, and has no affect on any other way the cards might be used. Only a character who possesses this feat can make use of an enhanced deck of cards, and must still use the Arcane Strike feat to activate the cards’ enhancement.
The text of the feat spoiler-ed for reference.
Honestly mechanically I don't see why the feat would be illegal, it's not overpowering or cheesy. And it'd be nice for anyone who wanted to use a Harrower to have a returning harrow deck. Maybe someone felt that Gambit (the X-men character) doesn't belong in PFS?
|
|
3) the headache for trying to price out and track enchanted cards. "Do I have 23 or 43 flaming cards left? what about those goblin bane cards."
From the way I read the feat the price would be the same as a weapon with the same enhancements, just that it always has 54 ammunition. So a +1 Flaming Returning Harrow Deck would be 18,000 gp more then the price of the deck.
|
So to some up peoples suggested reasons so far we have:
1 it doesn't fit your vision of Golarion
2 one small part of the feat relates to item creation, or could cause some minor bookkeeping difficulties.
Response:
1 If Mike, or anyone involved in the decision, wants to say that this is the reason then I will humbly shut my trap. To everyone else, I disagree.
2 This would be a silly reason, in my opinion, to deny this feat.
Things to remember:
For all we know this might show up allowed in some chronicle. And no one who was involved in the decision making process has weighed in so we are all just guessing.
|
I'd assume it's specifically due to the crafting component. Every class feature/ability, feat, and even racial trait that involves crafting or Leadership hasn't been allowed or has been replaced/altered to remove said components.
Given the feat is in a setting book I doubt it's a flavor issue (they don't pick and choose for setting when it's a setting book).
That said (I bring this up because it seems to be a regular response when people suggest possible answers for a question): If you don't like any answers beside Mike Brock's, please email Brock or use the search function to check for threads where he has spoken on an issue. Don't post on the board.
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Gambit aside.
Funny thing is, he bought a fine black silk pouch embroidered with silver, and always threw coins he pulled from that bag. Got to the point the DM forgot that the bag wasn't magical, and had it stolen.
We're tracking the thief and finally confront him. Stephan grabs a rock and thows it. using balistic attack.
"Wait, you don't have the pouch that lets you do that."
"It's not the pouch, it's my wild talent." *in bad cajun accent* "It can be thrown? It can be energized! An de way I hear, your power is none to good 'gainst projectiles."
He also was prone to forget that my character had telekinesis as a prereq for balistic attack.
|
|
I'd assume it's specifically due to the crafting component. Every class feature/ability, feat, and even racial trait that involves crafting or Leadership hasn't been allowed or has been replaced/altered to remove said components.
Given the feat is in a setting book I doubt it's a flavor issue (they don't pick and choose for setting when it's a setting book).
That said (I bring this up because it seems to be a regular response when people suggest possible answers for a question): If you don't like any answers beside Mike Brock's, please email Brock or use the search function to check for threads where he has spoken on an issue. Don't post on the board.
I specifically did not limit to Mike, I included any of the VO's, Mark, etc. Also I was simply pointing out that no one with authority had weighed in so we could not know what the reasoning was.
The board is an accepted place to seek Paizo staffers responses. This is fact. This is the way theu have stated they like things. So if people want a response from staffers and choose to post on the board that is acceptable, unless paizo staffers say otherwise.
|
|
Thank you Mike. I don't understand the Harrow deck reason but I accept your decision.
they aren't something I've looked at .. but from how they were explained to me ... cast a spell draw a card .. add effect ...
that and Tarrot Cards which unfortunately starts to make some people uncomfortable throughout the world
tho dont quote me on the 1st part as again Ive never looked at them
|
|
Thank you Mike. I don't understand the Harrow deck reason but I accept your decision.they aren't something I've looked at .. but from how they were explained to me ... cast a spell draw a card .. add effect ...
That is how the harrower prestige class works, the harrow deck itself is simply a deck of cards sometimes used for fortune telling and sometimes used for gambling.
Of course as mentioned above the Harrower and indeed everything else to do with harrow decks are not legal in PFS, despite that there's even a real harrow deck put out by paizo that you can purchase.
|
|
Thank you Mike. I don't understand the Harrow deck reason but I accept your decision.they aren't something I've looked at .. but from how they were explained to me ... cast a spell draw a card .. add effect ...That is how the harrower prestige class works, the harrow deck itself is simply a deck of cards sometimes used for fortune telling and sometimes used for gambling.
Of course as mentioned above the Harrower and indeed everything else to do with harrow decks are not legal in PFS, despite that there's even a real harrow deck put out by paizo that you can purchase.
Fair enough tho I stand by the Tarrot Similarity also including them begs the fortunes to be done ... which could be VERY Time consuming ... it makes sense
|
|
I specifically did not limit to Mike, I included any of the VO's, Mark, etc. Also I was simply pointing out that no one with authority had weighed in so we could not know what the reasoning was.The board is an accepted place to seek Paizo staffers responses. This is fact. This is the way theu have stated they like things. So if people want a response from staffers and choose to post on the board that is acceptable, unless paizo staffers say otherwise.
Your exact statement was actually..
If Mike, or anyone involved in the decision
While I know VOs are sometimes involved in the more complex decisions, AFAIK it all comes down to Brock in the end. And yes, the boards are an acceptable place to seek staff feedback (there are whole threads devoted to it).
But please understand how frustrating it is when people suggest any number of reasons for X and you respond "none of those are good enough/valid unless Y person comes here and tells me him/herself". And this happens in so many threads on the PFS boards.
|
While I know VOs are sometimes involved in the more complex decisions, AFAIK it all comes down to Brock in the end. And yes, the boards are an acceptable place to seek staff feedback (there are whole threads devoted to it).
I read VOs and had a flashback to Living Arcanis. Voiceless Ones (VO's) were the Arcanis mind flayers.
|
|
Your exact statement was actually..
If Mike, or anyone involved in the decision
While I know VOs are sometimes involved in the more complex decisions, AFAIK it all comes down to Brock in the end. And yes, the boards are an acceptable place to seek staff feedback (there are whole threads devoted to it).
But please understand how frustrating it is when people suggest any number of reasons for X and you respond "none of those are good enough/valid unless Y person comes here and tells me him/herself". And this happens in so many threads on the PFS boards.
I think this will be the last I have to say on this. I was under the understanding that the VOs were involved in the most recent additions to the Additional Resources document. Hence my belief that my statement was not limiting. Also, involved in does not require having final say.
As far as your last statement, I can understand your frustration. Try to understand the frustration of those who want an official explanation who get nothing but unofficial guesses. Like it or not, none of the responses before Mike's was an official answer. Some of us were asking for an official reason. Guesses were less than meaningless. Now that Mike has weighed in I know that any future things related to the Harrow in any way will likely not be allowed. I think that sucks, but now I won't get my hopes up when I see things for that.
Also all I said was that if someone official weighed in in regards to the ruling I would shut up about it. I followed that by offering my simple disagreement with people suggesting that the flavor was inappropriate for the campaign. Go back up the thread and read some of those posts again look at it from my point of view as someone who took one look at the feat and was immediately inspired, and no not by Gambit. I was insulted.
I want to reiterate that despite anything I said above I am in no way arguing with Mike. This is his campaign and I will not disrespect that or him by continued ragging on this subject. I simply felt the desire to explain/defend my previous posts.