
![]() |

This feat is actually better in the hands of someone with Solo Tactics, IMO: you'd get the bonus, but your ally does not get the penalties, as he doesn't have the feat.
Which isn't much of a bump in regards to this feat, IMO, as it's probably one of the worst one you could pick for someone with Solo Tactics: anything that relies on anyone else for your feat to come online isn't much of a 'Solo' tactic, IMHO... ;)

![]() |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |

This feat is actually better in the hands of someone with Solo Tactics, IMO: you'd get the bonus, but your ally does not get the penalties, as he doesn't have the feat.
LOL!
I dunno, wouldn't that almost make it a free +2 to CHA-based checks just so long as you've got company?
INQUISITOR: *points to comrade, who just stands there* "Now see, take that fellow; is that guy a douchenozzle or what?! Wouldn't you rather deal with me?"
NPC: "Uhhh, I dunno, he looks like an alright sort to me - but I must say I find the way you demean your companions for no apparent reason VERY endearing...!"

![]() |

Hey sv, long time no see…how’s Kiboko and the brave & beautiful Mvumbu?

![]() |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |

"Kiboko is enjoying semi-retirement in Mwangi, directing junior pathfinders out of Sharrowsmith Exports, spending quality time with Mvumbu away from the corruption of civilisation."
A loud honking is heard in the near distance...
"Mvumbu asks if friend Flyn has any cabbages."
;)

![]() |

Purple Dragon Knight wrote:This feat is actually better in the hands of someone with Solo Tactics, IMO: you'd get the bonus, but your ally does not get the penalties, as he doesn't have the feat.LOL!
I dunno, wouldn't that almost make it a free +2 to CHA-based checks just so long as you've got company?
INQUISITOR: *points to comrade, who just stands there* "Now see, take that fellow; is that guy a douchenozzle or what?! Wouldn't you rather deal with me?"
NPC: "Uhhh, I dunno, he looks like an alright sort to me - but I must say I find the way you demean your companions for no apparent reason VERY endearing...!"
Yes LOL this could lead to fun RP interactions. But alas, mechanically, the 'Fall Guy' still has to spend his turn bumbling around as a standard action by virtue of 'Solo Tactics' wording: "The allies’ positioning and actions must still meet the prerequisites listed in the teamwork feat for the inquisitor to receive the listed bonus."

bluedove |

Hello, I would like to be removed from active status on this thread, if possible. Just trying to streamline my Campaigns tab, thanks in advance.

bluedove |

Hi John,
I might need that spelled out more clearly. I don't see a "hide" option. I clicked the X beside the new posts counter in parentheses and it hid those numbers, but that wasn't quite what I was hoping for. ^_^
I see the hide option next to those listed beneath previous campaigns, but not this one.

![]() |
2 people marked this as a favorite. |

If you go to the play-by-post subforum HERE and find the nominal play-by-post "campaign" for the Flaxseed Pathfinder Lodge (it'll be a ways down the list; the last post was March 22), there should be what looks like a null-set symbol (zero with a slash through it) next to the date. Clicking that should hide Flaxseed on your Campaigns tab.
That said, it'll only stay hidden until three months (I think) after your last post. As it happens, the last post in the thread is mine--I posted there and hid the thread.

bluedove |

Huzzah! That worked. Thanks for the tip, John! ^_^

GM Redelia |

You can't report under Flaxseed, because there is no event for our lodge; you'll need to create your own event. Please do remember to fill out the lodge game tracker form, though, so we can include it in our stats. (this is assuming it's not part of any convention or similar event; they have their own rules)

GM Redelia |

Hi, everyone!
You are cordially invited to Augustana Station, our new lodge for SFS2 play, starting with the playtest!

![]() |

Anyone else around here play the KINGMAKER computer-game? I just started it, and I have a question I'm hoping is simple enough that I don't have to bother making a thread in the Computer Game forum for it:
Is it like Baldur's Gate, where you only get to make one character of your own, or Icewind Dale/Neverwinter Nights 2: Storm of Zehir, where you get to make more than one character of your own?
I was hoping it was the latter (the KINGMAKER campaign seemed like a good fit for that), but so far, although I've barely started, it seems like the former. I'm hoping I get the opportunity to make/add more after the initial few scenes.

![]() |

Anyone else around here play the KINGMAKER computer-game? I just started it, and I have a question I'm hoping is simple enough that I don't have to bother making a thread in the Computer Game forum for it:
Is it like Baldur's Gate, where you only get to make one character of your own, or Icewind Dale/Neverwinter Nights 2: Storm of Zehir, where you get to make more than one character of your own?
I was hoping it was the latter (the KINGMAKER campaign seemed like a good fit for that), but so far, although I've barely started, it seems like the former. I'm hoping I get the opportunity to make/add more after the initial few scenes.
** spoiler omitted **
In the Kingmaker CRPG you'll reach a point where you can hire "Pathfinders" - hirelings who'll join your party. You can build these hirelings as you wish. If memory serves - it's been a long while since I played - you pay more GP the higher your level. The hirelings will join at the same xp level as the main character.
Hirelings of course do not get story quests like the NPC companions do, nor specific dialogue.

![]() |

Actually, you can make as many characters as you want in Baldur's Gate, if you set it up as a multiplayer game and just play it by yourself.
Technically true, but that'd work piss-poorly with the storyline, wouldn't it?
I really liked the 'compromise' in Neverwinter Nights 2: Storm of Zehir, where you can have a core group of custom characters PLUS a couple of NPCs with their sparkling personalities and unique abilities/equipment.
In the Kingmaker CRPG you'll reach a point where you can hire "Pathfinders" - hirelings who'll join your party. You can build these hirelings as you wish.
Is this "point" sooner, or later?
"Build"? Is that different from 'make', like I did with my initial character?
[Y]ou pay more GP the higher your level. The hirelings will join at the same xp level as the main character.
So why not just buy a full contingent as soon as I can?

GM Redelia |

GM Redelia wrote:Actually, you can make as many characters as you want in Baldur's Gate, if you set it up as a multiplayer game and just play it by yourself.Technically true, but that'd work piss-poorly with the storyline, wouldn't it?
Not in the slightest. It works great storywise. The only thing you miss is that your companions you built don't have their own secondary stories, but the main story works fine. The times I have done it, I make one or two extra characters so I still have room in the party for a few of the companions who do have stories.

![]() |

Not in the slightest. It works great storywise. The only thing you miss is that your companions you built don't have their own secondary stories, but the main story works fine. The times I have done it, I make one or two extra characters so I still have room in the party for a few of the companions who do have stories.
Hm. Noted.

![]() |

supervillan wrote:In the Kingmaker CRPG you'll reach a point where you can hire "Pathfinders" - hirelings who'll join your party. You can build these hirelings as you wish.Is this "point" sooner, or later?
It's pretty early after the prologue, once you're into "The Stolen Lands" chapter. Look for Oleg's Trading Post. The main quest takes you there.
"Build"? Is that different from 'make', like I did with my initial character?
Same, though I don't recall how much control you have over hirelings/mercenaries appearance.
supervillan wrote:[Y]ou pay more GP the higher your level. The hirelings will join at the same xp level as the main character.So why not just buy a full contingent as soon as I can?
You can indeed do that, you're just limited by your wealth.

![]() |

Asking for the wife ...
Are aasimaars and tieflings free to play or is a boon required?
Also, what about sylphs, undines, oreads and ifrits?

Mike...R |

The races which can be legally used for new characters without a boon are the ones in the Core Rulebook plus ifrit, kitsune, nagaji, oread, sylph, tengu, undine, and wayang.
There is one other option via which it is sometimes possible to access certain races outside of that list without a boon:

![]() |

I am kind of astonished by the lack of options for character-portrait (literally nothing for an Elven Wizard, just for example - just two Elves, one is obviously a Ranger/Druid and the other is wearing chainmail); is there any more content on its way?
Similarly, I am rather surprised by what classes/kits/etc made it into the game when others didn't: I can imagine why they'd opt to leave out Cavaliers, Summoners, Gunslingers and psychic classes, sure - but Alchemists, Inquisitors, and even Slayers make it in, yet Oracles, Witches, and Bloodragers don't??? You can be Evil, but Antipaladins aren't available? Inquisitors are available, but not Inquisitions? Alchemists could be Vivisectionists, but not Reanimators? You can be an Aasimar, but not a Tiefling??? Nutter-Butter, is what that last one is especially. Again, I'm wondering if there's any more available content (official or modded) I just happen to be missing.
Also: Any idea who voices Tartuccio? I could swear I know that voice, I'll bet he's done cartoon-characters....
Moving on, Rules Question:
Could prestidigitation suffice to boil the water in a traveling kettle?

GM DarkLightHitomi |

Actually, you can make as many characters as you want in Baldur's Gate, if you set it up as a multiplayer game and just play it by yourself.
Not entirely correct. No need to make a game multiplayer. You can just create up to six characters and start with that party. In single player.

![]() |

I am still hoping someone can answer my questions above (the latter is more important).

GM Redelia |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |

Could prestidigitation suffice to boil the water in a traveling kettle?
I think most GMs would say that depends on what you're trying to accomplish with it. If you are trying to do something flavorful but without mechanical benefit, like make tea before your group starts adventuring for the day, I don't think anyone would deny it. If you were going to try to attack with the boiling water, that seems like a lot for a level 0 spell, so personally I would not let that work.
I think the issue definitely falls into the range of GM call.

![]() |

If you were going to try to attack with the boiling water, that seems like a lot for a level 0 spell, so personally I would not let that work.
To add 1 point of damage to a very specialized weapon?
I'd say that's well within a Cantrip/Knack's parameters.
![]() |

Another inquiry comes to mind:
Would Lingering Performance apply to Shadow Puppets?

![]() |

Another inquiry comes to mind:
Would Lingering Performance apply to Shadow Puppets?
Yes

![]() |

Good to know! Soooo....
The vigilante gains low-light vision. If he already has low-light vision, he gains a +4 competence bonus on Perception checks in low light. The vigilante also gains a +2 competence bonus on Sleight of Hand and Stealth checks at night.
What if he's got Darkvision, bot not Low-Light Vision, per se? Can the latter do anything the former can't?
Also, suppose he's got the Thieves' Guild Membership vanity: Could he apply the Sleight of Hand bonus to his "Day" Job rolls?

![]() |

Low light vision is different from darkvision.
Characters with low-light vision have eyes that are so sensitive to light that they can see twice as far as normal in dim light. Low-light vision is color vision. A spellcaster with low-light vision can read a scroll as long as even the tiniest candle flame is next to him as a source of light.Characters with low-light vision can see outdoors on a moonlit night as well as they can during the day.
So if you are outside, undermoon light for example, it might be much, much better than darkvision. Especially if you are an archer. Sending arrow after arrow into foes who don't know where you are or how to find you. Darkvision only lets you do that within 60' (your mileage may vary depending on how you got darkvision)
Likewise if you are in a large area of dim illumination it probably depends on how far that illumination is. For practical purposes I tend to view it as doubling the distance you get dim illumination from sources of light. For example a touch normally provides dim illumination out to 40', if you have lowlight vision, you get it out to 80'.
In general darkvision is better, yes. But having both is even better again.

![]() |

How about this bit?
Also, suppose he's got the Thieves' Guild Membership vanity: Could he apply the Sleight of Hand bonus to his "Day" Job rolls?
Also, consider the gladius:
Feats and abilities that affect shortswords apply to the gladius.
If one is proficient in short swords, does that mean proficiency in gladii as well?

EbonFist |

That wording does not mean that someone proficient in short swords is necessarily proficient in gladii. They usually will be because they are both Martial Weapons in the Light and Blades groups, but if you have an ability that specifically says your proficient with short swords, you do not automatically gain proficiency with gladii.
It just means that you if you have Weapon Focus (short sword) for example, you can get the bonus for gladii.

![]() |

How about this bit?
Sirius Sa'luk wrote:Also, suppose he's got the Thieves' Guild Membership vanity: Could he apply the Sleight of Hand bonus to his "Day" Job rolls?
Permanent bonuses from the following list affect your
Day Job check as they would any check for the rolled skill.
Temporary bonuses from sources other than crafter’s
fortune do not affect Day Job checks.
• Equipment
• Feats
• Racial bonuses
• Class features
• Traits
• Familiar bonuses
• Crafter’s fortune spell
I don't have the wording for the vanity at hand, but if it doesn't read as a bonus that fits with the list above then it doesn't apply to the Day Job roll.

![]() |

That wording does not mean that someone proficient in short swords is necessarily proficient in gladii.
It would be a question of whether basic weapon proficiencies count as a "feat or ability".
Season 10 Guide to Organised Play p.36 wrote:I don't have the wording for the vanity at hand, but if it doesn't read as a bonus that fits with the list above then it doesn't apply to the Day Job roll.Permanent bonuses from the following list affect your
Day Job check as they would any check for the rolled skill.
Temporary bonuses from sources other than crafter’s
fortune do not affect Day Job checks.
• Feats
• Class features
Similarly, the above would be a type of Class feature, so it sounds like that would in fact count (just a question of whether the "nocturnal" bit got in the way, which would be very silly, conceptually).

EbonFist |

That's correct. Weapon proficiencies are neither feats nor abilities so a Gladius would not be available to someone if the wording of their weapon proficiencies specifically said "short swords" rather than martial weapons or blades.

![]() |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |

Except... Martial Weapon proficiency is a feat.
I think it is clear that the Gladius is intended as a lower damage, but slightly more flexible version of the shortsword.
Given the Gladius arrived after the basic rule book, it would be impossible without errata for classes like rogue to have it listed, and changes like that are outside what Paizo typically did errata for. Thus the wording of the Gladius. If someone can use a shortsword, they can use the gladius as well.
I'd certainly rule that way in a home game, and I'd be very comfortable with that rule interpretation in a PFS game as well.

EbonFist |

Except... Martial Weapon proficiency is a feat.
Correct, and if someone took Martial Weapon Proficiency they would have access to both the short sword and the gladius.
But you'll note that classes like the Fighter don't get Martial Weapon Proficiency as a Feat, they are proficient in Martial Weapons, meaning that their proficiency doesn't come from a Feat.
If someone took Weapon Focus (short sword) I would allow the bonus to apply to a gladius.
Given the Gladius arrived after the basic rule book, it would be impossible without errata for classes like rogue to have it listed, and changes like that are outside what Paizo typically did errata for. Thus the wording of the Gladius. If someone can use a shortsword, they can use the gladius as well.
I'd certainly rule that way in a home game, and I'd be very comfortable with that rule interpretation in a PFS game as well.
To be clear, I would definitely let a rogue use a gladius without taking another feat in a home game. For that matter, I probably wouldn't look too close at a rogue in a PFS game carrying one.
I would, however, warn anyone who depends on this rule that not all GMs would agree and if a GM didn't allow a rogue to use a gladius in their PFS game, I would side with the GM.

GM DarkLightHitomi |

Sounds to me like the real issue with a gladius vs shortsword comes down to what you think a short sword is mechanically speaking. Because short sword isn’t exactly a specific weapon. I know that some variant rules get called weapon groups and group several of the base rule weapons together into groups, but honestly the weapon lists in the base rules are already weapon groups, just in a more detailed way. Thus short swords in the base rules is already just a category of many weapons.
Therefore, it seems to me that the only reasonable reading here, for anyone who actually knows weapons, would be to see a gladius as a sub category of short sword, and therefore in the mechanics would be nothing more than a short sword in all ways except that they decided to give it a few tweaks compared to other short swords, but it would still be a type of short sword regardless.

EbonFist |

Sounds to me like the real issue with a gladius vs shortsword comes down to what you think a short sword is mechanically speaking. Because short sword isn’t exactly a specific weapon. I know that some variant rules get called weapon groups and group several of the base rule weapons together into groups, but honestly the weapon lists in the base rules are already weapon groups, just in a more detailed way. Thus short swords in the base rules is already just a category of many weapons.
Therefore, it seems to me that the only reasonable reading here, for anyone who actually knows weapons, would be to see a gladius as a sub category of short sword, and therefore in the mechanics would be nothing more than a short sword in all ways except that they decided to give it a few tweaks compared to other short swords, but it would still be a type of short sword regardless.
Right. Except that's not how the rules are actually written. The rules are written so that gladii are gladii and short swords are short swords and unless your proficient in a weapon category that includes both of them you're only proficient in one of them.
Otherwise you get into very nebulous terrain where you have to decide where the demarcations between a knife and a dagger and a short sword and a long sword and the next thing you know, your halfling rogue is running around with a great sword without having to spend a feat for it.

GM DarkLightHitomi |

I thunk you are misjudging something I’ve seen before. The difference between a knife and a dagger is not a clear precise length, (in reality I think it’s a matter of how the handle is constructed, but that’s beside the point here) but the falseness of your comment is the implication that removing precise lines of distinction means that categories no longer exist. This is wrong, very very wrong. It also relates to one of the big reasons we have GMs.
First, we can create an idealized set of things, each being the ideal for a category, and yet the lines between categories are vague and grey and murky, yet we can still take an item and see how close or far it is from each of the category ideals, and while such an item may or may not be an exact fit, we can still see where the item is a very poor fit.
A PC might pick up a blade and ask whether it is a dagger or a short sword, and maybe the blade might be in the vague space between those two, and yet it would still be easy to see that it’s not a great sword. We don’t need to be able to precisely determine what the blade is in order to very clearly determine some things the blade is not.
Part of the GM’s job is to handle such vagueness, to make a call about whether the PC’s new blade is a dagger or short sword.
An additional thing here though, is that categories can generally be subdivided. A gladius is a short sword, mich the same way that a canine is a mammal. The mechanics of the rules have given us a short sword category ghat has always encompassed the gladius. Adding detail to the gladius doesn’t negate the traits that make it a short sword.
My reading of the content posted here on the topic seems to suggest a poor attempt at defining a gladius as a particular kind of short sword, and proficiency with short swords applies to all short swords. Additionally, the description compares a gladius to “standard” short swords, which is an indirect but explicit recognition of a gladius as a nonstandard short sword, but still a short sword. If the gladius were not a short sword, then the comparison would be to short swords not to standard short swords.

![]() |

Except... Martial Weapon proficiency is a feat.
Given the Gladius arrived after the basic rule book, it would be impossible without errata for classes like rogue to have it listed, and changes like that are outside what Paizo typically did errata for. Thus the wording of the Gladius. If someone can use a shortsword, they can use the gladius as well.
This was exactly my thinking.

EbonFist |

Again, if a rogue showed up at my table carrying a gladius, I wouldn't question it, nor would I harass a GM who also allowed it.
However, if a GM at a table told that rogue that they didn't have proficiency with a gladius, I would side with the GM.
So...to DarkLight's point, as you say, this is a big part of why we have GM's. Not just to present the story but to adjudicate the rules. The RAW do not say that if you have proficiency with a short sword you also have proficiency with a gladius. If a GM at a table decided, based on all the evidence that you did, that's within the bounds of GM interpretation.
But here's the problem. Yes the categories are murky, yes the definitions are murky. They have to be because the only actual simulation for life that works, is life and I'm not interested in going out in the woods and trying to find an actual dragon to fight after forging my own greatsword.
So yes, there is some (a lot of) arbitrariness in the rules. That arbitrariness sometimes causes illogical boundaries. The problem is that what is illogical to some is logical to others and vice versa.
There are plenty of examples of things coming out after an item or class or spell that logically should work but don't because they are not spelled out. (How many Cavalier Archetypes should a Samurai be able to take, but can't because Cavalier Archtypes are only for Cavaliers and Samurai aren't Cavaliers?)
In those cases, it's up to each GM to arbitrate things. But I wouldn't build my entire character around one of these fuzzy areas since a GM would be well within their rights to arbitrate against you.

![]() |

In any case, a proper ruling would be useful.

EbonFist |
3 people marked this as a favorite. |

In any case, a proper ruling would be useful.
Consider this the proper ruling: For purposes of weapon proficiency, a gladius is not a short sword.