Lisa Stevens wrote:
Too late! I found it new on Amazon for $3. :P
Thanks for taking the time to reply though.
Despite the fact that Paizo has been selling Green Ronin books for as low as $2?
There's no automatic failure with a natural 1 (or automatic success with a natural 20) with skill checks.
I think the system works fine as is. Couple it with taking 10, and it works pretty well.
Lisa Stevens wrote:
Thank you, Lisa. That's the answer I've been looking for.
Lisa Stevens wrote:
They just don't want to make more stuff available that doesn't support 4e.
Is this speculation or assumption, or have the vocalized this directly to you in specific regards to these PDFs?
I understand what you're saying, but we can't and shouldn't presume WotC doesn't want those final issues produced as PDFs; it's of no benefit to us to presume such.
With regards to badgering Wizards, I have been, but it's no use badgering Wizards to extend a limited license to Paizo if producing those PDFs is not in Paizo's interest.
Essentially, I'm trying to figure out what my request to Wizards should be.
a) WotC, please let Paizo produce the remaining PDFs.
Okay, I'm dumb. I'm gathering that the Urban Druid is in reference to the 3.5 CityScape web enhancement that allows druids to changes some class stuff? Is this where the WotC IP comes into play? Is there a 4E Urban Druid variant of sorts? What about Pathfinder Urban Druid- anything on it I might have missed? Just seeking clarification, please. Thank you...
Urban Druid is in reference to a class in the Dragon Compendium, which is why this was posted in the Dragon Compendium forum.
Paizo has yet to answer the question about whether or not it has attempted to pursue a continued limited license to produce PDFs of those last issues or whether or not it is even interested in doing so. Seriously, if Paizo isn't interested, just say so.
Why are there no PDFs for sale for Dragon issues later than #345? I'd love to be able to buy issue #351 to copy and paste the pictures from Larissa's Isle of Dread Journal for the translation I'm preparing for my players.
Because either Paizo hasn't cared enough to pursue clarification or extension of their former license to produce such PDFs, or WotC has told Paizo that it cannot produce the PDFs at all despite recognition that these later issues are not available as PDFs.
Mum-Rob the Ever-Living wrote:
I just got in the mail and even if there's some conversion necessary (which I'd have to do for Pathfinder anyway) it's well worth the full cover price just for the setting information - let alone the *2.00* that Paizo wants.
I had ordered one myself. You really can't beat the $2 price, and since it's not available from Green Ronin as a PDF, it's almost a requirement to buy it. :)
Shades of Eternity wrote:
I have a player in my campaign who is playing a jester. He's actually a comedian in real life, and he loves it!
I'm allowing feats such as Extra Music and bardic music feats to apply to Jester's Performance.
Sharn: City of Towers has the service prices for a barrister hireling.
Hireling, Barrister: A typical barrister has a Profession (barrister) skill modifier of +4 and costs 1 gp/day. Better barristers are available at a considerably higher cost; subtract 3 from the barrister’s Profession modifier and square the result to determine the increase in price over the base cost. So a barrister with a modifier of +5 costs 5 gp/day, one with +6 costs 10 gp/day, and one with +7 costs 17 gp/day.
These are pretty easy.
Paladin gets one horse and only one body could efficiently use it at one time. Consider this a balancing mechanism for having two bodies.
Multi-class is not really relevant. Both twins are multi-classed and would be ineffective as distinct fighter (low HP and BAB) and caster (low level spells only). Additionally, both have to take the actions necessary for casting a spell, unless the non-caster is doing absolutely nothing including free actions.
Each Monk dvati twin could use flurry of blows as the dvati RAW do not discuss attack actions per twin (there's too much focus on casting). Nothing states whether attack actions are shared or independent. Thus they could seemingly both take full attack actions.
They obviously don't get benefits from mundane equipment. I think the thing to keep in mind is that it's assumed that Dvati are support casters, not front-line fighters. Look at their favored class. They're supposed to be in the back weaving magical effects. Most such characters don't typically wear heavy armor or depend on AC from mundane items.
I would treat them as one character in all respects. Allow them one slot for both bodies, not each, but with shared effects. It's really the simplest approach.
The key thing to remember is that it really is just one character with two bodies. When adjudicating certain rules, keep that in mind. For example, I wouldn't allow a Dvati to activate a magic item twice. I also wouldn't allow them to use the aid another option for skills with itself, but maybe for combat, if mechanically possible (I'd need to review their actions per round per body).
This question has come up a LOT since the magazine licenses were pulled, about a number of different things (Dungeon web supplements, a Savage Tide version of the Shackled City hardcover, and so on), and the reason why these things can't happen always boils down to the licenses. Paizo can't make and distribute new Dragon PDFs for the same reason I can't: it would be a violation of WotC's copyright.
No, but they could readdress the licensing to at least finish off the last issues with WotC who might just as easily say, "You know what, yeah, go ahead and publish the PDFs. We didn't mean to cut that off."
The problem is, it doesn't seem Paizo has addressed it, or at least they haven't communicated that they have when they answer these questions. If Paizo hasn't asked about this specifically, I don't know if it's because they aren't interested in bothering, if they are just busy with Pathfinder and assume the answer is no, or a little bit of both.
Gary Teter wrote:
Sorry, we no longer have the license to make new PDFs for back issues of Dragon.
This is really disappointing. I've also tried contacting WotC about this problem via Gamer Zer0 who passed on the question, and they haven't given an answer to him with all the 4e work they've been doing. I also get the feeling that Paizo hasn't pursued it due to lack of interest on their own behalf as they are busy with Pathfinder (and understandably so). I just feel like both parties couldn't care less about the audience that wants PDF copies of those last issues of Dragon and Dungeon.
I love the bonespitter... a lot! I've used it on two different occasions in Eberron as something that creeps out of the Mournland's Grey Mist, the first being easily bypassed (elemental land cart), the second time just last night which struck fear into the hearts of the players as I described it and as they discovered its abilities.
I had several problems with it as a CR 3 creature though, and most of these problems seem to be centered around assumptions about the party made on behalf of the designer.
1. I don't understand why it has a slam attack at all. The bonespitting attack is ranged, doesn't provoke an opportunity attack, has a higher attack modifier and does more damage. Why would a bonespitter ever choose to use a slam attack?
2. It's DR 5/magic is awful for a second level party. Couple that with its relatively high AC and 50% miss chance and the encounter takes forever! The assumption is that at least one person has a magic weapon, which isn't necessarily the case at lower levels.
3. The creature also has the ability to impose a shakened condition upon the PCs which reduces their effective attack modifier, making it more difficult to hit that relatively high AC.
4. Even if the party chose to employ spells to attack it, the ability to dispel magic as (effectively) an immediate action hinders that approach.
5. It seems that there is also an assumption of a cleric being in the party to turn undead, but even that assumption is met with resistance, +4 turning resistance to be exact. That's pretty significant. Sure heal spells might help against undead, but with the ability to dispel magic, that approach is also diminished.
Overall, there seem to be far too many abilities that oppose most, if not all, forms of attack, and the damage it can dish out is pretty significant for a party of 2nd-level adventurers. A CR 3 encounter should be fairly challenging, but not as deadly as this creature seems to be.
Am I wrong with this assessment?
This isn't a bad idea. Actually, divine feats are in the SRD and are considered OGL. Why not simply make healing burst a divine feat or even a seperate class ability?
Than again, this still goes against the idea of an evil cleric channeling negative energy. It also ignores the fact that turning/rebuking is supposedly channeling positive/negative energy, and if the turning ability is designed to invoke damage to undead, then it should adhere to the same rules of positive energy and heal the living.
I'm amicable to the idea of rolling autohypnosis into concentration, but I dislike the idea of calling it meditate. A spellcaster trying to pull off a spell while being attacked isn't "meditating."
I also like the idea of Paizo including the Soulknife; I think having a non-manifester is a great way to ease in psionics, and I hope DSP is able to work with Paizo for additional psionic content in the future, or at least that Paizo will grab DSP's existing OGL work and incorporate it.
I like the idea of the negative burst. You're @#$%ing evil! That's the price you pay for channeling negative energy and using undead. You can't be evil and be a goody-goody healer, too.
By the wy, regarding Wee Jas, she is actually a goddess of death, but not an evil one. If you follow strict Greyhawk lore, she actually protects the dead, and using undead is a bad thing in her book. I usually replace the death domain with the repose domain.
Although I do agree that Climb and Swim should remain as separate skills. This is easy enough to imagine since Balancing, Jumping, and Tumbling are all obviously related. But if you look at rock climbing and swimming, these are very specialized sports and require years of training to become proficient at.
Exactly. There is very distinct physical conditioning involved with each of these, and they are very much different enough to not be rolled together.
Not a fan of these. I don't like not being able to use multiple feats at once, and I certainly don't like the limitation of having to use a feat in a previous round to enable the use of a feat in an immediately successive round.
For example, having to use dodge before using mobility in the following round is awful. The dynamics of any given encounter can change the situation dramatically. I might use dodge one round just for the sake of using mobility the following round, but by the time my turn comes, the situation could have changed entirely. I would rather be able to use mobility with a +4 to AC whenever I want.
And why can't I use precise shot and point blank shot in the same round? That's just silly. I either take a -3 for firing into melee within 30ft. or I only get to negate the -4 penalty for firing into melee? It's like having the ability to not use a feat. It just seems like I'm having something taken away from me.
Jeremy Reaban wrote:
Absolutely. Essentially, you're reverse engineering it and using your knowledge of how locks work. Pin tumblers are a @#$%&!
I figured it warranted its own thread.
One think I loathed about v3.5 rules was that despite being proficient with light armor, fighters sucked at tumbling. WTF?! If a fighter decided to wear light armor, why shouldn't he be able to tumble well, especially if that was a fighting style he preferred?
Also, do not roll climb and swim into athletics as suggested by some others. Climbing is a completely different skill from swimming. A character might be an excellent mountain climber having lived in mountainous terrain, but could suck at swimming. Conversely, a creature that has a high swim skill doesn't necessarily make a good climber.
I love the new turning rules! Brilliant. It's like taking the variant in Complete Divine and kicking it up a notch. I always wondered why channeling positive energy in an area effect didn't result in healing. Heck, it even uses a similar solution to turn resistance that I used.
Speaking of turn resistance, I don't know if I care for the 5 for every +2. It seems to go against the grain of streamlining the rules. Additionally, coupling it with a bonus to the will save for half means the half is nearly negligible as it would likely not even break through the resistance.
These cards would "attach" to existing item cards from all sets and make the item psionic (insofar as much as the player and DM cares anyhow). Transparent psionic marker cards would be even better. Slide it in over the other card in the sleeve...viola! Instant psionic item. I don't know what set you might want to include these in, but I'd buy that set heavily should you decide to do this. Just a thought.
I'm not too keen on this idea. Some psionic items are unique enough to warrant their own cards (i.e. - psychoactive skins, shards, cognizance crystals, power stones, etc.) and placing psionic X over existing cards for boots, psicrowns, and other things of that sort just seems cheesy.
Erik Mona wrote:
Amaril, the idea of a "weapons only" pack is quite likely a viable one. We've tossed it around a few times in planning meetings, and while it has yet to rise to the top, it may one day in the near future. I am very leery of doing a set of psionic cards for the same reason I am leery of doing a modern set. The cards would not be of use to the majority of our customers, and I suspect a lot of you would be complaining about a set you can't use. That said, I wouldn't be surprised to see things like "crystals" or other psionic items pop up in future sets. We know people do want this stuff, and we're looking at ways to get it in here and there.
Thanks for the reply, Erik. I am glad to hear about the weapons pack idea.
Regarding psionic cards, most universal items could be supported by cards that are relatively reusable as magic items. They don't even need to necessarily be labeled as psionic, just designed to accommodate those type of items. Crystal items can even help with things such as dragonshards for Eberron. A handful of cards (not necessarily a full set) labeled as a "crystal shard" or something similar helps to fulfill roles for any number of items magical or psionic.
Still it would be nice to have items labeled distinctly as dorjes, powerstones, and psicrowns as the d20 magic system gets support for wands, scrolls and staffs. I understand that Item Cards are supposed to be system neutral, but that's not so obvious when I see cards for distinct d20 body slots and a distinguishment between rods and wands.
In any case, I'll look forward to whatever psionic support we can get. Thanks again, Erik. :)
For potions, I do think that there is a need to have several similar potions. There are a couple of ways to do it. Option 1 would be to release a set with 11 types of potions (5 per deck). Later you could do a potions (II). I'd favor that plan. Option 2 would be to have 55 unique cards, and I could buy multiple sets.
Which is exactly why a distinct set would be helpful. For those who do care about potions, the deck is available for purchase. Those who don't can choose to not buy the deck.
Vic Wertz wrote:
I'm interested to know how Paizo views the suggestions, ideas, and issues I've presented above, including the idea of a psionic set.