|
Anyone have any idea when the cost adjustment is going to happen and when BFA's may become legal again in PFS? Just trying to figure out if I should start saving up anytime soon.
I would start with assuming never, and that way you can be pleasantly surprised if you're proven wrong.
It something that'd have to be changed in the actual print product, so unless the design team also thinks its an issue it won't get changed. Even if they do, it won't have a chance to get changed until the next printing of the product it released in and they don't release those until after they've already happened.
Paizo only releases errata when they do a new printing of books. Lately, they've been really good at estimating how many books they'll need per release, and this means that errata will be further and further apart from here on out.
So don't hold your breath.
|
|
And here I'm hoping they're errata'd out of the book entirely, along with the spell that created them.why the spell hate?
Because it's a first level spell that essentially duplicates a third-level spell that the classes don't even get, then stacks on a couple more bonuses for fun. It should be at least a 4th level spell, if it exists at all.
That they made an item out of it was sickening. That it obliterated the price guidelines was really just icing on the cake.
Keen Edge, presumably.
|
|
The difference between 1 min/level and 10 min/level is quite small - probably averages 1 extra encounter. Personal just means it's only a broken spell for the caster, or anyone with a wand. Limit of 50 arrows can be quite significant with 4-6 arrows flying out per round for most archers Level 5+.
Hadn't noticed the close range - that's useful. Not as useful as +1 attack and +3 perception though.
|
The difference between 1 min/level and 10 min/level is quite small - probably averages 1 extra encounter.BWAAAHAHAHAA!!!
Once you hit about level 6 or so, 10 min/level spells can become "hey look, the entrance..start your buffing!" spells for the entire dungeon, especially with a rod of extend spell. (extending the 1 min. spells generally does nothing)
|
|
That's assuming a single-location, and not a lot of searching/speaking going on (Taking 20, etc.).
Sometimes you'll get just one (or none) fight out of each. Sometimes you'll get multiple out of either. Sometimes you'll get 1-3 extra with the 10 min/level. On average, I think you get one fight out of min/level, two out of 10 min/level. Extending either helps a lot (14-20 minutes at 7-10th level when you'd probably pick up a lesser extend rod).
4th level for aspect might be an exaggeration, but even 2nd level would be far too low. Cat's grace or aspect? Cat's grace or aspect with a Belt of Excellent Dexterity (i.e. the second thing an archer buys)? Cat's grace or aspect with a bard evens out a bit.
|
That's assuming a single-location, and not a lot of searching/speaking going on (Taking 20, etc.).
No, it's just assuming a single location. And although I can think of exceptions, the vast majority of PFS scenarios involve going to location X and having a series of encounters (typically 1/room, with a few empty rooms) in the span of less than an hour. Sometimes there's a single encounter at the beginning that gets you your clue to get to location X, but then the rest of the encounters usually still fit the mold.
To your other point, taking 20 to search isn't going to put a dent in 10min/level spells if the GM has made the switch from 3.5 to Pathfinder. By mid levels you can do all your searching in between activations of infernal healing wands.
I've been using heroism as a domain-only spell since 5th level (now 8th) and I don't think it's run out prematurely a single time, if memory serves.
|
|
I was pretty sad when this was banned, I guess because it wasn't good for wizards?
I'm sure that's sarcasm, but just in case: These bracers are amazing for wizards. +1 to hit with all ranged attacks?! and +3 to perception (most used skill in the game anyone?)
[sarcasm]What wizard would want to hit better with his scorching rays in the surprise round he gets to act in because he perceived the hidden enemies? These are useless to wizards.[/sarcarsm]
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
CWheezy, bracers of falcon's aim are undercosted, particularly blanat in terms of similar items like bracers of archery. Pathfinder Society doesn't have any way to revise the pricing, just for the OP campaign. So they get banned until the development team issues game-wide revision to the item.
|
|
Well, I think Bracers of Archery LINK are overpriced considering what they grant:
5000g for:
Proficiency with bows (NOT crossbows) if you did not have it (and if you didn't have it why are you buying an item to improve your ranged weapon attacks?)
IF you already had proficiency, you get a +1 competence bonus on attack rolls.
That's like paying 5000g and taking up your wrist slot for a +1 weapon. Now, I know archers will still take it because every +1 to hit helps, but let's be serious here: it's only even remotely good because it stacks with most *BUT NOT ALL (e.g. Bard Song)* other bonuses to hit.
Paizo only releases errata when they do a new printing of books. Lately, they've been really good at estimating how many books they'll need per release, and this means that errata will be further and further apart from here on out.
So don't hold your breath.
Well, if gets to a point that they are not selling out their printings, then I hope they change their procedure on errata.
Paizo is one of the few companies that actively updates and does errata on their (hardcover) books, even if it does take a while. I hope that doesn’t change just because they don’t find a need to reprint them again because the need for the errata is still there and should not be ignored.
|
If you want to add utility to your bow shots, check out the limening weapon enchant. If you can see invisibility, your party will love you.The what enchant? No matches in the PRD (well using this site's search engine.)
Sorry, extra "e". it's Limning enchant. Basically anything you hit gets faerie fire'd.
|
|
That's assuming a single-location, and not a lot of searching/speaking going on (Taking 20, etc.).To your other point, taking 20 to search isn't going to put a dent in 10min/level spells if the GM has made the switch from 3.5 to Pathfinder. By mid levels you can do all your searching in between activations of infernal healing wands.
Pardon? Perhaps I've forgotten something, but Taking 20 in Pathfinder takes just as long as it did in 3.5. You can search one 5' square per minute (or two per two minutes).
I've run a few more PFS scenarios - there's quite a few out there with separate locations per encounter, including the very first one, and my favorites. I would agree with an average of 2 encounters per location though.
|
|
That's assuming a single-location, and not a lot of searching/speaking going on (Taking 20, etc.).To your other point, taking 20 to search isn't going to put a dent in 10min/level spells if the GM has made the switch from 3.5 to Pathfinder. By mid levels you can do all your searching in between activations of infernal healing wands.Pardon? Perhaps I've forgotten something, but Taking 20 in Pathfinder takes just as long as it did in 3.5. You can search one 5' square per minute (or two per two minutes).
I've run a few more PFS scenarios - there's quite a few out there with separate locations per encounter, including the very first one, and my favorites. I would agree with an average of 2 encounters per location though.
It's unlisted, so some GMs allow you to take 10 searching an arbitrary amount of square footage (at the appropriate penalty for distant things) even for tiny minute details in a single move action. So you can search an entire football field worth of hay for a needle and instantly find it. Unfortunately, since it doesn't say either way, expect table variation. In my personal opinion, when it comes to everything involving perception and stealth, there's been a ton of unintentional side effects and weirdnesses with the rewrite from 3.5 back when there were more skills around (which led to the recent stealth errata among other things), so I'm going to stick with one move action per square unless it's explicitly banned. No grumbles to any GM who does otherwise though, it's a fair interpretation of the RAW too.
EDIT: One thing's for sure--you can definitely search at any range now, and it's definitely a single move action.
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Pardon? Perhaps I've forgotten something, but Taking 20 in Pathfinder takes just as long as it did in 3.5. You can search one 5' square per minute (or two per two minutes).That's assuming a single-location, and not a lot of searching/speaking going on (Taking 20, etc.).To your other point, taking 20 to search isn't going to put a dent in 10min/level spells if the GM has made the switch from 3.5 to Pathfinder. By mid levels you can do all your searching in between activations of infernal healing wands.
Taking 20 hasn't changed, but searching has.
In 3.5, the Search skill takes a full-round action to search just one single square within 10ft of the observer (so 2 minutes per square if taking 20).
In Pathfinder, they removed the range restriction (but there's +1 to the DC per 10ft of distance), removed the "one square at a time" rule completely, and changed it to a move action per check.
|
|
Unless there's a FAQ or clarification I'm missing, all it says is "Intentionally searching for stimulus is a move action."
It doesn't say you can only search a 5-foot-square twice in 6 seconds, but it also doesn't say you can search a football field twice in 6 seconds. The GM is left to adjudicate how much space one is searching for stimuli in any given time, just as we have to determine a lot of other things that aren't explicitly stated in the rules.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
I'm going to stick with one move action per square unless it's explicitly banned.
So when you tell a player that their search only applies to a single square, and they say "According to what?" (or just "Why?", or whatever), what do you tell them?
You can't claim precedent from 3.5, since 3.5 had an explicit rule which Paizo made the decision to delete from the ruleset. So if we're basing our interpretation on what we know of 3.5, then we end up with the opposite of your conclusion. "They deleted an existing rule, but I'm pretty sure the intent is to keep using it because they didn't explicitly say otherwise" is a pretty shaky stance - same one used by GMs who gloss over the removal of the "rogues can't sneak attack undead" rule.
If, instead of comparing to 3.5, we're reading Pathfinder rules from a "blank slate", then we have an undefined area. I suppose you could decide to define an area yourself, but then you've arbitrarily produced a rule yourself; would you equally accept a "ruling" from a GM that you search in a 10ft square, or a 20ft cone, or a 30ft line? If not, then where is the Pathfinder text that gives more support to a 5ft square than a 20ft cone for searching?
If my character is losing a limited resource (such as spell durations) because of how you're running something, then you need to be able to point to at least one line and say "I take this to mean X" or "This leads me to believe X" - even if I disagree, I'll probably be okay with it, because hey, people interpret things differently. But if all you can say is "No one at Paizo has personally contradicted me" and can't even point to a single phrase of Paizo-published rules text that even implies (let alone actually states) your ruling, then you are literally just making up rules that aren't part of Pathfinder, which is not appropriate for Organized Play.
|
|
Replying to note that I need to go hunt up the discussion where they talked about why they deliberately removed the one square per action rule. I suspect it's in the playtest rules discussion someplace. Had to do, as I recall, with reducing the amount of real world time devoted to sitting around saying "and I search that square"....That's assuming a single-location, and not a lot of searching/speaking going on (Taking 20, etc.).To your other point, taking 20 to search isn't going to put a dent in 10min/level spells if the GM has made the switch from 3.5 to Pathfinder. By mid levels you can do all your searching in between activations of infernal healing wands.Pardon? Perhaps I've forgotten something, but Taking 20 in Pathfinder takes just as long as it did in 3.5. You can search one 5' square per minute (or two per two minutes).
I've run a few more PFS scenarios - there's quite a few out there with separate locations per encounter, including the very first one, and my favorites. I would agree with an average of 2 encounters per location though.
so I'm going to stick with one move action per square unless it's explicitly banned. No grumbles to any GM who does otherwise though, it's a fair interpretation of the RAW too.
EDIT: One thing's for sure--you can definitely search at any range now, and it's definitely a single move action.
If you've got it, I'll change the way I'm running it immediately, though I don't agree that's a good reason to change it compared to minute per level speedruns of dungeons on the other side. But fortunately we have home games!
|
|
Rogue/Jiggy - thanks for the update. FYI, I checked the Gamemastering and Environment sections (traps) - nothing there about specific areas.
I'll be sticking with 1 move action per 5' square for now, to thoroughly search an area. You can certainly notice something from a distance.
There is definitely a problem with saying you can search everything at once with a single Perception check - if you could the Trapspotter rogue talent would do virtually nothing.
What we need is a Blog post on how perception works, especially for locating Traps (do you get a reactive perception check walking up to one? Count as distracted? Only if actively searching? Etc.)
TetsujinOni: I must have missed that discussion back then - would love to read through it.
Probably have gone well beyond the original topic now though.
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
I'm going to stick with one move action per square unless it's explicitly banned.
So when you tell a player that their search only applies to a single square, and they say "According to what?" (or just "Why?", or whatever), what do you tell them?
Speaking for myself, I ask: Are you just looking for what's immediately visible? Or are you searching desk drawers, feeling for thin wind currents coming out from a wall, listening for hollow sounds when rapping on a surface? Are you using a lens of detection to help look for details?
I don't care how high you roll on a Perception check. From 15 feet away, you aren't going to notice the half-burned note in the fireplace that has complete concealment from a half-inch of ashes.
There's a lot that you can tell from just standing in the center of the room and paying really close attention to what your selses are telling you. There's more to tell from carefully moving through the room.
|
|
Jiggy--here's my logic, which you are free to disagree with:
"Your senses allow you to notice fine details and alert you to danger. Perception covers all five senses, including sight, hearing, touch, taste, and smell."
This means to me that when you are searching for a small stimulus (perhaps lifting up some books to see the books underneath, moving blades of grass, or feeling for a stone that doesn't match the rest of the wall), you are using senses such as touch. Since you cannot be in more than one square at a single time, you can only be doing that in one square (perhaps also all adjacent squares too would be fine).
Anyways, if Tetsujin has a dev quote, then that seals it and there's not debate--you guys are just correct.
EDIT: Ninjaed by Chris. Yes, what he said exactly. If you want to take a single move action to see all you can see without a careful search (essentially rerolling your reactive perception for a smell, sound, or visual object that could have been immediately noticable), of course you can do that on anything in range of vision/sound/scent.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
@Rogue Eidolon:
Failing to add restrictions is not making up a rule. It is simply applying the rules that exist.
The rules say that a PC can search as a move action, so I didn't make that up. The rules give how to determine the DC and modifiers, so I didn't make that up either. The part you're claiming I'm making up is literally the lack of making something up. You're claiming I'm making up the lack of made-up stuff.
|
|
@Rogue Eidolon:
Failing to add restrictions is not making up a rule. It is simply applying the rules that exist.The rules say that a PC can search as a move action, so I didn't make that up. The rules give how to determine the DC and modifiers, so I didn't make that up either. The part you're claiming I'm making up is literally the lack of making something up. You're claiming I'm making up the lack of made-up stuff.
** spoiler omitted **
Hey Jiggy,
I know it doesn't have a quote to it, but the post you're responding to here, I deleted. Your posts have been extremely confrontational and they feel like they're meant to be insulting, even though I know you've said before that isn't your intent. The post I deleted was a reductio ad absurdum that, while it applied, didn't really add to the thread, and I apologize for making it. Let's instead try to be polite and discuss this together, as it's an interesting topic. I hope my other posts haven't been like the one I deleted, but let me know if there's any in particular you'd like me to delete as well, to help facilitate that.
EDIT: Thanks for getting rid of the spoiler in the post I'm quoting! :)
To that end, let's talk about whether the football field is a strawman. I assumed the character was standing in the middle of the field, not at one end, if they want to search the whole thing in one move action. I think that's pretty fair. And that the dropping was DC 20-25 or so to find even if you're right on top of it due to the difficulty of the contrast. I think that's also pretty fair. It is not an exaggeration nor a strawman to say that 3 of the 6 characters in the last game I played would have found that dropping with a take 10 even at either far end of the field 150 feet away. Yes, they were all at +30 or higher. Perception monkeys are pretty common everywhere I've seen. Having three together like that is pretty uncommon, but you really only need one. One of the characters would have had +40 if she had actually taken Skill Focus, which she almost did for her last feat (and would have if Bracers of Falcon Aim were still around, actually--instead she took Improved Critical).
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
I don't care how high you roll on a Perception check. From 15 feet away, you aren't going to notice the half-burned note in the fireplace that has complete concealment from a half-inch of ashes.
That's accounted for by being visually undetectable in the first place (due to being fully concealed) and therefore requiring touch to detect - it has absolutely nothing to do with how much area you can search with a given action.
There's a lot that you can tell from just standing in the center of the room and paying really close attention to what your selses are telling you. There's more to tell from carefully moving through the room.
This is already accommodated in existing rules without having to add a "one square per check" rule that was already deliberately deleted from the ruleset by Paizo.
|
|
That's accounted for by being visually undetectable in the first place (due to being fully concealed) and therefore requiring touch to detect - it has absolutely nothing to do with how much area you can search with a given action.
But where are you located when you take that move action to touch? I could see a GM allowing you to, as a full round's worth of action, move up to your speed and make a perception check to touch everything you pass. Personally, I say you're touching the square where you are located when you take the move action. Clearly you can't have gone and touched more squares than you could even move in a round, or else we could use the Perception skill to move more than our normal movement speed in a round.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
To that end, let's talk about whether the football field is a strawman. I assumed the character was standing in the middle of the field, not at one end, if they want to search the whole thing in one move action. I think that's pretty fair. And that the dropping was DC 20-25 or so to find even if you're right on top of it due to the difficulty of the contrast. I think that's also pretty fair. It is not an exaggeration nor a strawman to say that 3 of the 6 characters in the last game I played would have found that dropping even at either far end of the field 150 feet away. Yes, they were all at +30 or higher.
I disagree with the proposed DC (based largely on the fact that the mouse itself, let alone its dropping, takes 10 on Stealth for a 26 based on size alone), but that's kind of beside the point, and here's why:
If we added your "one square at a time" rule, and one of your local players just happened to pick the right square the first time, you get the exact same result as without the one-square rule: the PC spots it from 150ft away in a single check.
Thus, the football field illustration fails to demonstrate that the one-square rule would improve anything about the Perception mechanics at all. (Unless there's something I'm missing.)
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
But where are you located when you take that move action to touch? I could see a GM allowing you to, as a full round's worth of action, move up to your speed and make a perception check to touch everything you pass. Personally, I say you're touching the square where you are located when you take the move action. Clearly you can't have gone and touched more squares than you could even move in a round, or else we could use the Perception skill to move more than our normal movement speed in a round.
That's accounted for by being visually undetectable in the first place (due to being fully concealed) and therefore requiring touch to detect - it has absolutely nothing to do with how much area you can search with a given action.
What does "where are you located when you initiate a Perception check?" have to do with the one-square-at-a-time rule?
|
|
To that end, let's talk about whether the football field is a strawman. I assumed the character was standing in the middle of the field, not at one end, if they want to search the whole thing in one move action. I think that's pretty fair. And that the dropping was DC 20-25 or so to find even if you're right on top of it due to the difficulty of the contrast. I think that's also pretty fair. It is not an exaggeration nor a strawman to say that 3 of the 6 characters in the last game I played would have found that dropping even at either far end of the field 150 feet away. Yes, they were all at +30 or higher.I disagree with the proposed DC (based largely on the fact that the mouse itself, let alone its dropping, takes 10 on Stealth for a 26 based on size alone), but that's kind of beside the point, and here's why:
If we added your "one square at a time" rule, and one of your local players just happened to pick the right square the first time, you get the exact same result as without the one-square rule: the PC spots it from 150ft away in a single check.
Thus, the football field illustration fails to demonstrate that the one-square rule would improve anything about the Perception mechanics at all. (Unless there's something I'm missing.)
Droppings can't take 10. They're an object and don't have skills, so they aren't rolling stealth at all (also if you start putting it up that high, it means a normal housecleaner can never find them, even if he takes 20).
Anyways, I think we may have been talking past each other somewhat based on some of your prior thoughts involving concealment. Obviously something that is readily noticable to those with high enough perception (anything that would grant you a reactive perception check as described by the skill) can all be seen with a single additional perception roll as a move action. The square by square is when the search is active, involving moving things to bypass concealment, feeling for something a bit off, and generally not just simply glancing for something that's in their field of view. In the case of the football field, there is likely concealment, so the searcher would be dusting along or moving leaves to try to remove it. However, scenarios never say "The burned note in the fireplace has concealment from the ashes and requires a touch to locate". They just list the DC. It's up to the GM to figure out if you need to move things and look carefully in that square or not. And I think any answer a GM picks is a reasonable interpretation of the rules.